Congress, can you spare a gun?

The House yesterday passed - by a wide margin - the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, which would repeal most local gun laws in nation's capital. The vote forced 52 Democrats to cross the aisle and support the measure - 16 of which are in competitive races back home - and 22 Republicans to cross the aisle - ostensibly because they remembered their party favors local control.

The bill's next stop is nowhere - the Senate is unlikely to take the measure under consideration this year. The vote forced many Democrats to cast a vote that can easily be spun as "anti-2nd Amendment," however - giving their Republican opponents a wedge.

While anti-gun control is certainly a core issue for many Republicans, local control seems to be slipping in popularity. This election year has certainly helped to prioritize the GOP's core values, though - and, in case you're not keeping track at home, here's what we've learned so far:

1. The fight against gay marriage trumps states' rights
2. Allowing guns in D.C. trumps local control
3. Court stripping trumps the separation of powers
4. Federalism is a good thing when gays, guns or God is involved
5. Party moderates look great on TV

House GOP Leadership will continue with the election-year hit parade today - the renamed Federal Marriage Amendment makes its debut as the Marriage Protection Amendment; see rule one.

Related Posts:
Local controllers strike again
House on stripping: yea!

Actually, Senator, you did...

National Journal's daily morning brief Hotline gives Senator John Edwards the "Quote of the Day" this morning:

"We didn't give Bush the authority to screw this thing up the way he has."

The Kerry/Edwards team has been trying to walk a fine. On one hand, they can't be opposed to the war - they both voted for it and the American public hasn't turned against it quite yet. On the other hand, they can't say it's gone off without a hitch, mostly because it hasn't - oh, and they've got to find a point of contrast with the President.

The Republicans aren't the only ones playing Monday morning quarterback with Kerry and Edwards' voting record: the Democratic candidates are doing it themselves as well. When Congress voted to give blanket authority to the Executive Branch, they ceded a major portion of their viability as an arbiter national defense.

Congress decides when we go to war - and in this case, they decided to cede that responsibility to the Executive Branch. Good idea? Probably not, especially when it may set a precedent. Regardless, it doesn't absolve Congress - nor any Member who voted to cede control - of the ultimate responsibility.

Edwards' underlying point is that he trusted the President not to screw up the whole thing. Fair enough, Senator - certainly Bush deserves a large share of criticism for the failures of the war. What the Senator glosses over (and perhaps outright disavows): that buck doesn't stop at the White House - it stops at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. If he didn't want the President to screw it up, perhaps he should have voted to keep the authority where it belongs - in the Capitol.

Yes, they'll ban the Bible! Really!

The Republican National Committee acknowledged today that they were the source of a group of flyers claiming that Democrats would ban the Bible if Republicans didn't show up at the polls in November. Not only that, apparently gays will marry willy nilly across the Natural State if they don't vote Republican.

Earlier in the week, RNC honcho Ed Gillespie indicated he was not "aware of the mailing," but did indicate that it sounds like something they might do.

The fliers are blatant fear-mongering; their connection to reality is strained at best. The best explanation provided to the New York Times was that the mailing targets those who "worry that legal rights for same-sex couples could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bible passages criticizing homosexuality."

It's hard not to expect this sort of off-the-deep-end vote-grabs, however - especially with both parties spewing the notion that this election is the most important election of our generation. The pressure's on, and the RNC has caved to it.

House on stripping: yea!

In a 247-174 vote, the U.S. House voted today to prohibit any federal court from hearing cases on the Constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, engaging in a problematic and potentially precedent-setting tactic as an election-year wedge issue.

The bill is only one of three court-stripping bills being offered as wedge-issue offerings to the Election Day altar, and is also the least controversial. Challengers to "nay" voting Members can now trumpet this vote erroneously as an anti-Pledge vote, when in reality, these "nay" Members are likely doing their best to protect both the pledge and the separation of powers.

Related Posts:
Members misunderstand, quickly stow $1 bills
Restoring Godly Lov(ing)?
Court stripping surprisingly not as sexy as it sounds

I wonder if he reads... nah.

In absolutely no way related to my post a week ago, Congressman Ed Schrock (R-VA) has resurfaced on Capitol Hill, casting his first vote yesterday since being outed by Mike Rogers on his blog.

The door to his office remains closed, House folks say, and there's a WAVY cameraman camping out in wait of Schrock's appearance in his Cannon Building office; no word yet on Capitol Police Protection - so clearly, he's no Gary Condit.

Also no word yet on whether the people of the Virginia 2nd are: A) relieved to be represented again, or B) concerned he's going to get "the gay" all over them during his last weeks in office.

Related Posts:
Schrock's shroud

New bullet points for America's future

House Democrats yesterday announced their "New Partnership for America's Future," in the form of a ten-page document and a supporting web page, both of which lean heavily on the power of the bullet point to convey its message. The announcement comes on the ten-year anniversary of the rollout of the Republican "Contract with America" - and is presumably meant to contrast the Democrats' vision with the actuality of the past ten years.

In actuality, it falls short - not on partisan lines, although Republicans would certainly say so - but on substance lines. The CWA was meaty, laden with specific proposals and actual bill text. The House Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to go very far beyond the bullet - and even some of those are pretty vague. A sampling:

· Expand home ownership and affordable housing opportunities
· Build stronger rural communities and sustain America's rural economy
· Protect our borders
· Reduce dependence on foreign oil sources

Who isn't in favor of these things happening, again? In defense of the NPFAF (even the acronym is lacking), there are some more specific bullet points contained within, including:

· Reform the tax code to reward companies for creating secure jobs in America, not for outsourcing jobs overseas
· Provide tax incentives to assist employers in offering affordable health insurance to all employees
· Protect the safety of our communities with strong law enforcement and community policing

Now, these are much more specific, but they're Republican goals, too; some of them are even current bipartisan proposals. So where's the liberal beef? How about:

· Support fair wages with good benefits so no one goes to work every day and comes home poor and dependent on public services
· Honor veterans and their families by keeping our commitments to those who have served and sacrificed for our country
· Eliminate racially and ethnically based health care disparities
· Assure a well paid, highly trained teacher in every classroom
· Protect God's creations by preserving our great national parks, forests, fragile coastlines and wildlife
· Preserve our national commitment to the Constitutional rights of every American

There's certainly some leaning-liberal proposals in the NPFAF, but these bullets underscore the reason why newspapers don't offer headline-only subscriptions; people aren't sure they've got what they're paying for, and they need to know more. The House Democrats have created a well-vetted election-year outline for America's future, but since they're clearly looking for NPFAF to be a "ten years later" answer to the CWA, they might be coming up short.

Marlboro Man: Basic Merit in FDA Regulation

Altria - the company formerly known as Philip Morris - is spreading its wings and reaching across the aisle this year, according to this morning's Roll Call. The newspaper reports today that 39 percent of Altria's donations have gone to Democrats this cycle so far, a major increase from its usual 25 percent. Why? They're pursuing an interesting new political strategy that flies in the face of Philip Morris thinking over the past decade, and they're betting the Democrats will be more than happy to oblige them.

Philip Morris has opposed regulation by the Food and Drug Administration for years, executing a strategy to keep cigarettes from being regulated as drugs - and suffer the marketing restrictions that would be placed upon them under the FDA umbrella. As the tobacco industry's formerly formidable position in the world (and in Congress) begins to degrade, however, they're thinking outside the (hard pack) box.

The new theory: if the FDA takes the reins and predictably cracks down on tobacco advertising, market shares in the U.S. will essentially freeze in place - leaving Philip Morris and its stable of brands at the top while impairing the ability of any other manufacturers from knocking them down.

The spin: it would promote greater consistency in tobacco policy and help foster tobacco buyout legislation to help farmers.

The roadblocks: Republicans aren't generally supportive of more federal regulation (except. for. certain. things.); Altria has been asking Republicans to fight FDA regulation for years now, and some Members may not be willing to do a one-eighty.

The solution: reach across the aisle, hoping Democrats will (predictably) come through and federally regulate the hell out of them.

Congrats on your non-sham marriage

For the second time this year, Britney Spears has tied the knot; for the second time this year, self-appointed protectors of marriage have no comment, even if to commend her for marrying someone she actually loves this time.

While right wing groups continue to assure their detractors that they're not specifically against gays, but are only concerned with protecting the disintegration of marriage, they have yet to raise an eyebrow over Britney's passing acquaintance with the sanctity of the institution. In August, the Traditional Values Coalition's Andrea Lafferty went so far as to hope "she won’t be [at the GOP Convention]," but apparently not because of her marriage fiasco, but because she might have a "wardrobe malfunction" or "gyrate on stage."

Right-wing religious zealots have had a increasingly difficult time pushing their message against same-sex marriage without sounding like anti-gay bigots. They sometimes seem to forget that marriage needs protection from heterosexuals, too - and while it's clear they're willing to give carte blanche to that half of the equation, perhaps they should at least try to keep up appearances.

The W stands alone?

Laura Bush is the latest member of the Bush/Cheney team to declare her ambiguousity on the issue of the Federal Marriage Amendment, according to National Journal's Hotline. When pressed, the First Lady refused to endorse the amendment, saying instead that "it gives people the opportunity to talk about it," and noting that "it is a very sensitive issue." With three down and one who won't ever go, the President remains the only member of the quartet that will publicly favor and push for the amendment to federally define marriage.

This isn't the first time Mrs. Bush has used the "important debate" line, however; in the September 6 edition of TIME, she indicated that while she wouldn't have a problem with a gay couple staying in the White House, she's open to the idea of the FMA in order to spur the necessary debate.

The problem is, this isn't a compassionate conservative debate. The discourse sparked by court action and spurred along by the FMA has produced some of the most vulgar statements from some of the most vitriolic groups in the America's right wing, including characterizations of same-sex families as a "frat house with revolving bedroom doors," and much, much worse.

It's not a debate that middle America is overly eager to engage in, either; polls show that while the American public isn't exactly warmed up to the idea of gay marriage, they're not too keen on amending the constitution to stop it.

The strategy at work here is at least consistent with the moderation of the party's sharper edge Americans saw at the GOP Convention. While the President appeases the right-wing by pushing for destructive (not to mention un-Republican) policies, the rest of the Bush/Cheney team attempt to soften it by hedging themselves on the divisive issue.

If it works, moderate groups like the Log Cabin Republicans will have their work cut out for them in 2005. If the President can win this year by playing politics with civil rights, moderates will have a hard time convincing anyone - themselves included - that their role within the GOP is anything beyond moderate window dressing on a radically controlled party structure.

Members misunderstand, quickly stow $1 bills

Pressing forward with its campaign to look good for middle America, House Republicans on Wednesday held a Judiciary hearing yesterday on yet another court stripping bill - this time, to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. The bill would disallow any federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from hearing any case on the constitutionality of the Pledge.

Now, the Pledge isn't exactly gay marriage, as issues go. Hardly anyone on the Hill disagrees that “"under God"” is an immovable piece of the Pledge. The tactics at work, however, open a Pandora’'s box that has the potential to cause a major incursion on the separation of powers.

Republicans are hoping that highlighting wedge social issues through a myriad of jurisdiction-limiting bills will help the President and the GOP carry the day. It may very well work, but the fact that this questionable tactic has the potential to become a permanent fixture of the GOP political toolbox is vexing; it could prove to be an effective way of keeping moderates in the GOP at bay and the reins of the party solidly in the hands of the right-wing.

Related Posts:
Restoring Godly Lov(ing)?
Court stripping surprisingly not as sexy as it sounds

Schrock's shroud

When the Congress returned from its August recess last week, one Member seemingly got lost en route. Since being "outed" on Mike Rogers' ravenous blog, Congressman Ed Schrock (R-VA) has been M.I.A. from Congress, and perhaps of more direct concern to his constituents, has not shown up for any of the thirty-five votes of the past two weeks.

In spite of his absence, however, one of the five bills he's penned during this Congress was passed by the House by a vote of 385-12, even without his own vote. It should have been a celebratory milestone for the Congressman - it was the first actual bill he's ever authored that's passed the House. Hopefully, Mr. Schrock watched the proceedings on C-SPAN from the undisclosed location of his self-exile.

While the Congressman announced his retirement on August 31, he chose not to step down from his seat in the House; instead, he chose to remain as the only voice for Virginia's 2nd District in Congress. Right now, that voice is mute.

Schrock's inactions not only provide a bogus prop for the uncomely actions taken against him, they support the erroneous opinions shared by the Congressman's right-wing contemporaries that being gay means you can't be a Congressman, especially from Virginia.

While the Congressman is undoubtedly going through some trying times within his family and perhaps within himself, his obligations to the people of Virginia were not abdicated by the actions of an unscrupulous blogger. The honorable thing to do is return to Washington and continue to serve his constituency.

As the days continue to pass, that seems increasingly unlikely; perhaps his resignation is in order.

Related Posts:
I missed "threat day" in lobbying class
The right use of the wrong tactics?

This is not your father's GOP

Straying from the policies espoused by his party's standard bearer, Republican California Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday signed a bill to require "insurance companies to offer coverage to registered domestic partners" just as they would to married couples. Under current California law, domestic partners are required to be covered, but are treated as dependents, not spouses.

BoifromTroy notes that it's only the first in a series of three gay rights bills expected to be signed by the Governor over the next few days, marking a strong vindication for his endorsers at the Log Cabin Republicans (whose past choices have led them down a briar path). Schwarzenegger continues to epitomize the progressive future of the Republican Party - and Log Cabin deserves kudos for keeping the faith.

House doesn't vote to not give itself pay raise

This morning, CNN is reporting that the House "voted" yesterday to include itself in the cost of living adjustment (COLA) increases it grants annually to civil servants and military personnel. Problem is, that's not exactly accurate, and their headline, "House votes to give itself pay raise," is entirely misleading.

In 1989, Congress changed the way it processes its own raises, lumping themselves in with civil servants and making their COLAs automatic unless they voted to do otherwise. It is a nearly impossible proposition for a politician to consider giving him or herself a raise without political fallout, so it was actually a positive move toward ensuring our leaders aren't stuck at circa 1975 compensation levels. Personally, I don't want the folks running my free world to be making less than I do.

I'm certainly not faulting CNN for reporting on the lack of a vote to withhold Congressional COLAs - that's within their rights and obligations - there is no excuse, however, for such a disingenuous headline.

UPDATE: As a few DA readers have pointed out, the House did cast a symbolic vote on the pay raises. CQToday details that "technically, the House voted on whether to order the previous question on a resolution, setting the rules for debating the fiscal 2005 Transportation-Treasury spending measure." Yes, it was just that straightforward.

Obviously, it was far from a straight up-or-down vote on pay raises, however, but has become something of a proxy vote for those members who wish to make a statement about voting against pay raises without actually endangering them in any way.

Only one Member chose to debate the issue: Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who spoke out against the raise.

Local controllers strike again

Fresh from their victory for assault weapon enthusiasts everywhere, the House Republican Leadership - apparently unconcerned with their street cred as advocates for local control - is now working to remove the District of Columbia gun ban, the Washington Post reports. Ostensibly to shore up support in their conservative gun-related base, the GOP is hoping their bill to repeal the locally-passed District gun ban will be a hit for all their gun-related supporters. Most of which - and I'm guessing here - are not located in the District of Columbia.

House Republicans of late have had less than a passing acquaintance with their old party standards of local control and limited federal government, and this latest effort underscores that nicely. Congressman Mark Edward Souder (R-IN) told the Post, however:

"This is a constitutional issue, not a home rule question," Souder said. "The fact is, we didn't allow the District to have home rule on the selling of slaves, either."

Huh? Apparently in Souder's mind, the right to bear arms is comparable to the non-right to, uh, sell slaves? Souder goes on to patronize District denizens further:

For the 14th time in 15 years, they have the murder capital of the world title. At some point you say, 'This isn't working.'"

Souder and the Republicans are not only reversing locally-set policy for their own political gain, they're doing it in the well-played role of the scolding father. "They," being District residents, I assume, haven't been able to solve the problem, so Congress will. By adding more guns.

Now, I'll grant that the guns=safety argument is vintage Republican, but the "let Congress fix your problem" is decidedly not. Plus I'd bet Indiana residents would be slightly annoyed if Souder was advocating for Congressional repeal of Ft. Wayne laws. If I were Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), I'd write up a couple bills to that effect.

Related Posts:
Local control, or local controllers?

Comparing the size of their... agendas

The assigned Post today reported that the Bush Administration's agenda, if implemented, would cost in excess of $3 trillion. Now, that wouldn't be so much a problem unless you're touting yourself as: a) a fiscal conservative, or b) the alternative to the excessive $2 trillion agenda of your opponent.

The Bush Campaign seems to be trying to keep up with the Kerry Campaign in the race for new federal programs, perhaps forgetting (or ignoring?) the fact that many Republicans are Republicans because they're not in favor of additional federal programs.

Especially when they're outspending the Democrats.

Related Posts:
CBO undermines Bush economics

Restoring Godly Lov(ing)?

Yesterday, a House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing on the Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004, which would restrict any federal court from "exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought" from any level of government "by reason of that [government's] acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

Notable witnesses for the hearing included Roy Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, who made his name by refusing to remove a statue depicting the ten commandments from his court. This is a bill tailor-made for Moore, but has far-reaching ramifications well beyond allowing Chief Moore to keep a statue in his court.

Among a virtual cornucopia of other problems the bill would create, it would additionally vacate all rulings that supplanted a local entity's right to proclaim God as the sovereign source of law.

One case immediately comes to mind, which leads me to hope that all the bill's sponsors married within their race. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Loving v. Virginia, which not so lovingly invoked Almighty God as the basis for the denial of interracial marriage:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix." - Loving v. Virginia, 1958

Then again, I'm no lawyer.

Related Posts:
Court stripping surprisingly not as sexy as it sounds

The Carte Blanche Commission

Bowing to significant political pressure to act on the 9/11 Commission Report, Senators McCain and Lieberman introduced a bill Tuesday that would enact all 41 of the Commission's recommendations. McCain was quoted by the New York Times as hoping the "legislation would not be stalled" by election year politicking.

In an election year where terrorism ranks high on the issue list, the 9/11 Commission's report should not be taken lightly. So what's wrong with Congressional rubber stamping of the recommendations in the interest of national security? A lot.

The 9/11 Commissioners have undertaken a task few Americans envy, and have done so honorably. Only six of the ten commissioners have ever been elected by the people; of those six, one of them was defeated in his last election. These are men and women who have worked diligently to make our country safer, but they are not the men and women we put our trust in to make the final call - that duty falls to the 108th Congress.

Congress will likely split hairs here and there about the 41 recommendations - hopefully enough to put their own stamp on intelligence reform. To do any less is to cede their power to a temporarily appointed body - and leave the American people with an intelligence system designed and approved by people they've likely never seen on a ballot, and probably never will.

Congress should kindly thank the 9/11 Commission for their selfless service and begin the task of reviewing their recommendations, passing out those they agree on and debating those they don't. Legislating by cut & paste serves neither the people nor the democratic process.

Related Posts:
Representative Democracy: 1; Cafferty: 0
Any job worth doing is worth doing fast

CBO undermines Bush economics

The Congressional Budget Office released a report today showing that Bush's promise to cut the defecit in half within five years isn't likely attainable, the New York Times reports. CBO's report states that if no changes are made to existing law, the deficit would "decline only modestly from a record of $422 billion in 2004 to about $312 billion in 2009," according to the NYT. If Congress makes permanent the Bush tax cuts - as Bush has also promised to do - CBO estimates the deficit will actually increase to $500 billion within five years.

Congressman Jim Nussle (R-IA) refuted the report, saying it only "underscores that our policies are working to create a stronger economy, more jobs and a lower deficit." While both the CBO and the Administration are notoriously bad at predicting the flux of the economy, spinning this report as a positive economic indicator doesn't exactly ring true. Regardless of inaccuracies on either side, it's apparent that Bush can't have it both ways - either he keeps the tax cuts or he keeps his defecit promise.

When you can have it both ways without anyone noticing, however, why make the choice?

I missed "threat day" in lobbying class

After a month-long absence from publishing his gay rights newsletter THE LIST, John Aravosis blesses his audience with his views on the Congressman Schrock outing. He takes pains to divorce himself from the Schrock incident, ostensibly to let fellow outer Mike Rogers take the cake. His praise, however, is untempered:

This is an incredible victory for the gay community. Why? Because the entire Congress has been put on notice that if you mess with the gay community, you risk losing your entire career. I'm not exaggerating, it's high time we started acting like all the other lobbies in this country. You don't mess with us, or you pay a very dear price.

While these comments certainly fly in the face of Rogers' interview with the Hampton Roads Daily Press (wherein he noted: "If anyone thinks this is a victory in my community, not true."), they go well beyond claiming victory. Aravosis' threat advocacy shouldn't pass for progress in a civil world, and certainly not in a civil community; commentary like this pulls the gay community away from a strong history of acceptance and understanding and toward a "we're coming to get you" mentality.

Perhaps he's right in saying the gay lobby should act like "all the other lobbies" in this country; the other (successful and respectful) lobbies would have muzzled a reckless firebrand like Aravosis months ago.

Related Posts:
The right use of the wrong tactics?

Zell puts the grumpy in GOP

Apparently for lack of a Republican to epitomize Republicanism, Democratic Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) gave the keynote address at the Republican Convention tonight, delivering a decidedly hostile speech - not just in content, but in tone.

Upon being the keynote pick, Senator Miller also became the focus of a barrage of criticism from the left and several organized internet campaigns. There was also plenty of room for criticism from the right, however; keynote addresses are normally reserved for the rising stars of a party - not retiring and disgruntled members of the other one.

After watching Miller's speech, even Dick Cheney remarked "I'm glad Zell Miller is on our side," putting voice to what the people at home - if not the folks on the convention floor - were thinking: would I let Zell Miller babysit my kids? Not with that attitude.