Politics – Page 212 – Shall Not Be Questioned

You Have to Hold Individual Politicians Accountable

Jim Geraghty makes some excellent points about the dynamic between parties when it comes to gun rights:

But there’s a catch. For even the best, most pro-Second Amendment House Democrat, the first vote they cast in the House is to makeÂ NancyÂ PelosiÂ the Speaker of the House, ensuring the floor schedule is controlled by a woman who is scored an “F” by the organization. And her speakership ensures that F-rated John Conyers of Michigan chairs the Judiciary Committee, and that liberals, often but not always anti-gun, control the important committees.

Meanwhile, if that A-rated House Democrat were beaten by some squishy C or B-rated Republican, his first vote be would make A-ratedÂ JohnÂ BoehnerÂ (or perhaps some other Republican) the Speaker.

It’s a very good point, but I’m not sure how you really get around it unless you score the vote on the Speaker and leadership. We don’t want to hitch the gun rights wagon to a particular party, but we do want to hold individual politicians accountable for their positions on our issue, and many Democrats on the issue are quite good. If we refuse to back Democrats who support our issue, we essentially offer the Democrats nothing for their support, in which case, right now, we’d be getting steamrollered in Congress.

So why not score the vote on the Speaker? Because, not surprisingly, politicians are political animals. If the Republicans and pro-gun Democrats can get together to get together and form a majority for the purposes of gun bills, they can’t necessarily get together on other matters, such as the selection of Speaker. The problem is, while the Democratic Party is divided between Progressives and moderate-to-conservative Blue Dogs, the Progressives are the ones in the safest districts, and the ones with the most seniority.

They also represent a voting majority within the party itself. The only way you could get a different Speaker than Pelosi would be if the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats got together and elected a different Speaker. That’s not going to happen. Why? Because the party is in charge of committee assignments according to House rules, and any Democrat crossing the ailes for that kind of thing is going to find himself with the worst assignments. There’s also many many things the party apparatus can do to a Blue Dog to make him cooperate, or punish him for lack of cooperation. The system makes it very difficult for a minority faction within a party to have a whole lot of sway, so it’s very difficult for them to buck their party on a vote like Speaker. Sure, you can grade the vote, but it’s not going to make you popular on the Hill, and you’re not going to win anyway. There’s no easy answer to the Pelosi problem.

What surprises me, is that in a year like this one, you don’t see more Blue DogsÂ threateningÂ to switch parties if the progressive leadership keeps twisting their arms. Maybe there’s a good reason that move is very hard to pull off in DC, but if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t hesitate to play that card. This is going to be a bad year to be a Democratic. Even worse if you voted for the health care bill.

The Threat That Isn’t

Obama says he’ll withdraw his support of wavering Democrats on Health Care, and not campaign for them. It would seem to me that this isn’t exactly a threat. In fact, if I were one of those wavering Blue Dogs, I think my inclination would be to ask the White House if they would put it in writing. Perhaps Obama could twist more arms byÂ threateningÂ to show up at key campaign events. You can’t say “no” to the President, after all.

Now I Know Why Obama Loves Philly

I don’t know if y’all have noticed, but Obama really enjoys coming to the Philadelphia area. He’s here often enough that when Sebastian complains about all the cops out when he drives to or from work, we can safely assume that Obama is here.

I think I just figured out why that is. It’s not because the City of Brotherly Love is showed him so much love in the last election (in the form of men armed with batons blocking polling places). It’s because the stench of Democratic corruption must remind him of Chicago.

For those who have forgotten, Obama won his first campaign unopposed. Which is interesting considering there was a sitting Democratic incumbent who did not retire. He challenged all of her signatures to get her thrown off the ballot – along with any other competitors.

The intriguing campaign I mentioned yesterday is facing a similar problem. Only instead of her being an incumbent, she’s a political newbie who has no shot of winning the overwhelmingly Democratic district represented by the head of the Philadelphia Democratic Party. But he wants her off the ballot anyway. There’s no room for anyone else once you factor in his ego, I suppose.

More on the Constitutionality of the Slaughter Solution

There’s been some more activity today on the issue of whether the Slaughter Rule for passing Health Care would be constitutional. Â Michael McConnell says it’s not constitutional in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, via Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy. Based on this reading, which would indicate the House and Senate never actually plan to pass the same bill, I would agree it’s unconstitutional. I would think there has to be limits to House and Senate rules in so far as they aren’t delegating their role to the other body. For instance, if they create a rule that deems two bills to be passed with one vote, why not three? Four? Twelve? Certainly they can consolidate twelve bills into one bill, but can the House or Senate really have a rule that just deems any number of bills as “passed” even if there’s never been a vote? I think the answer to that has to be no, at least if the Constitutional role each body plays isn’t considered to be unconstitutionally delegated.

An Intriguing Campaign

While researching my list of federal candidates on social media sites, I came across a longshot campaign for Congress against Rep. Bob Brady in Philly. Brady heads the Philadelphia Democratic machine. At the big Democratic shindig/nominating party, he was right up on stage with Nancy Pelosi – the only non-statewide office holder or candidate I saw up there with her. The head of Pittsburgh’s Democratic Party wasn’t around, just Philly. I don’t think the dead girl/live boy rule even applies to this former union organizer.

But this 27-year-old girl not only has a great website, she has a message that could disconnect some of the younger voters from the entrenched Philly politicians. (That won’t win races, but it’s just interesting.) Here’s what I like:

Focusing on where the incumbent leadership has failed: “Today, the First District has the distinction of being the second hungriest district in the nation. It has some of the worst schools, the highest crimes rates, the most strangling taxes and the greatest pension problems. For too many years, this district has been abused by those who have ravaged this birthplace of the American dream under the guise of brotherly love.”
Specific example of broken promises/wasted resources that tangibly makes district life worse: “In an attempt to revitalize the city by bringing a green real estate project to the district (without grants or government aid), I came head to head with the inner politics that go on here every day behind the scenes. The Industrial Empowerment Zone, a nation-wide government program started by President Clinton, was meant to bring industry back to Philadelphia but we know industry is not coming back. Philadelphia has been given millions of dollars in federal funds to essentially blight neighborhoods causing homeowners and landlords to drastically lose property value. These properties are being purchased by well connected insiders at bargain-basement prices at the expense of the residents of the First District. Our project was rejected by the zoning board the day after Michael Nutter promised to make Philadelphia the greenest city in the nation in his inaugural address. Today, the land still sits vacant.”
Confidence in style. Take a look at her website. She at least knows how to make you to stop and take a look.
According to her site, she wants to use this opportunity to create a PR plan for free markets that others can use around the country. I like the attitude of experimentation here. It’s beyond an uphill battle, but sometimes those are the best opportunities to try radical ideas to see if anything sticks. It may not win this race, but maybe something useful will come out of it.
I think her campaign video has a few issues, the first of which is a little too hard hitting for most voters who aren’t that comfortable taking a leap to something new in rough times. But, I do think it’s a great example for others to follow in support of candidates to specific constituencies (i.e. rallying the base). I love the ending – a real call to action to not let them get away with this anymore. It’s not enough to bitch, action has to be taken.
Contrast her message with Bob Brady’s campaign site which is nothing but why you should give him money and how you should give him money. He’s not interested in telling you about himself or really giving a damn about what you want to hear.

I have no illusions about how this campaign will turn out in November. But sometimes losing can teach us lessons about how to approach other battles. What I like about her web presence isn’t so much a “sexy/MTV” vibe, but how real issues are addressed and not just talking points. Even when she does rely on talking points, she remembers to put in the request for you the viewer to help take back the country and make it a better place.

I can respect those who actually take a stand to try something new. It is the spirit of America, and I hope that Pia does find a few elements that stick, even in solid blue Philadelphia.

More Election Stats

Why? Because I’m fascinated by this stuff. Â And I spent two days studying district maps, Googling unknown candidates, and otherwise trying to find every bit of information on these elections that I could in order to make a more useful resource for gun owners this year.

Of the 6 Senate races in the area, 4 incumbents were A rated in their last election cycle. One was a B rating, and the other F.
There are 30 House races in the area. Only 8 of these races are (so far) uncontested. Six of those are districts in Philadelphia.
Of the 8 unchallenged incumbents, 2 had Fs, 2 had Ds, 1 had a C, 1 had a B, and 2 have maintained A ratings.
Looking at the full list of races with incumbents running (28), we have: 3 ?s, 3 Fs, 10 Ds, 3 Cs, 4 Bs, and 5 As.
The two open seats were previously represented by lawmakers with A and F ratings.

I think our pro-gun Senate seats are safer than the pro-gun House seats on the whole. One of our B rated guys in Philadelphia is actually facing charges, though to be honest, that doesn’t turn many Philly voters off. So I maintain that even though he has challengers from his own party and the other, it might not be much of a race for the new entrants to the race.

The House races are especially important for those who fall on the right side of the political aisle. Right now the Democrats control the House by just a handful of seats. The Senate is safely Republican, and is likely to become even more so after this year’s elections. This will be legislature that redraws all of the district lines and erases at least one Congressional district from the state.

All the Election News You Need to Know – For Now

I spent the better part of two days examining every single state race going on in our districts – PA-8 & PA-13. If you live in Bucks, Montgomery, or North Philly and own guns, you should go find your local races and get an idea of what’s going on.

For those of you not in the area, here are a few interesting observations:

For the federal races, both districts will have competitive Republican primaries with no Democrats on the ballot other than incumbents. In PA-13, it won’t really matter since the chances of unseating Schwartz run at about 1 in a million if you’re feeling generous to the challenger. Other than the more sparsely populated northern tier of her district, that area is solidly Democratic – and pretty far left Democratic at that. In PA-8, I have my doubts about all of the GOP candidates against Murphy in the fall. However, professional political observers in DC say that if Fitzpatrick can pull out a win in May, he’ll have a good shot at beating Murphy. I’m on the ground and am far more skeptical.
Out of the 6 state senate districts in the area, only one is held by an incumbent with less than an A or B from NRA. Granted, she’s got an F, but she represents primarily Philly. In smaller races with less direct influence from Philadelphia, we can still do reasonably well. Regardless of whether you live in this area or even another state, that’s something to keep in mind if you have a safe anti-gun Congressman. There may be local races where your help can make the difference.
Bad news: A lot of poorly rated Philadelphia politicians have no challengers this year from either side. In theory, a write-in campaign could change this. In reality, it’s not likely to make a difference without serious planning and the incumbent over a dead body.
Good news: A handful of friendly (or at least not hostile & willing to listen) lawmakers – even some from Philly! – also have no challengers from either side. Again, this could change with an effective write-in campaign. While that makes it an uphill battle, gun owners should still keep an eye out.
Of all of the races that are re-matches from 2008, the GOP looks like it could pick up seats in all but one. One re-match was decided for the Democrat by less than 900 votes in a record-setting Democratic year. While the Republican candidate still has to beat the incumbency factor, this is a great year to pick up this battle again.

If you are in the area and have a favorite already, get in touch and I’ll let you know how you can get involved.

How Unconstitutional is the Slaughter Solution?

You really couldn’t come up with a better name for the latest scheme the Democrats have come up with to pass health care. Absent the votes to actually pass this monstrosity, we’ll just slaughter the Republic and the Constitution and ram it through! But there seems to be some debate as to whether this mess is constitutional. Here are some thoughts on the matter, keeping in mind I’m far from an expert on these topics.

It would seems to me to be perfectly constitutional for the House to amend the Senate version, then send it back to the Senate, which the Senate will then pass and go on to the President. This path, however is closed by rule, since it would require 60 votes in the Senate to shut off debate on the bill, which the Democrats no longer have (thank you Massachusetts!). There’s also the political problem that Pelosi would no longer appear to have the votes necessary to pass anything called “Health Care” in the House.

My understanding of the Slaughter Solution is that they pass a reconciliation bill, along with a rule change that deems the Senate version to have been passed (even though it has not). The reconciliation bill then goes to the Senate under reconciliation rules, under which the terms of debate do not allow for the filibuster. The reconciliation bill, being signed by the President, then becomes the Health Care law. Now, there seems to be some question on whether, after the reconciliation bill passes the Senate, the House will then actually have a vote on the Senate bill, and if passed, both bills will be presented to the President for his signature or veto.

It would seem to me any law which is presented to Obama, not having passed both houses of Congress, would be pretty clearly unconstitutional. But is it judicable? In other words, can someone file suit. I think that yes, a minority of members of Congress could sue because they were denied their constitutional power to request a roll call vote. This is pretty explicitly in the constitution, and it would seem to be to be fairlyÂ unambiguous that this path would be unconstitutional, and the minority would have a means for invalidating the bill. The only counter argument I could see here is that, effectively, the House combined several questions into one vote, which is should be permitted to do if the House rules allow it. But how far would this be allowed to go? What if the House changed its rules to say any bill which the Senate passes in a given session will be “deemed” to have pass? It would seem to me there also might be questions that could be raised under the Non-Delegation Doctrine as well.

The latter case, where the House moves a reconciliation bill forward, under a rule that deems the Senate version to have passed the House, but with the Senate version later being actually voted on by the House and both bills being presented to the President simultaneously is a bit more constitutionallyÂ ambiguous. There’s a better case that this is constitutional., since the House and Senate will have, effectively, passed two bills, and presented both to the President. The “deeming” of the Senate bill being passed, in this instance, would merely be a procedural maneuver that would allow the Senate to use the reconciliation rules to get the fixes some House members are demanding before they’ll flip their vote. It’s my opinion that if this is the plan, it’s likely constitutional. The question is whether it violates the reconciliation rules. Reconciliation rules require that you change a budgetary matter that is actually existing law. It would seem to me that this Slaughter rule wouldn’t really get around that. They’d essentially be changing budgetary issues that don’t effectively exist. The House passing a rule that “deems” a bill to be passed does not actually make it so.

Either way you go, this tactic is a disgusting abuse of procedure and an affront to the democratic process. It’s hard for me to understand how it’s legal under either path. I definitely don’t see how the House gets around having to vote for the Senate bill. It would seem to me you can’t pass two bills with one vote because of the Article 1 Section 5 requirements in the constitution. If anyone out there has any specific expertise on this topic (and after reading the actual rules, if you do, I have a huge amount of respect for you, these rules areÂ complicated) feel free to chime in with comments.

Disgusted, But Not Surprised

I think any American, no matter how they feel about health care, ought to be outraged by this tactic. Dave Kopel asks whether it’s even Constitutional.

New York Election News

Jacob has some coverage, including a return of Doug Hoffman, and Kirsten Gillibrand attracting yet another challenger. Before too long it seems like half the State of New York will have announced they are primarying Gillibrand. Apparently even Bloomberg’s girlfriend wants a piece of that action.