In the past two weeks, the Supreme Court handed down four decisions that could affect the dynamic and rhetoric of the Obama-McCain matchup. From the landmark Second Amendment ruling in D.C. v. Heller to the less-noticed tweaking of campaign finance law in Davis v. F.E.C., all four rulings broke from the Roberts Court's recent trend and reverted back to the five-to-four, liberal-v.-conservative bloc rulings of the past. Anthony Kennedy cemented his position as the new O'Connor-ite swing vote, Nino Scalia finally got to write a binding manifesto for the conservative movement, and Samuel Alito struck a blow for millionaires everywhere.
All four decisions broke 5-4, with the liberals (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) opposing the conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) and with Kennedy swinging liberal twice and conservative twice. In today's political world, of course, the candidates will probably be helped most by the decisions they opposed: nothing strengthens a call for new blood on the Court like giving rights to terrorists or declaring a sacred right to own a gun.
Protocol analysis of the decisions and their possible effects on the election below the fold.
In declining order of importance:
1. D.C. v. Heller
The decision: In a 5-4 opinion by Scalia, the Court for the first time interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to bear arms unlimited by the requirement of a state militia. The federal government cannot ban the ownership of any gun traditionally used for self-defense, and faces an as-yet-unspecified level of scrutiny on any restrictions it seeks to impose. Scalia carefully hedges that certain types of "unusual and dangerous" weapons may be banned, and that restrictions ownership by felons, minors, and the mentally handicapped would be allowed. For all its radical historical importance, the ruling itself is quite narrow: it explicitly leaves unaddressed the question of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to apply against the states as well as the federal government.
The political fallout: McCain on offense, Obama on effective defense. Gun control has long been a hot button issue for the right, less so for the left. Obama's official position on gun control (stashed away in "Sportsmen" under "Additional Issues" on his website) has been consistent: he supports the individual right interpretation but leaves room for restrictions. He did say that he believed the D.C. handgun law was constitutional. McCain, despite his C+ from the NRA and staggering F- from Gun Owners of America, signed the amicus brief on Heller's behalf and has attacked Obama for flip-flopping on the issue.
Protocol Advantage?: Obama. His position was carefully tailored to blunt the impact of the decision: he knows it's political poison in these United States to oppose a Second Amendment right to bear arms. The decision will likely cement his support among those who fear a full-on right-wing Court under McCain, but his vaguely moderate gun control position won't turn off the great middle.
2. Boumediene v. Bush
The decision: In a 5-4 opinion by Kennedy, the Court held that all detainees held in Guantanamo Bay have the habeas corpus right to be informed of the charges against them and freed if evidence to support their detention is lacking. The Court, and not the Executive branch, is the final arbiter of "enemy combatant" determinations, Congressional legislation to the contrary notwithstanding. Protocol analysis here and here.
The political fallout: McCain responded cautiously at first, but then realized that Boumediene plays directly to his self-portrait as the only candidate serious about the War on "Terror" and called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” (Probably after an aide read it and found Scalia's gift: "[this decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.") Obama's statement supporting the decision hit some strong notes--"this is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus"--which were then promptly undermined by some pure bullshit: "this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism." Really?
Protocol Advantage?: McCain. The hard right, already deeply suspicious of McCain's conservative bona fides, hates Kennedy and sees Boumediene as an unconscionable act of aid and comfort to the nation's enemies. In an election where McCain's success may depend on his ability to turn out the footsoldiers, his promise to appoint more Scalias and Alitos will only seem more vital.
3. Kennedy v. Louisiana
The decision: A 5-4 Court, again led by Kennedy (no relation, we hope), struck down a Lousiana statute allowing the death penalty for child rape. Interpreting the "cruel and unusual" language of the Eighth Amendment, the Court held that the ever-changing meaning of those words currently forbids the death penalty for any crime other than murder. Civilized people rejoiced; bloodthirsty revenge-mongers groused angrily.
The political fallout: Eh. Sad to say, the American public seems to have found its consensus on the death penalty--which Justice Kennedy, with his O'Connor-esque nose for public opinion, conveniently reflected in his decision. Obama made a lurch to the center by stating his public opposition to the holding, presciently warding off any gotcha debate questions along the lines of "so if your daughters were raped, you wouldn't call for the rapist's death, what kind of fuckin man ARE YOU?"
Protocol Advantage? Wash. The death penalty just isn't an issue either side gets too worked up about anymore. Obama's triangulation on the issue leaves him well-protected from those on the right who really really want to kill child rapists (and I mean, who kinda doesn't), and the left won't abandon him over it.
4. Davis v. Federal Election Commission
The decision: In yet another 5-4 opinion, this time by Alito, the Court struck down the Millionaire's Amendment of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act. The provision allowed the opponent of a candidate who poured his own money into a race to receive extra donations to offset the millionaire's effect. Alito's opinion, mostly on First Amendment grounds, continued the Roberts Court's gutting of McCain's pet project by holding that the government cannot interfere with money-as-speech, even in the context of a public election.
The political fallout: Not a lot. The average voter doesn't get too worked up about complicated pieces of campaign finance reform legislation, and neither McCain nor Obama probably wants to play this up much. McCain's efforts to reform campaign finance outraged the right, who saw the law as an act of rank treason against Republican interests. If the Court had upheld the provision, he might have wanted to use it to play toward the middle's widespread disgust with corrupt politicians--but what's the point in highlighting a right-wing Court's full-on dissing of his law? And Obama won't want to remind voters that McCain made his bones in the public eye largely as a maverick outsider who vowed to clean up the system--and who passed the most comprehensive campaign finance bill since Watergate. Both candidates will probably let this one lie.
Protocol Advantage? Slight McCain--any play this decision will get among voters will only remind them of McCain's credentials as a reformer. The right will be pleased that the provision was struck down, and since they already hate him for the act in the first place, they're not gonna hate him more now.
Millionaires, child molesters, gun owners, and terrorists all have their appointed roles to fill under the October Protocol.
Monday, June 30, 2008
The Court Supreme and the Election
General Bethlehem in The Times
Paul Villarreal, The Protocol's favorite delusional PUMA general, is at it again, getting his name dropped in the NYT as part of a new generation of freelance dirty tricksters. The Gray Lady soft-pedals his achievements, though, calling them a "harsh series of spots that attack Obama and make some claims that have been widely debunked." He is, in fact, batshit crazy:
My adversaries rightly fear me. They constantly seek to marginalize me and they expend vast amounts of energy trying to get others to ignore me. Because my foes cannot hope to compete with me head-to-head, theirs is a sound strategy and one I have become used to over the years. I imagine Custer, similarly, had a gameplan heading into Little Bighorn. This is how I feel about my opponents' tactics. I don't concern myself much with what they do and instead focus on what I need to execute vis-a-vis my own battle plans.The labored military metaphors, the sense of destiny and entitlement, the evidence of a somewhat sad life spent dreaming of martial glory . . . you could only make this shit up in one of the worst movies of all time:
GEN. BETHLEHEM
If he wishes to rise above mere thuggery, a military commander must be classically educated. Philosophy, history. Even a sense of the dramatic. (a beat) Do you know what I did before the war? Do you think I was in the army? I sold copying machines. I was a salesman. The talent to lead men and devise and execute a battle plan were locked away inside me. If Nathan Holn hadn't come along, I'd still be selling copying machines. Can you imagine the wasted life? Can you imagine the magnitude of it? But war... War gives men like me a chance.What's stranger, this clown making the Times or dozens of studio executives watching The Postman and saying, yeah, that's pretty good, audiences will love it? Only The Protocol knows.
The October Protocol hands out hope like candy from its pockets.
Where the Nation-State Fails
This is a map of the "top" 60 countries in Foreign Policy's Failed States Index for 2008. FP gave countries a 0-10 rating across 12 indicators of instability, with "0" indicating highly stable and "10" indicating highly unstable. Some of the indicators included Demographic Pressures, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Economy, and Human Rights. A country's final score was the aggregate of these 12 ratings. The darker green colors on the map indicate a higher final score and, thus, a greater state failure.
Click the above link for the full chart sortable by each of the 12 indicators.
A chart of the Top 10 scores after the jump:
Top 10
Failed State Score
Somalia
114.2
Sudan
113
Zimbabwe
112.5
Chad
110.9
Iraq
110.6
Dem. Rep. of Congo
106.7
Afghanistan
105.4
Cote d'Ivoire
104.6
Pakistan
103.8
Central African Rep.
103.7
Another perspective on Heller
In the midst of all the hoopla, I was reminded of a beautifully written essay by Garret Keizer that appeared two years ago in Harper's (which, unfortunately, doesn't make its archives available to the ragtag viewing public).
Keizer makes the progressive argument against gun control, and, coupled with the questionable efficacy of local gun bans, it's one that I find quite convincing. A choice excerpt:
As the living embodiment of progress itself, a progressive is beyond rage, beyond "the politics of yesterday," and certainly beyond anything as retro as a gun. More than I fear fundamentalists who wish to teach religious myths in place of evolution, I fear progressives who wish to teach evolution in place of political science. Or, rather, who forget a central principle of evolutionary thought: that no species completely outgrows its origins.
Like democracy, for example. What is that creature if not the offspring of literacy and ballistics? Once a peasant can shoot down a knight, the writing is on the wall, including the writing that says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
...
If the Second Amendment is a dispensable anachronism in the era of school shootings, might not the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments be dispensable anachronisms during a "war on terror"?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Virginia Polls: SUSA and Rasmussen 2008
Both SUSA and Rasmussen poll between 500-600 voters for each survey. Rasmussen polled likely voters in Virginia, while SUSA polled registered voters. If SUSA's more recent polls in other states are any indication, the next VA poll will also be of likely voters.
Quote of the Day
With age comes wisdom:
"If I was a kid, I'd be into those shoes with wheels..." - Philip Brooks, my father.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
SUSA in Ohio
More exciting than Missouri, that's for sure. All polls surveyed between 527-629 voters. All were registered voter populations until the June poll which was likely voters.
Friday, June 27, 2008
SUSA in Missouri
Not a whole lot of change over the course of the year. A lot depends on which way those Undecideds migrate.
(The sample size of most of the polls was between 536-562 voters. The exception is the May 18th poll which sampled 1523 voters. The first four polls surveyed registered voters and the last two surveyed likely voters.)
The Protocol will be keeping tabs on battleground state polling throughout the General Election.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
This Week in Polling
Last week was a tough polling week for Sen. McCain. Rasmussen reported yesterday that from 6/13 to 6/20 on the spectrum of "Safe GOP" to "Safe Dem" they moved 8 states closer to the "Safe Dem" side. (Scroll down past Balance of Power chart for the History of Changes chart.) The only state that moved toward "Safe GOP" was Colorado on 6/20 moving from "Leans Dem" to "Toss Up" and that was merely a retraction of the 6/19 move from "Toss Up" to "Leans Dem."
It's only June (I mean, the Cubs still have the best record in baseball, so we know we have a ways to go till the fall), but look for Team McCain to adopt some changes in strategy.
There is no doubt about the Balance of Power within the Protocol.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Barack Obama: So Deep Summer Tour '08
According to Ben Smith, Obama will be focusing his resources on campaigning in 18 states; 14 won by Bush in 2004 (AK, CO, FL, GA, IN, IA, MO, MT, NV, NM, NC, ND, OH, and VA) and 4 won by Kerry (MI, NH, PA, and WI). Consider this a memo to McCain from the Obama campaign stating, "Our fundraising jimmy runs deep, so deep, we put the Upper West to sleep." See map below.
In the following map, the more nuanced color gradient from blue to purple to red, reflects the 2004 margins of victory in each of these 18 states. The redder states indicate a larger margin of victory for Bush in 2004. The bluer states . . . well . . . don't look too hard, there aren't any among these 18 states, would've reflected large Kerry victories, while the purple color reflects state contests that were close in 2004.
What these maps show is that Obama's sizable war chest is allowing him to reach into traditionally Republican states and, at the very, very least, force McCain to play defense.
Sure, the usual suspects are on the list (Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania), and changing demographics are pulling new states into play (Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia), but Montana, Indiana, Alaska, and North Dakota, states that Bush won by 20, 21, 25, and 27% respectively, really? . . . that's just an excuse to show off.Obama (slowly tapping steepled fingers under chin): "David, have the Intermint print me another 10 million Obamabucks, I want to play in Ketchikan."
Plouffe (face buried in Blackberry, trying to sell Florida Election Commission on idea to switch to a caucus for the General, mouths to Obama) "Consider the memo sent."
Hope you like fly fishing, and Buffalo Burgers, Sen. McCain, because Obama and his Scrooge McDuck-like money bags of "Fuck you" cash are dropping into a fly-over zone near you.
The Protocol would like you to know that today was a good day.