Rand Paul: Honeymoon is over
May 21, 2010

Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul scrambled to explain his criticism of the landmark U.S. Civil Rights Act, which outlawed racial discrimination, saying he agrees with its goals but questions the federal government imposing its will on businesses.

The political novice and Kentucky candidate issued a statement Thursday amid the fallout from a series of interviews in which Paul said he would have opposed forcing businesses to integrate under the law.

Democrats seized on the comments to argue that Paul holds extremist views and shouldn't be the choice of voters for the U.S. Senate.

Enacted in 1964, the Civil Rights Act was landmark legislation that outlawed racial segregation in the schools, the workplace and in public facilities. It also banned unequal application of voter registration requirements.

"I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation," Paul said in the statement.

Paul added that the "federal government has far overreached in its power grabs," and cited President Obama's historic health care law. He also said the liberal establishment is desperate to keep him from being elected.

In his primary victory on Tuesday, Paul had strong support from members of the so-called Tea Party movement, which believes that government spending and influence should be curbed. Paul also had the backing of some key conservatives, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Democrats said they believed Paul's remarks were out of line even in conservative Kentucky.

Paul's Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, said in a statement that Paul has a "narrow political philosophy that has dangerous consequences for working families, veterans, students, the disabled and those without a voice in the halls of power."

And Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth called Paul's comments appalling and said "he has no place holding public office in Kentucky in the 21st century."

Paul had told The Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal last month that while he supports anti-discrimination laws, he challenges imposing those rules on private businesses.

On Wednesday, he was asked about those comments in separate interviews with National Public Radio and MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Paul told NPR said he is opposed to "institutional racism and I would've, had I'd been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism."

But Paul added: "I think a lot of things could be handled locally."

Hours after the NPR interview, Maddow pressed Paul about whether eateries should have been desegregated in the 1960s in the South.

Paul declined to give a yes or no answer. Instead, he said he doesn't believe in discrimination, suggested the issue was abstract and raised the idea of who decides whether customers can bring weapons into restaurants.

Asked whether he opposes part of the Civil Rights Act, Paul said if "you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says, 'Well no, we don't want to have guns in here.' The bar says, `We don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"

Paul is an eye doctor who had never run for elective office before the Senate primary. He says he shares many of the libertarian views of his father, Republican Rep. Ron Paul, who represents a Texas district and was a presidential candidate in 2008.

Posted by JC at 4:10 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Calderon rips Az law
May 21, 2010

Mexican President Felipe Calderon took his opposition to a new Arizona immigration law to Congress Thursday, saying it "ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree."

Calderon's comments on the Arizona law and his request that Congress do something about the availability of high-powered weapons along the border drew criticism from several lawmakers saying he was interfering in U.S. internal matters.

The Mexican leader also told lawmakers reluctant to take up the immigration issue this year that comprehensive immigration reform is crucial to securing the two countries' common border.

Calderon, the first foreign national leader to address Congress this year, said he strongly disagrees with the Arizona law that requires police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they are in the country illegally.

"It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement," he said to cheers, mainly from the Democratic side of the chamber.

Speaking in English, he warned of the risk when "core values we all care about are breached."

Arizona's senior Republican senator, John McCain was not present at the joint meeting, while the office of Jon Kyl, the other Arizona senator, did not respond immediately to inquiries about whether Kyl was present. McCain attended a lunch with Calderon at the State Department Wednesday.

McCain issued a statement that it was "unfortunate and disappointing the president of Mexico chose to criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue during a trip that was meant to reaffirm the unique relationship between our two countries."

And broaching another highly sensitive issue, Calderon urged Congress to restore a ban on assault weapons, saying easy access to high-powered weapons is contributing to drug-related violence along the border.

Calderon also took up the Arizona law in a meeting Wednesday with President Barack Obama, who referred to the law as a "misdirected expression of frustration."

The Mexican leader said his country was doing its best, by promoting more jobs and opportunities at home, to reduce the flow of immigrants to the United States.

But he stressed the "need to fix a broken and inefficient system ... the time has come to reduce the causes of migration and to turn this phenomenon into a legal, ordered and secure flow of workers and visitors."

Obama is pressing lawmakers to take up legislation that would deal with border security, employment and citizenship. It is questionable whether Congress, in an election year, has an inclination to tackle such a highly sensitive issue.

Calderon also got a standing ovation from Democrats when he asked the United States to stop the flow of assualt weapons and other arms across the border and reinstate the ban on many assault weapons that was enacted in 1994 but allowed to expire during the George W. Bush presidency.

He said there are more than 7,000 gun shops along the border where almost anyone can purchase weapons.

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said it was inappropriate for Calderon to lecture Americans on state and local law. He defended the Arizona law and added: "moreover, the Second Amendment is not a subject open for diplomatic negotiation, with Mexico or any other nation."

Calderon led off his 40-minute speech by emphasizing Mexico's war against narcotics traffickers that has left roughly 23,000 dead since the end of 2006.

But he added that "we cannot ignore the fact that the challenge to our security has roots on both sides of the border." He cited a statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that, At the end of the day, it is high demand for drugs in the United States and elsewhere that drives much of the illicit trade.

Also attending the speech were Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Democrats gave Calderon a rousing cheer when he said Mexico planned to have universal health care by 2012 and said that would be one less reason for Mexicans to migrate to the United States. He got smiles and applause from Republicans, as well as Democrats, when he said that in Mexico's efforts to recover from the recession no taxpayer money went to bail out banks.

Calderon broke into Spanish briefly to address Mexicans now living in the United States, saying Mexicans admire and miss them and are working to protect their rights.

Posted by jc at 4:08 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Sex, Lies and Politics
May 20, 2010

U.S. Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal plans to refocus attention on the economy and other issues as he returns to the campaign trail, a strategy consultants say could work so long as voters and veterans believe he has adequately addressed why he "misspoke" about his military record.

An adviser to the Democrat's campaign said Wednesday that Blumenthal "very forcefully and very clearly" addressed the controversy over his claim that he served in Vietnam during his news conference a day earlier and will turn his focus on issues that matter to voters.

"I think in the end, the people of Connecticut care a lot more about what's happening today in their lives, whether they're going to keep their homes, their health care and their jobs," campaign adviser Marla Romash told The Associated Press in an interview.

Romash said Blumenthal will still answer questions about his military service, but he prefers to talk about "how he'll fight for Connecticut's families."

The political crisis erupted when The New York Times reported Monday that Blumenthal had repeatedly distorted his military service. The story included quotations and a video of Blumenthal saying at a 2008 event that he had served in Vietnam.

Blumenthal, who was in the Marine Reserve, said Tuesday he meant to say he served "during" Vietnam instead of "in" Vietnam. He said the statements were "totally unintentional" errors that occurred only a few times out of hundreds of public appearances.

A longer version of the video posted by a Republican opponent shows Blumenthal at the beginning of his speech correctly characterizing his service by saying that he "served in the military, during the Vietnam era."

A spokeswoman for the Times says the longer video does not change the story about a "long and well-established pattern of misleading his constituents about his Vietnam War service."

Appearing at a police memorial ceremony on Wednesday, Blumenthal told two television stations that he was "prepared for a very tough battle" in the race and was encouraged by the support he's received.

Blumenthal is the front-runner to replace retiring Democrat Christopher Dodd, and the revelations of his misstatements come days before Democrats meet Friday to endorse a candidate for the seat.

Ed Patru, a spokesman for Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon, questioned why Blumenthal was not clearer in saying that he served stateside. He argued that "serving during the Vietnam era" is misleading.

"It's his pattern of routinely speaking in an ambiguous and vague way that will cost him this election," Patru said. "Instead of straight talk, he's fuzzy."

Democratic strategist Chris Kofinish said veterans' acceptance of Blumenthal's explanation and continued support would go a long way toward easing voters' concerns.

"Something like this becomes a bigger problem if you don't address it," he said. "As long as this has been addressed directly and in a forthright manner, which I think he has done, then voters, I think, are going to move on."

Republican strategist John Feehery agreed that Blumenthal needs to refocus the debate.

"The problem for Blumenthal is that he had such an image of a choir boy, and this really kind of damages that," Feehery said. "He's got to find a way to keep moving forward, understanding that his reputation has been dinged, and find other things to talk about."

John Droney, a former chairman of the Connecticut Democrats and a Vietnam veteran, said he believes Blumenthal still has the support of veterans across the state. He said Blumenthal enjoys a reservoir of good will for his years of work, attending funerals and send-off ceremonies, helping veterans with legal matters and speaking at events.

"He's determined to press on and he feels that as he said (Tuesday), he won't let a few words that were misspoken affect or sully his record," Droney said. "He's a Marine. He's pretty tough."

Posted by jc at 3:29 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

The Anit-incumbent vote
May 20, 2010

The primaries last night in Pennsylvania, Oregon, Arkansas and Kentucky -- not to mention a special election in the Keystone State! -- provided political junkies (like us) with weeks worth of data points through which to sift in search of clues about the coming midterm elections.

But, we like to play the long game AND the short game. And so, our initial impressions -- based on conversations with smart strategists in both parties -- about who won and who lost in last night's balloting are below.

As always, the goal of our winners and losers post is to pick some of the less obvious bests and worsts of the day that was. So, you won't find Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) as a winner -- even though his ouster of Sen. Arlen Specter (D) in yesterday's Pennsylvania primary was clearly a major victory.

Given that we slept five hours last night -- thank you Fix Jr.! -- we reserve the right to revise and extend this list. And, if you have suggestions for winners and losers of your own, we'd love to hear them in the comments section below.

WINNERS

Democratic Congressional Congressional Committee: One of the most remarkable records in politics is the six special election winning streak that the House Democratic campaign arm has reeled off over the last two plus years. Rep.-elect Mark Critz's (D) surprisingly wide margin in the Pennsylvania 12th district special election last night is a testament to the fact that the DCCC -- from Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) to executive director Jon Vogel, communications director Jennifer Crider and the entire independent expenditure operation -- knows how to win close races in tough districts. While the hundreds of thousands of dollars the DCCC spent on ads drew most of the attention, it was the field program that drew kudos from strategists close to the race; the committee helped organized nearly 124,000 volunteer phone calls and nearly 112,000 door knocks in the district. While the DCCC special election streak will almost certainly end this weekend in Hawaii's 1st district, it is still a remarkable testament to the fact that candidates and the campaign they -- and their affiliated organizations -- run still matter.

Ken Buck/J.D. Hayworth/Sharron Angle: Buck, Hayworth and Angle -- running in Republican Senate primaries in Colorado, Arizona and Nevada, respectively -- are all making a direct pitch to supporters of the tea party movement. Ophthalmologist Rand Paul's surprisingly strong victory on Tuesday night and his crediting of the tea party for that victory will almost certainly embolden those who see themselves as part of the cause in other parts of the country. The tea party to date has been somewhat haphazard in the primary races it chooses to target -- yes to Florida Senate, no to Illinois Senate -- and so it's not likely that all of the trio mentioned above will benefit from the increased intensity. But, now that the tea party movement has the taste of winning in its collective mouth, there will almost certainly be a push to find the next Kentucky Senate race.

The Campaign Group: No race is ever decided by a single moment but it's hard not to watch the 30-second Sestak ad that hammers Specter for his past Republican associations and not see it as THE turning point in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. That ad, which has installed the phrase "my change in party will enable me to be re-elected" in the political vernacular for years to come, was produced by Doc Schweitzer and Neil Oxman -- the Democratic consulting firm known as The Campaign Group. So effective was the ad that Gov. Ed Rendell (Pa.), a Specter supporter, acknowledged Doc and Neil by name in an interview on "TopLine" -- the joint ABC News/Washington Post web video show on Monday. (Campaign Group did the media for Rendell during his successful gubernatorial races.)

Labor: National unions made a decision a few months ago that they wanted to make Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who had opposed the inclusion of a public option in the health care bill and the Employee Free Choice Act, the poster child for what happens when a Democrat crosses organized labor one too many times. Unions spent upwards of $3 million on ads touting Lt. Gov. Bill Halter and attacking Lincoln -- not to mention an untold amount on a vast turnout program that should be credited with Halter's surprisingly strong showing Tuesday night. With Lincoln and Halter headed to a June 8 runoff, expect labor to double down on their investment -- believing that a Lincoln loss would send a very strong signal to other wavering Democrats in future elections. (Worth noting: There was some grumbling within the Democratic operative world that labor was doing far more against Lincoln than they were doing for Specter in Pennsylvania.)

Bill Clinton: Say what you will about the former President -- and, yes, we know people say all sorts of things -- but he proved in the Pennsylvania special election that he still has the campaign mojo. Clinton stumped through the southwestern Pennsylvania seat over the weekend and delivered a classic populist stemwinder about which candidate would do a better job of looking out for the voters of the district. In so doing, Clinton established himself as the number one surrogate for Democrats running in the sort of culturally conservative congressional districts that will be the central front of the battle for the House in the fall. And, Clinton's performance over the weekend should serve as a reminder to anyone who had forgotten that he can still give a speech like almost no one else in politics. Ever.

Quirkiness: With apologies to NBC's Chuck Todd, who first made this point, the common thread that ties Sestak to Paul -- the night's two biggest winners -- is a quirkiness that voters clearly found appealing. Both Paul and Sestak looked like change and ran their campaigns with that image in mind. Paul openly disavowed the typical trappings of a campaign while Sestak, as he always does, relied on himself and several family members as the strategic core of his campaign. While campaign structures like those might have been dismissed in years past, they actually served to affirm the outsidery-ness -- with apologies to Stephen Colbert -- of each of the men.

Dick Blumenthal/Mark Souder: On almost any other day, the attention of the national news media would have been focused on the allegations that the Connecticut Attorney General badly exaggerated the extent of his service in Vietnam or the planned resignation of the Indiana Republican Congressman following his admission of an affair with a staffer. But, the large number of competitive races on Tuesday served as a massive distraction -- the Fix only has ten fingers after all! -- that, temporarily, took the spotlight off of Blumenthal and Souder. That doesn't mean either man will dodge scrutiny in the coming days but they avoided being the lead story of every hour of cable news for at least a day -- a small victory but a victory nonetheless.

LOSERS

Mitch McConnell: The Senate Minority Leader was personally responsible for driving Sen. Jim Bunning (R) into retirement and recruiting Secretary of State Trey Grayson into the open seat contest. While McConnell only formally endorsed Grayson a few weeks ago, it was clear from the very start that he was behind the Secretary of State. McConnell has built a well-deserved reputation over the past decade or so as the godfather of Kentucky Republican politics but his -- at times -- heavy-handed involvement in intraparty squabbles clearly didn't sit well with a significant segment of GOP primary voters. That the most powerful Republican Senator in Washington wasn't able to drag his favored nominee across the finish line in his home state speaks to the level of discontent toward the establishment at work the country.

National Republican Congressional Committee: The NRCC invested heavily -- $958,000 -- in ads and polling in Pennsylvania's 12th district. And, at the end of the day, they didn't even come close. National Republicans insisted that internal polling suggested that making the race a referendum on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and President Barack Obama was the winning message not just on Tuesday in Pennsylvania but in districts across the country in the fall. Yesterday, they were proven wrong. Now have to go back to the drawing board to figure out a message that can take advantage of what remains a volatile political environment that should lead to gains for their side in the fall. Make no mistake, however: this is a VERY difficult pill for House Republicans to swallow and makes their expected victory in Hawaii somewhat anti-climactic.

Parker Griffith: The Alabama party switcher -- Democrat to Republican -- has to be fretting about his political future after seeing what happened to Specter. Griffith will make his first race as a Republican in the June 1 primary and, already, there are some political strategists who believe Griffith might not win 50 percent -- forcing a one-on-one runoff that could pose major problems for him. Switching parties, as Specter's loss reminds us, is extremely perilous politically. Your new party is deeply skeptical about your commitment to their causes and, in Specter's case, has spent close to a generation trying to beat you. And, in an election cycle like this where voters have their authenticity meters turned WAY up, a party switch typifies many of the traits that voters detest in politicians.

Posted by jc at 3:27 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

2010 Primaries:Message sent
May 19, 2010

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter (D), a Senate fixture who switched parties a year ago, lost his bid for reelection Tuesday, while in Kentucky, ophthalmologist Rand Paul rode the anti-Washington energy of the "tea party" movement to an easy victory.On a busy primary election night that put the political establishments of both parties on the defensive, Specter fell to two-term Rep. Joe Sestak. Elected five times to the Senate as a Republican, Specter had the support of President Obama and the political leadership of his state, but he ran into rank-and-file resistance inside his new party and became the third member of Congress to lose his own party's support in the past two weeks.

In the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky, Paul, a political novice and a son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), stormed past Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who had the support of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and much of the Bluegrass State's political establishment. With almost all of the vote counted, Paul had 59 percent, a sign of the power of his and the tea party's small-government message within the GOP.

Although poles apart ideologically, Sestak and Paul both struck anti-Washington themes in their victory statements Tuesday night.

"This is what democracy looks like," Sestak said to a crowd of cheering supporters. "A win for the people, over the establishment, over the status quo, even over Washington, D.C."

"I have a message, a message from the tea party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words," Paul said at his victory rally. "We've come to take our government back."

Elsewhere, Democrats held the seat of the late congressman John P. Murtha (D) in a special House election with clear implications for the November midterms. Republicans had hoped to pick off the culturally conservative district to demonstrate their momentum this year. But Democrat Mark Critz, a former aide to Murtha, defeated Republican businessman Tim Burns with relative ease.

In Arkansas, Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln, another embattled incumbent who had Obama's support, fell short in her bid to win renomination outright and now faces Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a potentially perilous June 8 runoff.

Tuesday's results were the most powerful indicator to date of the voter anger and dissatisfaction that has shaped the political climate all year.

Democrats remain on the defensive heading toward November, in large part because of divisions over Obama's agenda, the high jobless rate and the size of the federal budget deficit. The Kentucky race underscored the energy of anti-government conservatives who intend to shake up the capital. But the results in Pennsylvania's special House election will raise questions about whether Republicans will be able to take control of the House in November, as many of their leaders have predicted.

The Senate primary in Pennsylvania drew more attention than any other race Tuesday because of Specter's longevity in office and his surprise decision to switch to the Democrats last year.

The senator provided the party with a critical vote needed to break GOP filibusters against health-care legislation. In return, Obama strongly endorsed him in the primary, as did Pennsylvania's Democratic establishment, led by Gov. Edward G. Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.

Posted by jc at 3:05 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Immigration protests continue
May 19, 2010

Several dozen people waving signs and American flags gathered outside Staples Center before the Lakers-Phoenix Suns game in a protest over Lakers coach Phil Jackson 's refusal to criticize Arizona's new anti-immigration law, Los Angeles police said Monday.

The protest was peaceful and there were no arrests, Officer Karen Rayner said.

Among those who came were 15 Los Angeles High School students brought by their teacher, Rodney Lusain. Lusain told the Los Angeles Times he wanted his students "to see the power of protest."

Jackson was asked two weeks ago about a plan by the Phoenix Suns to wear their Los Suns jerseys during a playoff game on May 5, Cinco de Mayo. The state's immigration law spurred the Suns' decision to use the jerseys to honor Arizona's Latino community.

"Am I crazy, or am I the only one that heard when the legislators said that 'we just took United States immigration law and adapted it to our state?"' Jackson responded.

When the reporter suggested that Arizona had usurped federal law, Jackson corrected him. "It's not usurping, they just copied it, is what they said they did, the legislators. Then they give it some teeth to be able to enforce it."

The biggest questions about the law center on how it could be enforced without leading to racial profiling of Hispanics and without alienating residents in Hispanic neighborhoods with whom police have spent years trying to build trust.

The law, which is scheduled to take effect July 29, has triggered protests and prompted several cities to boycott Arizona businesses. Los Angeles is the largest of those cities.

"I have respect for those who oppose the new Arizona immigration law, but I am wary of putting entire sports organizations in the middle of political controversies," Jackson said in a statement issued Monday.

He said he hoped his statement would not be used by either side to rally activists.

Activists want the Lakers to put on the Los Lakers jerseys they wore for a game on March 21 and in years past to honor Hispanic fans. Lakers spokesman John Black said those jerseys will not be worn during the playoffs.

"We will not be getting involved in choosing sides among our many different support groups in any debate, nor will we be getting involved in political issues of this nature," Black said.

"Our focus and goal at this time is on basketball, winning games, and hopefully winning another championship, which we feel the vast majority of our fans want us to focus on," he added.

Posted by jc at 3:04 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Supreme Court rulings
May 18, 2010

Congress did not exceed its constitutional authority when it passed a 2006 law permitting the civil detention of certain violent sexual offenders after they have served their full prison terms, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a 7 to 2 ruling, the high court upheld Section 4248 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The law establishes a civil commitment procedure to keep behind bars any federal inmate deemed by the government to be sexually dangerous.

Government lawyers argued that the law is necessary to prevent federal prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent activity or child molestation from harming new victims by being released from prison.

Under the law, federal prosecutors are authorized to seek the civil commitment of such prisoners by proving to a federal judge that the individual suffers from a mental illness or abnormality and would have "serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released."

The law requires federal officials to notify home-state authorities of a prisoner's possible release from federal detention and to turn the prisoner over to state officials if they agree to hold him. But in the absence of any transfer, federal officials are authorized to continuing holding the individual under the federal civil commitment statute.

Of 15,000 sex offenders in federal custody, 105 have so far been certified as "sexually dangerous." Five of them filed a lawsuit charging that the federal statute exceeded Congress's limited powers under the Constitution and intruded into general police powers assigned by the Founding Fathers to state governments.

A federal judge and federal appeals court panel agreed, ruling that Congress had intruded into an area reserved to state governments. They struck the law down.

On Monday, the high court reversed that decision.

Writing for the seven-member majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress's authority to enact the measure stemmed from the Constitution's necessary and proper clause.

"The statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," Justice Breyer wrote.

Breyer cautioned that his decision should not be read as granting to Congress a general police power, “which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States.�

Instead, Breyer compared the statute to federal efforts to prevent the spread of disease from released prisoners to the general population.

"If a federal prisoner is infected with a communicable disease that threatens others, surely it would be 'necessary and proper' for the federal government to take action [and] refuse to release that individual among the general public where he might infect others," Breyer wrote.

"And if confinement of an individual is a 'necessary and proper' thing to do," he said, "then how could it not be similarly 'necessary and proper' to confine an individual whose mental illness threatens others to the same degree?"

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said Breyer's opinion "comes perilously close to transforming the necessary and proper clause into a basis for the national police power that we always have rejected."

The necessary and proper clause authorizes Congress to enact only those laws that facilitate federal powers enumerated in the Constitution, he said. But Section 4248 is unrelated to any enumerated powers, Justice Thomas said in his dissent, which was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.

"Protecting society from violent sexual offenders is certainly an important end," Thomas wrote. "But the Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it."

Under the framework of the Constitution, those powers reside with the state governments, Thomas said.

The lopsided 7 to 2 result in the case suggests that federalism is no longer a high priority within the high court's conservative wing. Under former Chief Justice William Rehnquist the court's conservatives aggressively enforced the federal-state balance of power, ruling frequently to uphold state sovereign power in the face of what conservative justices viewed as federal encroachment.

Although the federal inmates lost their case on Monday, the litigation may not be over. The court acknowledged that it was not ruling on whether the civil commitment law complied with constitutional requirements of equal protection and due process. Breyer said the inmates were free to now pursue those constitutional challenges in the lower courts

Posted by jc at 4:24 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Big Senate Primaries today
May 18, 2010

The man responsible for getting Republicans elected to the Senate said Monday that he was confident his party would pick up seats in November in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

And Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, also weighed in on a potential liability for Republican incumbents - the passage of the Wall Street bailout package in late 2008 when the economy was teetering on the brink of collapse.

Appearing on CNN's John King, USA, Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, discussed a number of races including the GOP Senate primary in Kentucky. Ahead of Tuesday's voting, Rand Paul, a Tea Party-backed candidate, is leading Trey Grayson, the candidate backed by the Senate's leading Republican.

Cornyn told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that the Kentucky race is indicative of the national mood.

"Well, obviously Kentucky reflects what's happening around the country, and that is there's an awful lot of people engaged in the political process that are relatively new to the process," Cornyn told King. "A lot of these folks are the folks who showed up at town hall meetings, they showed up at Tea Parties and they're voting."

The Republican senator added that the popular outpouring of new political interest was not confined to the GOP.

"But the most important thing is, John, is that they're actually very active primaries on both sides - on the Republican side and the Democratic side. It's not unique to ours. But we will nominate the strongest candidate and we'll get behind that candidate."

Weighing in on the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, Cornyn took the opportunity to take a shot his former GOP colleague, Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched parties last year and is now in a tight primary race.

"Arlen said he was switching parties because he couldn't win in the Republican primary [and] for no other reason," the Texas Republican said. "I think he's having a hard time finding a way to appeal to Democrats because, frankly, he doesn't seem to have any particular orientation for one party or another, just his political survival."

But Cornyn also acknowledged that Specter has overcome many obstacles in the past.

"Arlen is a survivor. He's survived everything that's been thrown at him from a health standpoint, from a political standpoint."

In this year's Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Florida Senate races, Cornyn predicted that the GOP will emerge victorious.

And the Texas Republican also made the case for how GOP lawmakers can explain their support for the Wall Street bailout program that has turned out to be unpopular with voters.

"TARP was represented to us as an absolute necessity or else the economy would melt down and we'd experience a repeat of perhaps the depression of the '30s. I'm responsible and proud of the vote I cast at the time because I thought it was a public necessity. The problem is, we've been betrayed by those who said TARP would be used for a narrow purpose. It's now been expanded beyond all recognition to bailout car companies and now being used as a revolving slush fund.

"I voted to end TARP even though I voted for it initially because I think it's been abused and I think the American people are experiencing bailout fatigue and now we're being asked to share in part of the bailout of Greece through the International Monetary Fund through our contribution there. So I don't blame people who are upset with the way that the bailouts have grown and been abused. But I think at the time it was the right decision to make.

Cornyn added, "People understand that sometimes you have to make unpopular decisions of necessity. At the time it was the right decision to make."

Posted by jc at 4:22 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Was BP to blame?
May 17, 2010

The gusher unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico continues to spew crude oil. There are no reliable estimates of how much oil is pouring into the gulf. But it comes to many millions of gallons since the catastrophic blowout. Eleven men were killed in the explosions that sank one of the most sophisticated drilling rigs in the world, the "Deepwater Horizon."

This week Congress continues its investigation, but Capitol Hill has not heard from the man "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley met: Mike Williams, one of the last crewmembers to escape the inferno.
He says the destruction of the Deepwater Horizon had been building for weeks in a series of mishaps. The night of the disaster, he was in his workshop when he heard the rig's engines suddenly run wild. That was the moment that explosive gas was shooting across the decks, being sucked into the engines that powered the rig's generators.

"I hear the engines revving. The lights are glowing. I'm hearing the alarms. I mean, they're at a constant state now. It's just, 'Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep.' It doesn't stop. But even that's starting to get drowned out by the sound of the engine increasing in speed. And my lights get so incredibly bright that they physically explode. I'm pushing my way back from the desk when my computer monitor exploded," Williams told Pelley.

The rig was destroyed on the night of April 20. Ironically, the end was coming only months after the rig's greatest achievement.

Mike Williams was the chief electronics technician in charge of the rig's computers and electrical systems. And seven months before, he had helped the crew drill the deepest oil well in history, 35,000 feet.

"It was special. There's no way around it. Everyone was talking about it. The congratulations that were flowing around, it made you feel proud to work there," he remembered.

Williams worked for the owner, Transocean, the largest offshore drilling company. Like its sister rigs, the Deepwater Horizon cost $350 million, rose 378 feet from bottom to top. Both advanced and safe, none of her 126 crew had been seriously injured in seven years.

The safety record was remarkable, because offshore drilling today pushes technology with challenges matched only by the space program.

Deepwater Horizon was in 5,000 feet of water and would drill another 13,000 feet, a total of three miles. The oil and gas down there are under enormous pressure. And the key to keeping that pressure under control is this fluid that drillers call "mud."

"Mud" is a manmade drilling fluid that's pumped down the well and back up the sides in continuous circulation. The sheer weight of this fluid keeps the oil and gas down and the well under control.

The tension in every drilling operation is between doing things safely and doing them fast; time is money and this job was costing BP a million dollars a day. But Williams says there was trouble from the start - getting to the oil was taking too long.

Williams said they were told it would take 21 days; according to him, it actually took six weeks.

With the schedule slipping, Williams says a BP manager ordered a faster pace.

"And he requested to the driller, 'Hey, let's bump it up. Let's bump it up.' And what he was talking about there is he's bumping up the rate of penetration. How fast the drill bit is going down," Williams said.

Williams says going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open, swallowing tools and that drilling fluid called "mud."

"We actually got stuck. And we got stuck so bad we had to send tools down into the drill pipe and sever the pipe," Williams explained.

That well was abandoned and Deepwater Horizon had to drill a new route to the oil. It cost BP more than two weeks and millions of dollars.

"We were informed of this during one of the safety meetings, that somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million was lost in bottom hole assembly and 'mud.' And you always kind of knew that in the back of your mind when they start throwing these big numbers around that there was gonna be a push coming, you know? A push to pick up production and pick up the pace," Williams said.

Asked if there was pressure on the crew after this happened, Williams told Pelley, "There's always pressure, but yes, the pressure was increased."

But the trouble was just beginning: when drilling resumed, Williams says there was an accident on the rig that has not been reported before. He says, four weeks before the explosion, the rig's most vital piece of safety equipment was damaged.
Down near the seabed is the blowout preventer, or BOP. It's used to seal the well shut in order to test the pressure and integrity of the well, and, in case of a blowout, it's the crew's only hope. A key component is a rubber gasket at the top called an "annular," which can close tightly around the drill pipe.

Williams says, during a test, they closed the gasket. But while it was shut tight, a crewman on deck accidentally nudged a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, and moving 15 feet of drill pipe through the closed blowout preventer. Later, a man monitoring drilling fluid rising to the top made a troubling find.

"He discovered chunks of rubber in the drilling fluid. He thought it was important enough to gather this double handful of chunks of rubber and bring them into the driller shack. I recall asking the supervisor if this was out of the ordinary. And he says, 'Oh, it's no big deal.' And I thought, 'How can it be not a big deal? There's chunks of our seal is now missing,'" Williams told Pelley.

And, Williams says, he knew about another problem with the blowout preventer.

The BOP is operated from the surface by wires connected to two control pods; one is a back-up. Williams says one pod lost some of its function weeks before.

Transocean tells us the BOP was tested by remote control after these incidents and passed. But nearly a mile below, there was no way to know how much damage there was or whether the pod was unreliable.

In the hours before the disaster, Deepwater Horizon's work was nearly done. All that was left was to seal the well closed. The oil would be pumped out by another rig later. Williams says, that during a safety meeting, the manager for the rig owner, Transocean, was explaining how they were going to close the well when the manager from BP interrupted.

"I had the BP company man sitting directly beside me. And he literally perked up and said 'Well my process is different. And I think we're gonna do it this way.' And they kind of lined out how he thought it should go that day. So there was short of a chest-bumping kind of deal. The communication seemed to break down as to who was ultimately in charge," Williams said.

On the day of the accident, several BP managers were on the Deepwater Horizon for a ceremony to congratulate the crew for seven years without an injury. While they where there, a surge of explosive gas came flying up the well from three miles below. The rig's diesel engines which power its electric generators sucked in the gas and began to run wild.

"I'm hearing hissing. Engines are over-revving. And then all of a sudden, all the lights in my shop just started getting brighter and brighter and brighter. And I knew then something bad was getting ready to happen," Williams told Pelley.

It was almost ten at night. And directly under the Deepwater Horizon there were four men in a fishing boat, Albert Andry, Dustin King, Ryan Chaisson and Westley Bourg.

"When I heard the gas comin' out, I knew exactly what it was almost immediately," Bourg recalled.

"When the gas cloud was descending on you, what was that like?" Pelley asked.

"It was scary. And when I looked at it, it burned my eyes. And I knew we had to get out of there," Andry recalled.

Andry said he knew the gas was methane.

On the rig, Mike Williams was reaching for a door to investigate the engine noise.

"These are three inch thick, steel, fire-rated doors with six stainless steel hinges supporting 'em on the frame. As I reach for the handle, I heard this awful hissing noise, this whoosh. And at the height of the hiss, a huge explosion. The explosion literally rips the door from the hinges, hits, impacts me and takes me to the other side of the shop. And I'm up against a wall, when I finally come around, with a door on top of me. And I remember thinking to myself, 'You know, this, this is it. I'm gonna die right here,'" Williams remembered.

Meanwhile, the men on the fishing boat had a camera, capturing the flames on the water.

"I began to crawl across the floor. As I got to the next door, it exploded. And took me, the door, and slid me about 35 feet backwards again. And planted me up against another wall. At that point, I actually got angry. I was mad at the doors. I was mad that these fire doors that are supposed to protect me are hurting me. And at that point, I made a decision. 'I'm going to get outside. I may die out there, but I'm gonna get outside.' So I crawl across the grid work of the floor and make my way to that opening, where I see the light. I made it out the door and I thought to myself, 'I've accomplished what I set out to accomplish. I made it outside. At least now I can breathe. I may die out here, but I can breathe,'" Williams said.

Williams couldn't see; something was pouring into his eyes and that's when he noticed a gash in his forehead.

"I didn't know if it was blood. I didn't know if it was brains. I didn't know if it was flesh.
I didn't know what it was. I just knew there was, I was, I was in trouble. At that point I grabbed a lifejacket, I was on the aft lifeboat deck there were two functioning lifeboats at my disposal right there. But I knew I couldn't board them. I had responsibilities," he remembered. His responsibility was to report to the bridge, the rig's command center.

"I'm hearing alarms. I'm hearing radio chatter, 'May day! May day! We've lost propulsion! We've lost power! We have a fire! Man overboard on the starboard forward deck,'" Williams remembered.

Williams says that, on the bridge, he watched them try to activate emergency systems. "The BOP that was supposed to protect us and keep us from the blowout obviously had failed. And now, the emergency disconnect to get us away from this fuel source has failed. We have no communications to the BOP," he explained.

"And I see one of the lifeboats in the water, and it's motoring away from the vessel. I looked at the captain and asked him. I said, 'What's going on?' He said, 'I've given the order to abandon ship,'" Williams said.

Every Sunday they had practiced lifeboat drills and the procedure for making sure everyone was accounted for. But in the panic all that went to hell. The lifeboats were leaving.

"They're leaving without you?" Pelley asked.

"They have left, without the captain and without knowing that they had everyone that had survived all this onboard. I've been left now by two lifeboats. And I look at the captain and I said, 'What do we do now? By now, the fire is not only on the derrick, it's starting to spread to the deck. At that point, there were several more explosions, large, intense explosions," Williams said.

Asked what they felt and sounded like, Williams said, "It's just take-your-breath-away type explosions, shake your body to the core explosions. Take your vision away from the percussion of the explosions."

About eight survivors were left on the rig. They dropped an inflatable raft from a crane, but with only a few survivors on the raft, it was launched, leaving Williams, another man, and a crewwoman named Andrea.

"I remember looking at Andrea and seeing that look in her eyes. She had quit. She had given up. I remember her saying, 'I'm scared.' And I said, 'It's okay to be scared. I'm scared too.' She said, 'What are we gonna do?' I said, 'We're gonna burn up. Or we're gonna jump,'" Williams remembered.

Williams estimates it was a 90-100 foot jump down.

In the middle of the night, with blood in his eyes, fire at his back and the sea ten stories below, Williams made his choice.

"I remember closing my eyes and sayin' a prayer, and asking God to tell my wife and my little girl that Daddy did everything he could and if, if I survive this, it's for a reason. I made those three steps, and I pushed off the end of the rig. And I fell for what seemed like forever. A lotta things go through your mind," he remembered.

Posted by jc at 5:00 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print

Update on oil spill
May 14, 2010

President Barack Obama sent a letter to the Speaker of the House Wednesday night asking Congress to pass budget amendments to ensure the Gulf Coast is protected and recovers from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The president also reaffirmed the federal commitment to cleaning up the spill and holding BP responsible.

The president wrote, "These amendments will provide critical funds and authorities needed to respond to this spill as well as changes to current law to better prepare the Nation for any future spills. The people of the Gulf region -- the hardworking individuals, families, and business owners -- have already begun to incur significant economic losses due to this disaster."

The memo did not include a dollar amount, but outlined the federal agencies in need of addition funding to respond to the Coastal Crisis.

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 12, 2010

Dear Madam Speaker:

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster that can seriously damage the economy and environment of our Gulf States and jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who live throughout the Gulf region.

That is why since the initial explosion on the drilling rig occurred, the Federal Government has launched and coordinated a unified and relentless response to this crisis.

From day one of this spill, we made preparations to stage equipment and personnel for a worst-case scenario, and there is underway a sustained, multi-agency response to this disaster. My Administration and I will not rest -- or be satisfied -- until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil on the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to go back to their lives and livelihoods.

Part of that effort is to hold BP, and other responsible parties in this spill, accountable for the crisis. The Federal Government will aggressively pursue full compensation for the containment and clean up, as well as any damages incurred because of this spill. At the same time, I will spare no effort to clean up whatever damage is caused, assist those whose livelihoods have been affected by this spill, and restore the Gulf coast. We cannot allow the potentially protracted pursuit of claims to prevent us from swift action to help those harmed by this spill.

That is why I ask the Congress to consider the enclosed amendment to Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in my FY 2011 Budget. The amendment includes General Provision proposals for the Departments of Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, the Interior, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and the Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency. I request these proposals be considered as emergency requirements, since this request responds to urgent and essential needs.

The details of this request are set forth in the enclosed letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Together, these amendments will provide critical funds and authorities needed to respond to this spill as well as changes to current law to better prepare the Nation for any future spills. The people of the Gulf region -- the hardworking individuals, families, and business owners -- have already begun to incur significant economic losses due to this disaster. They face the prospect of greater losses as the full impact becomes clear, in large part because of the unique relationship between their traditional livelihoods and the fragile environment. The Gulf coast is one of the richest and most beautiful ecosystems on the planet, and for centuries, its residents have enjoyed and made a living from the fish that swim in these waters and the wildlife that inhabit these shores. We will do everything in our power to support those who are affected by the spill, protect our natural resources, demand reimbursement from the responsible parties for costs incurred, rebuild what has been damaged, and help this region persevere as it has done so many times before.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

Posted by jc at 3:56 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print