I was all set to write an original Memorial Day column today, and had a subject lined up and everything, but then the subject matter and research just got too depressing. So instead, I'm re-running a column I wrote last summer, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg (and the larger 150th anniversary of the Civil War, which we are still in the midst of).

The theme of the column I intended to write was the historical record of how America has treated her veterans. This record is not exactly exemplary, to put it mildly. In fact, only one war in American history generated real legislative respect for the homecoming soldiers: World War II. The G.I. Bill was about the most generous treatment of veterans by the government in all of American history. While the Veterans Administration can trace its roots to the early 1800s, so can the problems veterans encountered trying to get what they felt was their due from the government, after the wars were over. My column would have told some of these stories (the worst example was undoubtedly the Bonus Army, a kind of early "Occupy" movement by World War I veterans who camped out in Washington as a political protest -- only to be forcibly removed by Generals Patton and MacArthur, commanding tanks and cavalry against American military veterans and their families).

Continue Reading »

Before we begin, our sincere condolences to the George W. Bush family for the loss of former White House pet Miss Beazley, who died this week. As always, we are strictly non-partisan in our love for "First Dogs" and "First Cats," because we feel the president's (any president's) humanity can only be improved by having a pet to play with on occasion (the photo of Bush with Miss Beazley which accompanies that article shows exactly what we're talking about). As Harry Truman famously put it: "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." Our thoughts are with the Bush family in their time of loss.

OK, on to the more partisan slant on this week's news. We can even begin with a fairly non-partisan attack, on pretty much the entire Washington political class as well as all the media (excepting the Washington Post) for completely ignoring a story about Northrop Grumman overcharging the taxpayers to the tune of $100 million. While prominently reported by the Post, the story was quickly ignored by just about everyone else. Which is a travesty, really. The contract in question was for counter-narcoterrorism, ironically (since we complain about "corruption" in all those other countries so often), and included one employee who billed $176,900 for 1,208 hours in a 12-day period. In other words, more than 100 hours per day. To fight all those corrupt regimes down south, it is assumed. Still waiting for a congressional committee to be announced to look into this, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Continue Reading »

As has been noted, at times art imitates life and at other times life imitates art. This is one of those latter times, when what was purported to be a "Women and Colorado's Future" debate among Republican gubernatorial candidates seemed like nothing more than a Saturday Night Live sketch ridiculing the awfulness of the Republicans' continuing failure to reach out to women voters in any meaningful way. And that is actually the most polite thing I can bring myself to say about it: it seemed like satire, but (sadly) it wasn't.

The event was co-hosted by Colorado Christian University and the Women of Centennial Institute. The debate was to take place in three segments, one of which was a panel of actual women asking the candidates questions. Sounds reasonable enough? Well, it quickly took a turn for the worse. In fact, it's hard to accurately count the ways it became so awful. Watch the video clip if you don't believe me.

Continue Reading »

The Senate race in Montana is going to a be a tough one, that's for sure. Democrats currently hold the seat, but this is one state where Republicans have a clear shot at an upset this November. Senator John Walsh has just released a rather amazing television ad, though, which is the best pushback on the "personhood" concept I think I've ever seen. Because it features a rape victim telling her own story.

Continue Reading »

Today is a big day for primary elections. Well, a medium-big day, maybe. But it is worth pointing out that it's nowhere near a "super" day. In the past few presidential election cycles, so many states voted in primary elections on one particular day that it merited the label "Super Tuesday." Today, the label is also being used by a few, but it's really a stretch to call it "super," when only six states are voting in their primary elections. In a few weeks, the third of June will beat that, with eight primaries occurring simultaneously.

Of course, if we're not calling it "Super Tuesday," then we've got to call it something else. "Stupor Tuesday" sounds pretty negative. "Duper Tuesday" just sounds silly. Perhaps, because today is likely to produce few surprises (and few Tea Party candidate wins) we should name it "Snoozy Tuesday." Whatever you call it though, I thought I'd offer up some random thoughts while waiting for the returns to come in.

The six states voting today are Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. I haven't done a whole lot of research into any of these races (I have been snoozing on the job, so to speak), so my thoughts will be fairly superficial, just to warn everyone in advance. Unless otherwise indicated, all the contests detailed below are for the nominations for the Senate races.

Continue Reading »

It is an open question which political party will control the Senate after this year's midterm elections. But no matter the outcome -- whether Republicans gain control or Democrats narrowly retain it -- it is worth taking a look at the underlying dynamics of the Senate field for the next two election cycles. Because while 2014 is a year where Republicans have a big advantage, 2016 is going to give Democrats a decided edge.

The best explanation I've yet found of these underlying advantages was a recent blog posting on Electoral-Vote.com, which pointed out how tilted the playing field will be in both 2014 and 2016. The maps below both come from this site, I should also mention (and, while doing so, thank Electoral-Vote for their generous usage policy which allows me to post them here).

Senators serve six-year terms. And only one-third of them are up for re-election in each cycle. What this means is that what happened six years prior to any given Senate election shows which states each party will be either defending or fighting for. In 2014, the election that matters most was 2008 -- a landslide year for Democrats. Because of this landslide, Democrats hold several Senate seats in states that would otherwise be considered Republican red. Using the state's vote in the last presidential election as a guide, here are the eight states which have "mismatched" senators (senators from the opposite party than the state's presidential vote) in this year's election:

This clearly shows the 7-to-1 tilt of the playing field. Maine is the only blue state represented by a Republican senator, while Democrats hold Senate seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia -- red states all (although North Carolina, at least, should be considered somewhat purple).

Now, this is only a theoretical look, and doesn't take into account the actual candidates or races. If the map were accurately predictive, Republicans would pick up a net total of six seats -- exactly what they need to flip the chamber's control. As we get closer to the general election, it'll be easier to see what the chances are for each state, of course. Right now, you'd have to start by pointing out that Maine is a pretty safe bet for Republicans, which means they might actually be up seven seats. Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia are probably going Republican this year, although the other states on this map will likely be more competitive for Democrats (especially Arkansas and North Carolina). Democrats are also hoping for upset victories in Kentucky and Georgia, which could also alter the final math.

The map reflects none of this, of course, because it is a look at the underlying dynamics -- the headwinds each party faces, to put it another way. But the entire situation is reversed in 2016, since the field will be made up of senators elected in 2010 -- a landslide Republican year. What this means is that there will be seven races with mismatched senators, and they're all Republicans:

Republicans will be playing defense in Florida, New Hampshire, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Of particular note, Iowa's Chuck Grassley may retire (he will be 83), and Marco Rubio may run for president and give up his Senate seat to do so.

Of course, if it is too early to accurately be predicting Senate races for 2014, it is way too early to attempt to do so for the 2016 race. But no matter what happens, these two maps show that while Republicans have a big advantage in the 2014 contests, that advantage will be completely flipped towards Democrats in 2016. Neither map is likely to be 100 percent predictive, but they do show the headwinds both parties will face in the next two cycles.

The Electoral-Vote.com article (which is well worth reading in full) also takes a look at the 2018 race, and ends with a very interesting conclusion:

The long-range prospects of the parties can have short-term consequences, though. Suppose the Republicans get 51 seats in the new Senate. The House will immediately pass a bill to repeal the [Affordable Care Act] and send it over to the Senate. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will loudly demand a straight up-or-down vote on it, which will put Mitch McConnell in a bind (we can safely assume McConnell will be majority leader in this scenario because if he loses his own race in 2014, it is very unlikely the Republicans will have a majority). If McConnell tries to bring a repeal bill to the floor, the minority Democrats will filibuster it. McConnell could abolish the filibuster once and for all, but he is smart enough to know that after the 2016 elections, the Republicans will probably be back in the minority. So his choices will be either (1) tell Cruz to shut up, let the Democrats filibuster, and take the heat, or (2) abolish the filibuster and give up the power to obstruct after returning to the minority starting in January 2017.

If the Senate does flip control, President Obama is going to have a rocky end to his presidency, whether McConnell gets rid of legislative filibusters or not. Obama will spend two years vetoing bills, or Senate Democrats will spend two years filibustering everything in sight. Nothing much will get accomplished, either way. The budget fights will be epic, one assumes, making the fiscal cliff look like a picnic in the park in retrospective.

If Democrats hold the White House in 2016, though, the new president will have a good chance of having a comfortable majority back in the Senate to work with. Because no matter what happens in 2014, the underlying dynamics of which senators are up for election in which states clearly favors the Democrats next time around. That may not be enough to comfort Democrats who are now very worried about the control of the Senate for the next two years, but at least it shows a brighter playing field when we elect our next president.

-- Chris Weigant

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Karl Rove successfully manipulated the entire news media this week, so we are going to play along today. Rove's specialty is to take what could be considered a reasonable idea, and then twist it beyond recognition while dragging it through the swampiest mud he can dream up. Well, that's admittedly a terrible (and mixed) metaphor, but I think you get the general idea.

This week, Rove spoke out about the non-controversial idea: "Hillary Clinton will likely face scrutiny on her age and health if she runs for president" -- which is true, and would be true for anyone of her age and medical history. The problem was, ol' Karl decided to take a detour through the looney bin. Speaking of what Republicans used to deride as her "Benghazi flu" (the fall Hillary Clinton suffered which put her in the hospital for three days), Rove insinuated:

Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she's wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what's up with that.

Classic Rove, really. Later, he insisted that he never said anything like "Hillary Clinton is brain damaged," which only served to fuel the fires by causing everyone else to start using the term. Karl is a virtuoso at this sort of thing, and he largely succeeded in his real goal.

Continue Reading »

I have to admit, the headline stunned me: "Senate Confirms First-Ever Native American Woman As Federal Judge." Before I get into why I was stunned, though, here are the basic facts of the story:

The Senate quietly made history on Wednesday night when it confirmed Diane Humetewa as a federal judge -- the first Native American woman to ever hold such a post.

Humetewa was confirmed 96-0 to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. She is a former U.S. attorney in Arizona and a member of the Hopi tribe. She is now the first active member of a Native American tribe to serve on the federal bench and only the third Native American in history to do so.

The stunning part of this milestone -- to me, at any rate -- is that it took so long. And that she is "only the third Native American in history" to be a federal judge. Because while Americans generally like to think of themselves as tolerant and supporting diversity, Native Americans usually aren't included in such thoughts. Which is likely why it took until 2014 for a Native American woman to achieve a federal judgeship.

Continue Reading »

Before there was what we now call "Obama Derangement Syndrome," there was the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." This month seems to be now be marking a turning point, to perhaps what might be called a new and virulent "Clinton Derangement Syndrome." Or, more prosaically, what we're now seeing can be said to be the real start of the 2016 presidential election season.

Yes, I know. You don't want to hear that. I realize that we're not even halfway through the 2014 primary season. I'm aware that there's a midterm election this fall. And I know it's considered downright unseemly to speak of presidential campaigns before a certain point in the political calendar. Doing so is even seen as the mark of lazy political journalism, to some. But consider the increasing frequency of attention Republicans are now focusing on Hillary Clinton, and (conversely) the ebbing of attacks on Barack Obama. What else could explain such a major shift in focus?

Continue Reading »

Right before the 2006 general election took place, I wrote a column titled "Celebrity Candidate Casting Call," which pointed out the disparity between the two American political parties when it came to fielding celebrity candidates. The reason why it was noteworthy was the imbalance tilted exactly the opposite direction that one would assume -- Republican celebrities had jumped into politics, often very successfully, in numbers that far outpaced Democratic celebrities. Since everyone knows Hollywood is a bastion of liberalism, the article was written in a "head-scratching" sort of tone. Why, I wondered, didn't Democrats actually stand up for their beliefs by running for public office, and why were there so many Republicans doing so?

What precipitated the column was my (accurate) prediction that Arnold Schwarzenegger was about to be re-elected governor by the voters of California. A friend of mine had pointed out the political celebrity imbalance, and the more research I did, the more tilted the field got. Here is the list I came up with, back in 2006:

Continue Reading »