Edwards Arrives at N.C. Federal Courthouse

Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
June 3, 2011, 9:57 a.m.

Ex-Clark Co. GOP chair Jim Uster “proved he’s still cap­able of de­liv­er­ing a polit­ic­al mes­sage.” Uster “came to the de­fense of state Sen. Bill Rag­gio (R), who is be­ing cri­ti­cized” by ex-As­semb. Shar­ron Angle’s (R) camp fol­low­ing his en­dorse­ment of Sen­ate Maj. Lead­er Harry Re­id (D).

Want More On This Race? Check out the Hot­line Dash­board for a com­pre­hens­ive run­down of this race, in­clud­ing stor­ies, polls, ads, FEC num­bers, and more!

Uster, in a news re­lease: “As the former Chair­man of the Clark County Re­pub­lic­an Party, I ex­per­i­enced firsthand Sen­at­or Bill Rag­gio’s ded­ic­a­tion to the com­mon­sense val­ues and prin­ciples that rep­res­ent main­stream Nevadans. However, Shar­ron Angle’s un­mit­ig­ated at­tack on his char­ac­ter and track re­cord was a clear in­dic­a­tion that she is too far out­side main­stream — so much so that she would be un­able to rep­res­ent Nevada ef­fect­ively in the US Con­gress. As Nevada voters con­tin­ue to learn about Shar­ron Angle’s ex­treme views, they will see that Sen­at­or Rag­gio is ul­ti­mately right about Angle’s dan­ger­ous agenda and vote for Sen­at­or Harry Re­id.”

“It would be smart for Angle’s al­lies to leave the Rag­gio is­sue alone. Des­pite what con­ser­vat­ive aco­lytes are say­ing, Rag­gio’s polit­ic­al cred­ib­il­ity is hard to match” in NV (Smith, Las Ve­gas Re­view-Journ­al, 10/8).

Come Vis­it

Dear­born May­or Jack O’Re­illy re­spon­ded to Angle’s com­ments that “mil­it­ant ter­ror­ist situ­ation” has al­lowed Is­lam­ic re­li­gious law to take hold in some Amer­ic­an cit­ies, in­clud­ing Dear­born.

O’Re­illy: “She doesn’t know what she’s talk­ing about. …the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion is the greatest pro­tec­tion against Sharia law and any gov­ern­ment-con­trolled re­li­gion. … I’m go­ing to send her a let­ter and in­vite her to take a tour of Dear­born. I think she would be amazed” (Oost­ing, MLive.com, 10/9).


“In a dra­mat­ic shift,” Angle said on 10/9 “she wouldn’t work to privat­ize Vet­er­ans Af­fairs, dis­mantle So­cial Se­cur­ity or dis­miss un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits as wel­fare. Angle ad­dressed some, but not all, of the many polit­ic­al at­tacks against her in an in­ter­view with a con­ser­vat­ive ra­dio show host be­fore a crowd of sup­port­ers in Las Ve­gas. Dur­ing the wide-ran­ging chat, Angle dis­tanced her­self from her pre­vi­ous com­ments on gov­ern­ment be­ne­fits.”

Angle “denied she had called for the end of the VA.”

In an­oth­er “slight change” on 10/9, Angle said of un­em­ploy­ment: “We pay in­to it, so in some re­spects, it is an in­sur­ance policy that we bought in­to with our paychecks.” She de­scribed it pre­vi­ously as a “sys­tem of en­ti­tle­ment” (Silva, AP, 10/9).

Dem strategist, on re­cent polls show­ing Angle sur­ging: “Re­id’s people are really antsy. … That’s why their ex­tern­al mes­sage has been to try really, really hard to dis­cred­it these polls. Angle is build­ing a lot of mo­mentum, and they don’t know how to stop it. This is ex­actly what happened dur­ing the primary.”

Re­id ad­viser Sig Ro­gich: “The mo­mentum is with us in this race. … That’s ac­cord­ing to re­li­able data that I’ve heard about. If you look at the struc­ture of those oth­er polls, I think you’ll find the num­bers are skewed.”

GOP con­sult­ant Robert Uithoven: “She’s en­dured three months of be­ing defined by the Harry Re­id cam­paign be­fore she was able to do a really sig­ni­fic­ant me­dia buy. … He had es­sen­tially all of June, Ju­ly and Au­gust to define her and cre­ate some real sep­ar­a­tion, and he wasn’t able to do it. She’s still with­in the mar­gin of er­ror, and if that’s the case go­ing in­to Elec­tion Day, that be­ne­fits the Re­pub­lic­an this year.”

Re­id spokes­per­son Jon Sum­mers: “The real­ity is, our in­tern­al polls have Sen. Re­id up by a few points” (Ball, Politico, 10/8).

Sun For Re­id

Las Ve­gas Sun en­dorsed Re­id (10/10).

The Su­preme Court’s or­al ar­gu­ments on health care last week offered a night­mare pre­view of what could await Wash­ing­ton after the 2012 elec­tion: a polit­ic­al sys­tem that is closely, deeply, and even bit­terly di­vided.

In the Court’s ques­tion­ing on Pres­id­ent Obama’s health care law, the ideo­lo­gic­al chasm could not have been great­er between the five Re­pub­lic­an-ap­poin­ted justices and the four se­lec­ted by Demo­crats. And the di­vi­sion of power between them could not have been more tenu­ous.

That’s not an un­reas­on­able ex­pect­a­tion for the align­ment that the next elec­tion may pro­duce on both ends of Pennsylvania Av­en­ue. The most re­li­able pre­dic­tion about Novem­ber may be that it leaves power in Wash­ing­ton more pre­cari­ously bal­anced between the parties than it is today. Al­though Re­pub­lic­ans are favored to main­tain con­trol of the House, few would be sur­prised if their ma­jor­ity re­cedes after the high tide of 2010. The next Sen­ate could be split al­most ex­actly in half, with the ma­jor­ity party prob­ably hold­ing few­er seats than the Demo­crats’ 53 today. And, al­though it’s con­ceiv­able that a re­cov­er­ing eco­nomy could al­low Pres­id­ent Obama to equal his first vic­tory, it’s more likely that who­ever wins the pres­id­ency will cap­ture less than his 365 Elect­or­al Col­lege votes and 52.8 per­cent of the pop­u­lar vote from 2008.

In all, the most pre­dict­able mes­sage of 2012 is likely to be that after a surge to­ward the Re­pub­lic­ans fol­low­ing the 9/11 ter­ror­ist at­tacks, a tide of dis­il­lu­sion­ment with Pres­id­ent Bush that lif­ted the Demo­crats in 2006 and 2008, and a sharp snap back to­ward the GOP in 2010, Amer­ica has re­ver­ted to be­ing a 50-50 na­tion. Which is, of course, ex­actly where we star­ted this cen­tury after the 2000 pres­id­en­tial cam­paign that pro­duced the closest thing to an elect­or­al tie since 1880.

But al­though 2012 will likely show the parties again con­ver­ging in strength, all evid­ence sug­gests that they are di­ver­ging even more in philo­sophy and agenda. In 2000, after all, Bush ran as a “com­pas­sion­ate con­ser­vat­ive” who would gov­ern as “a uniter, not a di­vider.” That proved more of a slo­gan than a com­pass. But this year, the two parties barely even ges­ture to­ward the as­pir­a­tion of re­con­cili­ation.

Mitt Rom­ney, the pre­sumptive Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee after this week’s primary sweep, is of­fer­ing the most am­bi­tious con­ser­vat­ive agenda pro­posed by any GOP stand­ard-bear­er since Ron­ald Re­agan in 1980, if not Barry Gold­wa­ter in 1964. From cut­ting more taxes to con­vert­ing Medi­care in­to a premi­um-sup­port sys­tem and Medi­caid in­to a block grant, he has for­mu­lated a blue­print with vir­tu­ally no ap­peal to Demo­crats. It’s also an agenda scaled to a land­slide man­date that Rom­ney has al­most no chance of win­ning in a coun­try this closely di­vided.

So far, Obama’s second-term policy plans are more mod­est. But, in tone, he is tak­ing an ap­proach that’s every bit as pu­gil­ist­ic. Un­like Pres­id­ent Clin­ton, who launched his 1996 reelec­tion cam­paign by de­clar­ing, “The era of Big Gov­ern­ment is over,” Obama turned to­ward Novem­ber this week by de­noun­cing both the Court’s threat to his health care law and the House Re­pub­lic­ans’ budget draf­ted by Rep. Paul Ry­an of Wis­con­sin. The vast gulf between Obama’s fisc­al pri­or­it­ies and the GOP’s (centered on wheth­er to ex­tend or even ex­pand Bush’s tax cuts for the wealth­i­est) en­sures in­tense con­flict for as long as this pres­id­ent re­mains in of­fice, even if, ul­ti­mately, he would likely pur­sue a bi­par­tis­an budget deal in a second term, as he did in last sum­mer’s debt-ceil­ing stan­doff.

The com­ing Su­preme Court de­cision on health care could es­cal­ate this con­front­a­tion like a gren­ade rolled in­to a bar fight. Sub­stant­ively, the case rep­res­ents the most im­port­ant con­sti­tu­tion­al chal­lenge to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment’s power since the epic de­cisions when a con­ser­vat­ive Court in­val­id­ated key pil­lars of Pres­id­ent Roosevelt’s New Deal in 1935 and 1936, notes New York Law School pro­fess­or James Si­mon, au­thor of a re­cent his­tory of that peri­od, FDR and Chief Justice Hughes. Polit­ic­ally, the pro­spect of five Re­pub­lic­an-ap­poin­ted justices out­vot­ing their four Demo­crat­ic-ap­poin­ted col­leagues to over­turn a health care law that rep­res­ents the Demo­crat­ic Party’s most sig­ni­fic­ant le­gis­lat­ive achieve­ment in 45 years prom­ises a firestorm.

The New Deal-era con­front­a­tion de-es­cal­ated quickly when Con­gress re­jec­ted FDR’s Court-pack­ing scheme in 1937 and Chief Justice Charles Hughes (per­haps in tac­tic­al re­treat) steered the Court ma­jor­ity to­ward an in­ter­pret­a­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion’s com­merce clause that up­held Roosevelt’s ma­jor ini­ti­at­ives. It is those rul­ings that today’s five-mem­ber con­ser­vat­ive Court ma­jor­ity could re­trench in the health care de­cision. In the pro­cess, the justices could re­open not only the ar­gu­ment about health care but also dec­ades of leg­al as­sump­tions about what Wash­ing­ton can and can­not do.

The safe fore­cast through the elec­tion and bey­ond is heightened ideo­lo­gic­al con­front­a­tion in both Con­gress and the courts over Wash­ing­ton’s reach. The al­tern­at­ive would be for each party to re­cog­nize that it lacks the elect­or­al sup­port to im­pose its agenda on the oth­er — and in­stead to seek com­prom­ises that re­flect the na­tion’s di­versity of opin­ion. Judging by last week’s ques­tion­ing, the Court seems less likely to point Wash­ing­ton to­ward that con­cili­at­ory path than to­ward a far more con­ten­tious one.

What We're Following See More »
Latest Count: 12 Trump Campaign Staffers Had Contact with Russians
1 days ago
Mueller Seeks Documents from DOJ
4 days ago

Special counsel Robert Mueller "is now demanding documents from the department overseeing his investigation." A source tells ABC News that "Mueller's investigators are keen to obtain emails related to the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the earlier decision of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the entire matter."

Trump May Be OK with Dropping Mandate Repeal
4 days ago

"President Donald Trump would not insist on including repeal of an Obama-era health insurance mandate in a bill intended to enact the biggest overhaul of the tax code since the 1980s, a senior White House aide said on Sunday. The version of tax legislation put forward by Senate Republican leaders would remove a requirement in former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law that taxes Americans who decline to buy health insurance."

Media Devoting More Resources to Lawmakers’ Sexual Misconduct
4 days ago

"Members of Congress with histories of mistreating women should be extremely nervous. Major outlets, including CNN, are dedicating substantial newsroom resources to investigating sexual harassment allegations against numerous lawmakers. A Republican source told me he's gotten calls from well-known D.C. reporters who are gathering stories about sleazy members."

Trump to Begin Covering His Own Legal Bills
6 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.