by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
After commanding the world's attention in 2010 with its cavalier stance on immigration, the Arizona state legislature is threatening-once again-to dominate national immigration discourse and policy.
A couple of items from Think Progress on Friday give an indication of just how far off into space the GOP is likely to go the next two years. Both go to the subject of their incredibly non-existent grasp of the Constitution and related matters of basic legal reality. First was the matter of Iowa Congressman Steve King, who's the incoming chairman of the immigration subcommittee, with a novel approach to getting rid of birthright citizenship: simply declare that undocumented immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of US laws--the same as foreign diplomats. You see, the children of foreign diplomats born here aren't US citizens, so if we pass a law giving undocumented workers the same legal status, their children won't be citizens, either! Neat, huh? Of course that also means they can't be arrested for murder, but worth the trade-off, right?
if the ruling of a court is wrong, and it's fundamentally wrong, and you have two branches of the government that determine that it's wrong, then those other two branches supersede the one
"Two against one! Two against one!" This is a five-year old's "grasp" of separation of powers, which is to say, no grasp at all. It would be insulting to idiots to call Huckabee one.
The two crazy ideas actually fit together in a way. From an interview King did with Fox News' Bill Hemmer (courtesy of Think Progress):
HEMMER: The critics are going to say "why deny citizenship to a child?" Your argument is what?
KING: Well it's really pretty simple. There is an industry that has grown up out of this that pregnant woman come into the United States illegally so that they can have a family that's anchored to their citizenship and anchored to American benefits.
HEMMER: You can find countless examples of that I'm certain. [...] But you would need a Constitutional amendment to do away with this. That is a huge mountain to climb.
KING: I don't agree Bill. Let me say that when you look at the scholarship on this - and I don't present myself as a lead scholar - but I listen to some of them however and I read the text of it: all persons born within the United States and subject to jurisdiction thereof shall be American citizens. [...]
HEMMER: So you would argue that it's the language and the interpretation of the amendment?
KING: I would say so. That clause is there. If it weren't there, then I think they would have a case. But the proper way to go about this is: pass the law banning birthright citizenship and then certainly the people on the other side will litigate...and we'll fight out on the other side of this what the will in the Supreme Court is.
But of course, using Huckabee's logic, who cares what the Supreme Court says? Two against one, remember? Of course there is the little matter of the Democratic-controlled Senate, and the Democratic President. But hey, that's what impeachments are for, right? And there's enough conservadems in the Senate.... You can see where this is going, right? Just pick whatever crazy ass result you want to achieve, and bend or break every single law or principle that stands in the way. This is, quite literally, the direction that GOP as a whole is headed: Government by pure (or impure) id.
I recently wrote that I believe a number of unavoidable "train wrecks" will occur between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. When it comes to these "train wrecks" it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. The first of these are taking shape before anyone even arrives on Capitol Hill to take a seat in the new Congress. The first two issues of contention will be who gets the committee chairs and the attempt to "repeal and replace" Obamacare.
Tea Party-endorsed candidates accounted for almost half of the House seats picked up by the G.O.P. and members of the movement are expecting to play more than second fiddle to Republican veterans in the 112th Congress. A recent article on these newcomers and their expectations revealed: "The large number of incoming Tea Party-backed candidates has empowered Republicans aligned with the grass-roots activists to try to expand their power in Congress. Representative Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican and a favorite of the movement that seeks limited government, announced yesterday on Facebook that she will seek a leadership post in the party's House caucus." While committee chairmanships may be the expectation of the newly elected Tea Party backed members, the reality will be quite different. You see the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner is not exactly an ideologue or a fan of the movement. Moreover, the process for securing committee chairmanships takes place within the personal politics of the House and not on the set of Fox News or on the campaign trail, which is to say that the workings of Congress have not changed even if the Tea Party has come to Washington. As such, it's more than likely that the new occupants of the various committee chairmanships have already been selected and it's not likely that you will find too many Tea Party people among them. Representative Steve King, an Iowa Republican who is supporting Bachmann said: "party leaders want to pack the leadership team with their picks. That means there's not someone on the inside circle who's going to be the voice of constitutional conservatives. That would be a shame, since they are the ones who gave us this majority." If this in fact turns out to be the "new normal" on Capitol Hill, was the claim made that the Tea Party Movement has been used for its votes and its efforts farfetched or is it likely to be an accurate assessment of an unfolding reality?
The second stumbling block on the road to 2012 will be the issue of what to do about Obamacare. Many who ran as first time candidates and who received the Tea Party endorsement signed a pledge that states: "I pledge, if elected, to vote for all bills which seek to repeal the health care bill, HR 3590, signed into law on March 23, 2010." Likewise, existing Republicans who sought re-election signed a similar statement in order to obtain the movement's endorsement and support. In "A Pledge to America"; the G.O.P. committed to:" to "repeal and replace" Obamacare should their party gain control of the U.S. Congress." However, without control of the Senate and in the face of an Obama veto, this was an unrealistic aspiration to begin with. That unrealistic goal has already led Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to back away from any such idea. As McConnell said yesterday during a speech at the Heritage Foundation.: "We may not be able to bring about straight repeal in the next two years, and we may not win every vote against targeted provisions, even though we should have bipartisan support for some...But we can compel administration officials to attempt to defend this indefensible health spending bill and other costly, government-driven measures, like the stimulus and financial reform." Well, it doesn't take a seasoned political analyst to see that this will run right into what the Tea Party Movement's adherents want and expect. Just yesterday the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, Mark Meckler was on national television speaking on what he believes the American people want and what the Tea Party wants to deliver: a total roll back of the Obama agenda. "They are not in a mood for compromise", said Meckler of both the movement's rank and file and the larger electorate. Well as it may more than likely turn out, those who are unwilling to compromise may be the ones who are ultimately disappointed and not vice versa.
Last weekend my fellow Iowa blogger 2laneIA published a comprehensive diary on Congressman Steve King's "greatest hits." Click the link to read about King's suggestion that we electrify the border fence with Mexico like we do "with livestock," his prediction that terrorists will be "dancing in the streets" if Obama becomes president, and his pride in working to scale back funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (which he calls Socialist Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents). I mentioned a few more low points for King in this post.
Americans appear ready to sweep a lot of Democrats into office on November 4. Not only does Barack Obama maintain a solid lead in the popular vote and electoral vote estimates, several Senate races that appeared safe Republican holds a few months ago are now considered tossups.
Polling is harder to come by in House races, but here too there is scattered evidence of a coming Democratic tsunami. Having already lost three special Congressional elections in red districts this year, House Republicans are now scrambling to defend many entrenched incumbents.
In this diary, I hope to convince you of three things:
1. Some Republicans who never saw it coming are going to be out of a job in two weeks.
On a related note,
2. Even the smartest experts cannot always predict which seats offer the best pickup opportunities.
For that reason,
3. Activists should put resources behind many under-funded challengers now, instead of going all in for a handful of Democratic candidates.
Currently Democrats seem poised to pick up 12 to 18 seats in the House and five to six Senate seats. If we are on the verge of a wave, Democrats could win more than that, including a few districts where the Republican incumbent never saw it coming.
This is a thread for discussing House districts and Senate seats that may seem likely Republican holds today, but which could shock us on November 4. Join me after the jump for more.
STATE BLOGS
