Here's the new TV ad from Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), one of the most vulnerable Congressional Democrats going into the 2010 elections, featuring President Obama praising Dodd's work on the credit card bill:
"I want to give a special shout-out to Chris Dodd," we hear Obama saying during the bill-signing, "who has been a relentless fighter to get this done."
The latest Quinnipiac poll of Connecticut gives Dodd an approval rating of only 38%, with 53% disapproval. By contrast, Obama's numbers are currently at 71%-22%. So clearly, Obama was doing Dodd a big favor with the shout-out -- and Dodd is taking the obvious next step to repair his own brand with the help of a much stronger one.
On Wednesday, Glenn Greenwald posted a key part of the transcript of Justice Samuel Alito's 2006 confirmation hearing, which suggests that, just three and a half years ago, Republicans thought empathy was a pretty righteous quality in a Supreme Court nominee. Well, we've dug up the footage of that portion of the hearing and, as it turns out, he sells the empathy pretty well.
Now either Alito believed what he told the Judiciary Committee, or he believed that the then-Republican led panel wanted to hear that sentiment. But either way it makes the recent Republican insistence that Supreme Court nominees sit bereft of empathy on the bench a little bit hard to believe.
Earlier today, Greg Sargent dug up an old interview in Ladies Home Journal in which Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (a now-retired Reagan nominee) suggested that her experience as a woman impacted her jurisprudence.
Earlier today, MSNBC correspondent Savannah Guthrie got an email about the fight over Sonia Sotomayor from a shocked Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network. "Somehow," she wrote, "this important debate is turning into an argument about race and identity politics."
How ever could that have happened!? Maybe it had something to do with statements like this by...Wendy Long: "[Sotomayor] herself has said that she thinks it's appropriate for her to make decisions as a Latina woman, from that perspective, bringing to bear those demographics on her decision-making. And that she thinks if she applies her personal views and her personal demographics to the case before her, she's going to make a better decision than a white man."
That was three days ago on Anderson Cooper. And there's, of course, much more. Baffling, though, that this could have somehow become an argument about race and identity politics.
With new legislation to overhaul America's health care system pending from two Senate committees, the liberal group MoveOn will radio ads starting this weekend in Delaware, Florida, North Dakota, Maine, Washington, and Oregon urging senators from those states to support a public insurance option when the reform debate begins in earnest.
"Now is the time that every Senator needs to get off the sidelines and let the America know where they stand: With President Obama and the American public who overwhelmingly want a high-quality public health insurance option or with the HMOs and insurance giants who are fighting real reform," said Nita Chaudhary, National Campaign and Organizing Director for MoveOn.org. "Accomplishing real reform is too important to let a few senators stand in the way of what needs to be done. MoveOn's 5 million members are mobilized and energized for the debate this summer."
As you probably already know, right wing, anti-immigration extremist Tom Tancredo went on CNN yesterday and accused Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of being a member of a "Latino KKK" (known to people like John McCain as the perfectly uncontroversial National Council of La Raza).
What you might have missed was that Tancredo claimed NCLR's motto (he actually called it a "logo") says, "All for the race. Nothing for the rest."
As it turns out, NCLR doesn't even have a motto. According to Lisa Navarrete, the group's vice president, the group has a mission statement--in English--which reads "to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans."
After a week of escalating race and gender rhetoric from the right over the Sotomayor nomination, it's now looking like some in the Republican Party -- those concerned with actually getting elected -- have become alarmed by the political damage the more extreme members of their party may be doing and are moving to rein in the vitriol. It's the starkest example yet of an interesting division within the right, one that has been apparent for some time, but which the Sotomayor nomination has not only crystalized but accelerated: the right-wing bomb-throwers obsessed with ideological purity versus the right-wing pragmatists who want the party to actually win election again some day.
Make no mistake -- all of these people are staunch conservatives. While the bomb-throwers include folks like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and a colorful cast of other players, the practical folks include the likes of Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), RNC chairman Michael Steele, and pundit Peggy Noonan.
Where you stand depends on where you sit: If your job is to whip up publicity and/or money, then haranguing on Sotomayor is the way to go. But if your job is to not alienate key groups of voters and to work to bring them back, it's a different story entirely.
Yesterday, the Service Employees International Union ran an ad in The Times-Picayune hitting Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) for his record on issues important to workers. You can see the ad here, but the gist is that Vitter has voted against an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Obama budget, and the stimulus package.
In response (and without addressing the votes cited in the ad) Vitter seems to have protested a bit too much,"When it comes to attempting to buy elections and strong arm conservatives to accept outrageous bailouts and anti-business legislation, the SEIU is one of the most effective weapons the liberals have at their disposal," Vitter wrote in a fundraising email to supporters obtained by TPMDC. "I will not stand for this outrageous disposal of Louisiana's worker and employer rights, and I'm fighting against it with everything I've got."
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), in his role as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is now reaching out to right-wing activists upset with the national party's endorsement of moderate Republican Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, who supported the stimulus bill, against a more conservative candidate in the primary for the open GOP-held Senate seat.
In a new post at RedState.com, Cornyn sets out to explain that Crist represents the strongest chance for Republicans to hold this seat -- and to give a basic political science lesson in how the American two-party system works:
Some believe that we should be a monolithic Party; I disagree. While we all might wish for a Party comprised only of people who agree with us 100 percent of the time, this is a pipedream. Each Party is fundamentally a coalition of individuals rallying around core principles with some variations along the way. My job as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is to recruit candidates who have the best chance of winning and holding seats - and to do so in as many states as possible.
"To supporters, Judge Sotomayor's vigorous questioning of the Bush administration's position in the [torture case of Canadian Maher Arar], showcases some of her strengths," write the New York Times' Adam Liptak and Jo Becker, "But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor's sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner -- some lawyers have described her as "difficult" and "nasty" -- raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen."
Late last month, in a case which may ultimately result in the elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (which requires certain, mostly southern jurisdictions to pre-clear changes in electoral policy with the Justice Department), Justices Roberts and Kennedy went on quite a tear.
"I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent."
Republican leaders may not have as much sway over their own interest groups as Democratic leaders do over their, so don't expect the attacks to stop. But it's a bold statement. He even lashed out at Newt Gingrich and the unassailable Rush Limbaugh.