Thursday, May 20, 2010
Powerful anti-Washington mood stalks primaries
From The Hindu
It has happened. The American election juggernaut has begun to creak into action six months ahead of its slated, official start.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, three states — Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Arkansas — faced primaries: intra-party elections in which candidates for the United States Congress from each party get nominated.
As one would expected in this feisty democracy — which could even compete with India in its degree of rambunctiousness — political pundits shifted into top gear as the results began to trickle in. Since then predictions have been flying fast and furious with all eyes on one variable — what does this mean for November?
While the answer is far from clear, one strong trend has become immediately evident: a powerful anti-Washington mood has gripped voters across the country.
In Kentucky, the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement scored a major victory — arguably its first in mainstream politics — when its candidate Rand Paul defeated Republican stalwart Trey Grayson, garnering close to 59 per cent of the vote.
Mr. Paul, the son of the former Congressman and Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul, was swept to the forefront after months of wooing the conservative Republicans with a promise to attack the soaring budget deficit, eliminate congressional earmarks and institute term limits.
Tea Party gains
His success marks a key inflection point for the Tea Party movement, and will likely galvanise their grassroots efforts in primaries in other states. Or so some pundits argued.
Others, including Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine, described Mr. Paul as an “extreme candidate” who “used a small part of the electorate to win over Grayson”.
For many Democrats then, Mr. Paul's victory would appear to improve their prospects in Kentucky.
In Pennsylvania, the sub-plot to the primary reflected the strong anti-incumbency mood more than anywhere else; heightening the risk that the November Congressional elections may be swept out of the hands of the Democrats.
In this state, it was a long-time Washington insider who lost his job. Senator Arlen Specter who, in a controversial volte face shifted allegiance from the Republican to the Democratic Party in 2009, was trounced by Representative Joe Sestak despite endorsements from the White House and leading Democrats.
Mr. Sestak, who took out TV advertisements criticising Mr. Specter's changing party allegiances, was quoted as saying: “This is what democracy looks like… A win for the people, over the establishment, over the status quo, even over Washington, DC.”
Arkansas also saw support for a Washington insider, Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln, wobble dangerously. She came away with a sliver of a lead over state Lieutenant-Governor Bill Halter. Too narrow a margin for her to avoid a run-off decider vote next month.
Observers cited a range of reasons why Mr. Halter did better than expected. While he had a reasonably solid support base — including labour unions, liberal groups and conservative voters in rural counties — it was too variegated to warrant any sweeping conclusions about his state-wide popularity. That conclusion, in turn, lends credence to the theory that the Arkansas result was principally shaped by a general air of mistrust surrounding Washington politics.
While Washington Democrats have held sway over Congress since 2008, they are in serious danger of losing at least a part of their control in November if this week's primaries are anything to go by. If it is not the far-right Tea Party, it may well be anti-establishment, local champions who oust them.
This would mean President Barack Obama would have a much harder time getting legislation passed.
Yet it is not all doom and gloom — Democrats and the White House have several powerful trends that may counteract the anti-incumbency mood, including improving jobs figures month-on-month, and possibly better healthcare outcomes in the aftermath of the hard-fought battle against insurance companies.
But these are hardly forces that Mr. Obama can rely on for success in November. If he wishes to save his Democratic colleagues from looming electoral defeat, he will need to continue reaching out to the American people to explain why their country is not as badly off as they think it is — and what he and Congress have done to help.
Labels: Democrats, elections, Republicans, Tea Party Movement, U.S. primaries, United States Congress
Thursday, March 11, 2010
White House-Supreme Court row intensifies
From The Hindu
John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday attacked U.S. President Obama’s State of the Union Address in January, in a deepening row over the use of money power to influence politics in Washington.
Speaking at the University of Alabama, Justice Roberts said, “Some people, I think, have an obligation to criticise what we do, given their office, if they think we’ve done something wrong. So I have no problems with that. On the other hand there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.”
Referring to President Obama’s chiding of the Supreme Court for its decision in the Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission case, Chief Justice Roberts said, “The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering, while the Court according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”
In a five-to-four vote the Supreme Court in January ruled that political spending by corporations in candidate elections would be permitted, free of government bans, on the basis of protecting the First Amendment’s free speech principle.
Critics have since argued that “allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy” and that the ruling “represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences”, particularly in reshaping the way elections were conducted.
During his address Mr. Obama said, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”
He added that he didn’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests by foreign entities, rather they should be decided by the American people. “I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a Bill that helps correct some of these problems", he said.
At that point Democrats and Mr. Obama staffers surrounding the six Justices present stood and applauded. The Justices, in the front and second rows of the House chamber, sat motionless and expressionless. However one Justice, Samuel Alito, appeared to be mouthing "Not true, not true," and shaking his head in disagreement.
Reacting to that incident Justice Roberts on Wednesday, went on to say, “And it does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be [at the State of the Union address], to the extent that the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally. I’m not sure why we’re there.
However the White House and Democrats reacted sharply with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?” The political backlash of the row continues to pervade Washington.
John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday attacked U.S. President Obama’s State of the Union Address in January, in a deepening row over the use of money power to influence politics in Washington.
Speaking at the University of Alabama, Justice Roberts said, “Some people, I think, have an obligation to criticise what we do, given their office, if they think we’ve done something wrong. So I have no problems with that. On the other hand there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.”
Referring to President Obama’s chiding of the Supreme Court for its decision in the Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission case, Chief Justice Roberts said, “The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering, while the Court according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”
In a five-to-four vote the Supreme Court in January ruled that political spending by corporations in candidate elections would be permitted, free of government bans, on the basis of protecting the First Amendment’s free speech principle.
Critics have since argued that “allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy” and that the ruling “represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences”, particularly in reshaping the way elections were conducted.
During his address Mr. Obama said, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”
He added that he didn’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests by foreign entities, rather they should be decided by the American people. “I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a Bill that helps correct some of these problems", he said.
At that point Democrats and Mr. Obama staffers surrounding the six Justices present stood and applauded. The Justices, in the front and second rows of the House chamber, sat motionless and expressionless. However one Justice, Samuel Alito, appeared to be mouthing "Not true, not true," and shaking his head in disagreement.
Reacting to that incident Justice Roberts on Wednesday, went on to say, “And it does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be [at the State of the Union address], to the extent that the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally. I’m not sure why we’re there.
However the White House and Democrats reacted sharply with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?” The political backlash of the row continues to pervade Washington.
Labels: Barack Obama, corporate funding, elections, Supreme Court, United States, White House
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
