Kerry Blames The Tape?

Geraldo Rivera reports that Senator John Kerry has placed at least part of the blame for his defeat on the Osama Bin Laden tape that was released the week before Election Day. I would agree with the Senator that foreign affairs were the primary reason for his defeat in the election, but it would be revisionist history to blame the tape alone for Bush's victory.

One should not forget that it was Senator Kerry (along with CBS/New York Times) who made the (not) stolen explosives the major story in the week prior to the election. The Senator was primarily responsible for keeping so much focus on Iraq and the war on terror by focusing endlessly upon the issue (against President Clinton's apparent advice). Indeed, in exit polls, those who expressed most concern about the Bin Laden video seem to have favored Senator Kerry. Granted, it was only by a small margin, and the exit poll results are suspect, but there is little reason to believe that the tape caused a groundswell of support for the President. Additionally, most tracking polls and regular national polls taken in the days immediately preceding the election showed little difference as a result of the tape. If anything, the polls in waning days of the campaign showed the race tightening slightly - not a surge in support for the President.

Hope For Center-Rightists In Italy

Given all the emphasis the mainstream media gives to how much foreign governments despise President George W. Bush and America, it was a breath of fresh air to read Michael Novak's account of travels in Italy. Apparently, there is a growing movement there against the secularism that seems to have had an increasingly strong hold on Continental Europe - both intellectually and politically.

Judicial Watch: North Carolina

In addition to the larger Republican majority in the Senate, the replacement of a few Democratic Senators - particularly Senator John Edwards of North Carolina - will also make it easier for President Bush's judicial nominees to receive Senate consideration. Traditional Senate procedure allows a single Senator to block consideration of a judicial nominee from his or her state.

The Associated Press reports that three judicial nominees from North Carolina had been blocked by Senator Edwards, but will now receive approval of Senator-elect Richard Burr. Two of the appointees were to North Carolina federal district courts - Bob Conrad and James Dever. Additionally, current federal District Judge Terrence Boyle, had been nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits in Richmond, Virginia.

The President would have to renominate all three for them to receive consideration.

NOTES: In addition to North Carolina, South Carolina will also now have two Republican Senators, given Senator-elect Jim DeMint's recent victory. While the same is true of Georgia, outgoing Democrat Senator Zell Miller was certainly no opponent of the President's judical nominees.

The Senate delegation in Colorado will also now be split in the 109th Congress, giving Senator-elect Ken Salazar's victory. Salazar replaces retiring Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (who switched to the GOP in 1995).

Bush Advancing Secularism?

Today, columnist Christopher Hitchens weighs in with an interesting article, arguing that President Bush is acutally advancing secularism through his foreign policy. Hitchens raises an interesting point: While the Left has unloaded a mountain of insults at religious conservatives in the week since Election Day, the author points out that in fighting Al Queda and Islamic militants in Iraq and elsewhere, President Bush has actually been a great supporter of more secular Islamic groups. It is ironic that leftists, like Michael Moore, cast extreme Islamic radicals as freedom fighters, while heaping scorn upon Christian evangelicals (who, compared to their Islamic counterparts, are anything but radical).

Ashcroft, Evans Leave Cabinet

Josh Ashcroft and Don Evans will be leaving the Bush Administration...

How Current Senators Voted On Clarence Thomas In 1991

With the Drudge Report indicating that the Bush administration is considering the possibility of elevating Justice Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice (should Justice William Rehnquist resign), one cannot help but remember the contentious confirmation battle that occurred in 1991. How did the Senators, still serving in the Senate today, vote back in 1991? Campaign Line takes a closer look.

In total, there are currently 40 Senators who were in the 102nd Congress when it voted on Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. However, of these, five Senators will be leaving Congress once the 109th Congress begins on January 3, 2005. Of these five Senators, three voted yes: Senator John Breaux (D-LA), Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC), and Senator Don Nickles (R-OK). Two voted no: Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), and Senator Bob Graham (D-FL).

Of the remaining 35, 14 voted yes, and 21 voted no. The fourteen Senators who voted to confirm Clarence Thomas were:

Kit Bond (R-MO), Conrad Burns (R-MT), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Larry Craig (R-ID), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Trent Lott (R-MS), Richard Lugar (R-IN), John McCain (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Richard Shelby (D-AL), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ted Stevens (R-AK), and John Warner (R-VA).

Then a Democrat, Richard Shelby switched to the Republican Party after it assumed control of the Senate in 1994.

The 21 Senators to vote against Justice Thomas' confirmation were:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Max Baucus (D-MT), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Christoper Dodd (D-CT), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), James Jeffords (R-VT), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Herbert Kohl (D-WI), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Carl Levin (D-MI), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD).

Of these 21, all were Democrats except for James Jeffords - then a Republican, and now an Independent.

Additionally, three Senators who voted on Clarence Thomas' confirmation in 1991 now have sons or daughters in the Senate. The three are Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Mark Pryor (D-AR). Lincoln Chafee's father, John, voted for Thomas' confirmation, as did current Alaska Governor and former Senator, Frank Murkowski. Mark Pryor's father, Senator David Pryor, voted against Thomas' confirmation. Of these three, the most likely to vote differently from their father is likely Lincoln Chafee, who has clearly indicated that he is not in line with the rest of his party. Thomas' conservatism alone would make Chafee a likely "Nay" vote. While John Chafee was no conservative himself, he was consistently more loyal to the Republican Party in the Senate than Lincoln has been.

Aside from Lincoln Chafee, would any other Senators possibly cross party lines on a Chief Justice confirmation vote? Perhaps most likely to cross the aisle would be Senator Ben Nelson, a fairly conservative Nebraska Democrat, who must defend his seat in 2006. Incoming Colorado Senator Ken Salazar also has a reputation for being moderate. Having just been elected from a "red state," Salazar might buck party leadership on what would surely be a contentious vote.

On the GOP side, Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are moderate, but there is no indication that they would vote against Thomas. Moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter has cautioned the President to avoid extreme judges, but his support of Clarence Thomas in 1991 (contrary to his opposition to Robert Bork in 1987) indicates that he would likely give him the same support again. Indeed, if Specter serves as Judiciary Committee Chairman, his support would be crucial to any effort to make Thomas the next Chief Justice.

What other Senators voted against party lines in the 1991 roll call vote? Aside from John Breaux, Ernest Hollings, and Richard Shelby, the following Democrats voted in favor of Thomas' confirmation: David Boren (D-OR), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), Alan Dixon (D-IL), James Exon (D-NE), Wyche Fowler (D-GA), John Johnston (D-LA), Sam Nunn (D-GA), and Chuck Robb (D-VA). That's 11 total - quite a bit of bipartisanship by today's standards!

For the GOP, aside from James Jeffords, only Bob Packwood (who ironically, later became embroiled in his own sexual harassment scandal) voted against Thomas' confirmation.

Other interesting notes: Current United Nations Ambassador John Danforth, a former GOP Missouri Senator, voted for Thomas, as did Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen (R-ME). Then Senator Al Gore (D-TN) voted against Thomas' confirmation, along with 2000 Democratic primary opponent, Bill Bradley (D-NJ). Finally, current Disney Chairman and former Senator and majority leader, George Mitchell (D-ME), also voted against Thomas.

[UPDATE: The folks over at The Corner have indicated that in his autobiography, Senator Specter expressed disappointment over Justice Thomas' conservative record. While this casts some doubt upon where Specter's allegiances would lie, Campaign Line still believes that Specter would likely support Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice (especially given the recent scrutiny Senator Specter has faced from opponents who do not want to see him Chair the Senate Judiciary Committee).]

Arlen Specter On Face The Nation

This week, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) created a firestorm among conservative Republicans, upset over comments indicating that he might not accept judicial nominees who were too conservative, or pro-life.

Senator Specter was a guest on Face The Nation this morning. Following is a partial transcript relating to his comments about judicial nominations (much of the interview dealt with other issues, such as stem cell research).

Following are relevant parts of the transcript, assembled by Campaign Line:

Bob Schieffer: We begin in Philadelphia with Senator Arlen Specter, and to sort of set the stage, Senator Specter, let's review what went on. Last week, you said, and I believe this was your quote, "It would be unlikely for staunch opponents of abortion to be confirmed to the Supreme Court by the next Congress. Now you are the incoming or going to be, in line to be, the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and when you said that, it set off something of a firestorm among many conservatives. Among them, James Dobson who's head of Focus on the Family who said, and he said it just this morning, you have now become a big time problem and you should be derailed. They're trying to block you from becoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee. What's your response to all this, Senator?

Senator Specter: Well, Bob, the problem started when AP reported that I had, quote, "warned the president," which is not so. Rush Limbaugh and Fox said that they were trying to put a spin on what I had said, and when people are opposing me as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, these are the same people who came to Pennsylvania during my primary and tried to defeat me, but the fact is that I have supported all of President Bush's nominees in committee and on the floor. I have never applied a litmus test. I have supported Chief Justice Rehnquist for confirmation as chief justice when I knew he had voted against Roe v. Wade. I supported Justice Kennedy and O'Connor and Scalia and I led the fight to confirm Clarence Thomas. So that my record is pretty plain that although I am pro-choice, I have supported many pro-life nominees.

Schieffer: So do you believe, I mean, just to go back to what you said the first time around, that anyone who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade would be confirmed by the Senate or could not be?

Specter: Well, what I said was that you need 60 votes for cloture, and we have had a history where the Democrats have been filibustering. So the concern as to confirmation is really the recognition of a political fact. I voted to cut off debate all the time. I have voted for cloture which means to cut off debate. But with 55 Republicans you aren't at the magic number of 60, so you have to anticipate problems with the Democrats as we have had a lot of them in the past Congress.

Schieffer: Well, let me just ask you this, Senator. What do you make of this drive among some people to try to block you from becoming chairman of the committee? Do you take that seriously?

Specter: Well, I take everything seriously, but these are the same people who came to Pennsylvania from all over the country to try to defeat me in the primary election and they were unsuccessful. They do not like my independence, and I am, I believe, the only pro-choice Republican on the Judiciary Committee but that doesn't mean that I have a litmus test or that I don't give appropriate deference to whom the president nominates.

Schieffer: Well, then what do you say to Mr. Dobson? He heads a very powerful group of people out there, this Focus on the Family group. There's no question that a lot of people pay attention to what he has to say. What do you say to him?

Specter: Well if he would call me up, I would say, Dr. Dobson, the situation on getting 60 votes is not my making. It is the making of the Democrats and they have demonstrated it. And I have been in the corner of deference to the president with people like Chief Justice Rehnquist when it was plain from his vote in Roe v. Wade that he was against a woman's right to choose and led the fight as to Clarence Thomas, almost lost my seat, Bob. I was up for election immediately after that confirmation hearing. That's what I would tell him.

[Face The Nation's website should have the entire transcript up later in the week if you'd like to see what he said about stem cell research and other topics].

Zogby Gets It Wrong, Mason Dixon Right

Given the great inaccuracy of his 2004 state polls, one would think that John Zogby would retreat for a while, assess his methodology, and try to figure out why his polling was so off the mark.

Instead, Zogby's website links to two articles claiming that his polls were accurate! Suffice it to say, the two articles only make passing references to Zogby's last national poll (Bush 48%-Kerry 47%). One of the articles mentions Zogby's crazy prediction on Monday afternoon (that Kerry would win 311 electoral votes), but none mention the incredible inaccuracy of his state polls. Check back soon for a more in depth analysis of just how off his numbers were, but even in the states where Zogby predicted the right outcome, the polls' margins of victory significantly varied from actual vote totals. Zogby would surely note that many of these results were within the margin of error of the polls. However, whenever a pollster is not even close to being right in several different polls, the problem likely goes beyond statistical variance.

A quick glance shows how wrong Zogby's polls were: Zogby was off by 5% in Florida (Zogby forecast: Tie), 3% in Ohio (Zogby forecast: Bush +6), 5% in Colorado (Zogby forecast: Bush +2), 5.5% in Wisconsin (Zogby forecast: Kerry +6), and 6% in Iowa (Zogby forecast: Kerry +5).

Mason Dixon's polls for MSNBC and Knight Ridder seem to have been most accurate, forecasting the incorrect result in only Minnesota. In 2002, Mason Dixon correctly called 22 out of 23 races. Check out this wonderful chart on Mason Dixon's website, comparing the actual results to their poll results.

[To be fair to Zogby, other pollsters like Gallup also had wildly incorrect state polls, such as the Gallup poll showing Bush ahead by 8% points in Wisconsin a few days before the election.]

Brooks Hits The Mark

David Brooks weighs in with a great analysis of the post-election "spinning" that many on the Left are engaged in. It's a great article which I encourage you all to read, but here's the paragraph that most clearly hits the mark.

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

David Corn Joins Hysteria...

Today, The Nation's David Corn opines,

"He will further pursue policies that feed the gargantuan deficits and will deny the overwhelming fiscal fiasco. Before the election, his Administration was preparing for severe cuts in social programs. He may not take explicit steps to outlaw abortion. But he won't have to be explicit. It is inconceivable that Bush will not have the opportunity to appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice--William Rehnquist may provide the first vacancy--and he could get the chance to fill up to four openings. A Bush Court would be predisposed toward overturning Roe v. Wade. Presumably it would undermine environmental laws, be hostile to gay rights and put into action the goals of the right-wing "federalist" movement, which hails states' rights and property rights."

The true facts: Even with Rehnquist, at most the Court has three anti-Roe judges (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas). Thus, even if Rehnquist is replaced, it would still be 6-3, and require the replacement of two pro-Roe judges in the next four years. Then, one would need a test case to get all the way up to the Supreme Court before it could be reviewed. Additionally, contrary to the common misconception, which the media rarely clarifies, overturning Roe v. Wade would NOT make abortion illegal. Rather, it would simply allow states to make that decision for themselves.

History provides little comfort. And certainly the politics will be ugly. The Bush camp has been rewarded for its tactics of distortion and derision. Bush and Dick Cheney appealed to people's fears. And the lesson for them and the Republicans is clear: This worked, let's do more.

Continued denial that it was maybe ideas that caused the Democrats' loss. "Nooooo. We didn't really lose the election. The Bush team (led by superhero Karl Rove) was just more mean!"

Clinton Had A Mandate - The Los Angeles Times Said So!

Many columnists have attempted to argue that George W. Bush doesn't really have a mandate. After all, his winning margin was only about 3.5 million voters!

Contrast recent articles, with the following excerpt from a Los Angeles Times editoral, published on November 9, 1992. Following Clinton's victory, Senator Bob Dole indicated that Clinton did not have a popular mandate, since he only won 43% of the popular vote. After reviewing a number of American Presidents who received less than 50% of the popular vote, the editoral concluded:

"The point of reviewing the numbers is to underscore that the President, after being confirmed as the electoral vote winner and inaugurated, is in fact the President. His popular vote total is irrelevant to either his political legitimacy or his potential for legislative effectiveness. Some Presidents elected by an overwhelming popular vote have in fairly short order come to grief, others -- see the list above -- have achieved greatness with only a popular plurality behind them. Bob Dole has every right to lead a vigorous opposition. But not, please, on the specious grounds that Bill Clinton lacks any claim to a mandate."

If more editorial boards and left leaning opinion leaders adopted the idea that the popular vote was irrelevant to political legitimacy after the 2000 election, perhaps there would be less divisons to heal.

Dionne Misses The Mark

Since Wednesday morning, various members of the liberal elite and intelligensia have been weighing in with their often frantic, outrageous, and vitriolic views regarding America and the way in which George W. Bush won the election.

E.J. Dionne Jr. weighed in today. He started with,

Don't mourn. Organize.

Okay, we can mourn a little first. The punch in the stomach that really got blue Americans singing the blues was George W. Bush's popular vote lead of more than 3.5 million.

Let's be honest: We are aghast at the success of a campaign based on vicious personal attacks, the exploitation of strong religious feelings and an effort to create the appearance of strong leadership that would do Hollywood proud. We are alarmed that so many of our fellow citizens could look the other way and not hold Bush accountable for utter incompetence in Iraq and for untruths spoken in defense of the war. We are amazed that a majority was not concerned about heaping a huge debt burden on our children just to give large tax breaks to the rich.

While Dionne's call to the Democratic faithful is not surprising, it illustrates the problem belying the election analysis of many liberal commentators. Rather than discussing the possibility that Senator John Kerry's ideology and beliefs were responsible for his defeat, Dionne blames "vicious personal attacks" and "exploitation of strong religious feelings."

Virtually all Presidential campaigns surely use tactics that, at times, are over the top. However, to pretend, as Dionne does, that John Kerry ran a high minded cordial campaign - and would have been victorious if not for Karl Rove's mean tactics - is disingenuous at best.

Not only did Senator Kerry accuse the President of "misleading" the country (his code word for "lying") on a daily basis, but his surrogates used even stronger language. Did Senator Kerry denounce Al Gore for saying that President Bush "betrayed" his country? Did Senator Kerry demand that the ACT flier, intended to inflame racial passions with its depictions of the 1960s civil rights movement (and its implied comparison to the Republican Party of today) , be removed? Did Senator Kerry denounce the tidal wave of negative television advertisements funded by Democratic 527 groups?

Of course not. To the contrary, the leader of ACT's efforts - Harold Ickes - has been mentioned by pundits as a possible successor to Terry McAuliffe as head of the Democratic National Committee. To be fair, these 527 groups were not associated directly with the Kerry campaign, but the Senator was clearly aware of their efforts and took no steps to stop them.

Unwittingly, in dicussing the Republican's "vicious" attacks, Dionne himself continues to lob bombs of his own, mentioning the "untruths" of the war in Iraq, and wondering how voters would allow President Bush to "[heap] a huge debt burden on our children just to give large tax breaks to the rich." Could it be that perhaps voters agreed with the President that all people deserve to have a tax cut? Of course not! Doesn't everyone know the Republicans are only interested in helping the rich? It is this mentality that prevents leaders of the Democratic Party from seeing the true reasons why they lost on Tuesday.

If Democrats and liberals hope to gain an understanding of what really happened on November 2, they need to understand that it was not partisan tricks and hackery that were responsible for Bush's 3.5 million vote margin. In accusing the President of "exploitation of strong religious feelings," Dionne seemingly alludes to the passage of several anti-gay marriage referenda. The implication is that Bush's constituency was motivated by raw irrational emotion, rather than a logical understanding of the issues. After all, the liberal intelligensia cannot comprehend why any intelligent person could possibly vote against gay marriage.

In actuality, during the campaign President Bush focused most of his time on foreign affairs, rather than on the more controversial issues like abortion and gay rights. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome and the Massachusettes Supreme Judicial Court bear the greatest responsibility for the saliency of the gay marriage issue in this election year. It was their efforts to impose new gay marriage policies without using the democratic process that inspired voters to reject such unilateral action. The referenda against gay marriage were not confined to the "red states" - measures in Oregon and Michigan were adopted by wide margins.

Before the President's victory, the election was seen as a referundum on his role as Commander-In-Chief. Exit poll data indicates that these issues most closely divided the nation. While the President clearly benefitted from the support of many religious voters concerned with moral values, exit polls indicate it was foreign affairs that split the electorate most evenly.

[Disclaimer: Given the inaccuracy of the exit polls in general, the exact exit poll numbers in any context must be taken with a grain of salt, but they can be used to gain insight into the voters that were polled. If anything, the exit polls would likely be skewed in Senator Kerry's favor, given that they forecast a Kerry victory].

Tuesday's exit polls indicate that more than half of the voters on Tuesday rejected Senator Kerry's major premise that Iraq was the "wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." When asked whether they approved of President Bush's original decision to go to war in Iraq, 51% approved (the same percentage by which the President won the popular vote), compared with 46% who disapproved. 55% of voters said they felt safer than they were four years ago, compared with only 41% who said they felt less safe. 52% of voters also said that the war in Iraq was going "badly" while 44% said that it was going well.

At first glance, these results may seem paradoxical, but the differences are not irreconcilable. Despite the incessant anti-war attacks by Michael Moore and Senator Kerry, the average American knew as well as anybody that before America invaded Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was viewed as a threat. The same voters who approved of the President's initial decision likely wanted the President to see the war through to victory. It is not in the American spirt to cut and run. Americans want to see their leaders pursue and achieve victory to its end. Even if a majority of Americans believed that the Iraq war was going badly, it was unwise for the Democrats to assume that voters would turn out in mass to reject the President's leadership.

Admittedly, only a few days past Election Day, it is difficult to gain full perspective on what has transpired. However, the Democrat Party faces some tough questions. Does it continue on its present course, pursuing policies soundly rebuked not only at the Presidential level, but also the Congressional level? Or does the party attempt to right itself, and pursue a path more in line with the beliefs and ideals of the average American?

Campaign Line Is Born...

This forum, started by two enterprising conservative Ivy League law students, seeks to bring news and analysis of the political world. As the title indicates, the blog will focus on election and campaign analysis, but also analysis of the political world in general.

For interesting insights and news items, check back often.