In all the talk about the possibility of a good Republican year in 2010 once President Obama and the Democratic Congress start being held accountable for a sluggish economy, it’s often forgotten that there are 50 different incumbents who could be held accountable for the horrid fiscal situation the recession has helped produce in the states.
Nate Silver has taken a comprehensive look at approval rating trends for 14 governors whose popularity has been measured by Survey USA. Only three (Tim Kaine of VA, Jay Nixon of MO, and Bob Riley of AL) currently have approval ratings of 50% or higher. Of the twelve for whom data is available from a year ago, eleven, unsurprisingly, have lower approval ratings now (the exception is Steve Beshear of KY). Sarah Palin isn’t in this batch of surveys, but as Ed Kilgore noted yesterday, her approval ratings have crashed as well.
Of the 36 governorships that will be up in 2010 (19 held by Democrats, and 17 by Republicans), 16 involve term-limited or retiring incumbents (8 for each party), which could mitigate the anti-incumbency factor in some of these states. But in assessing the impact of voters angry at the state of things, remember that they won’t just be voting on the status quo in Washington, but a lot closer to home.

Earlier today J.P. Green did a fine post on the furor over investigation of torture practices in the Bush administration, defending their necessity as a matter of justice, while fearing they might overshadow the Obama agenda if undertaken too quickly.
But we also want to draw attention to an essay at The New Republic by TDS Co-Editor William Galston, whose own “measured approach” promotes a very thorough investigation that explores the moral as well as legal implications of torture, but also suggests a withdrawal of the threat of prosecution as a way to ensure full disclosure of Bush administration practices. Galston offers this especially interesting observation about pleas to simply change interrogation policies without a good clear look at what it being changed:

More broadly, “turning the page and moving forward” on the torture issue simply reflects a too narrow view of moral and political life. We cannot hope to learn from experience unless we reflect on it as systematically as we can. But more than that: part of what makes us human is a sense of justice, and justice has to be backward-looking to some extent. We cannot make sound judgments about what individuals (or nations) deserve unless we reflect on what they have done. By contrast, looking forward involves deliberation on expected results and invites a kind of utilitarian calculus of costs and benefits. President Obama has demonstrated his capacity to engage in such a calculus, coolly and deliberately. But while he has rightly cautioned against governing in anger, he has yet to show that he viscerally understands anger, which is a core moral and political passion, one that can be used for productive purposes.

If the current pandemic flu threat becomes a nightmare made real, we are going to hear a lot about the elimination of funding for pandemic flu preparedness as part of the effort to get Senate Republicans across the line on the economic stimulus package. Indeed, as Ryan Powers notes in a Think Progress look- back at that controversy, the appearance of the flu funds on the hit lists of stimulus critics seems to have begun with a Wall Street Journal op-ed by the famed compassionate conservative, Karl Rove.
People like Susan Collins and Arlen Spector who successfully demanded the elimination of the funding will doubtless object that they favored more money for pandemic preparedness, but just not as part of a package aimed at immediately helping the economy.
But as John Nichols notes today at The Nation, the original insertion of the preparedness money by House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey was explicitly justified in terms of the economic disaster that a pandemic could create–an insight that appears pretty reasonable considering the already-sharp reaction of financial markets to the outbreak in Mexico:

Notably, the second question at the White House press conference on the emergency had to do with the potential impact on the economic recovery.
On Monday, the question began to be answered, as Associated Press reported — under the headline: “World Markets Struck By Swine Flu Fears” — that: “World stock markets fell Monday as investors worried that a deadly outbreak of swine flu in Mexico could go global and derail any global economic recovery.”
Before U.S. markets opened, the Wall Street Journal reported: “U.S. stock futures fell sharply Monday as the outbreak of deadly swine flu stoked fears that a possible recovery in the global economy could be derailed.”

Clearly, preparedness comes in many forms.

When Defense Secretary Robert Gates first unvelied a series of extensive weapons system curtailments and cancellations in the context of the Pentagon’s 2010 budget submission, there was a fair amount of eye-rolling from beltway veterans who knew how well-insulated such systems were in Congress via wide dispersion of manufacturing sites and careful protection of the status quo by senior figures in both Houses–not to mention the lobbying clout of the military-industrial complex.
Now, less than a month later, there are preliminary signs that Gates may win many of his fights over weapons systems. Here’s how Julian Barnes of the Chicago Tribune assesses the current state of play:

Gates and the Obama administration were expected to encounter organized opposition from Defense Department contractors, local officials and Congress. But nearly three weeks after Gates’ dramatic proposal, the lobbyists and lawmakers have been uncharacteristically quiet.
“My general perception is that Gates is going to get his way for 90 percent of these decisions,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation.
Analysts credit the relative calm to the strategy used by Gates. He imposed strict Pentagon secrecy, even making aides and commanders sign non-disclosure agreements, and announced the plan as Congress started on a two-week break. In addition, the proposals are seen as non-political and have bipartisan support.
So far, Gates has signaled he is not going to compromise easily. For instance, the defense secretary dismissed as wasteful a deal offered by one lawmaker to split a contract for new Air Force refueling tankers between two different companies — one favored by the lawmaker, the other by the defense chief.

Aside from the actual impact on U.S. national security, what’s significant about this development (if it sticks) is that Gates has managed to get people thinking and talking about the value of this or that weapons system or procurement program, instead of simply building a fence around the status quo, demanding more of the same, and denouncing anyone who doesn’t agree as “weak on defense.”
You may recall that the acceptance by Obama of Gates as at least a transition figure at the Pentagon was pretty controversial among progressives at first. Now it’s beginning to look like he will accomplish something that progressives and defense reformers have struggled with for years: saying “enough” or even “no” to proponents of well-established weapons systems. That could have a major impact down the road on the politics of national security.

At The New Republic, Thomas Mann, Norm Ornstein and Molly Reynolds have published a handy-dandy guide to the past use of budget reconciliation procedures–you know, that anti-democratic cramdown procedure that Democrats have “invented” to foist their socialist agenda on an unwilling or unwary America. It comes complete with a chart that briefly describes the circumstances and impact of the last nineteen times reconciliation has been deployed, mainly under Republican presidents or in Republican-controlled Congresses.
Mann, Ornstein and Reynolds suggest that reconciliation can best be used by Obama and congressional Democrats as a club to get Republicans to cooperate on complex issues like health care reform. That’s almost certainly what Democrats have in mind. But the idea that there’s anything revolutionary about the actual use of reconciliation for items other than strictly budgetary decisions is demonstrably wrong.

Nate Silver at 538.com has made a noble effort to compile estimates of crowd sizes for “tea party” events yesterday, and has come up with an aggregate total of around 250,000 folks at 306 sites. The sheer number of events is probably more impressive than total attendance, which, after all, fell far short of attendance at pro-immigration-reform protests in 2006.
As for impressionistic coverage of the events, there’s lots of amusing-to-horrifying reportage at savetherich.com. Byron York of the Washington Examiner has one of the best-written sympathetic accounts, based on what he saw and heard in Winchester, VA.

One of the under-appreciated aspects of the “tea parties” we’ll hearing about today is the dance of indecision among Republican officeholders about how closely to identify with this phenomenon. Sure, it’s tempting to snuggle up to a populist-sounding “movement”–however artificial and “astroturfed” it actually is–that’s in rough accord with the GOP’s simplistic anti-tax and anti-spending rhetoric. But aside from the possibility that the “tea parties” will be a bust in terms of attendance, there’s the unfocused, and generally anti-incumbent, atmosphere of the events, and lots of sheer craziness.
Even if those concerns are overcome, there’s the legitimate fear among Republicans that the tea parties will offend the big majority of Americans who are a bit more worried about the economic crisis than about the horrible injustice of boosting the top marginal income tax rate to where it was eight years ago. One of the larger mistakes made by the Republican Party in recent years was the decision to align itself with the hard-core Cultural Right in the Terry Schiavo saga, a decision that clearly repelled millions of people. The tea parties have the potential of becoming another such moment.
In any event, Ben Smith of Politico has a rundown of where some of the leading Republican pols will be today. Lots of them have apparently found something to do other than joining their local anti-tax shriekathons.

Tomorrow we’ll be hearing lots about the so-called “tea parties” being held in conjunction with tax day. If you follow the festivities on Fox, you’ll be under the impression that the “tea party movement” is a vast grassroots phenomenon on the brink of halting socialism in its tracks and turning governance of the country back over to its rightful, rightwing owners.
In reality, of course, the tea parties aren’t in the least spontaneous, and have been organized, financed and promoted by the usual suspects of hard-core conservatism. That’s why the best place to follow the tea parties is at a new site, www.savetherich.com, devoted to exposing the “astroturf” (i.e., fake grassroots) nature of these events.
Here’s some pertinent info from the site’s “open letter to media”:

The evidence of astroturfing is everywhere:
Corporate lobbyists and their consultants are organizing behind the scenes. Many of the events are being run by staff from think tanks like Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works and American Solutions for Winning the Futures (ASWF) an organization run by former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Fox News is encouraging turnout, sponsoring, and covering “Tea Parties” across the country. They’re coordinating much of the information for organizers on-line. Fox News hosts — Beck, Cavuto, Hannity, Bruce, Van Susteren, Malkin and Gingrich — are featured guests at some of the largest gatherings.
Protesters have no idea what they’re talking about. At Tea Parties that have taken place over the last few days, attendees are more concerned with Obama’s birth certificate than high taxes or government spending. Fringe gun groups, secessionists, anti-immigration activists and neo-Nazis are out in force.
Republican officials are driving turn out. Sen. David Vitter is even sponsoring a bill to honor the protests. At least 12 Republican members of Congress will be featured guests at the Tea Parties. 11 of the 12 Members of Congress attending the events voted against limiting excessive bonuses just two weeks ago.

So buckle in for a day of rage, much of it manufactured.

With Al Franken–remember him?–winning a key legal battle in his effort to replace Norm Coleman as a U.S.Senator from Minnesota, it’s as good a time as any to be reminded of why this close election has taken so long to resolve.
At TNR, Jason Zengerle lays the blame in part on Minnesota lawmakers who required that all legal rememdies be exhausted before the front-runner in a close race could be certified, and partly on Democratic senators, who in reaction to the Blago-Burris situation, made official certification by a state election chief a condition precedent for seating a colleague.
Meanwhile, the saga is not necessarily coming to a close just yet. The certification of Franken’s election that should ensue in just a few days has to be signed by MN Governor Tim Pawlenty. Some Republicans in and beyond the Senate are urging him to refuse to sign it until Coleman has pursued a whole new series of lawsuits in federal court. They don’t think Colemen can actually prevail; the whole point is to deny Democrats a 49th senator on crucial votes like the budget, for as long a possible.
Normally a governor, particularly one who may ask voters for a third term in 2010, wouldn’t think of denying his state half its Senate representation on national partisan grounds. But Pawlenty is reportedly considering a race for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and probably remembers the rock-star status in conservative “base” circles attained by Florida’s Katherine Harris, who didn’t mind stretching election laws in a partisan cause.
The bottom line is that Norm Coleman’s Senate career is over. The only question is how long it takes for Al Franken finally to replace him.

Underneath the daily headlines from Washington, conservatives are waging guerilla warfare against a number of President Obama’s appointees, and it’s getting pretty ugly. At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has the rundown on efforts to block the nominations of Harold Koh as legal advisor to the State Deparment, and of Dawn Johnson as director of the Justice Deparment’s Office of Legal Counsel. In both cases, made-up or distorted allegations by the nominees have migrated from right-wing blogs to talk radio and eventually to congressional Republicans.
It happens quickly and seamlessly, says Lithwick:

There is no rest stop on the misinformation superhighway. Some senators apparently cannot be bothered to fact-check the claims they have read in the blogosphere. And that makes the rest of us responsible for fact-checking them as needed and for getting angry when good people are smeared for views they do not hold. One needn’t read all of the thousands of pages Koh has written over his career to find an opinion or argument with which you disagree. But the fact that his critics must fabricate Koh’s opinions in order to take issue with them suggests that they haven’t read any of them.

Lithwick’s theory is that conservatives are going nuts on these mid-level legal appointments as a sort of warm-up for how they intend to proceed once Obama makes major judicial appointments, particularly to the U.S. Supreme Court. “If what Koh and Johnsen have been facing is a practice-sliming from the far right, we should be very, very afraid for whoever it is that someday merits their scrutiny at the high court.”