Let me start this post by saying the 108th Congress is the worst, most unproductive session in recent memory. They've done nothing of note, and it's been marked by scandal, pervasive corruption, and continual breaking of institutional norms. (Three hour roll call votes, closed rules on every fucking bill, excluding minority party members from conference committee, adding unrelated provisions in conference committee, stripping provisions agreed to by both houses in conference committee, calling the police to kick committee members out of their own hearings, etc. All in one two year session!) In short, its leadership deserves turning out, though due to the last round of redistricting, that will never happen.

What about the Senate? Yeah, they've been plenty bad, but for pure venal, entrenched, corrupt scum, you can't beat the Republican House leadership, with Tom Delay pulling the strings.

Anyhow, just because they've done nothing of value doesn't mean they haven't passed reckless, unprecedented legislation. I'm referring to the recent slew of court stripping bills, which normally languish and die in committee, but in the 108th Congress have been brought to the floor and passed.

HR 3313, the "Marriage Protection Act" passed this July, and in lieu of an actual constitutional amendment passed by the normal procedure, the bill revokes federal court jurisdiction over cases challenging the constitutionality of 1996's so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." Ie, they grant that that anti-equal rights legislation is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional, so they'll just say the courts can't rule on it.

Does that make any sense? Seems like Congress was established to create laws, and the Supreme Court was there to make sure they didn't conflict with the Constitution. But Article III, Section 2 says "In all the other cases...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions...as the Congress shall make."

So hypothetically Congress can declare anything it wants outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But this is a remarkably bad idea, and Congress rightfully hasn't opened this Pandora's Box before. Once we start taking away the Supreme Court's jurisdiction on any issue we like, there will no longer be a Supreme Court to establish and protect rights under the Constitution.

But no matter! The 108th Congress pathetically admits its hateful anti-gay agenda is unconstitutional, and they seek to circumvent the due process rights all Americans enjoy. Not only that, they're actively pushing votes on similar legislation relating to the Pledge of Allegiance and flag desecration.

Clearly these votes are just meant to put Democrats in marginal districts in an uncomfortable position of voting to uphold the Constitution, while appearing to support gay marriage and flag burning.

Principle would advise against the radical step of court stripping, but principle just allows the Republicans to continue to trample all over us with wedge issues and cynical maneuvering. The only way to get them to maintain a semblance of decorum is to draw some of their blood.

I'm fucking sick of it. House Democrats should start sponsoring bills to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over the Violence Against Women Act, which was struck down in 2000 in United States vs. Morrison, or perhaps to strip the Court of jurisdiction over the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990, which was struck down in United States v. Lopez. Let's get some Republicans on record as pro-violence against women and pro-guns in schools. Charge up the discharge positions.

With the ideological tilt of the Rehnquist court there's scores of hideously unpopular decisions to score points off of. Let's get some wedge issues out there ourselves.

Because I'm a all-star forecaster, here are my predictions for the 2004 US Senate races.

Democrats not up for reelection: 30
Republicans not up for reelection: 36

Democratic incumbents who could not possibly lose:

Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Republican incumbents who could not possibly lose:

John McCain (R-AZ)
Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)

That brings us to 40 Democrats, 43 Republicans. That leaves 17 races to predict! Here we go.

Washington: Senator Patty Murray (D) versus Representative George Nethercutt (R)

Patty's a two-term incumbent, which usually means you're unassailable. George Nethercutt has a reputation as a giant slayer, however, due to his historic 1994 victory over sitting Speaker of the House Tom Foley. That said, Nethercutt comes from Eastern Washington when more votes are cast in Western Washington, and Western Washington is heavily Democratic. Senator Murray's led consistently in polls, has plenty of cash, and is running in a state that will likely go for Kerry, so she should win.

Murray wins - 41 Democrats, 43 Republicans

California: Senator Barbara Boxer (D) versus CA Secretary of State Bill Jones (R)

Barbara Boxer, originally elected in 1992, isn't as popular as Dianne Feinstein, but still outpolls Bill Jones consistently. California Republicans were hard pressed to find a good candidate, and they nominated a conservative in a liberal state. Kerry will win here easily, and so will Senator Boxer.

Boxer wins - 42 Democrats, 43 Republicans

Colorado: CO Attorney General Ken Salazar (D) versus beer magnate Pete Coors (R)

Before Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell bowed out of the race, this was a safe Republican seat. However, as an open seat it will be very competitive. Republicans didn't get their first choice of candidate for the Senate seat when Governor Bill Owens decided not to jump in, but Democrats did with Ken Salazar. He's a popular statewide politician who just won a solid reelection in 2002, and is Hispanic in a state whose demographic changes include a large influx of Hispanics.

Pete Coors is a conservative running a campaign based on his name ID, which is a disturbing trend in politics these days. He'll have plenty of money to run his race, but he seems somewhat gaffe prone and not all that well informed.

In the presidential race, Colorado is shaping up to be a swing state. That portends well for Salazar. He should win the race.

Salazar wins - 43 Democrats, 43 Republicans

Alaska: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) versus ex-Governor Tony Knowles (D)

Senator Murkowski was appointed by her father, Governor Frank Murkowski to her seat. That didn't go over too well with voters in Alaska, especially since her dad has made some unpopular moves in the statehouse. In addition, as a pro-choice Republican in a deeply conservative party, her base is not all that enthusiastic about her reelection. Still, Alaska is a state that will vote for George Bush by a wide margin.

Tony Knowles is a two term former Governor who figured out how to win two races in an incredibly Republican state. He's the strongest possible candidate the Democrats could have fielded, and he maintains high favorable ratings among Alaskans.

Polls consistently show Knowles with a tiny lead, and higher favorable ratings than the incumbent Senator. This usually means the incumbent is toast, but this is Alaska and it will probably go down to the wire. I, however, predict Tony Knowles will win.

Knowles wins - 44 Democrats, 43 Republicans

South Dakota: Senator Tom Daschle (D) versus ex-Representative John Thune (R)

Republicans really want this seat, as they can't stand Senate Minority Leader Daschle's effective leadership of the Democratic caucus. Polls are tight, usually showing Daschle with a small lead. Neither candidate has money problems, and even if they did, South Dakota is an extraordinarily cheap place to advertise.

South Dakota will go for Bush, but its voters recognize the advantages seniority provides to the state, and John Thune famously couldn't deliver drought relief to South Dakota's farmers in 2002, even though he touted his access to President Bush. The fact that the delegation is all Democratic (after the special election on May 1st of Stephanie Herseth) could be bad for Daschle, but John Thune couldn't beat Tim Johnson in 2002, a very Republican year. I don't see why he'd be able to take down Tom Daschle.

Daschle wins - 45 Democrats, 43 Republicans

Oklahoma: Representative Brad Carson (D) versus ex-Representative Tom Coburn (R)

Two guys who have both represented Eastern Oklahoma in Congress are squaring off for the seat of retiring Republican Don Nickles. Brad Carson is a conservative Democrat in a conservative state, and Tom Coburn is a extremely conserative Republican who makes some pretty loony statements, such as advocating the death penalty for abortion doctors (ironically, Coburn has performed abortions), and defending the rights of citizens to own bazookas.

Next to that, Brad Carson is a solid, middle-of-the-road Democrat. The polls show this race as a dead heat, with both candidates barely polling over 40%, but Carson is well-funded, whereas Tom Coburn has a lot of ground to make up after fighting an expensive primary race.

I think Tom Coburn's extremism will make it difficult for him to win this race. Brad Carson should win this race.

Carson wins - 46 Democrats, 43 Republicans

Missouri: Senator Kit Bond (R) versus MO State Treasurer Nancy Farmer

Bond hasn't faced a tough election challenge for twelve years now, and he won reelection comfortably in 1998. That said, his reputation as a moderate is undeserved, as he votes as partisanly as any other Republican in the US Senate.

His opponent is State Treasurer Nancy Farmer, who has raised a respectable amount of cash, but trails in the polls. Her challenge will be to increase her name recognition and convince people to pay attention in a battleground state where both presidential candidates will be campaigning heavily, and where there is an open seat battle for the Governorship.

It's possible that with a solid Kerry win, Nancy Farmer could upset Bond, but my instincts tell me Senator Bond will win reelection.

Bond wins - 46 Democrats, 44 Republicans

Wisconsin: Senator Russ Feingold (D) versus yet-to-be determined (R)

Russ Feingold is running for a third term in Wisconsin, with a record as a liberal, good-government type Democrat. He's most well known for cosponsoring the McCain-Feingold bill (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002), and for amassing a Paul Wellstone-esque voting record (like being on the short end of a 99-1 vote for passage of the USA PATRIOT Act).

His opponent will be the winner of a four-way primary to be held September 14th. There's a grab bag of third tier guys running to face Feingold, including a car dealer, a state senator, and a former nominee for WI Secretary of State.

Feingold's got enough money, he's got incumbency, and he's got popularity (his reelect poll numbers are solid). Wisconsin is a swing state, but I don't forsee a Feingold loss unless Bush wins in a landslide. Therefore I predict the reelection of Senator Feingold.

Feingold wins - 47 Democrats, 44 Republicans

Illinois: State Senator Barack Obama (D) versus talk show personality and perennial presidential candidate Alan Keyes (R)

Barack Obama is an up and coming star who swept to a huge victory in his March primary (over 50% in a multicandidate race), and then delivered a superb keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.

Keyes is a frequent candidate for public office whose views are incredibly extreme, and unpopular in a state that's trending as Democratic as Illinois.

Kerry will win big here, and so will Obama. Obama may win by such a large margin that he'll help defeat some vulnerable Republican house members, also.

Obama wins - 48 Democrats, 44 Republicans

Kentucky: Senator Jim Bunning (R) versus State Senator Dan Mongiardo (D)

Senator Bunning is a first term Senator who eked out a 1% victory in 1998. He has a conservative voting record, which is not a liability in a state like Kentucky. He is, however, undistinguished as a Senator, with no real accomplishments.

Dan Mongiardo is a State Senator and a doctor, but he unfortunately doesn't have the name recognition that former Governor Paul Patton had before he became tainted with a sex scandal.

This would be a hard race for Mongiardo to win, and he has trailed in the polls. Kentucky isn't incredibly Republican, but fairly solidly so. I predict the reelection of Jim Bunning.

Bunning wins - 48 Democrats, 45 Republicans

Ohio: Senator George Voinovich (R) versus State Senator Eric Fingerhut (D)

George Voinovich is a former Governor and the incumbent Senator. Eric Fingerhut lacks money, lacks name recognition, and lacks the time to solve these problems. Voinovich will win reelection.

Voinovich wins - 48 Democrats, 46 Republicans

Georgia: Representative Johnny Isakson (R) versus Representative Denise Majette (D)

Isakson is a relatively moderate Republican House member who won a contested primary easily. He's got lots of money to run his race.

Denise Majette is a freshman Democratic Representative from an Atlanta district. She's the first African-American woman to run for the Senate from Georgia, but she's having fundraising problems, and will have to swim hard against the tide in a solidly pro-Bush state.

This is the seat of the unhinged, incoherent turncoat Zell Miller. Georgia is trending Republican, and Democrats have virtually no hope of retaining this seat. The national party committees admit as much.

Isakson wins - 48 Democrats, 47 Republicans

South Carolina: Representative Jim DeMint (R) versus SC Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum (D)

This is the seat being vacated by ancient Senator Fritz Hollings, who as a Democrat managed to survive for forty-plus years in South Carolina.

Jim DeMint emerged from a primary and a run-off primary election, and is a sitting House member. He's pro-free trade in a protectionist state, and he has some zany tax ideas like the flat tax, but it remains to be seen if the voters will punish him for them.

Inez Tenenbaum is the most popular Democrat in an admittedly very Republican state. Still, she's the best Democrats could've hoped for. She's won election statewide with over 55% of the vote, and she's a solid moderate, independent Democrat.

Bush will win South Carolina by a landslide, and Tenenbaum may have a chance (she's led in some polls), but I predict Jim DeMint will win.

DeMint wins - 48 Democrats, 48 Republicans

North Carolina: Ex-Clinton Chief of Staff and 2002 Senate nominee Erskine Bowles (D) versus Representative Richard Burr (R)

Erskine Bowles managed to run a respectable race against now-Senator Elizabeth Dole in 2002, winning 45% of the vote in a banner Republican year. That set him up for a very competitive chance at winning the seat of outgoing Senator and Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards. His name recognition is high, and the Kerry-Edwards ticket has a decent shot at winning North Carolina.

Richard Burr is a House member who has had the advantage of being uncontested for the Republican nomination. He's been pretty under the radar thus far, running few ads, and he's trailed in the polls as a result. He will run more ads, and the race will tighten, but I think Bowles is the stronger candidate and will win.

Bowles wins - 49 Democrats, 48 Republicans

Pennsylvania: Senator Arlen Specter (R) versus Representative Joe Hoeffel (D)

Arlen Specter is a 24 year Senate veteran who survived a bruising primary to win renomination from his party, winning 50-49% over a conservative challenger. He easily won reelection in 1998 after a close race in 1992.

Joe Hoeffel is a two-term Congressman from Pennsylvania's 13th District, which is a swing district in the Philadelphia suburbs. He's demonstrated political acuity by winning tight elections there, but he is very unknown outside of his home region. Very few people outstate know his name, and he needs to raise a lot more to change that.

Arlen Specter has a (deserved or undeserved) reputation as a moderate, and he stole the endorsement of the PA AFL-CIO from Hoeffel. The race is Specter's to lose.

Specter wins - 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans

So now we get to the two races I have no idea how to handicap, but here goes anyhow.

Louisiana: Multicandidate field

Louisiana's open primary takes the place of the general election, meaning all candidates for an office run on the November ballot. If a candidate receives 50% of the vote outright, they win election, but if none break that threshold, there's a December run-off between the top two vote getters.

Republican David Vitter runs as the sole Republican in the race. He will make the run-off. On the Democratic side, Representative Chris John is outgoing Senator John Breaux's pick, and he should make the run-off.

This race likely could decide the composition of the Senate, seeing as my predictions have it at 49-49 right now. There is a recent precedent: in 2002 Senator Mary Landrieu (D) was forced into a run-off against a Republican, and won a fairly solid victory in the December vote.

Louisiana has never elected a Republican to the Senate, and for the pure sake of prediction, let's say they will not this election cycle. Chris John should win this seat in the run-off.

John wins - 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans

Florida: FL Education Commissioner Betty Castor (D) versus ex-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez (R)

On one hand, Florida has an overwhelming Republican state government and just reelected a Bush as governor in 2002. On the other, both its senators are Democrats, and Gore arguably won the state in 2000. The 2004 presidential race is a dead heat.

Betty Castor is widely regarded as the strongest candidate Democrats could've selected, and is a popular statewide politician. She's run a good campaign, and polls strongly. On the downside, there's ongoing innuendo regarding her tenure as an administrator at a Florida university where a professor was convicted of supporting terrorism. The rumors didn't stick in the primary, but the Republicans will probably be more aggressive.

Mel Martinez was the favorite candidate of the Bush/Karl Rove axis, and he won his primary handily over 2000 nominee Bill McCollum. He might tout some achievements as HUD Secretary, but let's be serious. What accomplishments?

Keeping with my belief that demographics are putting Florida out of Bush's reach, and the fact that Bill Nelson won in 2000 even as Gore "lost," I predict Betty Castor will be the next Floridian Senator.

Castor wins - 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans

So that brings our final total to 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans, which, of course is subject to change in the event of a Kerry win. (There would be a special election for the remainder of his term that started in 2002)

Yup. We'll see if I was right.

The Politics of Lawn Signs

It's that time of the year. Lawn signs supporting various candidacies are going up near street fronts across the country, only to be defaced or stolen within days. Homeowners resort to tactics like cameras, lighting, and threatening notes to protect their political expression, but it's for naught. The more hotly contested the race, the more certain it is the sign will be stolen or destroyed.

Overly zealous partisans may have good fun stealing the signs of their opponents, without realizing it's a bad idea.

First of all, how do the signs get there? Often times the signs haven't even been deposited at the behest of the homeowner. People can sign up as campaign volunteers months or years ago, and then will find the sign put there by the campaigns without asking.

Why does this matter? It means that people who may not be hardcore partisans are assenting to having signs on their lawns.

Here's where stealing signs is ill-advised for the opposition. The signs serve more of a cathartic purpose for their owners than they move votes of undecideds. For races like US Senate, or the Presidency, the race is already so high visibility that lawn signs aren't going to be convincing anyone one way or the other.

Stealing the signs, however, denies their owners their sense of self-expression. When you do that, you turn somewhat committed, somewhat likely voters into certain voters, once they feel aggrieved by the opposition. If they were not 100% certain to brave bad weather or long lines to vote before you stole their sign, they sure will once you do.

Local races is where stealing signs can have a demonstrable desireable effect. Low visibility races can be decided by name identification, with lawn signs being a critical component. With those signs, chances are their owners had little attachment to them anyhow, and the name ID the candidates represented would've received is likely more valuable than the hardening of partisanship on behalf of the sign's owner. Go ahead and steal signs for state representative if you must steal signs. Not that I advocate that.