Good morning folks,
Do our laws matter? It’s an important question, one that could have political ramifications in 2014.
Last night Charles Krauthammer pointed out that these days, the law exists in President Obama’s head. He then contrasted the coverage of President Obama going around the law, recalling “when Republicans were trying to change the law, legally and constitutionally, in Congress they were accused of being terrorists, taking the country hostage, when they were saying let’s amend the law as written.”
“Where is the mainstream media on this?” wondered Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard. “Can you imagine if this were George W. Bush? I mean, we would be talking about a constitutional crisis, front page New York Times splashed above the fold, ‘George W. Bush: Dictator President.’ You’re seeing none of that.”
Not only don’t the President or Democrats in Congress feel compelled to explain going around the laws in the name of ‘executive action,’ they actually celebrate and raise money off it. Richard Nixon once told interviewer David Frost that “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Aren’t President Obama actions to unilaterally change or delay ObamaCare, or to excuse political profiling by the IRS, or repeatedly violate budget deadlines written into law cut from this Nixonian doctrine? George Will has argued that Obama’s lawless actions are actually worse. “Nixon’s claim was confined to matters of national security or (he said to Frost) ‘a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude.’ Obama’s audacity is more spacious; it encompasses a right to disregard any portion of any law pertaining to any subject at any time when the political ‘environment’ is difficult.” He has a point.
Senator Ted Cruz has repeatedly pointed out a “pattern of lawlessness” by the Obama Administration, noting that “if a president can pick and choose which laws to follow, he’s no longer a president.”
Today, The Hill newspaper reports that facing electoral defeat in November, Democrats like Kay Hagan, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Pryor and Mark Begich want to use the IRS to silence those who disagree with them politically. Once again, the suggestion of going around the law to benefit politically. The Hill reports, “Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist, called for the IRS to curb political spending by outside groups during a major speech on how to blunt the impact of conservative donors…” Apparently now ignoring the law to blunt the impact of rival political opinions is acceptable.
So do our laws matter? Sounds like we’ll find out soon enough.
Seize the day,
Brad Dayspring
@BDayspring
Brook Hougesen
@Brook_H
2014 BATTLEGROUND SONAR
(2014) Vulnerable Dems want IRS to step up
Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races. In the wake of the IRS targeting scandal, the Democrats are publicly prodding the agency instead of lobbying them directly. They are also careful to say the IRS should treat conservative and liberal groups equally, but they’re concerned about an impending tidal wave of attack ads funded by GOP-allied organizations. Much of the funding for those groups is secret, in contrast to the donations lawmakers collect, which must be reported publicly.
(MICHIGAN) Cash, buzz are going Land’s way
Money draws money. Nowhere is that truer than in politics, as perfectly illustrated by Michigan’s U.S. Senate race. Terri Lynn Land entered the contest as the Republican Party’s last, best choice, after other candidates the GOP deemed more desirable opted out. But she brought with her a resume of winning statewide races in Michigan, and $5 million of her own money. It was the cash that caught everyone’s attention.
(COLORADO) Don’t let Mark Udall’s Obamacare scandal slide
The political damage of Obamacare continues to mount, with a spreading scandal now enveloping Democratic Sen. Mark Udall. It appears that Udall staffers attempted to bully Jo Donlin, the director of external affairs for the Colorado Insurance Division, after her office reported that health insurance policies of 250,000 Coloradans had been canceled because of coverage mandates under the Affordable Care Act.
(LOUISIANA) Landrieu Pounded Over ObamaCare in new ads
Republican-aligned groups continued Wednesday pounding Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in a new round of television and web-based commercials, for her support of Obamacare. Americans for Prosperity started a new television advertisement that claims Louisiana residents have been hurt by the federal healthcare revamp. The commercials cost $750,000 to air statewide for three weeks. “That brings our total on Obamacare accountability ads to $2.6 million since October,” said Phillip Joffrion, AFP-Louisiana state director. The latest ad features people opening their mailboxes and finding out their insurers are changing their plans, increasing their premiums and deductibles and losing access to their doctors. It urges people to call Landrieu and tell her “how much this law is hurting Louisiana families.”
Guess Which Issue Is Missing from Sen. Landrieu’s Campaign Site?
(NORTH CAROLINA) HYPOCRISY ALERT: Hagan upset about outside group attacks against her, but okay with outside group attacks on her behalf
Vulnerable Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan shrugged off the massive amounts of money being spent in her race by a group backed by the Koch brothers, saying her state’s residents will stop them from trying to “buy” her seat in the Senate. “The people in North Carolina are not going to let the billionaire Koch brothers buy this seat,” Hagan said on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes” on Wednesday night.
(MONTANA) New Ad Hits John Walsh on Cronyism, Scandals
Less than 24 hours after being sworn in as Montana’s newest U.S. senator, John Walsh is the subject of an attack ad, and he’s countering it with an ad of his own. American Crossroads, a political action committee associated with longtime Republican strategist Karl Rove, is spending $125,000 on the 30-second spots attacking Walsh. They’re airing in Missoula, Helena and Billings. In a press release, American Crossroads president Steven Law said, “Gov. (Steve) Bullock could have chosen anyone to fill Sen. (Max) Baucus’ massive shoes, yet he chose a political crony with a millstone of controversy around his neck. It creates the appearance that Gov. Bullock is just kicking Walsh upstairs, and telling Montana that Walsh is no longer his problem.” The ad doesn’t explain the reason for the reprimand, which was that Walsh used government resources to solicit Guard members to join the National Guard Association of the United States, potentially boosting his own status within that organization.
(VIRGINIA) Mark Warner by 6?!
, . Jonathan Collegio of American Crossroads says that “it’s entirely possible” the race is this close. “So many Democrats are weak right now, and Warner’s support is a mile wide and inch deep,” he argues. …those who said the race would not be competitive should be reassessing the race. It is entirely possible, as Collegio puts it, that “this race could end up being a barn burner.” And if Mark Warner has a fight on his hands, what does this say about the seven Democrats — all of whom voted for Obamacare – who have to run in states (West Virginia, South Dakota, Arkansas, Montana, Louisiana, North Carolina and Alaska) that Mitt Romney carried in 2012?
RPV Launches MarkWarnerRecord.com
POLLING BRIEF
The Fox News poll – February 9-11, 2014
58 percent believe the worst is yet to come in terms of our economy.
74 percent think the president using executive orders to get around Congress is not how things are supposed to work in our country. That includes 54 percent of Democrats.
Large majorities of independents (80 percent) and Republicans (93 percent) believe it goes against our system for the president to act independently to advance his policies.
Even when asked to set aside their views on how the government is supposed to work, by a wide 60-37 percent margin voters still disapprove of Obama going around Congress.
Almost all Republicans disapprove of Obama acting without lawmakers (90 percent), as do two-thirds of independents (66 percent).
Democrats approve by a 66-31 percent margin.
Overall, about one voter in five approves of Obama’s use of executive orders even though they don’t believe it’s the way things are supposed to work.
ON THE TWITTERS
@jameshohmann - Escalation: NRSC political dir/Marine @WardBaker hits DSCC over military-service-related tweets. https://twitter.com/WardBaker/status/433710689186623488 …
@WardBaker - .@JustinBarasky This coming from a flack who has never served, but attacks service & motives of T. Cotton, D. Sullivan & J. Ernst #Hypocrite
@SeanTrende - PPP has a 1-pt race in LA with an electorate that went Romney by 14. Actually went Romney by 17. Unlikely to get POTUS electorate in ’14.
@StewSays - Apparently Dems want the #IRS to go after political opponents in their races. http://bit.ly/1aYh6a5 @TheHill
@NRSC - VIDEO: Yesterday was not the last time Democrat Senator @JohnWalsh will be sworn-in this year… #lawsuits http://bit.ly/1boQXSd #mtsen
@Frank_Underwood - Tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/4WxH5ERR0m
NATIONAL RADAR
(POLITICO) The Whatever President
We were told that President Obama would wield his executive power this year to defy Congress. Instead, he is defying his own health-care law. The Obama administration announced this week it is delaying and changing the law’s employer mandate, the latest in a series of seat-of-the-pants revisions to Obamacare. The president was eager to highlight steps he was taking to bypass Congress in his State of the Union last month, but left this one out. If he had demanded congressional action to delay the employer mandate, he surely would have gotten a bipartisan bill on his desk forthwith. Maybe we should revise his call for executive unilateralism in his speech: “If Congress will act … I still prefer to act on my own.”
(WALL STREET JOURNAL) For Many, Few Health-Plan Choices, High Premiums on Online Exchanges
Analysis Shows Americans in Poorer Counties Have Limited Options on Health-Care Exchanges Hundreds of thousands of Americans in poorer counties have few choices of health insurers and face high premiums through the online exchanges created by the health-care law, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of offerings in 36 states. Consumers in 515 counties, spread across 15 states, have only one insurer selling coverage through the online marketplaces, the Journal found. In more than 80% of those counties, the sole insurer is a local Blue Cross & Blue Shield plan. Residents of wealthier, more populated counties in the U.S. receive lower-priced choices than those living in counties with a single insurer.
(FOX NEWS) Fox News Poll: Voters don’t like President Obama bypassing Congress
When President Barack Obama took an unplanned stop on the tour of Thomas Jefferson’s home Monday, he joked to French President Francois Hollande, “That’s the good thing as a president — I can do whatever I want.” The remark made headlines because Obama’s critics have long said he acts like he really believes that. Among the most recent examples, they cite Obama’s State of the Union declaration that he plans to take policy actions “with or without Congress” — and this week’s White House announcement that it is delaying another key deadline in the health care law Congress passed in 2010. Americans say not so fast, Mr. President.
(THE HILL) Before O-Care debacle, Sebelius made many trips to White House
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was in frequent contact with President Obama and senior White House aides before the disastrous launch of the federal ObamaCare exchange last year. While Sebelius has said the president was not aware of HealthCare.gov’s problems, more than 750 pages of documents obtained by The Hill through a Freedom of Information Act request show she made scores of visits to the White House. The documents reveal that Sebelius met with or attended calls and events with Obama at least 18 times between Oct. 27, 2012, and Oct. 6, 2013, including at least seven instances in which the two were scheduled to discuss the new healthcare law, according to the secretary’s draft schedules.