presidential election – Page 23

Reigning in capital punishment, again

The U.S. Supreme Court, by the customarily narrow margin of 5-4, drew a line in the sand on the death penalty, rejecting laws that allow judges to sentence child rapists to death.

The issue at hand was a case in Louisiana in which Patrick Kennedy appealed the death sentence handed down after he was convicted in the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

The court ruled that the sentence was excessive and violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The court went beyond the question in the case to rule out the death penalty for any individual crime — as opposed to “offenses against the state,” such as treason or espionage — “where the victim’s life was not taken.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said there was “a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons,” even such “devastating” crimes as the rape of a child, on
the other.

I am a death-penalty opponent, as readers of my blog and columns know, and I would have prefered that the court finally toss out capital punishment completely. But I’ll have to settle for this.

As for how the decision will affect my presidential vote (ha ha) or the vote of the nation, consider these disturbing and disappointing responses from the two men who are vying to take over the nation’s highest office:

Both presidential candidates criticized the death penalty decision. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, said: “That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing” He called the decision “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.”

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said, “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, that the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution.” He added that the Supreme Court should have set conditions for imposing the death penalty for the crime, “but it basically had a blanket prohibition, and I disagree with the decision.”

Quote of the day: Fear card edition

Charles Black, Republican John McCain’s chief campaign strategist, offered a glimpse into the mind of the GOP’s mind earlier this week when he let slip, during a Fortune magazine profile of his boss, that “one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy.”

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event,” says
Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is
the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black
concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist
attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.

This may carry a kernel of truth, but it still comes across as creepy fearmongering. Which brings me to Juan Cole. Writing on his Informed Comment blog, he slaps the campaign down, linking it to seven years of President Bush and Co. playing to our fears and calling for a different direction:

We don’t need any more of this politics of fear that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Bush gave to us. That McCain has such people around him is yet another indication that he is too close to Bush and Bushism to be allowed anywhere near the White House.

Nuff said.

Obama and the public-financing quandary

Barack Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially opt out of the federal public campaign-finance system — which a New York Times analysis paints as “the most critical threat to its survival.”

But is it?

The story outlines some history, but ignores the reality of the last two presidential races — campaigns in which the major-party candidates went private during the primaries, building up huge warships and spending oodles of cash before opting in after the party conventions.

And the story’s most damning quote —

“Obama’s decision may not be the death knell of public financing, but it certainly is close to it,” said Anthony J. Corrado Jr., a campaign finance expert and professor of government at Colby College. “Public financing has become a system of last resort, rather than the jewel of the campaign finance system. Rather than being a source of funds, candidates accept public money kicking and screaming.”

— is really a comment full of nuance that deserved more context. Its implication is that the system is not working, that candidates only participate because they believe they must.

In fact, the story’s most significant comment comes at the end:

“The reality is that the amount of money that comes from the government is not enough to run a modern presidential campaign,” said Larry Makinson, a consultant to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington group that tracks campaign donations. “The amount Obama has raised from small contributors has been unprecedented. There has never been an infusion of small dollar donors like this.

“And,” Mr. Makinson said, “he got there by snubbing the campaign finance system.”

Obama’s arguments — that his fundraising apparatus, by collecting millions of small donations, acts as a shadow public-financing system; that

the public financing apparatus was broken and that his Republican opponents were masters at “gaming” the system and would spend “millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations” smearing him.

— is both fact-based and disingenuous. It is doubtful, after all, that he would have opted out if he did not believe he could out raise his opponent by a significant margin.

And, as the Times notes in its main bar, the GOP’s “527 advantage” may not materialize this year.

It also is doubtful that John McCain would be making such a big deal out of this if he wasn’t having such difficulty raising money himself. After all, McCain has been trying to play both sides of this issue for months, taking out a loan to keep his primary campaign going — using the promise of public funds as collateral — and then backing away when he appears to win the nomination and set his financial house in order.

The issue here has less to do with the candidates anyway than with the system itself. If we want it to work, we need to expand it dramatically and provide it with a legitimate and recurring source of funding. We need to provide free television and radio time to help reduce the costs and we need to look at 527s — independent groups that can spend whatever they want — to see if they can be policed without infringing on their First Amendment rights.

Defense of the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Supreme Court has slapped down the Bush administration “for a third time for its handling of the rights of terrorism detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying those in custody there have a constitutional right to challenge their captivity in federal courts.”

The presidential candidates weighed in following the decision, with predictable responses that should offer a clear direction for voters concerned about the constitution.

Don’t bet on it, Johnny

John McCain is opening a campaign office in New Jersey — a sign the Associated Press says shows that the Republican presidential hopeful thinks the state is in play in November.

State Sen. Bill Baroni, state chairman for McCain’s campaign and the senator representing Cranbury, Jamesburg, Monroe and South Brunswick, thinks so.

McCain has a shot here, Baroni said, because his moderate stance on many issues. McCain’s plan to deal with global warming, for instance, is more appealing to the state’s unaffiliated voters and more moderate Republicans than those of President Bush and other more conservative politicians.

“John McCain is the kind of candidate that New Jersey has always taken to,” Baroni said, “Independent, a maverick.”

McCain supporters are also encouraged because Hillary Rodham Clinton handily defeated Barack Obama in the state’s Feb. 5 primary election.

“I certainly think a number of Sen. Clinton’s supporters are what have always been Reagan Democrats,” Baroni said. “They voted for Ronald Reagan, they voted for Bill Clinton and they voted for Hillary Clinton. They’re clearly a target for John McCain.”

That’s being overly optimistic. As the AP Story also points out,

The last Republican presidential candidate to carry New Jersey was George H.W. Bush in 1988. And no Republican has been elected to statewide office here since Christie Whitman was re-elected as governor in 1997.

Polls are showing the race to be close, but then the 2006 U.S. Senate race was considered a toss-up in the final weeks of the campaign — and the Democrat, Robert Menendez, managed a double-digit win.

That, the political analysts quoted by the AP, is the likely scenario come this November. They say

the time and money McCain’s campaign is spending here is not likely to pay off in a place that usually votes Democratic.

“New Jersey likes to flirt with being independent,” said Patrick Murray, director of The Polling Institute at Monmouth University. “In the end, we like to revert to our Democratic norm.”

Ross Baker, of Rutgers University, offers a similar take.

(A) demographic shift has moved New Jersey from a toss-up to a solidly Democratic one, he said.

“Republicans periodically cast an envious eye on New Jersey and say, ‘We can win this state,'” Baker said. “It turns out they never can.”