Posts by John Nichols

John Nichols writes about politics for The Nation magazine as its Washington correspondent.

The Supreme Court's Unanimous Attack on the Voting Rights Act
Posted by John Nichols, TheNation.com on June 22, 2009 at 10:00 AM.

Once an election is done, it is hard to undo.

That's true in Iran, and it's also true in the United States.

This is why it is important to get the rules by which elections are held right before elections are held.

For this reason, one of the essential components of the Voting Rights Act -- arguably its most powerful tool for combating discrimination and disenfranchisement -- has long been a requirement that officials get approval from the Department of Justice before they change the way in which elections are conducted.

Allow states, counties, municipalities or school districts in the 16 states that are wholly or partially with historic patterns of discrimination to opt out of the review, and they will be able to organize and hold elections that renew those patterns. That's why the requirement has been referred to by law professors as "one of the crown jewels of the civil rights movement."

Foes of the Voting Rights Act have long focused on weakening Section 5 of the act, the provision that requires election officials in the states covered by the act to obtain federal permission before making changes to voting procedures, moving polling-place locations, requiring so-called "citizenship checks" and redrawing voting district lines. They rightly argued that to do so would remove the teeth from the measure that has long been disdained by southerners pining for the days before what former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott referred to as "all the laws of Washington" changed the way things were done in Dixie.

On Monday, the Supreme Court tarnished the crown jewel, giving state and local officials new flexibility to "opt out" of the requirement that they obtain permission when changing election rules. The court ruling does not invalidate the Voting Rights Act -- as some had feared -- but it does undermine it.

The court, with only one justice (Clarence Thomas) in partial dissent, said that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Austin, Texas, can avoid the advance approval requirement.

The ruling is being interpreted as a signal all local jurisdictions in a Voting Rights Act state can at least apply for what is referred to as "a statutory bailout."

That was a reversal of a lower federal court that had preserved the Voting Rights Act as it was intended to operate.

That's a dangerous move, say civil rights supporters.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Old Obama Vs. New Obama on Warrantless Wiretapping
Posted by John Nichols, TheNation.com on June 18, 2009 at 8:45 AM.

When Barack Obama was running for the United States Senate in 2004, he said that he saw U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, as his legislative role model.

Obama told me five years ago that he wanted to emulate Feingold as a defender of civil liberties and the Constitution, especially when it came to matters of protecting the right to privacy that was so under assault during the Bush-Cheney interregnum.

After his election as the junior senator from Illinois, Obama did work with Feingold on a number of issues and joined the Wisconsin progressive in boldly and unequivocally asserting that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program was "illegal".

But now, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has asserted in a speech, and restated in a response to a reporter's question, that Bush-Cheney warrantless wiretapping program "wasn't illegal."

Feingold wants to know which side the president is on; that of Senator Obama, who said warrantless wiretapping was "illegal" or that of the Obama administration intelligence director who says it "wasn't illegal."

Here's Feingold's latest letter to the president:

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to reiterate my request for you to formally and promptly renounce the assertions of executive authority made by the Bush Administration with regard to warrantless wiretapping. As a United States Senator, you stated clearly and correctly that the warrantless wiretapping program was illegal. Your Attorney General expressed the same view, both as a private citizen and at his confirmation hearing.

It is my hope that you will formally confirm this position as president, which is why I sent you a letter on April 29, 2009, urging your administration to withdraw the unclassified and highly flawed January 19, 2006, Department of Justice Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President ("NSA Legal Authorities White Paper"), as well as to withdraw and declassify any other memoranda providing legal justifications for the program. Particularly in light of two recent events, I am concerned that failure to take these steps may be construed by those who work for you as an indication that these justifications were and remain valid.

On June 8, Director of National Intelligence Blair asserted in a speech and in response to a question from a reporter that the warrantless wiretapping program "wasn't illegal." His office subsequently clarified that he did not intend to make a legal judgment and that he had meant to convey only that the program was authorized by the president and the Department of Justice. Nonetheless, Director Blair's remarks – which directly contravene your earlier position, as well as the position of Attorney General Holder – risk conveying to the Intelligence Community, whose job it is to explore legally available surveillance options, that not complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act may be such an option. Moreover, his "clarification" highlights the need to formally renounce the legal justification that the "White Paper" provides.

In addition, I asked your nominee to be General Counsel for the Director of National Intelligence, whether, based on the "White Paper" and other public sources, he believed that the warrantless wiretapping program was legal. His written response to my question, which was presumably vetted by your administration, indicated that, because the program was classified, he could not offer an opinion. Should he be confirmed, this position, too, risks conveying to the Intelligence Community that there may be classified justifications for not complying with FISA. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who has seen all of the legal justifications, classified and unclassified, that were offered in defense of the warrantless wiretapping program, I strongly disagree with this implication.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP Senators Waste Big Bucks Trying to Keep Franken Seat-less
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on February 17, 2009 at 1:22 PM.

It is now clear that Senate Republicans have a strategy for maintaining their ability to stall -- or, at the least, dramatically alter -- Obama administration initiatives.

Individual GOP senators are paying big bucks to keep the Senate's 100th seat -- representing Minnesota -- vacant for as long as possible.

In effect, key Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are paying $10,000 a piece to maintain their power to obstruct Congress.

Consider it an investment in the short-term future.

The partisan divide in the Senate is currently 58 Democrats (56 party members and two independents who caucus with the Democrats, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders) versus 41 Republicans.

That 41 figure is perilously close to the number that Republicans need to threaten filibusters. It takes 60 seats to invoke cloture and force action on legislation and appointments in the tradition-bound Senate.

If Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate Al Franken, who state officials determined weeks ago won the Senate seat by 225 votes, is seated it would be harder to block Senate deliberations. And with Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter -- a moderate, labor-friendly Republican who faces a tough reelection fight in a Democratic state next year showing a willingness to deal -- GOP Senate leaders well understand the vulnerability of their position.

So Republican senators are pouring money into the dead-end recount fight of former Senate Norm Coleman.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bono Gives Palestine an Inaugural Celebration Shout Out
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on January 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM.

The 'We Are One' Obama Inaugural Celebration concert at the Lincoln Memorial Sunday was carefully choreographed to be light on politics. This was always intended as a feel-good event, and it was.

But U2 frontman Bono gave the crowd at least a little something to think about.

Toward the end of the concert that drew half a million people to cheer Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger (singing a spirited "This Land Is Your Land"), Mary J. Blige, Stevie Wonder and the president-elect, U2 took the stage.

Before launching into "Pride (In The Name Of Love," the band's tribute to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.,) Bono noted that the crowd was gathered on the mall where King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech.

"Let freedom ring. On this spot where we're standing 46 years ago Dr. King had a dream. On Tuesday, that dream comes to pass," before launching into 'Pride (In The Name Of Love)', U2's tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"This is not just an American dream," he said, adding that it was "also an Irish dream, a European dream, an African dream... an Israeli dream... and also a Palestinian dream."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Eric Holder is an Alarming Pick for AG
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on November 18, 2008 at 7:35 PM.

Quick! Name the veteran Department of Justice insider who, shortly after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law as the Bush administration was proposing to further erode barriers to governmental abuses, said that dissenters should not be tolerated?

Who invoked September 11, explicitly referencing "the World Trade Center aflame," in calling for the firing of any "petty bureaucrat" who might suggest that proper procedures be followed and that the separation of powers be respected?

John Ashcroft? No.

Alberto Gonzales? No.

It was Eric Holder, the man who has reportedly been selected by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States.

Appearing on CNN in June, 2002, the former Clinton administration Justice Department aide sounded as if he had just stepped out of the Bush camp: "We're dealing with a different world now. Everybody should remember those pictures that we saw on September the 11th. The World Trade Centers aflame, the pictures of the Pentagon, and any time some petty bureaucrat decides that his or her little piece of turf is being invaded, get rid of that person. Those are the kinds of things we have to do."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Another Election Victory: Anti-Muslim Rep Goes Down in VA
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on November 9, 2008 at 11:30 AM.

The 2008 election is the gift that keeps on giving.

At the close of the week of Barack Obama's election to the presidency came the news that Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode -- one of the originators of the creepy politics that was used by the worst elements within the Republican Party to try and frighten voters about the Democratic nominee -- had been swept from office in the tide of Obama votes.

Goode, an otherwise obscure Republican, stirred a national controversy two years ago when he worried publicly about the precedent set by the election of a Muslim, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, to Congress. The Virginian declared in a letter to a constituent that "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Qur'an in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Qur'an."

Goode made several television appearances during which he pushed this line, even after it was pointed out to him that Ellison was born in the United States and traced his family's roots in this country back at least to 1742.

Goode left no doubt about his disdain for Islam and for its practitioners, declaring that "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped. The Ten Commandments and 'In God We Trust' are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Qur'an. My response was clear, 'As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Qur'an is not going to be on the wall of my office.'"

Predictably, Goode found a forum on Fox News, where he stood by his statements and said, without a hint of irony, that "I wish more people would take a stand and stand up for the principles on which this country was founded."

What made Goode's ignorance of those founding principles remarkable was the fact that he represents Virginia's Albemarle County, where Thomas Jefferson was born in 1743.

Ultimately, Keith Ellison countered Goode's attacks, with an assist from Jefferson.

The new Congressman from Minnesota declared his loyalty to the Constitution while clutching a copy of the Koran that was once owned by Jefferson. One of many Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist texts that the author of the Declaration of Independence donated to the Library of Congress at its founding, the Jefferson Koran was been loaned to Ellison by the rare book and special collections division of the library.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain's VP Pick: A Sarah Palin Head-Fake?
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on August 28, 2008 at 4:18 PM.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota says he will spending this day at the Minnesota State Fair. And now we hear that he has gotten the "sorry, pal" call from John McCain.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge was in suburban Washington this morning, grabbing a cup of coffee and heading out to get a haircut.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is getting ready to deal with another hurricane.

And Mitt Romney's not coming to Dayton, to which John McCain will quietly mutter, "Yippie!"

This morning, there was a great big buzz in the Dayton area, where presumptive Republican presidential candidate McCain is to announce his running-mate, about a private plane that arrived last night from Alaska.

John McCain and his campaign have sent a lot of signals about wanting to put a woman on the ticket.

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is not just a woman but, at 44, she is young enough to be McCain's daughter.

Palin's a smart, edgy pol who is exceptionally popular in Alaska. She's a conservative with a reputation as a reformer -- which has been somewhat tainted by scandals associated with her office.

Palin's married to a native Alaskan Yup'ik (an Eskimo people of western and southwestern Alaska), she's got a kid in the Army, she likes to hunt and fish, eats moose burgers, and has taken on establishment Republicans to elbow her way onto the political stage.

Palin would have been a smart if risky choice for McCain.

But, according to Palin's Washington office, she's still in Alaska.

So maybe we just saw the Sarah Palin head-fake.

Or maybe the head-fake was the suggestion that she isn't in the running.

Or maybe...

For the McCain camp, the back-and-forth is already serving a purpose.

The prospect of a surprise selection got all the cable networks to flip their coverage over from analyzing Barack Obama's speech to the Democratic National Convention and over to the speculation about McCain's VP pick.

Will Hillary Clinton Release her Delegates?
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on August 25, 2008 at 12:00 AM.

Will Hillary Clinton's name actually be placed in nomination for the presidency on the third day of the Democratic National Convention?

And if the senator's name is placed in nomination, will there be an actual roll-call vote? Or will a call be made for the nomination of Barack Obama by acclamation?

Those are the last open questions of the convention that will open Monday in Denver.

On Wednesday afternoon, at 1 p.m., Clinton will gather her delegates, alternates and allies at the Colorado Convention Center.

A crowd of 5,000 is expected, according to Clinton aides and allies.

Clinton could issue a call to arms. And she has an agreement with the Obama campaign to go forward with the nomination and roll-call.

But Clinton and her aides are worried.

Many of her delegates have formally endorsed Obama, and more than a few plan to vote for him on that first ballot.

There is open discussion in the Clinton camp about what the embarrassment level might be?

What if her vote were to fall below the 1,219 secured by the Rev. Jesse Jackson at the 1988 Democratic National Convention?

Or the 596 that former California Governor Jerry Brown received at the 1992 convention -- the last to see nominations and a roll-call involving challengers to the eventual nominee?

Clinton is unlikely to risk it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

VEEPWATCH: Obama Winning High-Stakes Expectations Game
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on August 22, 2008 at 12:41 PM.

Barack Obama is winning the vice presidential race.

No, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president is not preparing to flip his ticket position. He's winning the fight for the centerstage position that a well-managed roll-out of a veep prospect affords a president candidate.

Obama's got everyone waiting to learn the identity of his selection of a running mate for the 2008 Democratic ticket.

Television crews have cameras stationed outside the homes of the "possibles" and even some of the "impossibles." They're at the airport with cameras aimed at Obama's campaign plane.

It's a classic Obama Drama.

And guess who is watching most closely?

John McCain, the man Republicans will run against Obama in the fall.

Of the two major-party presidential contenders, McCain is the advantaged player in this high-stakes poker game.

The Republican gets to see the Democrat's hand hefore he has to show his own.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Ron Paul Gets Best Primary Finish Yet
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 30, 2008 at 10:50 AM.

After Hillary Clinton wraps up her campaign and Barack Obama stakes his uncontested claim on the Democratic presidential nomination -- something that could happen as soon as next week -- John McCain will still have a race on his hands for the Republican nod.

Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is running an anti-war, libertarian-themed challenge to the GOP establishment,refuses to quit.

Indeed, Paul is running better now than when the media was paying attention to the race for the GOP nod.

In Idaho, which held its primary Tuesday, Paul won almost a quarter of the vote -- his best percentage so far this year.

Final returns give Arizona Senator McCain just 70 percent support from Idaho Republicans -- not a very impressive figure for a man who has been the presumptive party nominee since February.

Paul, who has made it clear that he does not intend to endorse McCain, took 24 percent.

Six percent picked "uncommitted" -- in other words, nobody -- over McCain.

Paul gains five delegates from Idaho, adding to the base his campaign hopes to use to force platform debates at this summer's Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

And Paul's not done yet.

He's been to Montana, where he has attracted big-name endorsements and substantial support for his effort to finish strong in the state's "beauty contest" primary on June 3. Paul's also got a campaign going in South Dakota, which votes the same day. And his supporters are packing state conventions in other states, still seeking to win delegates -- and, with them, to make the GOP convention a whole lot more interesting than the Democratic gathering.

Obama Claims Delegate Victory; Clinton Stays In
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 21, 2008 at 5:00 AM.

Barack Obama may have reached what he describes as "a major milestone on this journey" up the 2008 campaign trail. The senator from Illinois has now secured a majority of the "pledged" delegates to be chosen in the party's primaries and caucuses.

Citing that achievement, Obama told wildly cheering supporters in Des Moines that he was now "within reach of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States of America."

But Hillary Clinton is not going to let him grab the prize this week.

The lady is not quitting this contest just yet.

The pressure on Clinton to finish her run for the Democratic presidential nomination has been intense. And it will get more intense now that the results from Tuesday's primaries in Kentucky (a loss for the Illinoisan) and Oregon (a win for the Illinoisan) have given Obama that pledged-delegate majority. The senator from New York's keeping her campaign afloat by writing checks out of her own account. And she's watching from the sidelines as Obama and Republican John McCain launch their fall campaigns against one another.

But there is one ironclad rule when it comes to races for presidential nominations: You don't quit when you are winning primaries.

And Clinton has won another primary by a lopsided margin.

The former first lady took 65 percent of the vote in Kentucky to just 30 percent for Obama -- almost as overwhelming win as she secured last week in West Virginia. That victory had her crowing Tuesday night that, "It's not just the Kentucky bluegrass that music to my ears -- it's the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence even in the face of tough odds."

"You've never given up on me, because you know I've never given up on you," told her cheering supporters in a speech that will be repeated as she moves her campaign on to Puerto Rico (where she should do well) and the last primary states of Montana and South Dakota (where Obama's probably a little ahead).

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Kennedy's Fight and the Democratic Void
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 20, 2008 at 12:46 PM.

The big political story today will not come from Oregon or Kentucky.

It has arrived, already, from Boston.

Ted Kennedy is seriously ill. The seizures he suffered over the weekend were related to a malignant brain tumor that, depending on its seriousness, could end his tenure in the Senate.

Doctors treating the senior Senator announced today that "preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain identified the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma in the left parietal lobe." Translation: the 76-year-old champion of civil right, labor rights, health care, education and a sane foreign policy is heading into the most serious fight of his life. A doctor says, "The usual course of treatment for Kennedy's type of tumor includes radiation and chemotherapy."

How successful that treatment will be depends on how advanced his condition has become.

Kennedy is reportedly "in good spirits and full of energy." And it is probably fair to say that if anyone can beat a tumor, it is this epic persona. But Kennedy, who has been a critical player in defining liberal Democratic politics for better part of fifty years, is likely to be sidelined at what will be an essential moment for the causes and ideals he has promoted for so very long.

Democrats are on the march, poised to gain control of both the White House and the Congress for the first time since 1994--and, perhaps, for the first extended period since Kennedy came to Congress in the 1960s.

His candidate for President, Barack Obama, is about to secure the Democratic nomination. Voters in Oregon are expected to give the Illinois senator a solid win tonight, while voters in Kentucky back New York Senator Hillary Clinton. When all is said and done, Obama will move to within touching distance of the nomination.

That nomination, which will come by acclamation, will be made at this summer's convention in Denver.

Since 1972, Kennedy has delivered the loudest, the boldest and often the most moving addresses at the quadrennial gatherings of what is in so many senses his party.

The question, today, is whether the liberal lion can roar once more at a Democratic National Convention.

The hope, surely, is that he will.

Obama-Backing Edwards Elbows Aside Clinton
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 15, 2008 at 3:52 AM.

It was a weary and wistful Hillary Clinton who sat down with CNN's Wolf Blitzer and other network anchors for extended interviews in the middle of the day Wednesday. She knew that, no matter what she said, and how well she said it, it would not be enough.

Like the coronation march that her 2008 campaign was supposed to be, her latest gambit would be trumped by Barack Obama's juggernaut.

Yes, she had just been handed a face-saving landslide win by West Virginia Democrats, beating Obama by more than 2-1 in an honest-to-goodness swing state. But Clinton did not seem to be fighting very hard on a day when her senior campaign adviser, Harold Ickes, was disptached to Capitol Hill to reassure congressional supporter that the former frontrunner would remain in the race through June 3.

Clinton used her precious spotlight time to defend Obama as a friend of Israel, describe his supporters as people who thought he would be the best president and promised to "work my heart out for whoever our nominee is." Indeed, if she made news Wednesday, it was with a seeming show of openness to an as-yet-unoffered place on an Obama-led ticket. Clinton did not dismiss the vice-presidential talk – and she certainly did not resort to the old dig of suggesting she might have a place on her ticket for the senator from Illinois – she simply it was "premature" to talk about what she would be doing after her campaign was done.

Perhaps it was. But only by a few hours.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

John McCain: Eco-Warrior
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 13, 2008 at 8:19 AM.

Yikes, it's really true. John McCain is running for president as a tree-hugging liberal.

No, not an all-the-time environmentalist -- rather, as a swing-state-savvy, targeted-message-peddling, hoping-to-pick-up- the-votes-of-lifestyle-liberals-who-want-to-address-climate- change-on-the-cheap murky-shade-of-green Republican.

So, today, in the battleground state of Oregon, where a reverence for the outdoors requires that Republican contenders greenwash their appeals, McCain's campaign will begin airing a new television commercial that essentially says: "Look, I'm not like George Bush and Dick Cheney. I don't live in la-la land when it comes to global warming. I actually believe in something I like to call 'science.'"

The senator -- who broke a little bit with Bush and Cheney on environmental issues, but who never really lined up with the serious Republican environmentalists who were isolated by the administration and burn-the-planet GOP leaders like Tom DeLay -- is reinforcing the message with a major campaign swing through the northwest, where he hopes to put the sometimes swinging states of Oregon and Washington in play by presenting himself as John McCain: Eco-Warrior.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee swept into Portlandon Monday to deliver a major address outlining his plan to "re-establish America's environmental leadership in the world." Here's a hint about how he'll do it: The McCain campaign says the candidates wants to "mobilize market forces."

That may sound good, but as Gene Karpinski, the president of the bipartisan League of Conservation Voters, says, "To his credit, Senator McCain wants to do something serious about global warming, but his proposal falls far short of what the science says we need to do today. He has not substantively improved his plan over the bill he introduced years ago -- legislation that the science now shows is out of date."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Barack Obama's Very Good Primary Night
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation on May 7, 2008 at 3:47 AM.

The last really good primary night for Barack Obama was February 19, when the senator from Illinois won the Wisconsin primary by a 58-41 margin.

Since then, the candidate who has been on the verge of claiming the Democratic presidential nomination for so very long has struggled to "close the deal."

He did not close it Tuesday night.

But he did have his best finish since February. And that finish all but assures that this most unlikely presidential contender will soon secure the nomination of his party.

The headlines may suggest that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton split Tuesday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana -- with North Carolina for Obama and Indiana for Clinton.

But it was not an even split.

As Obama secured a landslide win in North Carolina, Clinton barely prevailed in her firewall state of Indiana.

In North Carolina, Obama was ahead 56-42. His popular vote advantage was more than 230,000.

In Indiana, Clinton squeezed out a 50.5 to 49.5 win. Her popular vote advantage was barely 20,000.

Bottom Line No. 1: Obama has come out of a night that was supposed to be a mixed one for him with a solid boost in his delegate total. He now leads Clinton by almost 150 pledged delegates and the gap is widening.

Bottom Line No. 2: Barack Obama has finished the night with a tremendous improvement in his popular vote total -- a boost so significant that it now seems all but certain that he will finish the primary competition with an overall popular-vote advantage.

That's very bad news for Clinton, who really needed to narrow the margin in the delegate race and improve her popular vote position if she was going to make an effective appeal to wavering super delegates.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »