Who’s smearing whom?

Revisiting this issue of which party is doing the smearing, James Kirchick made some good points in a piece he wrote for Politico earlier this week.

Addressing the numerous accusations from the media, key Democrats, and candidate Obama himself that McCain and the GOP would resort to smear tactics in the general election, Kirchick points out: “Thus far, no one with any serious affiliation to John McCain’s campaign has resorted to the alleged ’scare’ tactics in which Republicans — and, apparently, only Republicans — have been perfecting since Richard Nixon was first elected. On the contrary, if the past few months have showed us anything, it’s that the Obama campaign is the one dealing in crude smears.”

As I point out last week, the notion that it is Republicans who have a stranglehold on the smear-producing 527 organizations is a fallacy. And as Chris Brooks pointed out Monday, it’s “business as usual for the Democratic spin doctors.”

I’m not one to pretend that the right-wing is immune to hitting the spin cycle button, but let’s be honest about who is, and isn’t, smearing, spinning, and generally resorting to political-tactics-as-usual this summer.

Battleground: Ohio

Note: The first in a series of profiles of key battleground states in the 2008 election

Ohio. It is the state that is so similar to other key swing states in the Rust Belt of the nation’s midsection. And, yet, it has been so different as of late. In 2000, when Michigan and Pennsylvania were voting for Al Gore, Ohio was voting narrowly for George W. Bush. And in 2004, when Michigan and Pennsylvania were voting for John Kerry, Ohio was again voting narrowly for George W. Bush.

For that reason, Ohio is the state many pundits feel John McCain must capture if he is to defeat Barack Obama for the presidency. Lose Ohio, and the entire race is lost. Win Ohio, and hope lives at least until the next state’s results are returned. Such a scenario for victory cannot be too comfortable for the McCain camp, since polls consistently find Obama leading in the Buckeye State. Yet, for all intent and purpose, the race in Ohio is a virtual deadlock.

The Real Clear Politics poll average finds Obama leading McCain by 4.5 percentage points in Ohio. Yet, that result is largely skewed by a Democrat-tilted poll by the Public Policy Polling group. The poll, conducted in mid-June, shows Obama enjoying an 11 point lead. However, the poll’s respondants included 55% Democrats and just 30% Republicans.

With the PPP poll thrown out, the poll average quickly dips to a 2.3% lead for Obama, within the margin of error.

A Quinnipiac poll, also conducted in mid-June, finds Obama leading McCain by 6 points in Ohio. However, a series of swing state polls released by Quinnipiac on the same day also found Obama favoring better in Florida (leading McCain by 4 points) and Pennsylvania (up 12 points) than other polls have found.

Meanwhile, the most recent SurveyUSA poll finds Obama leading McCain by 2 points in Ohio, while the most recent Rasmussen poll finds McCain leading Obama by a point. Both polls are within the margin of error.

While the polls have trended more in favor of Obama since earlier in the year, the bottom line is that the Buckeye State is still very much in play.

Although it’s not necessarily an indicator of how the general election will swing, Obama — as in Pennsylvania — lost badly to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary in Ohio last spring. Clinton scored a double-digit win over Obama.

Meanwhile, McCain sees an opportunity to capitalize on Ohio’s rural Appalachian region, and will campaign there with a town hall appearance shortly after the Independence Day holiday. The Appalachian region twice threw its support to Bush, helping to tilt the state in the Republicans’ favor both times.

But Obama isn’t throwing in the hat in Ohio. He visited Ohio twice last month, and will try to capitalize on a general feeling of misease over such issues as the economy and the war in Iraq. Good news came for Obama when McCain visited a Lordstown, Ohio, General Motors plant last week and his visit was virtually boycotted by workers. However, Turnbull County, in which Lordstown is located, favored Kerry over Bush in 2004 by an overwhelming 24-point margin.

Both candidates will spend much time — and money — in Ohio over the next 4 months. To win Ohio, many pundits say, McCain must capture support from white, rural Democrats. But it could be as simple as maintaining the Buckeye voter base that George W. Bush captured in 2000 and 2004. Given the state of the economy in rural Ohio, there are unlikely to be many “Reagan Democrats” pulling the lever for McCain in November, but then again, the days of Reagan Democrats were over before Bush won there in ‘00.

Racism to doom Obama in South?

In an op-ed in today’s New York Times, University of Maryland professor Thomas Schaller opines that Barack Obama’s strategy to turn a few red states blue is fatally flawed by bad math.

I agree with Schaller’s general premise — Obama will have a hard time wresting control of the South away from the GOP. But the reasoning behind Schaller’s argument is as fatally flawed as Obama’s campaign in the South.

For all the statistics and figures he uses, Schaller presents a point-of-view that is surprisingly shallow. Tucked beneath his math about why the South will, as he puts it, “fall again,” he seems to present the argument that Southerners vote Republican because they harbor a deep-rooted racism.

Beginning with the 2nd paragraph of his column, Schaller repeatedly throws in the word “Confederate” when referring to the South, going so far as to say that Virginia is on the verge of “seceding from the Confederacy” because of an insurgency of “upscale non-Southerners” into the D.C. suburbs of northern Virginia. Well, goshums, Ma, I guess all of us’ums Rebs down here in Gen’ral Lee country got a diff’rent mindset than them thar upscale Yanks, cause we harbor racial tendencies. What’s harbor mean, anyway, Ma?

Schaller argues that Obama cannot win Mississippi because, as his mouth shows, he would need to convince 21% of the whites there to support him. That won’t happen, he argues, because “only 14% of white voters in the state supported Mr. Kerry.” And we all know that if John Q. Caucasian didn’t support John Kerry, he sure ain’t supportin’ a black man, don’t we? Don’t we?

Schaller’s racially-tinged argument seems to be a give-away when he argues that “Passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act led to an upsurge in black voting in the South, but it also caused many white Southerners to register and vote as well — for the Republicans.” In other words, white Southerners vote Republican because Democrats support civil rights.

Well, let’s make 2 things perfectly clear: White Southerners typically vote Republican. And there will be some who will not vote for Barack Obama because of his skin color (just as there are some black Southerners who will not vote for John McCain because of his skin color . . . or to put it more aptly, those folks will vote for either candidate because of his skin color).

But let’s put aside the throwbacks to a war that happened 140 years ago and a segregation movement that ended nearly a half-century ago and examine why Southerners really vote Republican. Thomas Schaller is a product of the Washington-Baltimore-Annapolis metroplex. I’ve spent 29 years living among Southerners. I think I know what makes us tick. And I’m surprised that it even has to be pointed out that Southerners vote Republican because of — brace yourselves — religion.

This is the Bible Belt, and it is for a reason: Folks vote their conscience, and their conscience is guided by their morals, and their morals are obtained from Biblical teachings. One may feel that it’s misguided to bring social issues into politics, and that’s one’s prerogorative. I have no intent of making a too long post even longer by delving into the merits or lack thereof of placing more importance on a social agenda than on the economy, healthcare and education. I’m simply telling you that this is the way it’s been here, and has been since the Moral Majority initiative of Jerry Falwell. Folks in these parts didn’t need Rev. Falwell to tell them that they opposed abortion and gay marriage; They believed that long before and would’ve voted accordingly, but were blissfully unaware of the importance of such issues in politics until Falwell’s day.

Folks around here didn’t vote for George W. Bush because Al Gore was a former 2nd in command to the man who wore the title of “America’s First Black President” proudly on his sleeve. They voted for George W. Bush because Bush wore his Christianity and social conservatism on his sleeve. There were other reasons, too, of course — Southerners tend to own guns and more Democrats than not tend to oppose unrestricted gun rights, and there are other minor issues as well. But I would argue that social conservatism is the key persuasion of the Southern vote.

Clock back 32 years, to Jimmy Carter’s victory in the 1976 presidential election. Carter was a Democrat, just a decade removed from the civil rights legislation that Schaller contends caused Southerners to rise up in support of Republicans, and Carter swept the South, with the exception of Virginia. Why Carter? Why a Democrat in these shark infested waters of tainted by racism and Democratic disdain? Carter was a native son, of course, but the election wasn’t that simple. Carter, like George Bush 24 years later, wore his religion on his sleeve — perhaps moreso than Bush — and he offered up a platform built around evangelical leanings.

Make no mistake: White Southerners will vote for John McCain. But it will be because Barack Obama supports abortion, including partial-birth abortion, and a variety of other causes on a socially liberal platform rather than because of the color of his skin (need we point out that Jesse Jackson won the Democratic primaries in Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi in 1984? Or that Barack Obama faired quite well in the South this winter and spring? And that both men were opposed by white opponents in primaries that included large numbers of white voters?).

So, the final line of Schaller’s argument is a bit flawed. Obama won’t lose the South because it is, as Schaller puts it, “The country’s most racially polarized region.” Obama will lose the South because it, whether for justified reasons or not on the social issues, is the country’s most conservative region.

Electorally speaking

For all the campaigning, stumping and mud-slinging that goes into the presidential elections, races for the White House in the modern era of American politics tend to come down to a few key states: The swing states in the nation’s midsection (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan), the electoral prize to which those Midwesterners retire (Florida), and few others. The West Coast and New England are going to be blue, the South and the West are going to be red.

The 2008 presidential election isn’t much different, at least at first glance. He who takes the swing states (the Midwest + Florida) is figured to be the winner. George W. Bush did it twice by taking just one of the Midwest states (Ohio) and by adding Florida to his electoral coffers.

But Bush did it narrowly, and without his Democratic opponents repainting a significant number of red states blue. By contrast, Barack Obama is aggressively persuing voters in several key states that typically vote Republican, and that could play a huge role in the campaign. In other words, maintaining the Bush electoral status quo might not quite cut it for John McCain.

Consider 2000, when Al Gore came up just short of the presidency. He did it without Ohio and Florida, and by converting just 2 red states: New Mexico and Iowa. A win in West Virginia, which he narrowly lost, would have been enough to secure the presidency for Gore. Obama leads in both New Mexico and Iowa, and is deadlocked with McCain in Nevada. A couple of other states that Bush relied on — Indiana and Virginia — in both 2000 and 2004 could also go blue this fall. So even if McCain were to win Ohio (where he currently trails) and Florida (where his lead is shrinking), that might not be enough if he cannot conserve the electoral base built by Bush.

On the other hand, 2 swing states that typically go Democrat are hanging in the balance. Obama’s lead in Pennsylvania — where he lost overwhelmingly to Hillary Clinton in the primary — is not significant, and the poll average in Michigan is well within the margin of error. No Republican has won either of those states since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Suffice it to say that if McCain could capture just 1 of those 2 states, and hold on to Ohio, he could afford any inroads Obama blazes into the West, where electoral votes are typically measured in the single digits (the exception is Arizona’s 10 electoral votes, and if McCain pulls an Al Gore and loses his home state, he has much bigger problems to worry about anyway).

Some of those red states in the east that Obama has his eyes on wouldn’t be so easy to overcome. Indiana boasts 11 electoral votes, as does Missouri. By winning both of those states, Obama could overcome a loss in either Michigan or Pennsylvania. Add in a Virginia (13) or a North Carolina (15), and McCain would have to win both Michigan and Pennsylvania to hold ground . . . throw in a couple of those smaller states, and Obama might find the road to the White House paved without the stepping stones of Michigan, Ohio or Pennsylvania. It would’ve been almost inconceiveable in 2000 or 2004 that Bush could win the presidency without any of those states, but it goes to show just how much this race hangs in the balance. It is a race that hasn’t been defined by any precedent so far, so why should we expect the electoral count to be any more mundane than this highly unusual race as a whole?

In the end, though, one has to think that much of the status quo will be maintained. Obama might win a targeted red state here or there — perhaps New Mexico, perhaps Virginia — but pulling off wholesale victories in those states is very unlikely. We won’t know, of course, until after the parties hold their respective conventions later this month and next, and folks who haven’t paid any attention to the race thus far start to do so. But it seems likely that the race will once again come back down to those key states in the nation’s Rust Belt.

Then there’s the issue of running mates to consider. Historically, running mates don’t make a substantial difference in the outcomes of these campaigns. But this election could be historically close, not only on a national scale, as was the Bush-Gore finale in 2000, but on a state-by-state scale as well. For instance, Mitt Romney’s family ties in Michigan and his Mormon ties in the West might be enough to swing a couple of states McCain’s way that would otherwise go to Obama.

Veep dubiety: Romney? Portman? Palin?!?

The guessing game over who will be selected as John McCain’s running mate continues, with no less speculation and no more certainty as the general election campaign gets prepared to shift into full gear.

According to rumors, McCain’s short list for the veep slot has been narrowed to 3: Mitt Romney, his bitter opponent in the primaries; Ohio Congressman Rob Portman; and South Dakota’s John Thume, the Senator who unseated former majority leader Tom Daschle in 2004.

Long shots (like former opponent Mike Huckabee) and safe bets (like Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty) alike have apparently fallen to the website as McCain nears an end in the process of choosing a running mate.

So, if the race is indeed down to 3, whom will it be? Opinions, it turns out, are much more varied than the short list of candidates.

Politico opines that Romney will be the veep selection, pointing out that he could raise large amounts of money (”McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days. One close Romney adviser said it could even be $60 million”). Romney’s resume would also be likely to add a lot of credibility to the GOP ticket where the issue of a stumbling economy is concerned. And, it doesn’t hurt that Romney has family ties in Michigan (his father was a presidential candidate there), a key swing state that typically goes for the Democratic candidate.

But perhaps the biggest benefit Romney would bring to the ticket is his Mormon affiliation. The swing that would provide in the West would likely be enough to propel McCain over Obama in Nevada, a red state that appears set to go blue in November.

Critics, however, point out that Romney and McCain were bitter rivals during the primary season. And, the Republicans’ conservative base remained less than enamored with Romney despite endorsements by well-known right-wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. It’s also speculated that Romney’s LDS affiliation could hurt him in the South’s Bible Belt, a typical Republican stronghold where Obama is attempting to make inroads, particularly in South Carolina and Georgia.

Dave at Race42008, meanwhile, feels that Portman is the right choice. Dave says:

He’s from Ohio, a battleground state that both candidates need to win. The fact that he’s from Ohio means that he will carry himself like a guy from Ohio, and guys from Ohio tend to be very similar to guys from Michigan and guys from Pennsylvania, meaning that Portman should be able to connect to folks in the Pittsburgh and Detroit suburbs just as easily as he connects to those in his own Ohio congressional district.

Newsweek’s Andrew Romano is also aboard the Romney bandwagon.

But Portman, while a solid conservative, is a virtual unknown outside Ohio and even within his state but outside his district. And, his close affiliation with the Bush administration could hurt him.

Meanwhile, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol offers this wrinkle: Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Palin has been quietly mentioned in some circles as a candidate for McCain’s running mate, but is considered a very long shot. But why not? As Alaska’s youngest governor ever, Palin’s disapproval rating is only 5% . . . she is the most popular politician in America among her constituency. She’s solidly conservative, but doesn’t march to anyone’s drum beat. She’s anti-abortion and opposes gay marriage, but vetoed legislation that effectively granted state benefits to same-sex couples. She’s taken a leading role in addressing climate change in Alaska, but has sued the U.S. Dept. of the Interior for placing the polar bear on the federal endangered species list, saying the classification will harm her state’s ability to expand oil and gas production efforts. And, did we mention she’s a woman? In a year where voters appear enamored by the possibilities of presidential firsts? (And, because we’re Americans and thusly are always looking ahead for the next source of entertainment before the current entertainment ends, a Palin vice presidency candidacy would possibly set up a Palin vs. Clinton presidential showdown in 2012; female vs. female. Oh, the possibilities.)

With Democrats united, smear campaign begins in earnest

Now that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are standing side by side, the Democratic attack machine is moving full steam ahead against John McCain.

On yesterday’s Face the Nation, retired army General Wesley Clark attacked John McCain’s record, criticizing the senator’s decision-making and executive leadership experience. After giving lip service to McCain’s military service and former POW status, Clark continued his assault, suggesting that McCain’s command of the U.S. Navy’s largest attack aircraft squadron didn’t amount to leadership experience because the assignment occurred during peacetime.

Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer interrupted Clark in disbelief, reminding the Democratic pundit that Obama not only lacked evidence of any of the skills and experiences that Clark had claimed were necessary for a president, but also had not served in combat, let alone been shot down and taken prisoner.

Clark quickly retorted, “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

Deliberately overlooking McCain’s years of leadership in the military, in business, and in the Senate, Clark concluded his diatribe with an attempt to tie the presumptive GOP nominee to President Bush’s foreign policy, which Clark has consistently opposed. The retired general lamented the use of “military power”, and criticized the use of strong rhetoric against state sponsors of terrorism like Iran and Syria.

Once again, the Democrats have reminded the world that their answer to international terrorism is talk, not action. What’s more, in order to cover their candidate’s glaring lack of experience in any matter of foreign policy, they’ve brought out the same character assassins we’ve seen in election years past. Obviously, it’s business as usual for the Democratic spin doctors.

If this is Barack Obama’s idea of change, who does he think he’s fooling?

*** UPDATE ***

Admiral Leighton Smith, USN (Ret.) has issued a statement in response to the comments made by General Wesley Clark, USA (Ret.) on Face the Nation yesterday morning.

“If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain’s service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates. If he expects the American people to believe his pledges about a new kind of politics, Barack Obama has a responsibility to condemn these attacks.”

McCain later made this statement when asked by reporters about General Clark’s remarks:

“I think that kind of thing is unnecessary. I’m proud of my record of service, and I have plenty of friends and leaders who will attest to that. The important thing is that if that’s the kind of campaign that Senator Obama and his surrogates and his supporters want to wage, I understand that, but it doesn’t reduce the price of a gallon of gas by one penny. It doesn’t achieve our energy independence, make it come any closer. It doesn’t help an American stay in their home who are at risk of losing it today. And it certainly doesn’t do anything to address the challenges that Americans have in keeping their jobs, their homes and supporting their families. So, I intend to, in this campaign, to discuss the challenges we face, things like the Lexington Project and many other proposals and ideas and a plan of action I have to help the families of this nation.”

D.C. v. Heller and its impact on the election

The Supreme Court of the United States yesterday upheld a lower court’s ruling that strikes down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns as being unconstitutional, and for the first time, affirmed that individuals have a constitutional right to bear arms.

The 5-4 decision was a landmark ruling and a major victory for gunowners. Now the attention turns immediately to the November elections, as both major candidates weighed in on the court’s ruling shortly after it was handed down yesterday. The question: Who benefits more from that ruling?

Gunowners are feeling emboldened by the court victory. The NRA — the nation’s most powerful gun lobby — immediately said that it would file lawsuits across the country where tough gun laws exist, in order to challenge the constitutional standing of those laws after the favorable precedent delivered by the high court.

And, the old broad brushstrokes paint true: Gun rights supporters typically vote Republican while gun control advocates typically vote Democrat.

John McCain — who has been at odds with the NRA in the past but hired a former operative of the gun lobby to help mold his campaign — seized on the court’s ruling to call attention to Barack Obama’s gun control initiatives. Obama, who recognized the tradition of gun ownership in America in a statement following the court’s ruling, supports the gun bans of D.C. and his home city of Chicago. RNC spokesman Danny Diaz yesterday called Obama the “most anti-gun candidate” in presidential history.

But will the Republicans benefit from the ruling at the polls? The GOP has benefited greatly from gun owners in the past; gun owners and sportsmen played huge roles in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, turning out in record numbers. And when they did, they voted overwhelmingly — better than 2-to-1 — for Republican candidate George W. Bush.

But gunowners seem to tend to vote when they’re angry. In the 1994 congressional midterms, Republicans stole the show in the wake of some of the most damaging anti-gun legislation in history, including the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. The tide that the GOP rode to midterm victory in ‘94 was fueled in large part by angry gunowners. And, behind groups such as the NRA and Gunowners of America, the groundswell of support for the gun lobby continued through 2004, before appearing to ebb in the absence of gun legislation. With Republicans controlling all branches of government, gun control was not an issue after the 2002 midterms — another election that saw increased gunowner turnout — and the AWB was allowed to sunset in 2004. That seemed to create a sense of complacency, and exit polls in the 2006 midterms — a sweeping victory for Democrats — showed gunowner turnout down substantially from 2004.

In other words: When the tables aren’t turned against them, gunowners appear to grow complacent. When they’re angry, they vote overwhelmingly. When they’re complacent, the exit polls reflect the attitude.

If anything, D.C. v. Heller will cause gunowners to relax and grow complacent, even though the anti-gun lobby isn’t likely to wave the white flag. While the NRA is working with the momentum at their back in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Women Against Gun Violence both vowed to step up efforts to fight gun control.

Meanwhile, gun control zealots are likely to be the angry ones at the polls this November. They view the nation’s gun control efforts as having been dealt a serious blow over the past 4 years, beginning with the sunset of the AWB and culminating with yesterday’s lobby. Their votes could benefit the Democrats if their numbers are strong enough at the polls this fall.

The potential wild card is the vows by gun control advocacy groups, such as the Brady campaign and the Legal Community Against Violence, to step up their fight. If their fight for stricter gun legislation were to move into the spotlight on the political scene between now and November, it might encourage more gunowners to “get out the vote.” However, it isn’t likely that members of Congress favoring gun control will make it an issue before the November election.

GOP: ‘Find more, use less’

Senate Republicans today unveiled “Find more, use less” legislation aimed at lowering gas prices.

The GOP appears to be united on the legislation — with 44 co-sponsors — which would aim at both increased oil exploration and alternatives to gasoline-powered cars.

Senate Republican Conference chairman Lamar Alexander called on the Senate’s Democratic leadership to take up debate on the bill as soon as possible, both calling on Democrats to get behind the legislation and chastizing them at the same time as he announced the legislation.

Alexander’s comments:

Our bill can be summed up in four words: ‘Find more, use less.’ ‘Find more’ means we would increase U.S. production by one third through offshore exploration and western states’ oil shale. This will over time produce at least 3 million barrels a day. ‘Use less’ means we would reduce imported oil by one third by making it easier for millions of Americans to drive plug-in electric cars and trucks. This will over time reduce Americans use of oil by 4 million barrels a day.

We would also discourage speculation driving up oil prices by putting more cops on the beat in the regulatory agencies. We have many other proposals for finding more and using less oil and will offer them in the July debate—but just these four steps will put America clearly on a course toward lower gas prices, more energy independence, and would stop sending billions of dollars overseas to buy oil from countries who are supporting terrorists.

This will take time, but today is the day to begin. President Kennedy did not shy away from asking our country to take ten years to go to the moon. President Roosevelt knew it would take years to build a bomb to win a war. We need to start today to make sure our grandchildren ten years from now do not face the same energy crisis that we face today. And from the day we show that determination, speculators will become nervous, oil producing countries will become realistic, and the price of gasoline will stabilize.

Our 44 co-sponsors are Republicans, but we want and our proposal deserves bipartisan support. To find more oil, we have deliberately included some provisions—like offshore exploration and oil shale—that a few Democratic senators have supported and left out others—such as exploration in Alaska—that Democrat senators have trouble supporting.

To use less oil, we have centered on a proposal—plug-in electric cars and trucks—that we believe has broad bipartisan support. Unfortunately, most Democrats still insist on trying to repeal half the law of supply and demand.Instead of economics 101, we might call this new theory ‘Obamanomics’

When we say, offshore exploration, they say no we can’t. When we say, oil shale development, they say no we can’t. When we say, more nuclear power for clean electricity to power plug-in cars and trucks, they say no we can’t. They would rather our country beg other countries to explore for oil when the United States is the third largest producer of oil and should make its own contribution to increasing the world supply.

Republicans will do BOTH – find more oil and use less—and we intend to work hard and in good faith to find a way to for Democrats to say, ‘yes we can’ to finding more oil, as well as using less. The American people don’t want to see us up here talking trash. They want to see us getting results.

Lollygagging Congress leaves gas costs unaddressed

Members of Congress will head home tomorrow for a week-long 4th of July holiday, leaving the high costs of gasoline unaddressed as Americans prepare to hit the road for the extended holiday weekend.

It’s been over 1 month since the national cost of a gallon of gasoline topped $4, and Congress has yet to take action, apart from the usual bantering and blame-casting, to address the costs. Measures that would have opened the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf to oil exploration were shot down by the Democratic majority. The Democrats’ only effort to address the issue — legislation that would crack down on price gouging by oil companies and vendors — has been stymied by filibuster.

The issue of high gas costs is almost certain to come up again after the Independence Day holiday and before Congress recesses for the summer, and likely will have some legislative efforts attached. But those efforts will largely be oversight efforts that aren’t likely to do anything to ease the pain at the pump in the short-term or long-term. These efforts include “use it or lose it” legislation that would require oil companies to relinquish federal leases not being tapped for oil and gas, and a crackdown on commodity traders who critics say are driving up the price of oil through speculation, in addition to the price-gouging legislation, which has thus far failed to garner the two-thirds majority vote needed to get past the minority filibuster.

The so-called “use it or lose it” legislation is aimed at allowing Democrats to counter ceaseless rhetoric from the Republicans that oil exploration restrictions should be lifted. The bill’s sponsors argue that nearly 70 million acres of land in the U.S. are currently under lease but aren’t being tapped. The Department of the Interior has rejected that argument, however, stating “The views contained in the report [issued by Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee] are based on a misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process.”

The speculation argument draws a broader base of support, from both sides of the political spectrum. As Chris Brooks pointed out last week, OPEC is on board the speculation blame train as well. However, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman has rejected that notion.

In the meantime, Congress continues to ignore the apparent will of the American people on the issue of off-shore drilling, as polls have found that as many as three out of four Americans support such action, depending on which poll you believe (here, here, and here).

Obviously, opening more protected lands to drilling wouldn’t immediately provide relief for the pain at the pump. Perhaps the only thing that could immediately lower gas prices — other than a significant increase in production by OPEC; so far, the only production increases have been token — is a suspension of the federal gas tax, which has been proposed by Sen. John McCain and was proposed by Sen. Hillary Clinton during her presidential bid (and has also received the support of the House Republican Conference). So far, however, Congress has rejected consideration of that measure as well.

D.C. v. Heller Decision Expected June 26th

The Supreme Court is preparing to release its decision tomorrow on Case 07-290, District of Columbia v. Heller. As you may remember, this is the first case directly addressing the Second Amendment to have reached the High Court since United States v. Miller in 1939. Millions of Americans anxiously await the ruling–politicians and firearm dealers, lawyers and police officers, gun owners and gun haters. Each faction fighting in the battle for or against gun rights hopes to gain an inch, or maybe even a foot, from the decision.

The ruling on this landmark case, an appeal of Parker v. District of Columbia, which overturned Washington’s 32-year ban on handguns, will ultimately decide whether the city’s residents have a constitutional right to keep and bear handguns. But it very well may also make or break gun control efforts nationwide.

As Walter Dellinger, the D.C. government’s attorney, addressed the Court during oral arguments last March, his positions didn’t seem to resonate with many of the justices. When Dellinger argued early on that the framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the states’ militia right to keep and bear arms “in a military context”, rather than protect an individual citizen’s same right, Justice Antonin Scalia responded:

I don’t see how there’s any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a — as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn’t it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people’s weapons — that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (7).

Although many observers feel that the Court had taken a relatively pro-Second Amendment stance during oral arguments, there is still much uncertainty regarding the scope of the upcoming decision. Will the Court affirm an individual’s right to keep and bear arms solely for the defense of the state, as a universal protection guaranteeing the right to defend one’s home and person, something in between?

Despite the lack of attention gun control has received on the campaign trail, there is no doubt that the real battle will begin tomorrow morning as people on both sides of the political spectrum review the situation and plan their next move for or against the Second Amendment.