Author: David Weigel

The FBI is investigating threats to Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), an “aye” vote on health care. The threats go all the way up to a severed gas line at the house of Perriello’s brother. Nigel Coleman of the Danville, Va. Tea Party reacts:

I obviously condemn these actions. I would hope that people aren’t thinking about doing anything crazy. We just wanted people to get close to the congressman and have their voices heard. Violence is not going to answer anything. I’m a little shocked and amazed.

If there’s any district where blowback against some wild-eyed Tea Party activity could save an incumbent Democrat, it’s this one.

Jim Galloway talks to Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a Democratic candidate for governor (an underdog in the primary against former Governor Roy Barnes), and finds that the “health care repeal” fight has benefits for both parties. It’s letting Baker take a whack at the GOP.

We’re not interested in political gamesmanship in the office of the attorney general. We’re not interested in making political points. The role of the attorney general is to follow the law, and where we feel there have been violations, we need to address it… There’s a little thing called the supremacy clause. Federal law supercedes state law. And so I’m very interested in knowing, at least from those who think there’s a basis is, at least what they think the basis is.

The lawsuit filed by 13 of Baker’s peers, as some have pointed out, is not exactly rock-solid (note the lack of footnotes). And on the flip side of this, former congressman Nathan Deal, who just retired to mount a full-time GOP bid for governor of Georgia, is urging supporters to hound Baker.

How eager are conservative groups to make hay out of this Politico story, which reports on a loophole in the health care bill that allows “staffers who work for congressional committees or for party leaders in the House and Senate” to opt out of state-run insurance exchanges? The conservative Independent Women’s Forum is already planning to launch a campaign site against the provision, SomeAreMoreEqual.com, this afternoon. And I wouldn’t be surprised to soon see a back-bencher Republican go after the exemption.

At the rally outside the Capitol on Sunday, Brendan Steinhauser of FreedomWorks told me that he was hearing things about the race in FL-19, the congressional district once held by Robert Wexler, now open for an April 13 special election. Indeed, three weeks out from the election, there’s an uptick of conservative attention on the race. One sign of this was the article and six (!) blog posts that National Review’s influential Jim Geraghty put up about the frontrunner, Democrat Ted Deutsch, just yesterday. One, two, three, four, five, six.

Those posts get at the problem facing Republicans in the district. Geraghty’s first argument was that Deutsch was dodging the issue of Israel — Deutsch had actually released a statement on March 17, it just received little notice. The other four attacks are on liberal votes that Deutsch, a state senator, has cast, and on his rating from the Chamber of Commerce. But there’s no sign at all of that stuff hurting Deutsch in the district — which voted for Barack Obama by a bigger margin than did the state of Massachusetts.

Ken Vogel writes up the results of a Quinnipiac Poll on the Tea Party movement, which reveals them to be — no surprise — largely white (88 percent), massively worried about the direction of the country (92 percent), and by and large, supporters of the Republican Party (74 percent).

That’s the total for the committee’s closed-door event with the Fox News host tonight.

Here’s the cover of Jonathan Alter’s book about FDR’s first 100 days, “The Defining Moment” — reportedly, a big hit with Obama staff during the transition.

And here’s the cover of Alter’s upcoming book about Obama’s first year.

Both books are published by Simon & Schuster.

The campaign of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who’s got less of a cash problem than almost anyone running for office in 2012 (he has millions left over from his special election bid), points to a fairly obscure blog to stoke fears that MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is being recruited to oppose him. What’s the sourcing at the blog, Universal Hub? A tweet from state Democratic Party chairman John Walsh, which looks like a botched direct message to Maddow and reads

Some are talking about you running vs Scott Brown in ‘12. I’m Chair of MA Dem Party. My email is [email protected] cell-617-650-9311

Based on that, Brown’s extremely savvy team warns supporters that Democrats want a “rubberstamp” for their policies. “I’m sure she’s a nice person,” says Brown in the fundraising email. “I just don’t think America can afford her liberal politics.”

The email:

Friends,

It’s only been a couple of months since I’ve been in office, and before I’ve even settled into my new job, the political machine in Massachusetts is looking for someone to run against me. And you’re not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit  — liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow.

Rachel lives in western Massachusetts, and recently it was reported that the chairman of the state Democratic Party had apparently tried to reach out to her in an attempt to coax her into a race against me. You can read about it here.

The political season  never ends, which is why I need your continued support. While my opponents strategize on how to defeat me in 2012, I’m going to continue to speak out against higher taxes, more spending and greater government control in our lives.

I relish being an independent voice in Washington, one that doesn’t march in lockstep with the rest of the Washington crowd. The Democratic Party bosses in Massachusetts disagree. They want a rubberstamp who will vote for their plans to expand government, increase debt and raise taxes. Someone like Rachel Maddow. I’m sure she’s a nice person — I just don’t think America can afford her liberal politics.

Rachel Maddow has a nightly platform to push her far-left agenda. What about you? I’d like to encourage ordinary American citizens concerned about the future of their country to get more involved in our government. I hope you were encouraged by my victory to become more politically active, maybe even become a candidate for office yourself. We can continue to push our movement forward by running for office, joining in rallies and petitions that challenge President Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare legislation, supporting campaigns against the tax-and-spenders or by donating time and money to office-holders and candidates who will restore the principles of our founders.

I’m grateful you are with me. Thanks again for whatever support you can provide me, and I look forward to joining in further victories with you down the line.

Sincerely,

Scott Brown
United States Senator

File this in the “unsurprising news” category, but today the president of FreedomWorks — who’s still part of a lawsuit against Medicare — backed the effort to repeal health care reform in the courts in an interview with blogger Ed Morrissey. Armey endorsed the lawsuit filed at noon by 13 state attorneys general, who argued that the mandate to buy coverage is unconstitutional.

“In terms of its standing in the courts,” Armey told Morrissey, “this is the first, best place to make the challenge.”

At the same time, Armey expressed some worry that the “living document malarkey” bought into by liberal judges could thwart conservatives.

“As much as we hope and pray that the courts will do their duty here,” said Armey, “there’s a great possibility that they won’t.” The best chance for repeal might be “once we have a chance to replace him with a Republican president coupled with a Republican Congress.”

Zachary Roth has a must-read collection of interviews with constitutional lawyers on whether or not health care reform could withstand a court test. And in a sign that this issue isn’t being laughed off, the liberal American Constitution Society has released a brief making the case again.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) — a judge in his prior career — comes out for repealing the 17th Amendment, to “restore the balance” between the federal government and the states by giving the right to appoint senators back to state legislatures.

Ever since the safeguard of State legislatures electing U.S. Senators was removed by the 17th Amendment in 1913, there has been no check or balance on the Federal power grab for the last 97 years. Article V requires a minimum of 34 states to request a Convention which in this case, would be an Amendment Convention for only ONE amendment.

For what it’s worth, Democrats currently control 27 state legislatures, so this would be a pretty bad deal for them at present, sending them back to 54 senators. Media Matters Action has video and points out how this conflicts with the “Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, thus health care reform should die” argument of a week ago.

Gohmert’s “39 states that are angry about this” comment is a bit of a fib — that many states have repeal bills somewhere in their legislature, but few have passed them.

After the jump, the anti-health care mandate lawsuit introduced today in the Northern District of Florida by 13 state attorneys general. Only one, Louisiana’s Buddy Caldwell, is a Democrat. Three, including Florida’s Bill McCollum, are candidates for governor.

The once-frontrunner, who’s slipped a bit behind Tom Campbell, gets a boost from someone once thought of as a possible president, now almost invisible in national politics. (She’s back at Stanford, where she once served as provost.)

“Based on my personal experience,” writes Rice in the press release, “I know Carly is the best person to send to Washington to advocate for the people of our great state in the Senate.” Fiorina: “I had the privilege to work with Secretary Rice when I served on the State Department’s Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy, and I have great respect for her.”

Variety reports (with a nice visual joke) that the former governor of Alaska had sold her reality series (reported, thus far, as about the state more than her very TV-ready life) to Discovery Communications. Cost: $1 million per episode.

It joins, I believe, “Ice Road Truckers” and “Deadliest Catch” in the burgeoning shows-about-Alaska genre.

This poll goes some way toward explaining why, as I report today, ambitious Republican politicians are clambering on board with the idea of lawsuits to repeal the health care individual mandate even though the chances of repeal are slim.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters favor their state suing the federal government to fight the requirement in the new national health care plan that every American must obtain health insurance.. 37% disagree and oppose their state suing to challenge that requirement. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.

The mandate doesn’t poll well in Rasmussen, and never has. Not clear from the poll: whether or not the critics realize it won’t go into effect until 2014.

The moment that the House of Representatives passed the health care reform bill, 10 Republican state attorneys general were ready for it. Early Monday morning, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced plans to sue on the grounds that the federal government was abusing its “power to regulate interstate commerce” by passing a personal mandate for health care. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum agreed, calling the mandate an attempt “to fine or tax someone just for living.” On the surface, conservative opposition to universal health care had dusted itself off and charged right back into the fight.

But beneath the headlines, press releases, petitions and donation drives that followed the historic vote, lawyers and legislators are less confident that health care reform can be repealed — much less that it can be repealed quickly. In Idaho and Tennessee, two states where state opt-outs of the federal mandate have passed (in Idaho, the legislation has even been signed by the governor), the people who will decide whether to challenge the bill are treading more carefully than the rhetoric suggests.

“Everybody needs to take a deep breath,” said Bob Cooper, a spokesman for Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden. “This bill is a few thousand pages long. We need some time to review it. We need time to see whether or not it impinges on rights, how so, and whether we can bring a case that has merit. There are serious sanctions for attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits.”

Mae Beavers, a Republican state senator in Tennessee, was also cautious about how to proceed with a health care challenge. Her Tennessee Health Freedom Act sailed through the upper house, becoming a model for pre-emptive opt-out bills in other states. And while she expects a companion bill to move through the lower house, the possibility of an immediate challenge to the reform bill seemed remote.

“Our legislation says that whenever the national health care would start, our citizens will have a choice,” said Beavers. “I assume it would take a while to put together.”

The problem with a challenge, say conservatives, is that the mandate for health care — an idea with origins on the right that has become anathema ever since its implementation in Massachusetts — will not take effect until 2014. Whether attorneys general can successfully challenge the mandate until then is unclear. Thomas Woods, a conservative scholar who is putting the finishing touches on a Regnery-published book about nullification, suggested that challenges to the mandate will be fruitless, working their way through a legal system that has no great record of repealing major legislation.

“If states file legal challenges,” asked Woods, “who do they file them with? The federal courts! I wouldn’t even go to the legal level. From my point of view nullification is a way to announce to the government that your state is ready to engage in civil disobedience. It boils down to this: We are confident that obeying the will of the people means not enforcing this mandate. So what are you going to do now?”

Michael Boldin, the president of the Tenth Amendment Center — founded in 2009 to organize for such fights on behalf of state sovereignty — told TWI that legal challenges of any kind were the “first step” to opposing health care reform. But he envisioned the resistance to the mandate taking a more low-key form: Simple, persistent disobedience.

“If I were to reduce this whole thing down to one word,” said Boldin, “I’d say: Marijuana. Look at medical marijuana in California. California passed a medical marijuana law and the federal government said it couldn’t do so, under the supremacy clause. But people continued to disobey laws and it cost more money to enforce them then to ignore them.”

As difficult as a repeal of health care reform would be, as realistic as the disobedience plan sounds, neither approach to the issue satisfies the high-level legal groups, pundits and politicians who have campaigned against reform. Prior to the health care vote, on the Friday episode of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck showed Sarah Palin a map of states with opt-out bills in the works — many of them dominated by Democrats, where the legislation has no chance of success.

“These are all the states that are saying, ‘No health care for us. Get your health care bill away from us,’” said Beck. “What do you think of this solution as a former governor?”

“Let’s be thankful for… those governors who want to lead their citizens to have their voice heard with this ObamaCare scheme coming down the pike,” said Palin. “That’s abhorrent. It’s unacceptable. And legal tools must be used.”

Beck and Palin were only slightly ahead of the curve — the final 72 hours of the debate saw surge in the number of Republican politicians promising constituents that health care reform could be stopped at the courts. At Saturday’s “Code Red” rally in front of the Capitol, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), a candidate for governor of Tennessee, promised activists he’d meet federal regulators “at the state line” if elected. On Sunday, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), a candidate for governor of Michigan, raised the possibility of blocking reform “at the ballot box” or “in the courts.” On Monday, Florida U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio endorsed Attorney General McCollum’s potential lawsuit — on a mid-afternoon Fox News appearance, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) praised Rubio and chided his rival, Gov. Charlie Crist (R-Fla.), for not backing the suit.

Conservative legal groups have taken much the same tack. Last week, the Landmark Legal Foundation — nominally run by conservative author and radio host Mark Levin — prepared a draft legal brief challenging any health care bill that the House “deemed passed” without a vote. Because the House held a full vote on the bill, the foundation scrapped that brief and, according to vice president Eric Christiansen, moved on to assisting attorneys general with whatever they decided to do.

“We want to see this thing defeated,” said Christiansen. “However we can leverage our resources and make the biggest impact, that’s what we’ll do.”

For the first time in the health care debate, however, opponents of the reform package face a complicated, uncertain struggle at odds with the promises and podium-pounding that marked the year of opposition.

“I don’t know what people are telling their donors,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, “but litigation is always lengthy especially where, as here, the final answer will likely come from the Supreme Court… Courts will typically move things along faster when a case is as important as this one, but it’s unlikely that we would get a final decision from the Supreme Court before the 2011-2012 term.”

Levey’s take was in line with that of Idaho’s Cooper, hard at work in one of the AG offices that’s viewed to have the best chance of challenging the mandate.

“We’re not trying,” said Cooper, “to win a race to the courthouse.”

In the GOP-leaning state, where the lieutenant governor (a birther, by the way) is demanding a lawsuit against the health care reform bill, one Democratic leader in the legislature attributes the anger to racism. House Democratic caucus leader Mike Turner:

We’ve got a lot of bills on states’ rights here, state sovereignty and all that. We went through that fight once before. All of a sudden, we have a black man elected president and everybody wants to start acting like something’s wrong with our country. I didn’t agree with a lot of things George Bush did, but I wasn’t ready to secede from the union. I think some of the people who are against Obama are just against Obama because he’s African-American.

Turner is white, for what it’s worth.

The Minnesota congresswoman, who’s promised to introduce “repealer bill after repealer bill” if Republicans win a majority in 2010, introduces a one-page bill aimed at repealing health care reform. The goal — Bachmann introduced this idea at last night’s rally outside the Capitol — is to get every Republican member on the record, on board.

The bill:

Michael Calderone has the story — next month I’ll be taking my reporting from TWI to The Washington Post. I want to take a moment to point out that the sort of journalism I do wouldn’t have been possible without TWI. There’s more coverage of conservative politics (especially movement politics) than there was when I began here, but what we’ve been able to do differently at TWI is deep reporting, and context, and giving time and space for the key players to explain themselves. We do that on every issue we cover, and I’m looking forward to my move from a TWI reporter to an avid TWI reader.

Editor’s note: Dave’s coverage of the conservative movement — from the birthers and the Tea Parties to the GOP’s leadership strategies and philosophical underpinnings — has been nothing short of groundbreaking. While we’ll miss him tremendously, we applaud the Post for its brilliant and forward-thinking move, and we’re proud that his new position will allow his important reporting to reach a wider audience. Congratulations to Dave, and congratulations to the Post!

Republicans (see here) are pushing a CNN poll that has opposition to health care reform legislation running to 59 percent. Two things I noticed, however, that hint at the sub rosa worries some conservatives have about this.

First, that high opposition number is split — only 43 percent of people say they oppose the bill because it’s “too liberal,” while 13 percent say it’s “not liberal enough.”

Second, I see that since December, Democrats have gained a little ground — within the margin of error — on the question of which party voters “trust more to handle major changes in the country’s health care system.” A three-point lead has become a six-point lead.

It’s really anybody’s guess what happens to these numbers now — GOP strategist Patrick Ruffini, in a bit of expectation-setting, predicts that President Obama’s approval numbers will soon rise to 58 or 59 percent.