I am one of those pesky libertarian bloggers who did, in fact, have a problem with surveillance policies initiated by George W. Bush's administration, even though I am a Republican, just like I'm not a big fan of a very, very powerful executive branch, despite my "Republican-ness."  That has tended, in past, to result in protracted moments of sympathizing with Democrats, generically, when they raise concerns about things like the executive branch's method of collecting intelligence and advocate for checking, curbing, or constraining executive branch authority in a variety of ways.

I say "sympathizing" as opposed to "agreeing with enough to vote for," though, because when it comes to things like intelligence-gathering, just for example, I don't see the fight as being between left and right, or Democrat and Republican.  I see the fight over use, oversight and abuse of executive branch authority in this realm and others as being, well, between the executive branch and the other branches of government.  The executive branch always wants more power, a free rein; the legislative and judicial, unsurprisingly, aren't on the same page.  We know Bush's executive branch wanted more power always, especially when it came to security and security-related matters.  Bill Clinton also wanted and pursued expanded wiretapping authority as President (which he didn't get).

So unlike Nancy Pelosi, I can't say I find it all that shocking that a veto threat has been issued in relation to intelligence reform.  This is legislation that would ostensibly increase congressional oversight of intelligence programs-- the kind of thing you might think candidate Obama, circa early 2007, if asked, would wholeheartedly support, but the kind of thing we know that President Obama, the guy who has the reins now and who voted for the FISA bill that the netroots so reviled, is exceedingly unlikely to view favorably, now that it's his administration's power being curbed/checked (at least hypothetically), and not, uh, George Bush's.

It'd be helpful if the Democratic base would take the right lesson away from this.  Things like intelligence oversight are about checks and balances in government, and so the players' attitudes towards proposals in the vein will be determined by which branch of government they sit in, or are preparing to sit in.

The sooner we have a real conversation about that, the better the odds, I think, of people actually being elected to the presidency who will perhaps accept curbs on executive branch authority and behave in a way that marginally corresponds to their rhetoric ("We need to respect the Constitution" is a personal favorite of mine, and one which, frankly, I think most utterers of it don't even contemplate beyond the pander-bear appeal). 

Also, the sooner that those of us hearing the rhetoric and wanting to believe it (either because we're libertarians or liberals) can quit feeling like we're getting screwed with our pants on-- because at least recognition of the actual game in play, as opposed to belief in the charade being depicted, will increase. ...
>> more

I missed this caption contest at Matier & Ross last week.  But better late than never, here's a LOL for your Monday, using their picture.

...
>> more

This week, the much-debated Arizona immigration law will come into effect, thereby raising the profile of immigration, generally, as a political issue again, just in time for the final 100 days of campaigning ahead of this year's midterms.

As in previous years, many Republicans have staked out a hard line on the issue.  Backing for Arizona's law as a model for other states is widespread. 

Unlike in previous elections where immigration also emerged as a hot-button issue, however, one rarely hears much from any Republicans beyond the "I support Arizona's law and we need to secure the border, and I do not support amnesty" trifecta (the new version of the old "I support health savings accounts" answer to each and every question about health care).

That may not be surprising, given that immigration is a topic now being treated with equal importance to health care according to recent Gallup polling, and voters aren't keen on the illegal variety of it.  However, it is an answer to immigration questions that strikes this wife-of-an-immigrant who sees the immigration system as close to a farce as either naïve or badly truncated.  In particular, it seems not to recognize the mess that is our immigration system.  It also doesn't answer the questions, what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants already here?  What about a guest-worker program?  Should we expand and simplify legal immigration?  Should a pathway to citizenship exist for illegal immigrants, if extensive conditions are attached?  These are the things that it seems few candidates really want to talk about in any detail, lest they offend or upset anyone (including me, who is known to be quite liberal on the topic).  But no matter where you stand on immigration as an issue, it's a big one, and one where a few further thoughts should be provided by anyone running for federal or statewide office, in my opinion.

So I was pleasantly surprised when I met Jon Barela, running for Congress in New Mexico's first district a few weeks ago, and found him willing to have a much more frank and open conversation about immigration than your average Republican-- especially your average Republican who would not easily be described as a hardliner on the subject-- even in a few short minutes. 

Barela, a fellow "recovering lawyer," and former Intel executive who has worked in the high-tech industry more broadly, also, sees immigration as a labor issue and a security issue.  He says securing the border needs to be our number one priority.  He says we need to crack down on drug dealers, gang members and the like who are here illegally.

In other words, he says the things that other Republicans say, and which pretty much everyone, Republican or Democrat, agrees with.  But he says more than that, too, and doesn't shy away from taking positions that some people won't like, and which may not suit every voter he's targeting 100%. 

Barela, who grew up in Las Cruces, studied immigration at Georgetown.  He says he is not "a round 'em up and throw 'em out" guy.  He does favor a guest-worker program, and giving existing illegal immigrants access to it.  He wants people to be encouraged to enter it, and for illegal immigrants here presently to, for example, pay back taxes.  Barela is adamant that those concerned that all illegal immigrants want to remain in the US permanently are misunderstanding the situation.  His preferred approach to solving the immigration problem would be predicated on the idea of people being able to come and go, but without an actual, or effective, open-borders situation arising.  Barela says he has spoken with migrants being smuggled in by coyotes, and that for many of those he spoke to, their objective was to make money, but ultimately return home to Mexico, Guatemala, and elsewhere and open businesses.  He has concerns that especially in the current economic climate, immigrants can be viewed negatively, but considers that their goals and objectives are in fact compatible with those of most Americans.  In their drive to reach American soil-- legally or not-- he identifies a certain entrepreneurial spirit, which he thinks can benefit Americans just as it benefits immigrants and their families, if properly harnessed. 

In reviewing the most serious instances of security threats to Americans domestically, in recent years, Barela also makes a valid and serious point: All of Timothy McVeigh, those who flew planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11, and Jose Padilla were either legally entitled to remain in the US indefinitely as citizens, or had entered here legally.  Barela would like to stop treating the immigration system as a primary safeguard of Americans' security, and instead use law enforcement more robustly.  He says these are views that don't always sit well with all of his would-be constituents.  However, he thinks it is important to debate the immigration issue seriously, and unemotionally -- and he speaks about it in just that way: Candidly, substantively, and without hyperbole or drama.

I highly doubt that Barela's election will be decided on immigration.  First, the district in which he is running is essentially metropolitan Albuquerque, an area that is hardly a hotbed of conservative sentiment on the subject.  Second, however, as in many other swing districts, jobs, the ability of small businesses to hire and expand, and the economy, generally, are the top issues.

Nonetheless, Barela may find that he wins points from voters-- including those who do not agree with him on immigration-- for being so forthright about what he does think.  For as much as Americans are concerned about the economy-- and immigration, possibly as a mutation of that primary concern-- they're also frankly sick and tired of political hackery in candidates for public office.  Sticking to abbreviated, focus-grouped soundbytes as rigorously as many candidates do, on immigration, especially, falls exactly into that category, just as failing to discuss other areas of concern and other policy prescriptions beyond the very obvious and utterly inoffensive is another.  Barela gets high marks from me for having the courage to discuss immigration policy a bit more broadly, and in a way that may not check all the boxes of base Republican voters, or anyone else, but is clear, and gives a good idea of what he's thinking, even in a 15-minute nutshell. 

Barela could well retake this seat this year.  I personally hope he does-- we could do with more like him in Congress.  Keep an eye on his campaign, and check out his website here. ...
>> more

Paul Krugman's column is up today, and I have some problems with it. I know, you're surprised.

I'm not a hater of the mainstream media (I go on MSNBC and CNN from time to time, I read at least portions of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal daily, I read stuff from ABC and Politico in particular usually throughout the day, in addition to publications like the LA Times, which I read for work purposes).

But it annoys me when Nobel prize winners who write for major publications get really basic stuff wrong, especially when it pertains to their area of expertise.

So here are a few basic critiques of what Krugman writes today:

For a couple of years, it was the love that dared not speak his name. In 2008, Republican candidates hardly ever mentioned the president still sitting in the White House. After the election, the G.O.P. did its best to shout down all talk about how we got into the mess we're in, insisting that we needed to look forward, not back. And many in the news media played along, acting as if it was somehow uncouth for Democrats even to mention the Bush era and its legacy.

The truth, however, is that the only problem Republicans ever had with George W. Bush was his low approval rating. They always loved his policies and his governing style - and they want them back.

OK, I know where Krugman's going with this. If you watched last week's Sunday shows, you probably do, too. We have a situation in the GOP where our esteemed "leaders" have fallen back into their 2006-esque trap of playing defense for Bush when a) a very large chunk of the grassroots of the party reached their limit with the guy over four years ago now and b) certainly few Republicans now hold Bush (or key policies and approaches pursued while in office) in any real esteem, although many Republicans do feel that as big a disaster as Bush was, and as stupid as many of those policies and approaches were, he was marginally better than Obama.

You see where I'm going with this now, don't you? Yes. See, Krugman, in his rush to ding our esteemed leadership (an objective I can't say I wholly disagree with, even if I take that view for different reasons than does Krugman), just ignored the fact that "Republicans" is a broader swath of individuals than a handful of select high-ranking men who work in the Capitol complex, and went ahead and used the term anyway to indicate that a) all elected Republicans were cool with Bush, and actually, want a return to the business he did and the way he did it and b) worse, all Republicans, as in all of us in the party who haven't been elected to anything and who hold the majority of those who have, on both sides of the aisle, in a fair bit of contempt, also want a return to the business Bush did, and the way he did it.

The bullshit meter is buzzing. ...
>> more

Dave Weigel is my friend.  Not one of my best friends.  But he is a friend. 

So when I see stories erupt involving him, like the one in which he is currently engulfed, I take an interest-- and find myself prepared, and arguably well-placed, to say some things that may not prove popular but which I think deserve an airing.  And with that, here goes nothing.

Earlier in the week, Dave caught fire, proverbially, when comments he made in a supposedly off-the-record email listserv populated by prominent liberal bloggers and reporters (the famed "JournoList") were leaked.  It turns out they weren't the kind of comments that conservatives were going to love.  Matt Drudge “should set himself on fire” is the one that got the most attention.

This morning, the Daily Caller ran a separate story detailing further Weigel comments made on the listserv which appear to have conservatives even more pissed off.  At the risk of drawing further attention to something that Dave may want to disappear, I'm going to list some of these right here so I can discuss them below (note: profanity follows): ...
>> more

That's the title of a piece I ran over at BlogHer on Monday... here's an excerpt:

About two weeks ago, following June 8 primary night, the big meme in political media was “The Year of the (Republican) Woman.”  Primary victories by the likes of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California, and a strong performance by Nikki Haley in South Carolina, followed on the back of victory the week prior by Susana Martinez in New Mexico. 

But since then, another narrative seems to be taking hold in some quarters—that these women aren’t really women, they’re men in skirts.  That is so because they a) didn’t emphasize their gender at every turn in the course of their respective primary races or b) don’t focus, or toe the line, on “women’s issues”—or both.  In particular, objections have been raised that these women either are not pro-choice or are insufficiently vocal about being pro-choice, and therefore—the subtext seems to be—they’re more akin to men in skirts than “real women.” 

It’s a sort of modern, through-the-looking-glass version of the critique leveled by a few on the distinct, definite right wing of American politics regarding Hillary Clinton back in the day: She wears pantsuits, therefore she’s not a “real woman.”   The argument went then, real women wear skirts, and the items at the top of their priorities list are kids, husband, and housework, not kids, husband, and career.  It continued: Have a career and want to pursue it, even if it means making some sacrifices like not being a stay-at-home-mom?  Pro-choice?  You’re a feminazi who is destroying America—and you certainly shouldn’t be elected to high office, where you might serve as a role model.

The 2010 version, as I’ve heard it expressed and as seems to be implied in some stories discussing this new “Year of the Woman” from some on the distinct, definite left wing of American politics goes like this: Real women prioritize advocacy surrounding “women’s issues” and their careers, not advocacy on the issues that matter most to them personally and their careers—let alone their kids or their husbands.  Pro-life (or not vocally pro-choice)?  You’re a 1950s throwback who should never be allowed into a position where young women might listen to you or look up to you.

The upshot then, and now, seems to be that for a chunk of the population, left and right, women have to conform to some kind of stereotype in order to be worthy of respect as women, and worthy of consideration for political leadership roles—whereas men can just be men.  This is the ultimate in ironies since we are no longer stuck in the 1950’s.  One is not some sort of misfit outcast if one wants to have a high-powered career in business rather than staying at home to cook and clean and change diapers.  Equally, one is not some sort of un-liberated, subservient throwback to the middle of the last century if one does want to stay at home to look after one’s kids, and make sure the husband doesn’t eat Cheetos and Lucky Charms for dinner every night (most of us know how that goes).  There are many measures of women having achieved equality, but the best one is that we choose to do different things according to what we want, not what either the bra-burners of the 1970’s or those advocating a Stepford Wives-type world want.  We choose.

And, increasingly, it seems, we dominate.  In the July/August edition of The Atlantic, there is a piece running entitled “The End of Men.”  It details the extent to which women, and girls, are matching and often outpacing men, and boys, in pretty much everything... ...
>> more

Democrats across the country may be playing off of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to raise money, but Patty Murray, it appears, isn't one of them.  Nope: Murray is using something more tried-and-tested-- hyping the dreaded Karl Rove's determination to take her down this November. 

Here's a screenshot of an email I received just a few minutes ago, entitled "Karl Rove & Dino Rossi":

Why I find this interesting: Right now, I know very few self-proclaimed liberals or progressives (i.e., Democrats' online fundraising base) who aren't pissed off as all get out with Democratic leadership in Washington, DC.  It bears a reminder, of course, that in the Senate, Murray is the #4 ranking member of said leadership, which has moved everything from a health care bill lacking a public option (which her base hates), to financial reform that many liberals/progressives deem toothless, and which has basically stalled on progressing (no pun intended) cap-and-trade and has been relatively silent when it comes to that favorite old Democratic base concern-- getting US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I have no doubt that the base will turn out and vote for Murray and her fellow Democrats.  I also have no doubt that unions will whip their members to go volunteer and knock on doors to help turn out the vote for Democrats as November nears.  But make no mistake, a relatively subdued and unenthused base is a problem for Democrats as they head into November, primarily because together with the continued crappy state of the economy, it's going to mean they'll raise less money than they otherwise might-- and as much as I, or they, may not like it, the fact is, in states with relatively large media markets (say, Seattle), money is going to matter. 

In Murray's case, that is especially so, since Dino Rossi is considered to be quite the prolific fundraiser-- and since it appears that American Crossroads, an effort in which former RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, my former boss and someone I personally know also to be excellent at bringing in and smartly spending the dough, is involved, is also looking to engage in the Washington Senate race.

Ultimately, Murray will still have a line into her biggest donors-- lawyers and lobbyists (everybody's fave influencers of American politics!), so no one should worry inordinately that her campaign is about to be sent to the proverbial poor house.  But it is interesting to see that Democratic leaders like her have pretty much nothing to show their base for several years' worth of work on their part, hence the need to "run home to Momma"--  big, bad Karl Rove and his evil Republican henchmen. 

Liberals and progressives think their own leaders suck (and they do), but Karl Rove, despite having failed to deliver that famed "permanent majority" is, it appears, still a leader more feared than ineffective Harry Reid-- or his deputy, Patty Murray.  We'll soon know how effective gambits like this are, however, with June 30 just around the corner. ...
>> more

A poll commissioned by the campaign of Jaime Herrera-- one of the Republican candidates running to succeed retiring Rep. Brian Baird in WA-03-- indicates that Republicans, and Herrera in particular, have a good shot at recapturing the seat:

In response to the question, "If the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for the Republican candidate or Democratic candidate?" 42 percent said they would vote Republican, 35 percent said they would vote Democratic, 3 percent said "neither" and 20 percent were undecided.

The other big-name Republican in the race, David Castillo, is taking issue with the poll, telling the Columbian's reporter covering the poll "I take it with a grain of salt," and "The sample size is too small... Where in the district did they poll? The vast majority of voters have no idea there is an election going on."  Castillo considers the survey "a name ID poll."

That's a valid point: Herrera is better known than Castillo among folks who aren't necessarily hyper-politically engaged in the district but will likely vote in the primary and therefore, his implied point that things could change quite a bit before primary day is correct, at least as a hypothetical (also, the "undecided" numbers are high). 

My question, however, is what Castillo has planned to change that.  Neither he nor Herrera has been doing the stellar job of fundraising that we've seen among congressional candidates in some other districts (I'm sorry to say, but the facts are the facts) and at the end of the day, when it comes to raising name ID if you're a relative unknown (and the survey data suggests Castillo is), money matters... because TV advertising, the most reliable guarantor of raising name ID, matters.  It's also, incidentally, one of the things that means that while I'm encouraged by this poll because it's a further indication of positive trends for Republicans in WA-03, I'm not jumping up and down with joy.  Herrera, though better known, is still likely not known by nearly as many voters as she needs to be to be best-positioned to win in November (assuming for the sake of argument that she is on the ballot then)-- even though she's a lot closer to that mark than Castillo is.

Underdog candidates routinely say that they can win elections because a) they'll visit the most voter-attended events, shake the most hands, and kiss the most babies b) they'll do an excellent job on the earned media side of the equation and/or c) they'll have the best motivated and best-organized volunteers.  A variation on a) and/or c) above applicable this year is d) they'll reach out to, and garner the support of, the Tea Party, a major activist force in 2010 American politics and one that could be more powerful than people imagine because its impact hasn't been fully tested or vetted with lots of Republican primaries still set to take place. 

But while that last bit is technically true, political observers should be skeptical of over-egging the proverbial pudding when it comes to Tea Party support and the ramifications of it.  Yes, Sharron Angle (the semi-surprise winner of Nevada's Republican Senate primary-- I say semi-surprise because I actually thought she had a good chance from abut 6 months ago) was the "Tea Party" favorite.  But she also had support from the Club for Growth, an organization with money and demonstrated power to affect Republican nominating contests.  Likewise, Utah's Mike Lee, another Tea Party favorite, benefited from a surge of support ahead of Utah's first round of steps in nominating a Republican Senate candidate-- a surge of support that helped snuff out Sen. Robert Bennett's re-election hopes.  But, the Club for Growth also wanted Bennett out, and now, Lee, the Tea Partier, isn't looking supremely likely to be on the ballot come November (Tim Bridgewater, however, is)-- so again, we see an outcome arguably very driven by Club, and far less driven by the Tea Party.  So, there is that (Tea Party support is a little bit helpful, but primarily seems to make for a good talking point for candidates to emphasize to activists, bloggers and editorial board how conservative and outsiderish they are, even when they're not).

But separately, jumping back to these other arguments, I can't think of a single race I've ever heard of (possibly barring Alvin Greene's win of the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary last month) where they've delivered victory, or been the main factor contributing to it. 

The reality is, money matters, because money gives you the ability, as a candidate, to build name ID-- and that's fundamentally why I'm more convinced as to the accuracy and relevance of this poll than is Castillo.

Ultimately, no matter the sample size, the reality is, most voters who are likely to cast a ballot in Washington's top two primary this year are likely aware that there will be such a primary in the coming months (the vast quantity of news surrounding Dino Rossi's entrance to the Senate race kind of guarantees that).  And unfortunately for Castillo, the reality is that name ID poll or no name ID poll, in the absence of him buying a decent chunk of ad time and familiarizing voters with himself, Herrera looks better positioned to win right now.

That need not be the case, and honestly, I like both candidates quite a lot (I think both candidates are smart, engaging and extremely capable).  Castillo, specifically, is extremely charming and I think he's an honest, forthright, and kind man.  I can see him easily selling voters in the third on his candidacy, with the right resources.

The trouble is, I'm not sure he's got them, and if he doesn't or if that doesn't change, he's probably going to keep seeing poll results like this-- whether that should, or should not, be the case in an ideal world.

Whatever the case, Republicans should feel cautiously optimistic about WA-03-- and stay on offense. And for the time being, anyway, I hope that means all of them. ...
>> more

I guarantee it:

A pediatric urologist at Cornell—Dix Poppas—has been operating on little girls with what he judges to be oversized clitorises, cutting away important clitoral tissues, and then stitching the glans to what remains of the shaft.

[...]

At annual visits after the surgery, while a parent watches, Poppas touches the daughter’s surgically shortened clitoris with a cotton-tip applicator and/or with a “vibratory device,” and the girl is asked to report to Poppas how strongly she feels him touching her clitoris. Using the vibrator, he also touches her on her inner thigh, her labia minora, and the introitus of her vagina, asking her to report, on a scale of 0 (no sensation) to 5 (maximum), how strongly she feels the touch...  Poppas has indicated in this article and elsewhere that ideally he seeks to conduct annual exams with these girls...

Let's make no bones about it: This is extremely disturbing.  Extremely so.

First of all, we have medically sanctioned genital mutilation going on here.  Second of all, we have a doctor doing something that walks a pretty fine line with an act that would, absent the "medical" rationale, come very close to straight-up molestation-- and, as Dan Savage rightly notes, fairly purposeless molestation, from the girls' perspectives (if their sensation has been diminished, what's the doctor going to do about it? Nothing, that's what).

At the end of the day, we live in a society where the generally accepted rule is that parents make medical decisions for their kids.  But we also live in a society whose laws do not tolerate child abuse.

It seems to me that permanently altering a child's sexual organs in a way that has significant potential (and clearly, the doctor here accepts that premise, otherwise, why conduct research after the fact to assess sensitivity) to affect their emotional existence moving forward (because sex is something that arises in normal, committed, emotional relationships and sex without feeling is kind of like eating a 5-course, 5-star dinner without being able to taste it-- both unsatisfying and disturbing) falls into an obvious category of something we should not just say "OK" to, willy-nilly.  In fact, it seems to me that this is the kind of thing that a) Cornell University should not be tolerating, as a matter of practice and b) may well be worthy of actually legislating on, given the recent discussion of the American Academy of Pediatrics signing off on what amounts to better-branded female genital mutilation where needed to satisfy certain cultural dictates. Fundamentally, something needs to be done to protect relatively powerless individuals' rights (those of, say, 6 year-old girls) from the "good intentions" of others-- their parents, this particular member of the medical community, or religious leaders who think female circumcision is a good thing.

To be clear, I'm not accusing the doctor discussed here of having the mens rea of a kiddie-fiddler.  But I do think he is doing something that is likely to prove tremendously emotionally damaging to these girls, just as female circumcision itself is, in the name of science-- and it really is irrelevant that he's not getting off on it in the course of that action.

Cornell University needs to put a stop to this, immediately.  If it is going on elsewhere, those cutting the checks wherever "elsewhere" may be need to put a stop to it, also.  This is, at a minimum, battery, and at worst, it's child abuse.  Either way, it's intolerable. ...
>> more

I've long maintained that Democrats are just as prone to infringing on Americans' civil liberties as Republicans, and very frequently in the name of combating terrorism-- something more associated with Republicans in the public's mind, probably thanks to the very aggressive (and in my view often problematic) approach taken by the Bush administration, with the vocal support of key Republicans in Congress.

But today comes a reminder that Democrats aren't really all that much better.  Right now, under a sitting Democratic President (a self-professed constitutional law professor who talked up civil liberties a lot before flip-flopping and voting in favor of "FISA Reform" in 2008), we have a situation in which an American citizen, born in this country, has effectively been exiled by our government because he's on the no-fly list (which, I might add, has proven over the years to be littered with errors, including the placement of Ted Kennedy's name on it) and because government bureaucrats can't get creative regarding things like, you know, maybe bringing him home handcuffed:

... the case of Yahya Wehelie is really just outrageous beyond belief. Keep in mind as you read that he's a U.S. citizen born and raised in Virginia:

Let's call a spade a spade and just say straight up, "this sucks."  But I would bet the Obama administration does pretty much nothing about it, just like you'd expect, you know, George W Bush not to do anything about it.

Hope.  Change. ...
>> more