Just in Case You Thought Negative Campaigning Started with the Blogosphere...

Just heard about Joseph Cummins' new book, Anything for a Vote, about the history of, shall we say, strenuous campaigning...it's hilarious and enlightening. Here are some snippets:

• 1836: Congressman Davy Crockett accuses candidate Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women's clothing: "He is laced up in corsets!"
• 1912: Theodore Roosevelt is shot in the chest while preparing to give a campaign speech, then proceeds to deliver it anyway: "I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot, but it takes more than that to kill a bull moose!"
• 1960: Former president Harry Truman advises voters that "if you vote for Richard Nixon, you ought to go to hell!"
  

And this tibdit about the election in 1800 between Jefferson and Adams...

The Federalists couldn’t get enough of attacking Jefferson in a very, very personal way---their assaults sound like the insults leveled at Bill Clinton, another Southerner, almost 200 years later. "Jefferson is a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia Mulatto father," said one leaflet. A Connecticut paper raised the specter of the French Revolution, supposedly beloved by Jefferson: "Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames ... female chastity violated, [your] children writhing on the pike? GREAT GOD OF COMPASSION AND JUSTICE, SHIELD MY COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION!"

Oregon Measure 50 and SCHIP - Thoughts on Children's Health Care

So, there has been lots of talk concerning children's health lately. To summarize:

Measure 50: Would modify the Oregon Constitution to add an 80 cent tax on cigarettes and use the money to pay for children's health. Would not create any new government agencies, but would add staff, so there would be more bureaucracy than now.

SCHIP: would expand plans to provide government assistance for health insurance for children. Families making $80k a year would still be eligible for government assistance. President Bush is proposing a much more modest increase in government assistance.

The Blue Dog View:
I'm not opposed to the idea of government helping provide for children's health for people who truly can't afford it. But government assistance for those making $80k a year? That's hard for me to swallow as a fiscal centrist. the other issue I have is that I think the health system we have in this country is really broken. And I don't think you fix a financially flawed system by simply throwing more government money at it. I haven't heard anything in either one of these proposals about actually making changes to the health care system itself, so to me adding more government money into the system without some kind of structural change is really counter-productive.

Of course I could be wrong...thoughts?

Is the country becoming less polarized?

Isn't it interesting that the leading candidates for President for each party (Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani) are both very much centrist candidates? I think it's interesting that both parties seem to be following the "Bill Clinton model" of pretty much taking the base for granted and going after the middle of the country.

It should get very interesting pretty soon.

The MoveOn Ad - Thoughts From the Center

As a centrist Democrat, I have big problems with the "Betray US" ad. There are many claims in the ad that trouble me greatly.

One example:

Here is the quote from the MoveOn ad:

The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot
in the back of the head — not the front.

In fact, this is the quote from the Washington Post article:

Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against
civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as
combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in
Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the
official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

So clearly, the Post isn't making that claim - they are quoting a single (unnamed) source who appears to have said it. That is a HUGE difference.

Another example:

Here's another quote from the ad:

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge
strategy has failed.

One of the reports they cite, the General Accounting Office (GAO) Report, as evidence (the first and only one I looked at) never judges whether the surge has succeeded or failed. It does indicate that of the 18 benchmarks established by the Iraqi government, 3 were fully successful, 4 were partially successful, and 11 were not successful. Since the surge was mainly intended to reduce the violence, and certainly not to "fix" every benchmark, let's look at what they said about the level of violence:

These results do not diminish the courageous efforts of coalition forces and
progress that has been made in several areas, including Anbar Province.

...

It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased—a key
security benchmark—since it is difficult to measure whether the perpetrators’ intents were sectarian in nature, and other measures of population security show differing trends. As the Congress considers the way forward in Iraq, it should balance the achievement of the 18 Iraqi benchmarks with military progress
and with homeland security goals, foreign policy goals, and other goals of the
United States.

My Bottom Line:

I'm not in any way defending the decision to go to Iraq or the initial planning. I think it was ill-conceived and incompetently planned. However, to attempt to sully the reputation of a decorated soldier who has devoted thirty years of his life to our country's service, and who has a spotless ethical record based on such shoddy, trumped-up charges is at the very least irresponsible, and does irreparable harm to the very cause MoveOn says they are trying to further. This is evidenced by the many Democrats who have criticized or condemned the ad.

Add my name to the list.

Thought on immigration

Since everyone is talking about immigration, here is my two cents...

conservatives can talk all they want about the "rule of law"...but what if a law is a bad law? I think the reason the immigration laws haven't been enforced is that they were poorly conceived and funded, and restricted legal immigration to such an extent that they guaranteed an influx of illegal immigration. It would seem to me the answer is to 1. Yes, do a better job of enforcing our border but 2. Provide realistic procedures for people who want to come to this country and work and raise a family. Currently we have two problems:

1. It's too easy to come here illegally
2. It's too difficult to come here legally

You can't only fix one of these problems...in fact, they are inextricably intertwined.

Some quotes on immigrants and immigration

Remember, remember always, that all of us... are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

What, then, is this new man, the American? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes. From this promiscuous breed, that race, now called Americans, have arisen.
- J. Hector St. Josh de Crevecouer

In times of shrinking expectations,... everyone feels like a victim and pushes away outsiders to defend his own corner.
- Oscar Handlin

Remember that when you say "I will have non of this exile and this stranger for his face is not like my face and his speech is strange," you have denied America with that word.
- Stephen Vincent Benet

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
- Emma Larzarus

Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.
- John F. Kennedy

Ronald Reagan on Immigration

This article on the Cato Institute's website shows just how far modern so-called conservatives have strayed from the vision of their inspiration, Ronald Reagan, when it comes to views on immigration.

Here is a snippet:

In his farewell address to the nation in January 1989, Reagan beautifully wove his view of free trade and immigration into his vision of a free society: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here."

Compare Reagan's hopeful, expansive, and inclusive view of America with the dour, crabbed, and exclusive view that characterizes certain conservatives who would claim his mantle. Their view of the world could not be more alien to the spirit of Ronald Reagan.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Senate approves a big-brother "Going Out of Business" sale law

The Oregon Senate has approved a bill which would basically regulate going out of business sales. Here is an excerpt from the article in the Oregonian:

The measure would require merchants to submit a notice of intent to conduct
such a sale with the Secretary of State's office. The notice, including the
beginning and ending dates of the sale, would have to be displayed in a
prominent place at the sale location. ...

In addition of the notice of intent requirement, the bill would prohibit
the practice of moving inventory from another store or a warehouse to a store
that is supposedly shutting down. It also defines a "sham" sale as a going out
of business event in which the intent of the owner is to remain open or to
reopen the business at another location in the same area.

My take:
What's to stop a merchant from doing the exact same thing, but simply calling it a "Sale" instead of a "Going Out of Business" sale? This just seems like a dumb law. It's the government getting in the way of a business providing something to a consumer that they could benefit from. If they can show a harm to the consumer from this, I'd be willing to listen...but I don't see it. It just seems like market competition to me.

Immigration Bill Post-Mortem (for now)

Well, as most have probably heard, the immigration bill that was in the Senate is dead - at least for now. I have two thoughts about this issue:

• Why all the happy-dancing among conservatives? OK, I do understand they got a victory of sorts by defeating a bill they honestly see as bad for the country. But where does that leave us? Exactly where we were. With a President solidly behind a comprehensive bill and congress sharply divided, the likelihood that there will be a "fence-first" immigration bill passed into law in the near future is exactly zero. Which means the status quo is the best the conservatives can hope for, unless they compromise on something that's less than what they want.
• The total lack of trust from both sides. Wow. This last week has been amazing. Democrats lambasting Democrats, Republicans smearing Republicans. It occurs two me there is a total lack of trust on both sides. On the one side you have the "fencists", who want enforcement first largely because they feel they were hoodwinked in the past concerning immigration legislation, and are simply not willing to trust the other side when they say a comprehensive solution will also include vigorous enforcement. Then on the other side, you have the "comprehensivists" who do not trust the good faith of the fencists. They believe that if the fencists get their fence law, they will simply abandon the whole idea of a guest worker program. So, what we have here is two groups who can't trust each other father than they can throw them. And that, more than any particular legislative issue, is what is the biggest roadblock.

Where this blue dog lies - my political leanings

I have a very diverse political background. My father was a staunch republican, my mother a moderate democrat. I come from a strong Catholic family, but have sisters who are members of NOW. So, that being said, I would describe myself as a “Bill Clinton democrat”. Here are some of my positions:

• Abortion: Let’s get the biggie out of the way early. I am pro-choice, which is somewhat controversial for a Mormon. I just don’t believe in criminalizing abortion. However, I do favor waiting periods, notification of some responsible party for minors (although I recognize this might not always be a parent). I completely endorse the position of President Clinton - that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
• National Defense: As a veteran and the son of a World War II veteran, I have strong commitment to national defense. I wouldn’t have chosen the war in Iraq, but I feel we need to complete the job as well as we are able. In the future, I would hope that we will be more intelligent about the use of our military resources, and use them in places where there is a more direct threat to America (like we did in Afhganistan).
• Social Programs: Again, I am with President Clinton on this issue. He said the era of big government is over. I believe there can be a mix of public and private money, working together, to make things better for people. I believe strongly in the free enterprise system, but am NOT a believer in the idea that all government is bad. I think the answer to bad government isn’t no government, it’s better government.

Anyway...that's where I am. I'd love to hear where you are.

Gordon Smith challenger claims they'll stay positive...

Bates' strategist: don't go negative on Smith

The above BlueOregon post concerns Sen. Alan Bates and his possible challenge of Gordon Smith for his U.S. Senate seat. His people are saying he pledges not to go negative. Here's a snippet:

Former Ashland Mayor -- and Bates' campaign strategist -- Cathy Shaw commented in response (and quoted in the Daily Tidings) that a Bates campaign would stay positive and not engage Smith directly.

Cathy Shaw on a Bates candidacy:
Of Novick and Bates, they’re both great with each bringing different strengths and weaknesses. Although I do not know Steve well, I do know Bates and he will never go after a democrat in a race. How do I know that? Because, he won’t attack a republican opponent either; never has, never will. Before all of you roll your eyes and say that anyone refusing to go negative is an “amateur” or doesn’t know the game, I would suggest reading Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book entitled: Everything You Think You Know About Politics…And Why You’re Wrong (A New Republic Book, 2000).

And in the Tidings:
As for running an aggressive race, Shaw said Bates "never has, and never will" run a negative campaign. "He just doesn't do that," Shaw said. "People say it wins elections, but it doesn't."

My take:
It all depends on what you mean by "negative campaigning". If a candidate refuses to aggressively point out flaws in their opponent's actions or positions, then they have no business running for public office. However, pointing out an opponent's bad policy decisions or faulty political ideas is not the same as attacking someone personally. I'd expect a candidate who is tough and courageous, but also principled and wise. The end is important, but it ultimately doesn't justify the means.

Civil rights vs. the needs of the government to administer justice - keeping things in perspective

In all this talk of NSA spying and the Patriot Act, some critics of the President have said we have moved to living in "a police state" and called the president "a dictator". There are serious issues to be decided to be sure...but let's review a little Civics:

• The President can be removed from office by Congress at any time, for virtually any reason (the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution is left entirely up to Congress to interpret - the Supreme Court has consistently refused to weigh in on what this means).
• Congress, by getting a 2/3 majority, can pass any law they want, at any time, and there's nothing the President can do about it.
• Congress can effectively end any war by cutting off funding for the fighting of it - this is essentially what they did during the Vietnam War.

As far as turning the U.S. into a police state...it might be helpful to read a description in Parade Magazine of daily life in North Korea (published in Feb 2005):

• The Ministry of People’s Security places spies in workplaces and neighborhoods to inform on anyone who criticizes the regime, even at home.
• All radios and TV sets are fixed to receive only government stations.
• Disloyalty to Kim Jong Il and his late father, Kim Il Sung, is a punishable crime: Offenses include allowing pictures of either leader to gather dust or be torn or folded.
• The population is divided into “loyalty groups.” One-third belong to the “hostile class.” These people receive the worst jobs and housing and may not live in the capital, Pyongyang.
• Below the hostiles are the estimated 250,000 held in prison camps, some for crimes allegedly committed by relatives.
• Executions often are performed in public.

The decline and fall of eco-terrorism

Susan Nielsen has an editorial in The Oregonian on the decline in the popularity of eco-sabotage in recent years...it's definitely worth a read.

Here's the gist of recent punishments:

The largest prosecution of eco-sabotage in U.S. history hit a milestone last week. A federal judge in Eugene sentenced Stanislas G. Meyerhoff to 13 years in prison, and two others to long terms, for their roles in a serial arson campaign that crossed the West and caused at least $40 million in damage to corporate and government property. Seven more people in the ring are scheduled to learn their punishments by early June.

She then goes on to show the complete inconsistency in their actions, including times when attacks had the exact opposite of the intended effect:

...they caused a lot of damage without coming anywhere near a global hub of power. They terrified scores of innocent people without sticking anything to The Man.

My take:
I think anytime you use destruction of property and killing of innocent people to make a political point, no matter how apparently valid the point, you become a terrorist. And you do something evil. There is simply no getting around it.

Who owns a student newspaper?

"Timely help for student speech", The Oregonian, March 29.

This editorial, among other things, says "And there's no bright line between teenage speech that's clearly out of line and speech that's simply juvenile, inspired or uncomfortably true. "

Actually, I think there is a bright line. To quote:

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. ~Abbott
Joseph Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" New Yorker, 4 May 1960

Who owns a high school student newspaper? That is, after all, the ultimate question isn't it? If I am a reporter for the Oregonian, and I turn in a story that is unacceptably biased, and my editor chooses not to run it, are they engaging in censorship? Of course not...the owners of a press (and their representatives) have every right to exercise editorial control over the entity they own.

Do students own the student paper? My thought is that they don't...it is ultimately the newspaper of the school, and is owned by the school (and, ultimately, the state of Oregon). Certainly there should be significant deference given to freedom of expression. After all, a school paper is supposed to be an educational endeavor. But if a faculty member exercises their editorial control over a paper they ultimately own is not an infringement on freedom from speech, but is rather an editor/publisher...well, editing. If the students truily want something they completely control, they should do as I did in my subversive youth...and start their own paper, independent of the school.

To pause and think

I was musing tonight about polarization - about the continuing divide in this country between groups of people. I heard a commentator talk about "red states" and "blue states" as if we were two different countries. It struck me that it's possible different states have not been divided up into two factions in such stark terms since the civil war.

And then I read Robert F. Kennedy's talk the night Martin Luther King was shot. (Here is a link to it if you are curious.And I was struck by something...perhaps we don't always realize the danger of attacking the motives of good, honest people who we disagree with. Because the road isn't necessarily long between vilifiying and subsequently dehumanizing our political opponents, and sticking a rifle to the head of a fellow American citizen and pulling the trigger.

It's interesting to note that with all the wars we've fought, it's still true that the one where the most life was lost...was the one we fought against ourselves.

Student's Public Praying - Legitimate Expression or Dangerous Activity?

Where two or more students are gathered in God's name . . . there is controversy

This article in the Oregonian today piqued my interest. The basic facts are:

• Some students gathered to pray regularly in a “commons” area of the school.
• The principal, feeling it was blocking the way of students and teachers, asked them to move to a classroom to pray.
• They refused.

Of course, both sides are lining up for the show. Here’s an excerpt:

"The case has already been seized upon by national figures and advocacy groups.
The Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based conservative legal advocacy group aligned with The Rev. Jerry Falwell, has thrown its support behind the students, threatening to sue the district over the principal's suspensions. School officials received numerous complaints Thursday from radio listeners in Wisconsin, and a Christian radio station in Florida plans to air a discussion of the incident and issue, and area churches have phoned in solidarity.
On the other side is Heritage High and Evergreen Public Schools, whose administrators say they were just trying to get students to class safely and on time, and evenhandedly apply rules about student gatherings. The school, just north of east Vancouver, is nestled in a working-class neighborhood of modest homes. "

Not all the folks in the religious community in the area are lining up behind the students, however. Here is what Roger D. Miller, principal of Vancouver Christian High School, had to say:

Do I think students should follow policies for how to organize a group? Yes. Do I think sometimes religious groups in schools get unfair treatment? I'd probably agree with that, too. Whether this is one of those cases, I don't know.

My take

To me, it boils down to one basic question…were the students actually blocking reasonable access to areas of the school for other students and teachers? If so, it’s a no-brainer…they have to pray somewhere else. If the reverse is true, then this is clearly a case of an attempt to deny freedom of expression.

"The Barack I Knew"

This article on townhall.com by Carol Platt Liebau, who worked with Obama many years ago on the Harvard Law Review, is fascinating. She is a strong conservative who doesn't agree with Obama on much of anything policy-wise...yet she has many complimentary things to say about him.

She said he is:

• intelligent
• colorblind
• self-confident
• a good listener
• has a great sense of humor

As Obama is my choice (at least early on), this sounds pretty encouraging, coming from a conservative.