Minnesota First

It's Official

2008-09-10T06:27:00.003-05:00

The general election has officially begun! Congratulations to Dr. Davis (and Mr. Walz, I suppose) on his primary win and also to Mr. Day for a well-fought campaign and not-too-shabby showing against a much better-funded candidate.

Now it's time for Dr. Davis to answer some important questions. More on this after work today!

MTP

2008-09-07T13:21:00.004-05:00

I hope Brian Davis was watching Meet The Press this morning. The ever-insightful Thomas Friedman directly addressed the chants of "Drill, baby, drill" at the Republican convention (via Lexis-Nexis):

BROKAW: It's hard to get the kind of focus that we need on this kind of a challenge in the midst of a political season. Last week they were chanting "drill, baby, drill," at the Republican convention. Senator Obama, speaker Nancy Pelosi have said recently, well they'd be willing to take a look at offshore drilling, even though we know that there wouldn't be any real productivity for 10 more years. Both parties, it seems to me, share a responsibility here and blame at the same time.

FRIEDMAN: No, there's no question this has been a bipartisan effort to get us into this alley, dead end, that we're in right now, Tom. But when I hear, drill, drill, drill, or drill, baby, drill, I try to imagine--Tom, you were at the convention, I wasn't, what would happen if the Saudi, Venezuelan, Russian and Nigeria observers were up in a sky box in that Xcel Center listening to the crowd chant, "drill, drill, drill"? What would they be doing? They'd be up there leading the chant. They'd be saying this is great. America isn't sitting there saying, "Invent, invent, invent new, renewable energy," they're saying, "drill, drill, drill." And you know, for me, yes, we do need to exploit our domestic resource. I'm actually not against drilling. What I'm against is making that the center of our focus, because we are on the eve of a new revolution, the energy technology revolution. It would be, Tom, as if on the eve of the IT revolution, the revolution of PCs and the Internet, someone was up there standing and demanding, "IBM Selectric typewriters, IBM Selectric typewriters." That's what drill, drill, drill, is the equivalent of today.

ScienceDebate 2008

2008-09-06T11:23:00.002-05:00

I also promised to get back to more science and technology policy issues this fall. ScienceDebate 2008 is a grassroots effort with the goal of hosting a presidential debate that focuses on science issues, which are traditionally ignored in most elections. Prominent scholars, community leaders, and legislators, including Tim Walz, signed on to support the debate. Unfortunately, neither candidate was willing to schedule an actual joint appearance, but both candidates have committed to sending written responses to 14 questions. Barack Obama's are here.

The Stakes

2008-09-06T10:55:00.003-05:00

As fun and exciting as it is to follow the horse race aspect of politics, I think we all, and I am often guilty of this, sometimes forget exactly what is at stake. Check out the conclusions from the latest data released by the Census Bureau about the economy from 2001-2007:

Since 2001, poverty has worsened in Minnesota

Nearly 1 in 12 Minnesotans do not have health insurance.

Minnesota faces an economic downturn with a lower median income than in the last recessions.

The Culmination

2008-08-28T22:37:00.003-05:00

What a night. No matter what your political stripes, it is hard not to feel proud of Barack Obama and what he has achieved. It is a truly a milestone in American history. Not to mention the speech (minus that music at the end).

Until this point, I really felt that the convention had been lacking vigor and focus. Tonight, I think that Barack Obama went a long way in clarifying his general election message and really defining his view of the choice that will be presented to the American voters in the fall. "Change" is still there and so is "hope", but I think that the real new buzzword tonight was "American promise". Those are two words that I think we will be hearing a lot more in the next two months. It is a succinct summary of Obama's message and I think that it really worked tonight. John McCain and the Republicans will have a hard time following this speech next week.

Here's one definition of "the promise" from Obama:

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

I'm seeing some reaction on the AP wire right now criticizing the lack of policy details in this speech. I agree there might have been more, especially given the prevailing wisdom that Obama has an "experience problem". There will be time for Obama to demonstrate his policy knowledge in the debates. This speech was about Obama's vision for the country, and I believe people will appreciate that. Nonetheless, I still maintain that he is going to have get a little more detail-oriented as people really begin tuning in to this election. Overall, this was a great night for Obama and gives him momentum in this race until at least next week.

Finally, it has been a pleasure restarting this blog this summer. There will most likely be no new posts until late next week. I am heading back to school this weekend, so things are going to get pretty busy. This is a great time in politics and it has been so fun blogging about it. Please keep sending me emails and leaving comments; it is nice to hear from the people reading, whether you agree with me or not. Also, I plan to write a lot more about science issues when I return. That was one of my main focuses last year, and I have strayed from that this summer. Have a wonderful Labor Day!

Dueling Ads

2008-08-26T23:48:00.004-05:00

The first ads of the congressional race in Minnesota’s First District have been released.

First let’s take a look at Congressman Walz’s ad:

Transcript:

TIM WALZ: It’s pretty clear – the Bush energy plan is working. For the big oil companies, not for us. I’m Tim Walz. We need a balanced plan that gets us out of this mess for good. Let’s increase oil production here at home, speed up and advance alternative energy, and invest in energy that makes conservation affordable and practical. I approve this message because American ingenuity we can have a real energy plan that ends our dependence on foreign oil and works for us.

My initial impression is that this is a very strong and effective ad for Walz. It has become clear for some time that Davis plans to make this campaign about drilling. In this ad, Walz offers a cogent, tempered, and statesman-like approach to the energy crisis, and I believe it will contrast well with frantic shrieks of “Drill here! Drill now!” It is also a much better rebuttal than Speaker Pelosi’s.

I have one suggestion: I believe that it might have been more effective to feature, by name, the “Walz Bipartisan Energy Plan” that takes a prominent place on Walz’s website. By highlighting that, Walz would have been able to show his constituents in a tangible way what Tim has been working on in Washington. Also, it would have associated Walz with “bipartisanship” – a positive linkage, especially considering the distaste many have for Congress due greatly to hyperpartisan gridlock. He could have even said, as stated on the website, “In July of 2008, Tim and about 20 of his colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, got fed up with the partisan bickering and finger-pointing in Congress about who is to blame for our energy crisis and decided to do something about it. They kicked the special interests from the room, rolled up their sleeves and got to work to figure out a smart, balanced plan that makes America energy independent.” That would have been a great start to the ad. He should then have talked about responsible drilling. It is important to emphasize the drilling aspect in this way for two reasons. First, most Americans favor drilling. Second, it gives him more credibility than Brian Davis’s reckless “plan” to simply drill anywhere, anytime, no matter what. This is the kind of thing that should be highlighted in the future. It gives Tim Walz “pragmatic cred” especially when juxtaposed next to Dr. Davis’s attack in his ad.

Cue the scary music, it is time to take a look at the ad from Dr. Davis:

Transcript:

NARRATOR: Tim Walz says he’s against drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore. Instead of staying at work to solve our problem of high gas prices, he voted to shut down Congress and take a summer vacation.

BRIAN DAVIS: I’m Brian Davis. I’m not a career politician, but I know that most Americans want to drill here and drill now. If I’m elected to Congress I’ll work to remove all barriers to drilling for our own oil. Our children are relying on us to do the right thing. I’m Brian Davis, and I approve this message.

This ad is a classic 2-part attack ad – attack and end positive. As to its effectiveness, I am not sure. It will definitely help Davis in his primary. In addition to boosting his name recognition, Davis will also appeal to the overwhelming sentiment in the Republican party that we should be drilling. The ad also plays to Tim Walz’s greatest weakness – he is a member of the only governmental institution that has a lower approval rating than Dick Cheney. By talking about “going on vacation” Davis may be able to tap into the sentiment that this Congress has been particularly ineffective. I am not sure the larger effect the drilling attack will have. Many Minnesotans including Norm Coleman, and even John McCain, oppose or at one point opposed (who knows considering McCain’s flip-flops on energy), drilling in Alaska and offshore. Minnesotans tend to favor conservation, so I am not sure if Davis is in line with those views or not. I have not seen any recent polling on this issue from Minnesota, so whether this has changed or not given current gasoline prices is unknown in any quantitative way.

This ad is a lot less substantive than that of Rep. Walz, but that has been the case throughout this campaign – Davis has not provided a lot of specifics on many issues. I suppose this is really the best they had to work with, and given that, this is a fair effort. Davis knows that to win, he must make the incumbent the issue, and it is clear that that is the main intention of this ad. In a year that seems to favor Democrats, however, Dr. Davis may have a hard time accomplishing that.

Check out MN Central's thoughtful analysis of Davis's ad here.

I think in this first skirmish of the ad war, Congressman Walz has definitely come out on top. His ad was substantive and showed Walz as the candidate of ideas. Davis, meanwhile, took the opposite approach, deciding to criticize Walz and provide a somewhat simplistic approach to energy. It will become increasingly clear in the next two months the effects of Davis’s attacks. I argue that Walz must continue to present himself as a pragmatist who works for the people in spite of politics if he wants to keep the people on his side.

Needless to say, this is going to be an interesting two months.

Tim Walz on Joe Biden

2008-08-26T16:31:00.003-05:00

The Austin Daily Herald reported today on the reactions of local Democrats to Obama's choosing Joe Biden as a running mate. Tim Walz is quoted:

U.S. Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., who was in town Monday to trumpet a new veteran’s bill, said as much.

“People know that we need a change,” he said, adding, “I think it makes good sense to have someone who knows the system.”

I am not sure I agree. Yes, Joe Biden has experience on foreign affairs and is skilled in the ways of Washington, but do these qualities really help the ticket get elected? Of course these qualities will be useful when it comes to governance. In the election, however, they mainly serve to underscore Obama's shortcomings in FP experience, however unintentionally. Biden also will undercut the "change" argument even if he does not own a house in DC. On the other hand perhaps the choice demonstrates Obama's understanding of his own flaws and the need to overcome them. I have no doubt that Joe Biden would be a capable president and will hold his own in the VP debate, but I am not convinced he adds anything more electorally (actually he probably adds less) than Hillary Clinton, who would also be a capable president. We'll see how this all pans out.

Another interesting angle to this choice is how it will affect McCain's. The conventional wisdom, and I think I agree, is that this lowers Pawlenty's stock. He is viewed as too bland and the thought is he would be eaten alive in the VP debate with Biden. I am not sure the VP debate has ever swayed an election, and I think McCain (according to reports) values loyalty, so Pawlenty may not be out of this. I think Romney should probably be out, unless McCain doesn't mind being made to look foolish. Romney relentlessly attacked McCain during the primary, and the fact that he is a multimillionaire is probably not helping his case given McCain's recent gaffe. And I think we should all be on the lookout for Sen. Hutchinson.

Walz Stands Up For Veterans

2008-08-25T22:54:00.003-05:00

From the Austin Daily Herald: Tim Walz has introduced legislation aimed at making travel cheaper for America's veterans by raising mileage reimbursement 30 cents. Many have criticized this Congress as do-nothing - I have found myself in that choir at some points - but their record on veterans has been at least one point of pride. Led by veteran-legislators like Tim Walz, Patrick Murphy, and Tim Webb, this Congress has raised the bar for the treatment of veterans who are so deserving. From the article:

Calling the bill “moral” and in the interest of national security, Walz said the Veterans Travel Program Reform Act of 2008 would increase mileage reimbursement from 28.5 cents to 58.5 cents for official travel; eliminate mandatory veteran deductibles; and remove income, pension and other eligibility standards.

Introduced July 31, the legislation is awaiting action in the House Veterans’ Affairs committee.
“We should just say, ‘What is it going to take?’ And then doing it in a fiscally responsible manner,” Walz said.

It’s a welcome change, according to local veterans, who admitted hardship because of the cost of travel, particularly for medical care. The closest veteran’s hospital is 100 miles away in Minneapolis, and, at current rates, the trip can feel cost prohibitive because of spiking gas prices, they said.

Good one, Tim.

I'm Back

2008-08-24T19:29:00.002-05:00

I'm back from vacation! It looks like things are really starting to pick up in the political world - this fall is going to be fun.

Check out this fantastic story from the NYT: A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

It is really sad that science class has become a political arena, but I suppose it is really inevitable. I'd much rather fight a war in the classroom than in a random country.

Here We Go Again

2008-08-16T19:18:00.000-05:00

US May Ease Police Spy Rules

Early Voting

2008-08-15T15:52:00.003-05:00

Early voting started last Friday, so if you are going to be away from your precinct on September 9, be sure to go vote. Tim Walz is unopposed in the primary, but if anyone is feeling up for a little Operation Chaos, Dick Day is an inviting option!

I'm finally going on vacation this weekend, so my posts will continue to be a bit sparse for a while, but I plan on returning with more substance later in the month.

Yikes

2008-08-09T23:25:00.002-05:00

Could it get worse than this for a candidate? It is basically like this Sam Brownback moment except with less xenophobia.

It's Been A While

2008-08-03T21:57:00.001-05:00

I just wanted to let you know that I have not left the blog. We are working on finishing an important project at work right now, so I am a bit preoccupied! Stay tuned...

Issues

2008-07-26T17:21:00.001-05:00

Because I have heard very little from the Davis campaign on anything other than gas prices and drilling for oil, I decided to explore his website a little to find out what he thinks about other issues. Apparently, not much.

The issues he lists on his website:

Taxes and Spending
Conservative Values
Health Care
Job Creation
Immigration
National Security and Terrorism

It looks like a good list, but his actual policy statements are wanting. I am not sure that he strays from the standard Republican talking points on any issue. Fortunately, we get a much abbreviated version of the standard stuff. Each of the six pages features an average of just 9.5 sentences! If you take out the “Immigration” page from the calculation the average is 6.8. The person who hopes to represent us cannot even muster the energy to write 10 sentences to address important policy issues.

I could take this opportunity to lament American politics which seems to find sustenance in only vague platitudes and canned one-liners, but this sentence should suffice.

Some advice for Dr. Davis: If you want people to vote for you, give them a reason. 9.5 sentences is not good enough.

New Poll

2008-07-24T16:06:00.002-05:00

Things are looking better for Minnesota Republicans in a new Quinnipiac poll this week:

Obama - 46
McCain - 44

Coleman - 53
Franken - 38

The presidential poll seems a little too close based on other recent surveys that have shown a larger lead for Obama. Nonetheless, I'm sure that the McCain camp is happy. It looks like Minnesota is shaping up to be a battleground once again this year. All bets are off if McCain chooses Pawlenty.

The Coleman-Franken race has been trending this way for some time, and Coleman seems to have comfortably reached the magic 50% mark for an incumbent. The race will most likely still be close this fall, but unless Franken is able to shine the spotlight on Coleman and stop explaining his past statements the Franken campaign will be DOA in November.

A Few Words

2008-07-20T18:49:00.002-05:00

While reading this afternoon, I came across this passage from the Supreme Court decision in Whitney v. California. In his 1927 opinion, Justice Brandeis eloquently writes,

Those who won our independence believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of American government.

Friday Update

2008-07-18T19:03:00.004-05:00

Today, Brian Davis again makes a feeble attempt at linking Tim Walz's tenure in Congress to rising gas prices. His pathetic admonition here:

Every time someone fills up their tank, they should consider who represents them in Washington. It's clear that Tim Walz is following his party leadership in Washington when it's not in the best interest of our District. Every day we put off opening up American areas to drilling is another day energy independence is pushed further into the future. It's like telling Minnesota farmers, if you want food tomorrow, don't plant in the spring, because you won't have anything to harvest until the Fall. With unemployment and inflation rising, and home valuea and the worth of retirement savings declining, Minnesotans deserve action now, not continued shortsightedness from Tim Walz.

His histrionic and incongruous analogy to Minnesota farmers aside, Brian Davis continues to expose himself as a unfit to serve our district. He accuses Tim Walz of "shortsightedness" for trying to advocate for the technology and energy policy that is in fact very forward-looking. Rather than looking for more oil, like a junkie jonesin' for his next fix, Tim Walz refuses to give in to the pressure to pander that the good doctor has apparently succumbed to. Dr. Davis is even more disingenuous in claiming that Tim Walz does not support more drilling. He does, just not in pristine habitats; rather, Mr. Walz supports drilling for oil in already-designated areas that have yet to be tapped. Brian Davis provides little details about his energy policy in this post, but luckily he has bestowed his wisdom on us previously and his simplistic, vacuous policies have been widely debunked here and elsewhere. If Tim Walz is shortsighted, then Brian Davis is positively blind.

Reality Check from FactCheck

2008-07-14T18:12:00.004-05:00

An oft-repeated Republican talking point in this campaign concerns Obama's alleged plan to increase taxes on small business owners. FactCheck.org takes John McCain to task today for these claims:

McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure.

We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000.

McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down.

Also, be sure to check out Larry King tonight at 8:00 Central for a possible announcement from Jesse Ventura.

Update: Jesse Ventura has just announced on CNN that he will not be running for the Senate this year.

John McCain and TR

2008-07-13T18:40:00.002-05:00

I think that one of the most telling things a presidential candidate can do is indicate which previous presidents he most admires and on whom he would base his theory of governance. Whose portrait will hang in the Oval Office in 2009? It was then with particular interest that I read this article in which John McCain makes himself out to be a “Roosevelt Republican”:

"I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said, referring to Roosevelt's reputation for reform, environmentalism and tough foreign policy.

After the great expansion of executive power in the last eight years, this is perhaps one of the most troubling statements I have heard throughout this campaign. TR currently enjoys a great legacy in the US largely because of his big personality and adherence to the “strenuous life”. He is consistently ranked as one of America’s best presidents and even had his faced carved into a South Dakota mountain. Why then do I find John McCain’s statement so objectionable?

As Gene Healy writes in his newest book, The Cult of the Presidency (which is thought-provoking even if you don’t agree with everything he says), TR’s administration was characterized by a “loud-mouthed cult of manliness; a warped belief that war can be a wonderful pick-me-up for whatever ails the national spirit and a contemptuous attitude toward limits on presidential power.”

Roosevelt was a progressive. If a Democrat actually picked up a history book and learned about the early nineteenth century progressives, he might from this word almost as fast as he ran from the word “liberal”. Also from Healy’s book:

The Progressives were “the nearest to presidential absolutists of any theorists and practitioners of the presidency,” Raymond Tatalovich and Thomas S. Engeman write in their intellectual history of the office, The Presidency and Political Science. In Progressive ideology, the president was “the agent of modern revolution,” and his powers needed to be “greatly invigorated to complete the herculean tasks” that revolution required. “To create a rational, egalitarian society,” Tatelovich and Engeman explain, “the Progressive president marshals public opinion while forcefully leading the political and social agencies of scientific progress. For both tasks, he needs the great rhetorical power provided by the Progressives’ intellectual vision.”

There is certainly an argument to be made that the Progressives, including TR, did make a lot of, well, progress in areas like conservation and workers’ rights. Nonetheless, the unitary executive theory of the twenty-first century finds its roots in the Progressive presidencies of Roosevelt and Wilson, and to a lesser extent, Taft.

After the modern student of history gets past Roosevelt’s objectionable racial beliefs – he wrote in The Winning of the West, “it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races” and “The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages” – one is met with TR’s disturbing devotion to the power of the Executive and his disdain and disregard for the Constitution.

It was during Roosevelt’s administration that the US “acquired” the Panama Canal zone (incidentally, where John McCain was born) and asserted itself as an imperial world power. To give credibility to this claim, Roosevelt ordered that the American navy, “The Great White Fleet”, circumnavigate the globe as a demonstration of this newly acquired power, and perhaps unintentionally, hubris.

It is also in TR’s administration that we find the real origins of the “Executive Order”. This is perhaps his greatest legacy in the area of presidential power. Essentially, it is Roosevelt who developed rule by presidential fiat. As a demonstration of his newfound power, TR wanted to direct the military to break a coal strike in Pennsylvania.

While John McCain may be hoping to tie a popular figure to his candidacy, it is important that Americans not forget history. I hope that someone in the mainstream press will challenge McCain on the issues that I have raised, but I find that unlikely. Anyone who has found Bush’s assertions of executive power in his terms disturbing must be very wary of John McCain. Now, which president does Obama like?

Newsweek Polls

2008-07-12T11:13:00.004-05:00

Check out the latest Newsweek presidential poll:

A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama's glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month's NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

If nothing else, this wide fluctuation should serve as a warning. This contest is fluid and polls are really limited in gaging public opinion. No candidate, and especially no candidate's supporters, should grow complacent. The funniest part of this Newsweek article is the explanation for the large disparity in results:

But perhaps most puzzling is how McCain could have gained traction in the past month. To date, direct engagement with Obama has not seemed to favor the GOP nominee. McCain has announced major initiatives on energy and the economy but failed to dominate the conversation on those issues. Last week's shake-up of the campaign's senior management did little to halt calls from Republicans for a major overhaul in McCain's message. Nor did it quell the lingering suspicion among Republicans that 2008 is simply destined to be a Democratic year. (Only 28 percent of voters in the new NEWSWEEK Poll approve of the job George W. Bush is doing as president.) McCain's biography still appears to be his greatest asset, with 55 percent of voters saying they have a favorable opinion of the Arizona senator, compared to 32 percent who have an unfavorable opinion. (Obama's favorable/unfavorable gap is virtually identical at 56 to 32.)

Maybe it is because your poll was flawed? Never!

Thanks, Amy

2008-07-09T18:48:00.002-05:00

As expected, the Senate passed the latest FISA bill that grants immunity to telecom companies. Thanks to Amy Klobuchar for looking out for Minnesotans and all Americans. You can check out the vote here.

Also interesting: Is Jesse Ventura back?

A Blast from the Past: The Constitution

2008-07-08T17:01:00.003-05:00

When I clicked on a NYT op-ed by James Baker and Warren Christopher titled, “Put War Powers Back Where They Belong”, I expected to read something to affirm my own views about war powers – that it is only the power of the Congress to start a war. Instead, Christopher and Baker propose a new law to replace the unconstitutional 1973 War Powers Resolution. Their proposal bows to presidential power and ignores the Constitution, providing little improvement over the 1973 resolution. They write,

Our proposed new law, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009, does not pretend to resolve the underlying constitutional issues — only a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision could do that. It would reserve the ability of both Congress and the president to assert their constitutional war powers. In drawing up the statute we focused on a common theme that almost all past proposals shared: the importance of meaningful consultation between the president and Congress before the nation is committed to war.

Our proposed statute would provide that the president must consult with Congress before ordering a “significant armed conflict” — defined as combat operations that last or are expected to last more than a week. To provide more clarity than the 1973 War Powers Resolution, our statute also defines what types of hostilities would not be considered significant armed conflicts — for example, training exercises, covert operations or missions to protect and rescue Americans abroad. If secrecy or other circumstances precluded prior consultation, then consultation — not just notification — would need to be undertaken within three days.

To guarantee that the president consults with a cross section of Congress, the act would create a joint Congressional committee made up of the leaders of the House and the Senate as well as the chairmen and ranking members of key committees. These are the members of Congress with whom the president would need to personally consult. Almost as important, the act would establish a permanent, bipartisan staff with access to all relevant intelligence and national-security information.

Christopher and Baker’s underlying assumption is flawed. This proposal is predicated on the idea that both the President and the Congress have the power to make war. Let’s consider that pesky document, the Constitution. Consider what the Framers wrote concerning the war powers of the Legislature:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Now let’s compare these duties to the Framers’ conception of Executive war power:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States (emphasis added).

In other words, the President does not have the power to start a war or use the military in any way unless specifically authorized by the US Congress with a declaration of war. Every President since Truman has used the military unconstitutionally, but that does not mean that the United States should consider adopting a law that aims to abrogate the Constitution. There is no wiggle room in the Constitution – not for covert ops or even the “emergencies”. The Constitution was made not only for the everyday but for emergencies as well. This may surprise some people in this post-9/11 United States. If matters are that pressing, the President can ask Congress to declare war, otherwise any use of the military is illegal. The idea that Congressional consultation must be mandated by this proposed statute is indicative of the warped view of war powers that now prevails.

I would be remiss if I blamed this muddled view of war powers solely on the increasing executive power since WWI. It is just as much the fault of the Congress who eagerly embraces the idea that they can get away without going on the record concerning a declaration of war. Their political expediency has cost as many lives as the Presidential “wars”. If this Iraq “war” had actually been declared, the equivocation that we have seen from people like Hillary Clinton about not actually voting to use force would not be possible.

Imagine how different our history would be if Congress and the President had actually abided by the Constitution. The debacles in Iraq and Vietnam could have been avoided. Perhaps the current hostilities with Iran could have been avoided likewise. The Framers had it right.

On the UNITED States

2008-07-04T11:48:00.001-05:00

"It is not in numbers, but in a union, that our great strength lies. The continent is just arrived at that pitch of strength, in which no single colony is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, can accomplish the matter; and either more or less than this, might be fatal in its effects." - Thomas Paine

Despite all of our disagreements, we cannot forget this.

What is he doing?

2008-07-03T17:15:00.001-05:00

Check this out from the Politico. Is Obama actually a politician? Obviously, but when you run on the fact that you are "above politics" you can't do things like this without violating the trust of your supporters.

Brian Davis on Energy: A Primer in Political Pandering

2008-06-30T19:20:00.002-05:00

Brian Davis took to the pages of the Worthington Daily Globe last week to screech at "Congressman Walz and others in Congress." Much has been made of the Republican's scare tactics in the past about terrorism, but it now seems that Brian Davis is hoping to capitalize on the economic fears of his desired constituents, writing:

But instead of throwing around blame, let’s talk about real solutions. Otherwise, $6-a-gallon gasoline could be just around the corner.

This written, of course, right before he assigns blame to the congressional Democrats. Apparently, gas prices will no longer be a problem if Dr. Davis's solutions are quickly implemented. All of Dr. Davis's "solutions" are flawed, but for time and sanity's sake I am going to only tackle a few here:

Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil exist. There already exists a pipeline in the adjacent Prudhoe Bay region, which contributes over 15 percent to our domestic oil supply. In 1995, President Clinton blocked development of ANWR and in 2002 and 2008 Congress blocked development of this area again.

Reduce regulatory barriers to increase nuclear power production, a proven clean and safe form of electricity generation.

Continue to promote and develop alternative fuels and energy sources including ethanol, biodiesel and wind power.

What Dr. Davis fails to mention in his matter-of-fact op-ed is that none of these seemingly simple ways out are in reality very simple. Opening ANWR to drilling, while also endangering a fragile ecosystem, does not mean that an oil company can immediately go in and drill the day after Dr. Davis votes for the legislation. The current infrastructure in the area does not support drilling and there would need to be years of exploration before actual drilling could take place. The Department of Energy's estimate from this past May puts Dr. Davis in his unlikely 5th term before there is an increase in the domestic crude oil production from ANWR drilling and only if the legislation is passed in 2008). And don't forget that billions will be spent (and thousands of gallons of foreign(!) oil consumed) before a drop is extracted from ANWR. DOE projects the following ANWR timeline:

2-3 years to obtain leases

2-3 years to drill an exploratory well

1-2 years to develop a production plan IF an oil reservoir is found

3-4 years to build the pipelines and take care of other infrastructure issues

If this is Dr. Davis's timetable for lower gas prices, I hate to imagine how long it will take to get a flag flown over the Capitol from his office.

Though I agree that nuclear power is a viable option and should be an important component of a long-term energy strategy, it is not feasible in the short-term. Because of some nonsensical policies, the US currently lacks the infrastructure to support a huge increase in the nuclear power industry which has been so decimated in the last three decades. Again, however, Dr. Davis fails to acknowledge this reality, instead leading readers to believe that nuclear power can be delivered to their homes with the flick of a legislative pen. The infrastructure problems exist as well for his last suggestion.

It seems that Dr. Davis plans to make pandering and fear mongering central to his campaign. From his arguing for telecom immunity as a matter of "national security" (it's funny how politicians do their best to lump everything into this category) to his ominous warnings of $6 per gallon, Dr. Davis has run a lackluster and uninspiring campaign thus far. This article shows on the part of Dr. Davis either a vacuous understanding of important policy issues or the depraved pandering of a desperate candidate. Mr. Walz was able to win the First by inspiring its voters and showing them another option. Dr. Davis only reminds us why we picked Tim in the first place.

How to Spot a Fake Email

2008-06-28T15:20:00.001-05:00

Share this primer from FactCheck.org with your friends as we get into the general election season.

A Good Week for the Constitution

2008-06-28T12:53:00.001-05:00

Though the bulk of stories about the flurry of Supreme Court decisions this week have been focused on the landmark second amendment ruling by the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, another deserves some attention. In the case of Davis v. FEC, the Court struck down a component of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act known as the “Millionaire’s Amendment”. This section of the law stipulated that when a candidate uses more than $350,000 of his money to finance his campaign, his opponent must receive some sort of advantage. The amendment demands that the “millionaire” had to report all expenditures to the FEC within 24 hours (a much shorter time frame than his less wealthy opponent) and that his opponent was not subject to the $2,300 cap on personal contributions.

At first examination, this law may seem to reflect an American penchant for fairness in politics. It looks out for the underdog. Even its name, “The Millionaire’s Amendment”, gives the sense that it only affects those few who can afford to just write a check for $350,000 or more, someone far removed from the regular guy on the street making just above minimum wage or even a member of the upper middle class. Though this law may at first appeal to our Robin Hood sense, we cannot forget these words, which are perhaps the most important in our democracy:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Any law that abridges political speech is a blow to American democracy, no matter who it affects. The New York Times’ editorial board argues today that Davis’s speech rights were not affected:

The amendment does not infringe on anyone’s right to speak. Mr. Davis could say, or spend, as much as he wanted. It merely allowed his opponent to raise more money to finance his own campaign — and campaign speech. That clearly advances the goals of the First Amendment and ensures that more Americans, wealthy or not, can participate in the political process.

The problem with their logic, however, is that the Constitution and the First Amendment do not provide for laws that give advantages to people in elections due to socioeconomic status. Though Mr. Davis’s actual speech and spending were not directly abridged, this is a narrow interpretation of the First Amendment that is disingenuous. The First Amendment was violated because Mr. Davis’s opponent was not subject to the same spending and reporting rules as Mr. Davis. They were forced by this amendment to play by different rules, Mr. Davis’s far more onerous, and in this way the guarantees of the First Amendment were suppressed. As the Court points out in the text of the decision:

While [the Millionaire’s Amendment] does not impose a cap on a candidate’s expenditures of personal funds, it imposes an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises that First Amendment right, requiring him to choose between the right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fundraising limitations. The resulting drag on First Amendment rights is not constitutional simply because it attaches as a consequence of a statutorily imposed choice. The burden is not justified by any governmental interest in eliminating corruption or the perception of corruption.

Let’s hope that this decision and Barack Obama’s choice to forgo public financing are the beginning of the end for this prohibitory and unconstitutional system of campaign finance.

Tim Walz talks about Hillary Visit

2008-06-26T20:15:00.004-05:00

CQPolitics talks today about Hillary's visit to the House Democratic Conference yesterday. Walz says,

“It was about unifying and addressing the issues that really matter to working families,’’ said Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., who endorsed Obama after the Illinois senator won Minnesota’s Democratic caucuses in early February.

Does this mean the Democrats are finally united??? We'll see...

Meanwhile, Al Franken's candidacy continues to tank. The latest RCP analysis:

After some early polls showed a competitive race, incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman has opened up a sizable lead and is over the magic 50% mark, a new poll shows. Coleman's Democratic opponent, satirist Al Franken, has undergone one of the worst few months in recent political memory, and the fact that he remains at least close should inspire Coleman to take Franken's threat seriously.

General Election Matchup
(All / Dem / GOP / Ind / Men / Wom)
Coleman......51 / 17 / 92 / 55 / 57 / 45
Franken.......41 / 76 / 4 / 35 / 37 / 45

From back taxes to failure to offer certain kinds of insurance to his employees to a flap over an article he wrote for Playboy Magazine, Franken has been battered for months by national Republicans. Still, the race remains close, showing off the state's natural Democratic tilt. Franken's impressive fundraising ability will help some, but Coleman's no slouch in the bank account department.

For Coleman, an attentive campaigner who has distanced himself from the Bush Administration and is playing up his bipartisan credentials (though not to the extent of, say, Gordon Smith), the way to run this campaign is increasingly clear: If the election is about Al Franken, Coleman will win another term. If it's about President Bush and that "R" after Coleman's name, Franken will be very competitive and could pull it out.

There's still hope for Al, but I have to imagine Mike Ciresi is starting to give a little more thought to running in September. Can you blame him or Minnesota DFLers for wanting him back? This should be an easy win for Franken given Minnesota's current political climate. On the other hand, November is still months away and there is still ample time for Franken to shift attention to Coleman, but if the campaign narrative continues in this vein for much longer, Franken is toast.

Particularly telling are the numbers for Democrats and Independents. Nearly 20% of DFLers are bailing for Coleman. That is really remarkable given the sizable lead Obama has in MN at this point (54-37 over McCain according to RCP). It should not be a shock considering that in 2006 despite overwhelming wins for the Dems in Minnesota, Pawlenty was able to win largely because of Hatch's meltdown. Minnesotans have and will split their ballots. Even worse than the DFL numbers is the Independents. A 20-point lead for Coleman raises a lot of questions about how Franken's acerbic wit is playing with people that avoid partisanship like the plague. Interestingly, Coleman and Franken are tied among women. This is unexpected given that most of the publicity surrounding Franken's past writings would be most offensive to women (or am I just old-fashioned?) Nonetheless, Franken needs to win women voters, a core constituency of the Democratic party, pretty handily if he is to win the seat.

Am I Agreeing With Antonin Scalia?

2008-06-26T15:58:00.005-05:00

Yes, I am. Today, I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the D.C. hand-gun ban. Here's the NYT's take on the story:

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far by making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.
But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.

The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote, “The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

I believe that this decision is quite tempered considering the lengths the Court could have gone to dismantle gun laws; at the same time, it respects the individual rights guaranteed to citizens in the Bill of Rights. Thanks, Nino!

Some Perspective

2008-06-24T22:01:00.003-05:00

Joe Klein provides some much-needed perspective on the surge in Time:

I happily acknowledge that I was wrong about the surge. As regular Swampland readers know, I was, and am, a huge fan of counterinsurgency doctrine, and an admirer of David Petraeus--but I doubted that the General would have the time, troops or a coherent local government--in other words, the metrics required by his own doctrine--to make it work. (Most counterinsurgency experts I spoke with harbored similar doubts, although most believed that it was worth a try--which I didn't.)
So what happened? The most important factor in the surge wasn't the additional troops so much as the change in tactics, which pulled the troops out of huge forward operating bases (FOBs) on the periphery of Baghdad and transformed them into community police officers who lived in the neighborhoods where they worked. Providing security for the local population is the highest priority of counterinsurgency doctrine. The next most important factor was Petraeus himself, who proved to be a flexible, resourceful and wise leader, unafraid to take risks. Some of his most effective actions were traditional kinetic assaults on terrorist strongholds--pushing the insurgents out of their staging areas in the belts surrounding Baghdad, and then using the additional surge troops to hold those areas.

But Petraeus was also incredibly lucky--although he knew how to take advantage of the breaks he got--and these were the factors I hadn't counted upon. The biggest break was the decision of the Sunni tribes to switch sides and oppose the taqfiri terrorists. This started to happen before the surge began, but Petraeus jumped on it--he was amazed, he told me last June, how quickly the transformation was taking place. This led directly to the defeat, or near-defeat, of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Another bit of "luck" was the ethnic cleansing that took place in Baghdad in 2005-2006 that lessened the potential for internecine violence in many of the neighborhoods. That plus the constant troop presence in the neighborhoods gave residents the confidence to tell the troops where the bad guys--as often as not criminal gangs who were taking advantage of the anarchy--were hiding.
The surge has reduced violence. We should all be thrilled about that--and honored by the brilliance of those who have served in Iraq. But what we're talking about here is whipped cream on a pile of fertilizer--a regional policy unprecedented in its stupidity and squalor.

FactCheck.org Cracks Down on Obama

2008-06-22T16:12:00.004-05:00

Perhaps my favorite political website, FactCheck.org, is giving Obama a hard time for his justification for opting out of public financing for the general election. Here is an excerpt from their report on Obama's videotaped message to supporters:

Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

One reason, he said, is that "John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.

I am torn on this issue. On one hand, I applaud Obama for opting out of this system. I think McCain-Feingold was an unfortunate piece of legislation which inhibits political speech. I hope that Obama's decision is the beginning of the end for public financing. On the other hand, this decision may come back to haunt Obama. There is absolutely no question that this is a "flip-flop" (I hate that word) for Obama and his equivocating justification is the stuff of those "typical Washington politicians" that he has made a career of deriding. Obama's appeal is largely as a person that is somehow elevated above politics, but decisions like this give the Republicans' an opening to point to message as a farce. If there is a way for Obama to lose it is by damaging the authenticity that has become his trademark. It is well-understood that Republicans will look for ways to do this, but this is another instance of Obama doing it to himself. No matter how much money one has, it is going to be hard to convince people to vote for someone whom they cannot believe.

What Every President Should Know

2008-06-21T16:02:00.004-05:00

As readers of my blog from last year know, I have a particular interest in scientific policy issues, so they will continue to be a prominent feature on this blog.

A friend of mine sent me this link recently. The quiz, "What Every President Should Know", was featured in Nature last fall. Take a look and see how you do - it is very interesting. Imagine now how John McCain and Barack Obama would do on this quiz. My guess is not very well, which is unfortunate. Bluntly put, too many of our leaders lack basic scientific knowledge. This manifests itself in the insanely uninformed debates in this country over things like global warming, stem cell research, research funding, and other scientific issues. Complex research findings are converted to pithy talking points with a lot lost in translation. I do not expect legislators to have the scientific knowledge equivalent to a PhD, but basic knowledge is important in evaluating these very serious policy issues.

Update

2008-06-20T16:30:00.004-05:00

Well, Representative Walz voted "no" on the telecom immunity that is to be added as an amendment to FISA. Unfortunately, a majority of his colleagues did not have the nerve to vote with him. Walz issued the following statement this afternoon on his website (h/t Ollie Ox):

Washington, Jun 20 - Today, Congressman Tim Walz voted against H.R. 6304, legislation which makes changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):

“There are many parts of this bill that I support. It reaffirms that FISA is the exclusive means for electronic surveillance, and it strengthens protections for Americans at home and abroad. If this was all that this bill included, I could support it.

“Unfortunately, the bill also contains an unprecedented free pass for the Bush Administration’s past actions. It does not allow judicial review of the Administration’s use of warrantless wiretaps, and the process it puts in place to review the telecommunications companies’ participation in that illegal program has a predetermined outcome – immunity.

“Incredibly, this bill actually says that as long as the telecommunications companies can prove that the Bush Administration told them this action was legal, they can get off scott-free. Today, my colleague Roy Blunt called the process of granting immunity to these telecoms ‘a formality.’

“When Richard Nixon said that “when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal,” many Americans were horrified that any President would consider himself above the law. This legislation is even worse, because it essentially says ‘if the President tells you do so something, it’s not illegal,’ even if it violates the plain letter of the law. The process set out in this bill to rubberstamp the actions of the Bush Administration is contradictory to the rule of law in this country.

“This free pass for the phone companies isn’t needed to protect Americans – in fact, it protects only those in the Bush Administration who knowingly broke the law. We can protect our security while protecting our shared values and our freedoms. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that, and I have no choice but to oppose it.

“I have repeatedly said that I could not support a bill that provides a free pass for illegal behavior, no matter who committed it. Our laws matter, and they should be applied equally and fairly to the President, Congress, telecommunications companies, and every other citizen.”

Kudos to the 129 members that stood up for the Americans' civil liberties and the rule of law this afternoon. We need more people like you. Though the outcome of the vote today is a serious setback, people that are concerned about this particular intrusion on their rights cannot let this issue die. I will personally urge, and I ask everyone to join me, those 129 men and women to do everything they can in Congress to continue this most important battle. We must make our voices heard in order to keep this issues and other civil liberties issues in play. Here is the official vote information.

Also, for those interested, my archives are saved somewhere (I think) on my computer. I will look for them and hopefully post them soon.

Again

2008-06-19T23:25:00.004-05:00

When I began this blog almost a year ago, it was mainly due to my personal indignation over the Democrats’ submission to the Bush administration’s demands on FISA. It is perhaps fitting then that it is with this issue I come back to this blog.

The Washington Post broke the story last night that the Democrats and the White House have reached a deal over telecom immunity in lawsuits filed by people who had their constitutional rights violated by the Bush administration’s overreaching warrantless wiretapping program:

House and Senate leaders agreed yesterday on surveillance legislation that could shield telecommunications companies from privacy lawsuits, handing President Bush one of the last major legislative victories he is likely to achieve.

The agreement extends the government's ability to eavesdrop on espionage and terrorism suspects while effectively providing a legal escape hatch for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecom firms. They face more than 40 lawsuits that allege they violated customers' privacy rights by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The breakthrough on the legislation came hours after the White House agreed to Democratic demands for domestic spending additions to an emergency war funding bill. Taken together, the bills -- two of the last major pieces of legislation to be approved by Congress this year -- suggest that Bush still wields considerable clout on national security issues but now must acquiesce to Democratic demands on favored domestic priorities to secure victory.

I can appreciate the fact that the Democrats wanted to prevent Bush’s veto of their domestic spending programs. What is disappointing, however, is the seeming ease with which the Congressional leadership was able to sacrifice the principles on which they were elected. This is not the change that I signed up for in 2006. Backroom deals and abandoned principles were supposed to be characteristic of the Republican majority circa 2005, but it seems that Pelosi, (Walz?!?), and company are not much different.

In this same article, Nancy Pelosi does her best to put this deal in positive terms:

Pelosi said the most important part of the deal is "exclusivity" language making it clear that the surveillance law is the only legal authority when it comes to government spying. In defending its warrantless spying program in the past, Bush administration lawyers argued that the commander in chief's warmaking powers trumped such considerations.

I hope that Speaker Pelosi is not as trusting as she comes across in this statement. The included “exclusivity” clause will no doubt be trod over by the Bush administration in the same way as the FISA bill. It has been clear since 9-11 that Bush and his lawyers have no qualms about abrogating laws they deem a nuisance in their reckless execution of the war on ~~the Constitution~~ terror. While I would like to think that all parties approached this negotiation in good faith, it is hard to believe considering the administration’s past and current positions on the supremacy of the executive. Senator Durbin was more truthful than Pelosi saying, the bill “is not a compromise; it is a capitulation.”

The Democratic Congress has been a disaster on this issue. They have consistently let down their constituents and the American people. If nothing else, the legislators should at least have the courage to protect the civil liberties that are innate in all people and assured in the Constitution. We cannot excuse the illegal actions of these telecom companies. Fortunately, there is still time; this bill has not yet been acted on. I urge you all to write or call your representatives and urge them to oppose this spineless arrangement. For those in the First District, please join me in contacting Tim Walz:

Washington D.C.
1529 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: 202-225-2472
Fax: 202-225-3433
Mankato Office
227 E Main St, Suite 220
Mankato, MN 56001
Phone: 507-388-2149
1-877-TIM-WALZ
(1-877-846-9259)
Rochester
1134 7th St NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Phone: 507-206-0643

I'm Back...

2008-06-19T19:46:00.002-05:00

After nearly a year in dormancy, I have decided to revive this blog. It is not my expectation that anyone will be visiting it in the very near future given my extended absence; nonetheless, I intend to release my musings into cyberspace in the hope that people will eventually find them again. As always, I encourage readers to comment on posts or email me at minnesotafirst@gmail.com to let me know what they think as well. Happy reading!