Quote: McCain and Roe v. Wade

Robyn E. Blumner writes that we should take McCain at his word that he is a true conservative. Indeed, in some important areas he is a solid, far-right kind of guy. Blumner wrote yesterday a commentary in the St. Petersburg Times called Why McCain should worry women. In truth, McCain should worry men as well.

She writes, in part:

"You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency? How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent after all. It's now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens' continued vitality."

She goes on to reproduce part of the exchange I wrote about here that linked to Cristina Page's essay on McCain and reproductive rights.

DFL SD 62 convention

Yesterday's DFL Senate District 62 convention was an exercise in patience, but it did afford many opportunities in humor. I've always seen myself as this extremely lefty progressive. Then I moved into this neighborhood and met real crazy liberals that make me feel like a raging conservative.

That might be a slight exaggeration, but not by much. I got a lot of laughs out of the implausible resolutions we voted on for inclusion in the DFL constitution or platform. One was to have a three month waiting period for Congress to declare war. First, such a change would require an amendment of the constitution. Second, the Iraq congressional vote was some months before military action, so such a waiting period wouldn't have made a difference there. Third, it would just make the party look clueless, radical, and out of touch--even more so than the city council of Berkeley, California.

The endless debate about rules and process weren't as endless as they have been at similar gatherings in the past. My favorite was the proposal and debate to amend the rules to change the time allotted to non-statewide campaigns from 2 minutes to 1 minute. At that point, we had already had two two-minute speeches and were in line two get just another two or three over the course of the day. The proposal was debated and defeated. Another thing I learned is that all you have to do is label something "undemocratic" to immediately get a sizable portion of the room to oppose something. No listening or critical thought required!

Then comes the sub-caucusing part. Out of a group of 848 delegates, a subcaucus needed to have at least 31 members in order to elect a delegate to the state and congressional conventions. Initially a full 54 different subcaucuses were named. Less than half would ultimately survive. Some seemed a bit repetitive.

The list of initial subcaucuses:

1. Clinton-Franken
2. Franken-Environment
3. Obama-Franken-DFL Victory
4. Franken-Gay Marriage
5. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-End the War
6. Uncommitted-Justice for Palestinians
7. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-Stop Global Warming
8. Franken-Pro-Choice
9. Uncommitted-Pro-Endorsement
10. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-Single Payer Healthcare
11. Obama
12. Franken-Universal Healthcare
13. Uncommitted-Stop Foreclosures and End the War
14. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-Obama-Change
15. Obama-Students and Young Voters
16. Ciresi
17. Uncommitted-Labor-Steal-proof Elections and Let's Hear it for the Middle Class
18. Obama-Ellison-Anti-War
19. Uncommitted-Defeat Norm Coleman
20. Franken-Healthcare
21. Uncommitted for Senate-Obama
22. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-The America I Believe in Does Not Torture
23. Franken-Ellison-Get Out of Iraq
24. Franken-Labor
25. Uncommitted-End No Child Left Behind
26. Uncommitted-Save Neighborhood Revitalization Program
27. Uncommitted for Senate-Universal Single-Payer Health Care for All
28. Uncommitted-Paid Family Leave-Childcare
29. Obama-GLBT Equality
30. Obama-Education-Poverty
31. Uncommitted for Senate-Clinton-Take Back America
32. Uncommitted-Immigration Issues
33. Uncommitted-Environment-Stop Global Warming
34. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-GLBT
35. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-Health Care for People Not Profit
36. Uncommitted-Peace Activists for Minnesota Veteran Benefits
37. Franken-Ellison-Champions for Labor
38. Obama-Instant Runoff Voting
39. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-More Trees Less Bush
40. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-Save Neighborhood Revitalization Program
41. Uncommitted-Labor-Economic Justice
42. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-For Environmental Sustainability
43. Obama-Franken-Protect Civil Liberties
44. Uncommitted-U.S. Constitution-Mother Earth-All Citizens Equal-Common Sense
45. Obama-Franke-Ellison-Human Rights
46. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-Full GLBT Equality
47. Uncommitted-Global Responsibility
48. Franken-Sustainable Living-Elder Care
49. Clinton-For President
50. Uncommitted-Minnesota Great Outdoors and Heritage Amendment
51. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer-Neighborhood Revitalization Program
52. Uncommitted-Strong Economy
53. Obama-Franken-Single Payer
54. Franken-Let Al Speak*

* This last one was proposed as a rhetorical point to allow Al Franken to address the convention even though a surrogate had used the alloted five minutes time. A compromise was proposed, debated, and voted on and Franken was able to speak.

I went undecided and subcaucused with the Undecided-Beat Norm Coleman. I left before the final subcaucusing and am not sure about the final tally of delegates. One conclusion, Ciresi wasn't very strong in this group.

I've not been to a Republican caucus. If I may take some creative liberties, I'll suggest that if the room was full of Republican activists there would fewer subcacuses. Perhaps it would be the following:

1. Save Marriage, Save Our Families
2. Save Embryos/Fetuses, Save Our Families
3. Lock 'em Up, Send 'em Home, No More Immigrants, Save Our Families
4. No More Taxes, Save Our Families
5. Fight the Terrorists in Iraq, Stay the Course
6. Fight the Islamo-fascists in Iran-John McCain
7. Home Schooling-No More Dept of Education!-Teach Intelligent Design

This is just guessing on my part. I'll have the opportunity to see Republican activists from around the country when the Republican National Convention comes to town.

Experience, what experience?

I don't know why Clinton keeps on bringing up experience. First, experience means nothing if you still make bad decisions (see John McCain). But what is all this experience she claims? She saw some stuff in the White House while Bill was president? She's been in the Senate slightly longer than Obama. I guess that's something.

One claim is that she participated in ensuring the Northern Ireland peace process. Nobel Laureate David Trimble dismisses her supposed contribution, saying Clinton was a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played. Though, his harsh words don't really help his point:

"So in a classic woman politicky sort of way I think she was active...She was certainly investing some time, no doubt about it. Whether she was involved on the issue side I think probably not." [emphasis mine]

Co-winner of the Nobel prize with Trimble, John Hume, has more positive things to say about Clinton. The difference between them may be more of a reflection of Clinton's perceived pro-Catholic position in the conflict.

Trouble in the AG office?

Both the Minn Post and MPR are running pieces about the personnel chaos pre-staging and continuing through a unionizing effort at the Minnesota Attorney General's office. New Attorney General Lori Swanson has not been well received by her employees and there has been some suggestion that some employees were retaliated against for their unionizing efforts.

Most troubling is the alleged circulation of an anti-unionizing, loyalty oath that was passed along to employees. A couple other allegations surfaced of staff attorneys being pressed to create legal cases in politically relevant ways in tight timelines, despite the lack of facts supporting going forward with a prosecution. An assistant attorney-general told reporter Eric Black that "Swanson told her to find someone to sue, draft a complaint and file suit within a week." I'm not a prosecuting attorney, but as I understand it, usually you allow the facts of the case guide you when making a decision whether to draft a complaint.

I voted for Swanson in the 2006 general election, but not in the primary. It's difficult to imagine the same allegations had Steve Kelley been elected Attorney General. Especially with Mike Hatch not in the governor's office and able to protect his protege, I would fully expect an intra-party challenge to Swanson come 2010.

Testy McCain

I like the reporter's closing at the end.



As far as I know, McCain still hasn't been directly asked if it is true that he first approached John Kerry in 2004 about becoming Kerry's running mate. Last year, Kerry implied that McCain came to him. The previous understanding is that Kerry approached McCain about being on his ticket and McCain declined. Who approached who is of significant consequence.

I hope that this encourages the press to, ahem, press this question further. I say there are even odds whether this will provoke them to inquire further on this point, or cower away, afraid of being the object of McCain's old-man-style, testy ire.

Drinking teenagers/adults

Some Minnesota lawmakers have proposed bringing the legal drinking age to 18. To do so would threaten 10% of the federal highway funds to the state and create a political firestorm in a state at the forefront of the prohibition movement a century ago. Some things still haven't changed. Compared to Wisconsin, folks in Minnesota are much more "prudish" when it comes to alcohol, for better or for worse.

This specific proposal would only apply to bars, not liquor stores. The idea is to keep it out in the open and teach healthier drinking habits. Of course, we know that people can still do unsafe drinking in licensed establishments.

Lead sponsor, Rep. Chris DeLaForest, R-Andover, said that since people can serve in the military and get married at 18, they should be able to get a drink or several. "If you're going to give an 18 year old a machine gun, certainly you can trust them to have a cocktail at a bar." (I don't know if beer and guns are necessarily a good combination though.)

I understand the logic of that argument, but it doesn't sound like a winning one. DeLaForest also argues, more persuasively, that we need to teach good drinking habits and points out they drink anyways. "The purpose of the bill is to stop drinking in places like the backseats of cars," DeLaForest said.

Quick aside: It's funny that DeLaForest doesn't take this same view when it comes to sex. He's an abstinence-only guy. Why should I expect consistency from conservative politicians though?

I favor this kind of change. I've long joked that the drinking age should be 16 and driving age at 21. More seriously, there should be more restrictions for teenage drivers. Bumping up the driving age might be a good thing if we were ever able to get decent mass transit in place here. The drinking age at 21 is a fools errand. I hardly drank at all prior to being 21, but I wouldn't describe myself as the norm. At 18, you are legal an adult in just about every other respect. Lots and lots of 18, 19, and 20 year-olds drink alcohol.

The main argument on the other side is that lowering it to 18 makes it easier for even younger people to get alcohol. That is one reason to lower it only for bars and not liquor stores. Allowing young people to drink at 18 might be problematic when it comes to high school senior proms. (You have to imagine a bunch of pre and/or post-prom celebrations will move to the neighborhood bar.) Maybe the starting point shouldn't be during high school. In that case, maybe 19 is a good legal age for bars and lower the age for liquor store purchases to 20.

We need to foster environments that are based in reality and encourage the development of healthy drinking habits. Binge drinking is the way a lot of young people first get introduced to alcohol; and it's behind closed doors. Let's try to introduce drinking to them in the open in bars, where it is less likely to have the dangerous behaviors that all to often end in tragedy.

What not to say

Here's a piece of unsolicited advice. If you work in an industry that has anti-trust regulations, you should not tell people that you intend to put your competitor out of business.

From Steve Perry at the Minnesota Monitor regarding Village Voice Media (VVM) being successfully sued in a predatory pricing scheme:

It appears likely that it was Lacey's [VVM's co-founder] mouth that made up jurors' minds in the first place. Three former New Times/SF Weekly employees testified that he came to town after NT bought the Weekly in 1995 and announced in a staff meeting that he meant to put the Bay Guardian out of business. Sez local media attorney: "A predatory pricing claim is a very difficult claim to win, not just in the newspaper business but in any business. It involves assessing a very complex set of issues. So juries notoriously tend to look for simpler reference points for their decisions--such as comments like that one, I would guess."

Oops!

Thinking about the Senate race in Minnesota

UPDATE: Doug Grow at the Minn Post writes about the DFL Senate contest. Ciresi isn't doing well initially, it appears, with state convention delegates. Nelson-Pallmeyer is doing well, but Franken remains on top. Maybe it's time for me to support Nelson-Pallmeyer as the electable candidate to retake Paul Wellstone's seat...

I'm a delegate to my DFL state senate district convention this Saturday. For you non-Minnesotans, the DFL is the Democrat Farmer-Labor party. (Find out why here.) Delegates to the local state senate district convention will elect delegates to the party's state convention in June. State delegates will determine who the DFL-endorsed U.S. Senate candidate will be. That lucky guy challenges Sen. Norm Coleman this fall.

For about five years, I've been in the Al Franken camp. Al Franken moved back to Minnesota a couple years ago to run against Coleman. I've long admired Al Franken for his humor, his political writing, and passion for progressive politics. To me, he appeared as the best chance to defeat Coleman. He's a good guy, has good positions, would run a vigorous campaign, and be able to raise important campaign funds.

So far, he's done a decent job. He's traveled around the state, racked up the endorsements, and is running a professional campaign. But a few things have given me pause. His Clinton-style caution when it comes to taking specific positions has made me nervous, even as I understand the rationale behind the strategy. He has done okay in debates with the other two DFL candidates, Mike Ciresi and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, but no slam dunks.

Two recent developments make me question Franken's electability. First, has been the now overplayed incident at Carleton College, where Franken allegedly mocked and intimidated a college Republican who was being civil to him. Franken even refused to shake the Republican's hand. I know, I know, most of us would probably like to mock and shame a college Republican here or there--but it's not something you do as a candidate for Senate in Minnesota.

This week, news emerged that Franken's family business, Al Franken, Inc, has been fined $25,000 by the state of New York for failure to pay workers comp premiums for nearly 4 years. The fine was levied in 2006 but only this week was a commitment made to pay it.

I don't think things like this should disqualify candidates, but it doesn't encourage me. That's a serious thing, to not pay workers comp for several years and to ignore the fine. It is a few times worse than unpaid parking tickets or late campaign finance filings. The question for DFLers is whether these are isolated items, or if we can expect more from Al Franken. Minnesotans want their politicians to be nice and personally responsible people.

So, the convention is just two days away and I'm undecided. Issue-wise, I'm equally split between the candidates. Even the MPR candidate selector gave me candidate scores pretty close together: Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer (22.0), Mike Ciresi (21.0), Al Franken (20.0), Norm Coleman (0.0).

I'm not enthusiastic about Ciresi. Haven't we elected enough lawyers to Congress? In all seriousness, I've been unimpressed with his debate performances and what I would call significant pandering. He's also lost statewide office once and I don't know why he would win this time.

When Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer ran for Congress in 2006 in the 5th district, I was very dismissive of him. I thought of it at the time as an exercise in vanity. Still, he did very well in the party endorsement contest that Keith Ellison ultimately won. I like the fact that he doesn't shy away from issues like reproductive rights and GLBT issues.

Still, I think his approach on free trade is antiquated (as are both Obama's and Clinton's pandering in recent weeks). I'm a person who has risked arrest to try to stop an IMF-World Bank meeting. Trade agreements matter to real people around the globe. But we need to look forward, not backward. NAFTA is a done deal. Free trade is where we are today. What we need to work on now is global standards and agreements to environmental, consumer protection, social safety net, and labor practices, and find ways for the more free movement of people across sovereign borders. Borders should be just as open to people and ideas as they are to products.

So what should I do? I'll be thinking and researching over the next day. It's possible I might go into that convention Saturday still undecided.

The Bicyclist is back!

Season 2 of The Bicyclist is back! I guess it must be warm enough in Portland for them to be filming. In Minnesota, it's still snow-covered and under 10 degrees.

This is a great internet-only series. You may have to watch a handful of Season 1 episodes to get the full appreciation for it.

Quote: McCain and Bush

On Wednesday, McCain said the following when he received Bush's endorsement at the White House:

“I hope the president will find time from his busy schedule to be out on the campaign trail with me. And I will be very privileged to have the opportunity being again on the campaign trail with him."

I'm looking forward to this and other quotes resurfacing in September and October.

Quote: Answering the phone at 3 AM

Today's quote comes courtesy of Salon's article, Military leaders on John McCain's temperament. The picture painted of McCain is that despite his war hero resume and military credentials, he very well may not be the personality you (or the military) wants as commander in chief. McCain's reputation for rashness and temper come into play.

Retired Rear Adm. John Hutson, who has been a Republican his entire adult life, but who now supports Obama, put it this way about facing a national security crisis: "When everybody else goes nuts, the president of the United States needs to get cooler and cooler."

Makes sense to me.

NY Times looks at doulas

• And the doula makes four

The New York Times takes a look at doulas... and it remains skeptical. The recent piece adopts an overall hostile attitude toward doulas and doesn't really try to be comprehensive. They never even nail down the purpose of the doula.

In short, a doula is a non-medical professional who aids during the labor process. There are also some postpartum doulas out there as well. A doula serves as a patient advocate, labor coach, and general helper. They have knowledge and training on birthing, but aren't medical professionals.

With our two kids, we didn't use a doula, but have known others who have. Indeed, sometimes during labor an extra pair of hands and ears can be helpful. Since it is unlikely that the nursing staff at a hospital have spent more than a few minutes discussing the birth plan with the patient, it may not be a bad idea in some cases to have someone experienced and independent advocating on their behalf. The doctor-knows-best mentality here is a relic from the '70s I suspect.

If there is a pattern of a problem of doulas overstepping boundaries by making medical determinations and giving medical advise for which they are untrained and unlicensed, that would probably require some action. (e.g. enforcement of current laws, adoption of new laws clarifying medical practice, or regulation of doulas.) The New York Times isn't successfully persuasive that there is any pattern of abuse. Yes, a doula walking out on a patient after she chose an intervention the doula didn't like is incredibly unprofessional and unethical. But even collecting a handful of these troubling anecdotes, it doesn't seem to follow in any case that doulas are generally harmful.

The article implies that since they have stories of some patients and hospital staff who were unhappy with the performance of some doulas, that they shouldn't be permitted. I'm sure we can find plenty of patients with negative experiences with a doctor or a nurse, but no one would reasonably suggest we need to remove doctors or nurses from hospitals.

On the other side, you can see the point of view of doulas at DONA International. They cite research that shows how the use of a doula leads to births with fewer complications and medical interventions. If a patient can choose to bring in family members in the room, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to choose to bring a doula.