Posts by Delaware Dem

The Fix's Chris Cillizza cites Libertarian-friendly attitudes of young voters towards same sex marriage and marijuana as reason for the hope that Republicans will get a bigger bite of the youth vote. However, E. J. Dionne, Jr. also has a column on the libertarian philosophy and its implementation in the real world...

Here is some schadenfreude:

“Ignore the fucking scandals for a few days and save the country from Chuck Schumer.”

That is Mickey Kaus, alarmed about immigration reform sailing through the first hurdle in the Senate with over 80 votes. Some other witless conservative dubbed immigration reform the "Schumercare Democrat Voting Fraud Act of 2013." LOL. First, these conservatives always personalize their opposition to a bill by attacking the person or persons behind it. Nancy Pelosi. Barack Obama. Ted Kennedy. Chris Dodd. Barney Frank. Harry Reid. And now Chuck Schumer. And hence "Schumercare," which is supposed to allude to Obamacare for some reason, I suppose to awaken fear and loathing in the conservative lizard brain, as if enough did not exist there already. Second, "Democrat voting fraud?" Let's ignore for the moment the fact that every single documented instance of "voting fraud" over the past several years has had a Republican as the culprit, and instead let's focus on the fact that conservatives view minorities voting as a fraud. That cannot be denied given all the Jim Crow laws Republicans are passing or have passed in the South. Further, the earliest that an undocumented immigrant can be become a citizen under this reform bill and vote would be 2028. 15 years from now. They will be voting on whether to keep President Julian Castro on for a second term. And if the GOP decides to go all racist in opposition to this immigration reform bill, then yes, those new citizens will all be voting Democratic. But their votes will be as legal as the conservative's vote. And that is because they would have paid their fines and their dues and fulfilled their other onerous requirements in this reform to bill to become citizens.

This is proof of the home team affect. When President Bush was President, Republicans marched in lock step. And now that President Obama is President, many Democrats have changed their minds and support surveillance, while an equal number of Republicans have changed their minds and now are libertarians. But...

Clearly, Democrats are more comfortable with NSA surveillance under a Democratic administration, and Republicans are more comfortable with NSA surveillance under a Republican administration. There is, however, one small catch -- it's not an apples to apples comparison. In 2006, the poll question dealt with a warrantless surveillance program in which the Bush administration exceeded its legal authority with no judicial check or congressional approval. In 2013, the Obama administration, at least given what we know now, appears to be acting within its legal authority, relying in part on the courts, and acting within a law approved by bipartisan majorities. For critics of government snooping, that's cold comfort, but when it comes to gauging public attitudes, the bipartisan hypocrisy comes with an asterisk. Nevertheless, the larger point is that the American mainstream is far less concerned with federal surveillance programs than civil libertarians had hoped. Indeed, the Post/Pew poll found that 45% of the public -- very nearly half -- believe the government should be able to go even further than it currently is when it comes to spying on Americans, so long as the goal is to prevent terrorism. And with results like these, the political appetite for changing the law will likely be non-existent.

So I guess Vice President Biden is getting up appearances as the Democratic Plan B, as he is making the rounds at state party functions. He is headlining Virginia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on June 29. This is his third Jefferson-Jackson keynote of the year, after South Carolina on May 3 and Michigan on April 20. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he would examine ways to block the National Security Agency's surveillance programs before the Supreme Court, according to The Hill.

"I'm going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the Supreme Court level. I'm going to be asking all the internet providers and all of the phone companies: Ask your customers to join me in a class action lawsuit. If we get 10 million Americans saying we don't want our phone records looked at then maybe someone will wake up and something will change in Washington."

Well, a couple of things. First, if Rand Paul really wants to challenge these programs, the first thing he should do is sponsor a bill in the Senate to repeal the Patriot Act in its entirety. He is a Senator and legislation is his wheelhouse. The foundation for the surveillance state is the Patriot Act. Get rid of the Patriot Act, and you deal a crippling blow to all of these programs.