Giving up privacy for gun control

In the span of little over half a year, hundreds of thousands of names have been added to a federal database used to screen potential gun-buyers, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said this afternoon. Since the shootings at Virginia Tech in August, the number of names in the database has doubled to almost 400,000, Mukasey said at a meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General.

No one can dispute that screening people attempting to purchase weapons is necessary-- even the NRA approves of the database. Yet collecting names of the mentally ill for a national database seems like an unsettling topic for the new attorney general to address in his first policy speech since replacing Alberto Gonzales, who resigned from the Justice Department under the shame of having approved warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. The names are only collected from courts and other authoritative bodies-- not from private mental health records from hospitals or insurance companies. Still, the possibility for abuse of the list is scary to think about, especially given the Justice Department's current reputation.

Perhaps some freedoms have to be ceded in the name of safety; Rudy Giuliani argued as much during last night's debate when asked about the strict gun laws he enforced as mayor of New York. "I enforced all laws very aggressively, and that's the reason we reduced shootings by 74 percent," Giuliani said in last night's debate. "And we went from being one of the most dangerous cities in the country to being one of the safest." While it's true that the city changed dramatically while he was mayor, it's also true that Giuliani was notorious for using draconian measures to get things done. Such measures are sometimes tolerable, but they are more questionable when they make vulnerable a group of people who are already targets of discrimination. People suffering from mental disease don't need the extra burden of having public figures like an NRA spokesman calling them "mentally defective" to the AP.

But as long as the database is used appropriately, it should be a huge benefit for the country; the news of its growth should have been great. Instead, it only feels like a reminder of how much the Justice Department has to earn back our trust.

DCCC shoots itself in the foot

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee initiated a new web-based fundraising campaign this week, pinning rising gas and energy prices on republicans. Sure, no one likes rising gas prices, but the Democratic party is practically asking to be punished with this move. Predictably, the Republican party has already thrown the issue right back in their face.

"When Republicans had the chance to protect us from high gas prices, they instead chose to oppose punishing price gougers," the DCCC claims. Actually, given that the Democrats were in power at this point, they were kind of the ones who had the chance. Not sure how they missed that. The NRCC certainly didn't, and promptly used the opportunity to point out that the democratic majority has failed to fulfill its promises. They then stepped it up a notch and named every democrat in Congress who's taking money from oil companies. Whoops!

Even if republicans had been responsible for the lack of reform in oil or energy in general, it seems rather foolish to set up the expectation that democrats could do better when there are certain factors involved in oil prices that are simply out of anyone's control. It's sort of like saying Bush was responsible for Hurricane Katrina because he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol... sort of. In any event, while there is certainly politics involved in oil prices, there's no denying that worldwide growth is constantly increasing the demand for oil while our supply continues to shrink. Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC country able to expand its output, oil analysts say, but the oil left in its reserves is of a lower quality.

Really guys? Is this really what you want to hit the republicans on?

Incidentally, the lackluster energy bill that would increase fuel efficiency standards for cars is slowly trudging its way through Congress, no thanks to Democrat John Dingell of Michigan.

Kucinich debates himself

While the Republican presidential candidates spent last night in Florida debating their interpretations of the Bible, not to mention the status of those people with "funny accents" who "look different" that happened to be working on Mitt Romney's lawn, Dennis Kucinich attracted a meager audience in person and online at a townhall session in New Hampshire, where he spoke about health care and relations with Iran. It could have been fun to see Ron Paul alongside the anti-war democrat in New Hampshire instead of the republican debate; seeing the two share their polar opposite views with each other (outside of the war, of course), could have been an interesting experiment in seeing how those outside of centrist positions could actually sell their ideas to skeptics. As it were, Ron Paul instead got sucked into the trap last night of trying to appeal to the values of the audience, even if they didn't quite match his own. The usually strictly libertarian congressman stooped to criticizing our relations that extend south of the border with crazy-talk of a North American Union, but he later went on to declare himself all for trade and internationalism. He wasn't the only one to fall in the trap of hypocrisy, though. Fred Thompson tried to make himself out to be the economic conservative but later stumbled and stalled when asked which federal bureaucracies he'd trim down first. Romney contradicted himself just about every time he opened his mouth. Giuliani, McCain and Huckabee seemed to keep to their principals and consequently, were able to put forth more substantive ideas about what kind of presidents they would be. Unfortunately, Tom Tancredo stuck to his principals, too, and even got everyone else to adopt them. "All I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo," he gleefully observed at one point. I'm glad Dennis was vocal last night about the issues missed at the debate, even if not many were listening.

For tonight's debate: the war is not a Yes or No question

When the main candidates for the republican nomination get up on stage in Florida tonight for the CNN/YouTube debate, there will only be one person standing who supports a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. And that man, though he earns the approval of a group including everyone from pastors to pimps, will-- let's be honest-- not win the nomination. The rest, for reasons more or less legitimate, are arguing to keep troops active there to some degree for some time. That's all well and good, but let's remember what made this war a debacle in the first place: no consideration for consequences.

I am open to the idea that leaving troops in Iraq could be the best thing to do at this point. But if anyone in the current crop of presidential candidates, republican or otherwise, wants to earn even a degree of my respect, they had better articulate what they expect the consequences of their actions in Iraq to be. As I watch the republican debate tonight, I hope to hear ideas about what our longterm role in the Middle East should be. I hope to hear what sacrifices we as a nation would have to make to fulfill that role. Perhaps most importantly, I would like to hear how we expect to repay those making the biggest sacrifices.

It's no secret that the government's treatment of veterans is pathetic. The deplorable conditions of Walter Reed hospital made it clear to the general public that veterans are not getting the medical attention they need and deserve. Read The Nation's investigative report from earlier this year about the questionable practices of the VA that are preventing veterans from collecting medical benefits-- the personal stories told are heartbreaking. The Nation also ran a story just yesterday commenting on the paltry educational benefits veterans receive, which are in stark contrast to the benefits they are promised. And what a surprise that, with no medical benefits or the resources to obtain an education, veterans make up more than their fair share of the country's homeless population.

When the White House declared its opposition to the new GI bill that Senator Jim Webb introduced in January, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, the president only demonstrated that he continues to be short-sighted. As pointed out in The Nation's article, a stronger GI Bill could potentially invigorate the economy as the Congressional Research Office showed the original did.

The next president cannot afford to have such narrow vision. The next Commander in Chief may or may not decide we should keep troops in Iraq-- but he or she better think about the decisions to make after that.

Giuliani acts like a winner, and not just in Florida

The polls out today show that Rudy Giuliani's "I'm the best to beat Hillary" campaign has been a hit in Florida, if not the earlier primary states. Not only do all the polls out of Florida show him beating the other republicans in the locale of choice for retired New Yorkers, but they show why: he is the "most electable," said 61 percent of people polled by CNN. A plurality of voters polled also said he is the most likeable, the most honest and the strongest leader. Giuliani's support there is also evident in his fundraising. While he has yet to run a television ad in Florida, Mitt Romney has been running them for months there but has still raised about a million dollars less than Giuliani, says the Hill.

Clearly, though, it is the "electable" element that Rudy is clearly hoping to bank on. Giuliani's campaign will be mailing out flyers in New Hampshire this week, where the New Yorker trails far behind Mitt Romney. Rather than going after the republican frontrunner, however, the flyer is all about Hillary Clinton's "out-of-control spending." Giuliani will also release a new television ad in New Hampshire this week. Perhaps his campaign thinks drumming the "electability" point home that much more in New Hampshire will earn him some significant support,-- or perhaps he really is banking on Florida and other states for the nomination and is already setting his sights on Nov. '08. “He never assumed he would win the early states,” former Rep. Bill McCollum, Giuliani’s state campaign chairman, told The Hill.

Gates tries to help out Condi

Many are skeptical of today's Middle East summit taking place in Anapolis, not only with regards to what can be accomplished but also the intentions of President Bush and Condoleezza Rice. They are only trying to salvage their legacies from being completely tarnished by the Iraq war, detractors say. Maybe so, but at least member of the administration who does not exist under the shadow of the ongoing war is trying to change the United State's course. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday at a speech at Kansas State University that if the U.S. wants to keep its influence abroad, it should stop thinking so much about military matters and invest more in the State Department.

Gates' statement is interesting in light of the deal reached yesterday between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It is all but inevitable that the United States will be involved in Iraqi affairs for years to come, but hopefully Gates will lead the way to a fresh direction for the Department of Defense, one in which it is not always at odds with the State Department, as was the case under Rumsfeld and Powell. Programs like the State Department's blogging efforts hopefully inidcate more of an emphasis on diplomacy. “Conflicts will be fundamentally political in nature and require the application of all elements of national power," Gates said. "Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping behavior of friends, adversaries and, most importantly, the people in between.”

Still, of the twelve main appropriations bills that need to be passed for 2008, Congress has so far only put the defense bill onto the president's desk; he signed it, though apparently the $460 billion spent was not quite as much as the president had hoped for. As Gates pointed out yesterday, that's a pretty hefty sum in comparison to the State Department's $36 billion. But perhaps more than the budget, just the will to expand diplomacy needs to increase. “We are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals,” Gates said. “It is just plain embarrassing that al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.”

Fanning the flames

David Brooks takes it upon himself this morning to remind us why America is great: our resourcefulness, productivity and ingenuity are forces to reckon with. Our success and security are rooted in strong ideals. In spite of this, he says, there is rising clamor among some politicians and pundits that we are unsafe; a select few would have us believe that the forces of globalization, immigration and terrorism are coming together to pose one great, united threat to the United States.

Brooks' column was well-timed-- the fear-mongering was in full force yesterday. The Washington Times ran a story about supposed Iraqi and Afgani terrorists sneaking into the United States through tunnels from Mexico to attack an Arizona Army base. The article is based off an FBI document that relies on DEA sources in Mexico who, in turn, got their information from a "sub-source" who is "of uncertain reliability." Anyone who remembers the moniker "curveball" knows how well these types of sources work out. Morever, all that FBI spokesman Paul Bresson would tell the Washington Times was that such reports are based on "raw, uncorroborated information that has not been completely vetted."

While most media outlets commendably resisted any temptations to run with the senational story, Fox News gave it continuous coverage, often conveniently leaving out in its reports the questionable sources, along with the fact that if this happened at all, it in fact happened six months ago. One anchor described the report as about "men who are willing to die for the privilege of killing Americans."

Fox's Neil Cavuto turned for commentary to Tom Tancredo, who is one of those whose fringe-opinion, anti-immigrant diatribes have been loud enough to change mainstream discourse. Tancredo, of course, is gleefully using this report to justify his recent campaign ad, which features a terrorist blowing up a mall. "I was called an alarmist, engaged in fear mongering," he said in a statement he released yesterday. "Considering the imminent threat of an attack on U.S. soil posed by Islamic terrorists, I challenge the sponsors of the upcoming presidential debates to give national attention to this real and present danger. Americans should know what our next President is going to do to assure their safety.”

As we all know, the other presidential candidates have taken Tancredo up on that challenge. Sadly, the American public seems to be ingesting this unfounded anxiety, though it may not be going down easy. Polls show that, when asked about them specifically, people are strongly in favor of security measures like a fence at the U.S.- Mexico border and national ID cards; however, when a Wall Street Journal poll from Nov. 1-5 asked what the federal government's top priorities should be, both terrorism and immigration fall behind issues like the war in Iraq, health care and job creation. The public is well aware that there are more pressing issues to worry about than building fences on the border, but somehow, the issue will not be put to rest. Thank for your vigilance, Tancredo.

Thompson talks taxes

Fred Thompson released a 7-point tax plan on Sunday that incorporates a lot of policies that have been proposed by George Bush-- whether that makes it a "conservative" plan is up for debate.

The plan would, among other things, maintain Bush's tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010 and introduce a two-tiered flat tax. Thompson's plan would call for a 10 percent tax rate for joint filers with incomes of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and a 25 percent rate for those with higher incomes; it would simplify the tax code by reducing the deductions and credits available.

Thompson also spelled out that he favors repealing the death tax (or if you prefer, the estate tax); he also wants to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which everyone seemingly wants to do, though no one can agree on how to go about it. The former "Law and Order" star also proposed lowering the corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to no more than 27 perent, which could actually increase federal revenues: if the loopholes and the jumble of deductions currently available to corporations were closed as Thompson suggests they should be, corporations might actually end up paying more in taxes than they currently do.

Throwing out suggestions of instituting flat taxes and lower rates for corporations sounds like it should be appealing to conservatives, but as the Washington Post points out, a nonpartisan group found that "major parts of Thompson's plan would cost at least $2.5 trillion more than it brings in over 10 years." When asked about this on the morning talk show circuit yesterday, Thompson simply replied that those estimates were wrong. He said money would be saved by his Social Security plan, in which workers younger than 58 years old would receive less Social Security than they've been promised.

How the plan might actually work may be less important than how it is received. As already noted on PoliticalBase, the Club for Growth applauded Thompson for suggesting to lower corporate tax rates. This sort of response to his plan could be a strong counter to Mike Huckabee's recent surge in Iowa. Huckabee calls himself an "authentic conservative," but if Thompson emphasizes economic issues over social issues, he can bolster Robert Novak's claim that Huckabee is really a "false conservative" and a "high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government."

Oprah stumping for Obama

We can all stop speculating! Oprah will indeed join Barack Obama on the campaign trail. She will be traveling to Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Manchester, New Hampshire; and Columbia, South Carolina on the weekend of Dec. 8. It's time to revive the debate of whether the woman who turns paperbacks into gold can have the same effect in politics. Certainly, Obama is banking on Oprah's appeal with female voters. As he said about visiting her show, "there was a level of excitement among these middle-aged women that I’ve never seen. Their eyes glaze over."

Obama's support among women is just about equal to Hillary Clinton's in Iowa, though Clinton seems to be showing an edge among blue collar women. Working class women will almost assuredly stay in Clinton's camp. For women who came of age during an era of feminism, in a less advantaged class level in which the barriers against women are only higher, seeing a woman in power is very meaningful. It vindicates their years of hard work, their roles in bringing equality to women, which have been less celebrated than the work of their more intellectual peers.

Lest we forget, John Edwards has also been aggressively pursuing the female vote, paricularly the working class female vote. Former NARAL president Kate Michelman is one of his senior advisors, and he has even been referred to as potentially the "first woman president." His campaign often equates his fight for bridging the "two Americas" to a fight on behalf of poor women in particular.

Then there is the question how much the female vote really matters in and of itself. At least one report this year called single women "the most eligible untapped voters," no pun intended (I don't think). The report, which came out this summer, showed that unmarried women account for nearly 25 percent of all eligible voters.