When our liberty is given away…

For many people, especially Obama supporters, the FISA bill brought a double-dose of disturbing.

First, for Obama supporters, was the candidate’s decision to vote for the bill with language that supported immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the federal government and turned over private records.

Second, for a far broader group of people, was the immunity itself.

H/T to folo.us for getting me to these two columns:

1. Glenn Greenwald: The political establishment and telecom immunity — why it matters
2. Nancy Soderberg: A good-enough spy law

The folo.us post is more about disappointment with Obama, so I’m not focusing on it. The two columns, however, are important pieces.

It can best be summed up by what Greenwald wrote:

I would really like to know where people like Soderberg get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to “order” private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law, as even she admits happened here. I’m asking this literally: how did this warped and distinctly un-American mentality get implanted into our public discourse — that the President can give “orders” to private citizens that must be complied with? Soderberg views the President as a monarch — someone who can issue “orders” that must be obeyed, even when, as she acknowledges, the “orders” are illegal.

That just isn’t how our country works and it never was. We don’t have a King who can order people to break the law. …

The answer to his rhetorical question — where people get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to “order” private citizens to do anything — is fairly simple.

We have devolved as a society to the point that if we like the president, then we don’t care much what he does. And in this case, we’ve devolved to the point that we are willing to sacrifice our civil liberties, our freedoms, our privacy all in the name of national defense.

President Bush is merely our father, protecting us children from the big, bad terrorists. Who are we to question what our father does?

The answer to that rhetorical question is easy as well: We’re Americans. It is in our national conscience to question our government. Never should we put our faith so much in a leader that we ever let them tell us what to do with our own liberty, much less question their motives when doing so.

I’ve heard the arguments:

• The telecommunications companies had to do what the president said.
• If you’re doing nothing wrong, then who cares if the government looks at your phone records?
• They’re not looking at our records. They’re looking at their records.
• If we want to be safe, we have to sacrifice.
• You damned liberals will ruin this nation!

OK. So the last point is a blanket response from any differing mind who has no rational argument. The first four, however, are purely revolting arguments. They are absent of thought, reason and — in my opinion — national pride.

Telecommunication companies had no choice. Yes, they did. Had the federal government come asking for their R&D findings against competitors, a room full of corporate lawyers would have told Uncle Sam to stick it where the sun don’t shine. But this was in the name of national defense and hurt only the consumers, so who cares?

If you’re doing nothing wrong… Since when did you have to be guilty of a crime to be indicted by the federal authorities? The Justice Department under the Bush Administration has already been proven to be a political arm of the Republican Party. Furthermore, the warrantless use of phone records is used to build a case against someone where no case exists. It’s not used to further a case where other evidence points to the phone records. If the latter existed, investigators would simply get a warrant and review the records.

They’re not looking at our records. Poor schmuck. You actually believe this?

We have to sacrifice. Yes, we do. In the worst of times, we have to ration our food, our fuel and our natural resources. Our men and women must go to foreign soil and fight our enemies. But in the course of our nation’s history — and indeed in the birth of it — our civil liberties have been our most valued possession. Without the freedom upon which our nation is built, we have nothing for which to sacrifice. When we give our liberty to our government in any name — including and especially national defense — then we cease to be a free society.

Liberty and freedom are difficult ideas in that they are not readily tangible until they disappear. But we must study them, debate them and seek to defend them against any who would seek to take them. That includes our own government, who more times than foreign enemies seek to steal from us what our forefathers sought to guarantee.

Barbour wrong on Medicaid

The current debate over how to fund Medicaid is the most irrational, absurd, asinine political parlay I have ever seen.

There are two options on the table, and any reasonable person can see what the best one is. The two options:

1. Fund Medicaid by raising taxes on cigarettes.
2. Fund Medicaid by raising taxes on hospitals.

The clear choice is option #1. But we have a governor who is a former tobacco lobbyist, and he’ll roll over in his political grave before he allows a tax hike on cigarettes.

He almost did just that two years ago. Barbour’s approval ratings were in the 30s just three months before Hurricane Katrina hit, in large part because he decided to cut nearly 50,000 people off of the state Medicaid system.

Now he’s threatening a cut of $375 million to the program, which will be devastating to the people of this state who rely on Medicaid for health care.

Granted, the best solution would most likely be a combination of the two options. It would mix a revenue stream that is sure to shrink — a cigarette tax hike — with a more manageable tax that would not be passed on to sick people — a hospital tax hike.

But short of Barbour and Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, who remains characteristically behind the coattails of who ever is leading him by the nose, accepting a compromise, then the House should drive forward with the cigarette tax and force Barbour to make the cuts.

While devastating, the cuts to Medicaid will most likely not have the same long-term affects of a tax on hospital beds. We don’t repeal taxes very often, and businesses are not going to take a tax hit without passing the cost along to the consumer, in this case a sick person who needs a bed in which to be treated.

Barbour’s logic in this is sick but not surprising. He is showing where his true loyalties lie, which are with big, corporate interests. In short, he’s never really stopped lobbying on behalf of cigarette companies. He’s just added governing on their behalf to his repertoire.

For more on this issue, here’s a few suggested reads:

1. Latest post on CottonMouth, this one by Jeff Walters.
2. Sid Salter’s column from Sunday.
3. John Mott Coffey’s piece in the Commercial Dispatch.
4. Sid Salter’s blog post on Phil Bryant.

In parting, let me say this. I had the great honor to serve the Speaker as director of the Democratic caucus in the House. There are few men I’ve met with his character and integrity.

Anyone who believes Billy McCoy would play politics with the well-being of thousands of Mississippians does not know this man’s true heart.

Unfortunately, I fear the same can be said of people who believe Barbour is acting in the best interest of our state.

Race and politics in Mississippi

For the cuckoo-cuckoo for Coco Puffs out there who believe racism in America is dead (or even dying quickly), take time to sift through the comments on this story about Barack Obama’s chances of winning Mississippi.

I was born and raised in the Magnolia State. I love it here. For about two years I lived in Alabama, and the entire time I missed my home.

We have a horrible history when it comes to civil rights, but we also have a glowing history at the same time. Many battles have been won in this state, battles that have had national impact on the civil rights struggles.

And we have a ways to go before racism is stomped out. Perhaps that is what is most amazing about Obama’s nomination. It is not that black voters are turning out in record number. It is that young people — black and white, Democrat and Republican — are turning out to vote.

That younger generations do not focus first on color (or if they do, it is only for a brief moment) but instead on the message. That is the hope I see in his nomination, and it is the hope I pray we see from his administration after he wins the general election in November.

Race and politics in MS-01

Anyone who believes race is not an overriding factor in politics — especially Southern politics — need only to look at the Mississippi First Congressional District race to see the falacy in such an idea.

For certain, Republican candidate Greg Davis has done more race-baiting than either of the two candidates.

A New York Times article today highlights some of this.

Former Gov. William Winter, a Democrat, expressed shock at the current campaign.

“I am appalled that this blatant appeal to racial prejudice is still being employed,” said Mr. Winter, who lost the 1967 governor’s race after his segregationist opponent circulated handbills showing blacks listening to one of his speeches. Mr. Winter went on to win the governor’s office 12 years later.

“I had thought we had gotten past that,” Mr. Winter said. “That was a tactic that was used against me in the 1960s.”

The chairman of the University of Mississippi’s department of public policy leadership, Robert J. Haws, said he had also noted the use of race in the contest. “Does this reflect a certain level of desperation?” he asked. Dr. Haws also said he had detected a “real reaction from people I know, Republicans” against the ads.

The Republican candidate, Greg Davis, said in an interview he was not raising racial issues, but was instead pointing out that his conservative values made him a better fit for the district.

“We’ve run ads against him with John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi,” said Mr. Davis, referring to Mr. Childers. “Just because one of them happens to be African-American has no bearing on it.” Mr. Davis, 42, is a former state representative who is now mayor of Southaven, a fast-growing Memphis suburb.

Davis has also released a couple of ads talking about Sen. Barack Obama’s endorsement of Childers. Here’s one ad, and here’s the other one. Both are pretty bad, though the first one is flagrant race-baiting.

While I’m appalled, I’m not surprised. I’m numb to the efforts of Republicans in Mississippi when it comes to race-baiting.

In 2003, Gov. Haley Barbour was helped along in his victory over incumbent Gov. Ronnie Musgrove with a “whisper campaign” based on the state flag. “Change the governor, not the flag” read signs and bumper stickers.

And if you are a Republican candidate, one of your campaign speaking engagements will most certainly be the CCC.

But when I saw that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released this mail piece, I was certainly not numb.

The claims are paper-thin, first off. It is grasping at straws and leaves Childers open to a defamation of character lawsuit.

Past that, it’s just not what we should do. It would be different if Davis openly campaigned for a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest to be moved to Southaven, or if Davis was caught with a white robe. Then, by all means, go after him.

But this is fear-mongering. This is cheap. This is base. This is not what Democrats should be about.

Childers should denounce it. He should denounce it now. And the DCCC should ask around Mississippi a bit before going with another stupid mailing like this.

My candidate: Jim Kitchens for Supreme Court

I’m currently managing Jim Kitchens’ race for the Mississippi Supreme Court.

We’ve got a busy election year in Mississippi. On top of the presidential race, we’ve got a contested U.S. Senate race, two contested Congressional races and four Supreme Court races. (We’re the only site up for Supreme Court right now.)

Our Supreme Court races generally get a good bit of press — not as much as contested Senate races but a good bit. That’s generally because groups like the U.S Chamber like to spend millions of dollars on attack ads against progressive candidates like Kitch.

We just launched the website: www.kitchensforjustice.com. Will Bardwell beat me to the punch with a plug. I’m hoping CottonMouth, folo and Y’all Politics follow suit soon.

So, here’s my pitch: Go to the website and sign up for email updates. You can even donate a few dollars if the mood hits you.

Remember, www.kitchensforjustice.com.

And, if you live in Mississippi’s Central Judicial District, vote for Jim Kitchens for Supreme Court on Nov. 4.

Now back to our regularly scheduled blogging.

Bush blames Congress

President Bush met with reporters in the Rose Garden this morning to address the rush on gasoline in New Jersey over the weekend.

In his statements, he did little to address what could be done but to rehash old themes: drilling in Anwar, building more refineries and keeping taxes low on the oil industry.

He blames Congress for not blindly following his programs without asking questions. The president should be reminded that he has had a Republican Congress through much of his administration, and even those Congresses were not quick to pass his energy bills — which have been roundly criticized as nothing but handouts to the oil industry.

Granted, this is a real problem. Both parties need to put aside their partisan bickering and deal with this issue. Given the tenuous state of our economy, continued increases in gas prices could devastate us.

Keep electing judges in Mississippi

There was a time when I believed we should change the way judges are selected in Mississippi. Instead of electing them as we do now, I thought we could limit the amount of undue political influence in our judicial system by having the governor appoint judges and then the Senate confirming the appointees.

Then, in 2003, I had an interesting conversation with a former Supreme Court justice who agreed that reform was needed but maintained that taking the choice away from the voters was a dangerous road down which to travel. Instead, he put forth a familiar argument of his for capping political expenditures in judicial races.

While I did not wholeheartedly embrace his plan for caps, the late Armis Hawkins in fact changed my mind about elected versus appointed judges. Perhaps it was the merits of his argument, or perhaps it was his sheer brilliance of which I was in awe. Either way, I left his office in Houston, Miss., that day with a different outlook.

Our judicial system, whether it be on the county level or in the highest court of our state, must remain above reproach when it comes to the taint of favoritism. Some would argue that politics is at the very heart of such a taint, but I believe otherwise.

In an appointed system, the judge is beholden to the people who put him there. He answers to no one but the powerful and the few who control his fate.

But in an elected system, a judge must answer to those he serves from the bench. In this system, he serves masters of all stripes whose level of power and influence are justly equal through the casting of a sole ballot.

This issue — whether to appoint or to elect judges — will be an important one in several judicial races in Mississippi this year. For the purposes of full disclosure, I’m closely involved in one of those races. Thankfully, I’m blessed to be working for a candidate with whom I agree on this topic.

(As an aside, political consultants often work with candidates with whom we disagree on at least one or two issues, but with whom on the average we agree with their stances. So far, I’ve found very little about which I disagree with my candidate.)

That said, I urge you to consider what it means to a society when the powerful try to take away the influence of the people. Doing so breeds far more corruption and greed than does the political system on which we were founded.

I, for one, cringe when I hear people decry our political system as nothing but corrupt. These people forget that this system was designed during the throes of a revolution.

Politics may not be pretty, but it allows for a democratic approach to choosing those who govern over us, who make our laws and, at least in Mississippi, who interpret those laws. The means to an end may be unpleasant for some, but the end is a just means of securing representation for us all.

And when it comes to how our judges are selected, I’m thankful for Mr. Hawkins. He set me straight.

W. Va. newspaper takes shot at Mississippi

Y’all Politics had an interesting out-of-state piece this morning. Editorial writers at the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail took a pot shot at Mississippi in an editorial they published on Monday.

The good news for West Virginians is that the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates their personal income per capita rose by 4.7 percent in 2007.

That evidently reflects the continuing upturn in the coal industry and privatization of the workers compensation system, which should help make the state more competitive.

But the bad news is that a 4.7 percent growth in per capita income failed to keep pace with the 5.2 percent growth experienced by the nation as a whole. West Virginians continue to slide further behind the rest of the nation.

And the embarrassing news is that Mississippi is catching up to West Virginia. (Emphasis added.)

The point of the editorial was to examine West Virginia’s subpar growth in per capita income. And while they went on to write a few “positives” about our state and its growth, the understanding was clear:

Mississippi is the bottom of the barrel, and they beat us.

So, I sent a letter to the editor to their publisher, editorial page editor and managing editor. If I get a response, I’ll post it here.

The following is a copy of the letter:

All:

“And the embarrassing news is that Mississippi is catching up to West Virginia.” — Charleston Daily Mail editorial, Monday, March 31, 2008

So, I’m not going to pile on here. I don’t want to be another angry voice from our state.

That said, your editorial decision regarding the above was incredibly stupid. As a former newspaper columnist and publisher, I can’t imagine ever letting that one little sentence — constructed the way it was — go into print. It was just poor judgement and writing prowess.

Whatever you think about our fair state, you should have been wiser in your writing. I understand your point. The poorest state in the nation is showing faster growth than you guys. That’s a legitimate point to make.

But instead of calling it an embarrassment, perhaps a better, point to make would have been recommending your state leaders to look at us and other faster growing states to see what we are doing right. (To your credit, you somewhat did so by lifting quotes from a Mississippi story about the issue.)

For full disclosure, I do not agree with most of the policies of our governor. He’s devastated health care in this state, and he’s trying to destroy our tax code as well.

Most of the growth we have seen, to this point, comes from policies and economic development initiatives launched prior to his administration or solely by the Legislature.

Add to that the growth due to rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina, and you will see that we are not as well off as it may first appear. The real trick, and our state is more than capable of doing this, is to ensure we continue our growth through other measures already in place.

That said, and in all fairness, Barbour was able to land a Toyota plant. And, as governor, he gets the credit for what happens on his watch.

I sincerely hope that your better professional angels will prevail upon you and that you will print an apology. It may not mean anything to your readers, and you will likely get little credit from those irate here in Mississippi. But at least your journalistic integrity will be in tact over this issue, and you can rest easily that you simply did the right thing.

Best wishes.

If you would like to weigh in on the subject, you can find their e-mail directory here.

UPDATE: Editorial Page Editor Johanna Maurice called me this morning. We had a good conversation. She is going to print my letter.

Maurice did say that their intention was not to slight Mississippi but to pat us on the back for doing better and making progress. If that was the case, I still maintain that the wording was poorly chosen.

Instead, it appears that the Daily Mail was trying to shame West Virginia lawmakers into working harder before poor, pitiful Mississippi catches up with them.

All that said, it was a pleasurable conversation.

Blue spot in a red state

Democrats are not exactly a dying breed in Mississippi, but we’re definitely outnumbered. Why, I have no idea.

Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the nation. In the past five years, Republicans here have:

• Kicked thousands of elderly low-income people off Medicaid
• Limited an individual’s access to the courts by capping how much negligent companies/doctors/individuals must pay if they are wronged
• Underfunded public education
• Refused the will of the people by repeatedly killing bills that would cut the grocery tax in half (Mississippi has one of the highest grocery taxes in the nation)
• Cut funds for the Mississippi Department of Transportation

Nonetheless, many people here — like many people everywhere — have bought into the misconception that if you are Christian or have conservative social values that you must be a Republican. That’s a sham of an idea.

Still, Republicans are masters at labeling things and then persuading people to blindly follow those labels.

In this spot, I’ll explore political happenings from time to time. Don’t expect straight partisan ramblings, however. Republicans are not without good ideas, and there are a few other political movements that don’t fit neatly into a two-party system.

So this kicks things off for the Politics section of my blog. It’s not much more than a space-holder, but at least it serves the purpose of giving you an idea on where I stand in politics and what I plan to blog about in this space.