The Uncommitted Story, Part II

I've been trying my best to give a dispassionate account of how the "uncommitted" campaign is doing. Obviously, supporters have an incentive to pump up its successes; opponents have a perhaps more mixed set of incentives (you don't want to give the impression that they represent the true majority, but there can be benefit in promoting a scary monster lurking in the woods). 

But for my part, I'd like to think we do ourselves no favors when we delude ourselves about the state of the world. If "uncommitted" is doing exceptionally well and demonstrating a genuine groundswell of opposition to Joe Biden's policies, there's no sense denying that just because one wishes it weren't so. If "uncommitted" is not performing especially impressively and doesn't stand out from always-present grousing at a coronated incumbent, then there's no sense denying that just because one wishes that weren't so.

So to actually figure out how "uncommitted" really is performing, it's important to establish our comparator. JTA put a piece up last night breathlessly comparing "uncommitted's" Super Tuesday support against how "uncommitted" fared in 2020. Framed that way, "uncommitted" had an outstanding night:

The uncommitted percentages barely dented Biden’s overwhelming win in each state, but far outdid 2020 percentages for uncommitted voters. In Minnesota, with 74% of votes counted at 10 p.m. Central Time, uncommitted was getting 20% of the vote; it garnered less than a half percent in 2020.

[...]

In Colorado, with 74% of the vote counted at 9 p.m. Mountain Time, uncommitted was getting 7.5% of the vote. It did not register at all in 2020.

In North Carolina,  at 11 p.m. Eastern Time, with 93% of the vote counted, uncommitted voters were 12.5% of those voting in the Democratic primary. In 2020, it was 1.64%.

In Tennessee, at 11 p.m. Eastern Time with 80% of the vote counted, uncommitted garnered 8% of the vote. It got less than a quarter of a percent in 2020.

In Massachusetts, with 51% of the count recorded at 11 p.m. Eastern Time, uncommitted was getting 9% of the vote. It got less than a half percent in 2020.

The problem is that 2020 is obviously not the right year of comparison -- an open Democratic primary with a sprawling field of candidates to choose from is very different from a reigning incumbent running for reelection (virtually) unopposed (if in 2020 you couldn't find a single Democrat of the approximately 531 running for president to "commit" to, I don't what your problem is).

So in terms of trying to give an objective assessment of "uncommitted's" performance, the actual comparison is to the last analogous presidential primary -- Obama 2012, since that was the last time we had an incumbent Democratic president running for re-election. 

In such cases, we would expect that there will always be some baseline number of people dissatisfied with the incumbent and looking to cast a protest vote. The question for "uncommitted" in 2024 is whether it is exceeding that baseline. Generously, we can assume that any overperformance compared to the 2012 figures is attributable to the "uncommitted" campaign vis-a-vis Gaza (though obviously, that might not be true). By contrast, if "uncommitted" isn't performing any differently (or worse!) than it did in 2012, then it seems unlikely that the "uncommitted" campaign is actually making much of a mark. So, for example, in Michigan "uncommitted" got 2.5% more in 2024 than it did in 2012, and then we have to decide what that level of improvement says about the strength of the underlying sentiment -- my conclusion was that this was a modest impact, but ultimately not too impressive save for the fact that Michigan's narrow margin makes anything meaningful.

With that in mind, how did "uncommitted" do compared to baseline expectations on Super Tuesday?

Unfortunately, Colorado and Minnesota didn't hold primaries in 2012, so we can't do a direct comparison. I will nonetheless eyeball agree that the 19% uncommitted took in Minnesota looks relatively impressive (though it actually isn't necessarily an outlier figure, as we'll see below). In the other three states, by contrast, things look very different for "uncommitted":

Massachusetts: 9% (2024) compared to 11% (2012)

Tennessee: 8% (2024) vs. 11.5% (2012)

North Carolina: 12.5% (2024) vs. 21% (2012)

These are all substantial underperformances compared to what we saw in 2012. Again, I understand why "uncommitted" backers are trying to juice them up, but these are not good showings! And these are the highlighted state where uncommitted did best! Except for Minnesota and Oklahoma (which seems to have a disproportionate share of randos on the ballot), Biden's broke 80% in every state he ran in on Super Tuesday. By contrast, back in 2012, Politico was running stories about Obama's primary weaknesses by pointing to states where he wasn't even cracking 60% of the vote (uncommitted got over 40% in Kentucky that year!).

So why is the media making a mountain out of this molehill? Certainly, "uncommitted" can give us some interesting microdata (the frustration among Michigan Arab and Muslim voters seems real, for instance, and notable). And in close states, any type of discontent can make a difference (though that proves too much -- any type can make a difference, meaning that any potential grouse or grumble is equally problematic). But I also think that we're seeing the effects of some relatively online journalists who are attuned to a relatively online campaign and so think there must be a "there" there. That, coupled with a deep-seated desire for anything that makes the horse-race story more interesting, and of course this is a tempting morsel.

But the reality seems to be that Biden actually is doing fine, compared to Democrats in analogous situations, of consolidating support. If anything, we've been seeing pretty persistent underestimation of his electoral appeal (itself perhaps a worthy topic for a post). "Uncommitted" right not seems to be mostly (not entirely, but mostly) sizzle rather than steak.

The Tennessee Three: Whataboutism as Fascism Apologia

You've no doubt heard at this point about "the Tennessee Three", three Democratic members of the Tennessee State House facing an expulsion vote for their role in a protest against gun violence that occurred on the state legislative floor. Expulsion is a rarely-invoked procedure in Tennessee, typically reserved for obvious cases of criminality of misconduct (e.g., a bribery scandal) in cases that garner bipartisan support. To use it to kick out minority party members for a raucous protest the majority found embarrassing is a huge overreach, an exploitation of the GOP's supermajority status to further undermine basic democratic principles.

I wanted to flag a particular comparison Tennessee Republicans are using to justify their conduct -- comparing the protest to the attempted insurrection on January 6:

House Speaker Cameron Sexton compared the incident to Jan. 6: "What they did today was equivalent, at least equivalent, maybe worse depending on how you look at it, to doing an insurrection in the State Capitol," he said.

Sexton also noted that Jones and Johnson had previously been "very vocal about Jan. 6 and Washington, D.C., about what that was."

There was, of course, no insurrection here: the protest had no ambitions of overthrowing the government. But there's something revealing about this rhetorical move that I think typifies the way conservatives are normalizing and justifying fascist behavior.

Even now, many Republicans are kind of willing to concede that there was something ... untoward about January 6, and the broader campaign of election denial that spawned it. "Kind of" because they face tremendous pressure to outright endorse it, as Sexton's "maybe worse" aside makes clear. But to the extent they to recognize that there's something wrong with what happened on January 6, what they want to do is present things like January 6 as an ordinary sort of ugliness, the sort of foul or misconduct one can see from all parts of the political spectrum. Yes, maybe the January 6 thing went a bit too far. But it's not distinctive; this is a problem one can see across the aisle too. Look at Black Lives Matter protests -- why aren't they being treated like the insurrectionists? Maybe Trump shouldn't have denied the election, but is it really any different from Al Gore demanding a recount in 2000? Trump stole classified documents; well, what about her emails? Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout.

By transferring these egregious examples of anti-democratic thuggery into the realm of "normal" politics, Republicans justify treating them via the "normal" (partisan) political process. Sure it might be a bit distasteful, and more than a little opportunistic, but hey, that's politics. There's nothing exceptional here that demands standing on a broader principle. Everything blurs into an indistinguishable mush of "sometimes politics gets ugly." And in that universe, well, it's just realistic that Republicans probably won't pay much attention to their "normal" nips that might cross the line. Cynicism styles itself as realism, but it's really just cowardice.

None of this is to say that straightforward political thuggery isn't sufficient explanation for why Tennessee Republicans are acting the way they are. But there is a broader justificatory narrative being crafted here. The Tennessee Three isn't just about state and national Republicans being contemptuous of democratic norms (though it's certainly about that too). It's yet another effort to pull the extreme conservative threats to basic rule of law principles out of the realm of "extreme" and blur them into the normal hurly-burly of every day politics. Exploiting the media's instinct to "both sides" everything, the GOP will just troll all the way down

Schoolchildren Shouldn't Have To Live Like Jews, Part II

This weekend, Lewis & Clark Law School hosted the 2nd Annual Conference on Law vs. Antisemitism, a conference which (I don't think it's immodest of me to say) I did the lion's share of organizing.

Part of that organization was making sure, at the outset, to contact Lewis & Clark campus security to inform them of the event and have a security plan in place. This included having a security officer on site, requiring registration and check-in, alerting the Portland Police Bureau of the event and having them monitor the chatter of "certain" sites to ensure we weren't going to be a target, and other sundry efforts to address what I called our "elevated risk profile" compared to a standard law school event.

All this, to me, felt very normal and unremarkable. I'm hosting a conference on antisemitism -- of course I need to take extra steps to ensure that it is secured.

The day-of grunt work for the conference was provided by a set of Lewis & Clark law school student volunteers, most if not all of whom were not Jewish. They all did, to be clear, a fantastic job. But I think it is fair to say that for them, this sort of extra security was very much not normal. Which I recognized, and at various points during the run-up, I'd update them on the various security measures we were emplacing, trying to balance between "we're a conference on antisemitism, there's inherently heightened risk" and "but there's no reason to fear, most likely nothing bad will happen, this is all just precautionary." I was aware that my normal is not their normal.

The conference went very well, and without any problems or disruptions of any sort. As is the case, 99% of the time. The vast majority of cases where a synagogue brings in extra guards to watch over high holiday services, nothing bad happens. We just had a great event. So I felt kind of bad, forcing all these student volunteers to deal with the anxiety of all those extra security precautions. My normal shouldn't have to be their normal.

After Uvalde, I wrote a deliberately provocative post titled "Schoolchildren Shouldn't Have to Live Like Jews." The basic thrust of the post was to argue that all the various ways Jews have enhanced local security, "hardened the target", etc. etc., are not good models for how to protect schoolchildren from mass shootings. That they're normal for us -- a beleaguered, regularly threatened minority group -- should not make them normal for everyone. 

Less than a year later, in the wake of yet another school shooting, this time in Nashville, I couldn't help but return to the same thought. I mourn for the families, not just for their immediate loss, but for the extra wave of grief they will endure upon realizing just how little the American people care about them. But the fact is that when the only response to a shooting is "more guns" -- taking the firefight as inevitable and just hoping it occurs earlier in the process -- we're tacitly (or not so tacitly) conceding that "we're not going to fix it". It is taken for granted that to have your children in public schools is to run the risk of having them gunned down -- a price that too many politicians treat as one families are agreeing to pay, as opposed to being coerced into accepting (witness Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett's blithe response when asked how to "protect people like your little girl": "Well, we home school her.").

It doesn't have to be like this. Our normal shouldn't have to be their normal.

Our First Experience With Antisemitism (Except for All The Other Times)

This passage, about a Jewish couple in Tennessee whose attempt to adopt a three-year old child was rejected because they were Jewish, struck a chord with me:

In the initial report, Elizabeth Rutan-Ram said the foster care rejection was the first time she'd faced discrimination because she was Jewish.

Actually, she was called "Jew girl" in grade school. And her husband said other kids handed him swastikas. https://t.co/7K9RhTBYYq

— Philissa Cramer (@philissa) February 1, 2022

It strikes a chord because it is reminiscent of a phenomenon Albert Memmi explored in his Portrait of a Jew. Memmi speaks of how often Jews speak of never being truly "aware" of antisemitism until some particularly stark incident slaps them across the face. Until that moment, they will say, antisemitism was never really a "thing" in their lives. And yet, if you press them a bit, it turns out that this overt incident was not the first -- there were other incidents, perhaps many other incidents, but for whatever reason they didn't "count", and it doesn't occur to them to mention them or even think about them as antisemitic incidents. So after the initial declaration that the overt incident was "the first time", there comes the belated admission that well, I guess it wasn't the first time, not by a long shot, and what at first might have felt like a isolated, even freakish incident, really is just bringing to the foreground a lot of baggage which had been tucked away in the background.

We could all stand to wonder why this practice exists, and why it has existed for so long and over eras and locations where it seems nobody -- least of all the Jews -- should have had any trouble recognizing that antisemitism wasn't isolated or freakish (Memmi's examples were people like Herzl and Einstein).  What explains this pattern? Why is our first instinct, our deep psychology, to "forget" antisemitism has happened to us?

Tennessee Primary Night

Tennessee had a primary tonight. There aren't really any competitive general election races in Tennessee, so I wasn't paying too much attention to the primaries either. But a few things worth noting:

• Tennessee's Senate race wasn't going to be competitive, but everyone thought they knew who the Democratic nominee was. Attorney James Mackler had the DSCC endorsement and raised millions of dollars. Nobody else in the field had broken out of 5 digits in fundraising. Yet Mackler ended up taking third, with the victory going to virtual unknown Marquita Bradshaw. This wasn't on anyone's radar screen (while Bradshaw is definitely a progressive, this wasn't a case where there was some big grassroots energy burbling up against the establishment). Bradshaw will once again be the prohibitive underdog against GOP nominee Bill Hagerty. I admit that every time something like this happens -- a complete unknown randomly secures a major party nomination in a high-profile race -- I brace myself for some embarrassing revelation about something they once said on Facebook or a controversial job they once held.
• Once again, Rep. Steve Cohen (D) faced a credible primary challenger (this time from Shelby County Democratic Party chair Corey Strong). And once again, he had nothing to worry about, throttling his opponent by a 70 point margin. Strong's explanation for why he got into the race is unintentionally hilarious: he acknowledges that Cohen (a) has a great voting record, (b) supported Obama administration policies and opposed Trumpist policies, (c) is a national leader, and (d) has been deeply attentive to his district. So what exactly does he think the angle is? Eventually people will learn.
• Tennessee's 1st congressional district has the longest Republican winning streak in the nation. So when the seat is open, a lot of Republicans jump at the chance to go to Washington. This year, the winner -- with just 19% of the vote(!) -- is Diana Harshbarger. Five candidates had double-digit vote tallies -- the field was that fractured. Meanwhile, I can't figure out how to say "Harshbarger" without sounding ridiculous.
• The most serious primary challenge of the evening came against Nashville-based Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper, who is considerably more conservative than his district demographics suggest is justified. He survived Keeda Haynes' attempt to take him out from the left, albeit by a rather underwhelming 53-44 margin. That might give Haynes some inspiration from a rematch (look at Cori Bush and Marie Newman), but there are rumors floating around that the Tennessee GOP might try to gerrymander this seat out of existence now that the Supreme Court has waved the green flag at partisan redistricting.

SCOTUS Strikes Down Economic Protectionism in Tennessee

This week, in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers v. Thomas, the Supreme Court struck down a Tennessee ordinance which prohibited new residents from obtaining a liquor store license until they had resided in the state for two years (in a particularly galling twist, they can't renew the license until they have ten years of residency -- even though liquor store licenses have to be renewed annually. Yes, that means there is a seven year no man's land in between.). The vote was 7-2, with Justices Gorsuch and Thomas in dissent.

I want to flag this briefly, and particularly the dissents of Gorsuch and Thomas. To be clear: I firmly believe that good policy and proper legal interpretation are not coterminous categories. The question before the Court was (a) whether laws like this violate the "dormant commerce clause" and (b) whether the special legal regime the Constitution provides for alcohol regulation in the 21st Amendment alters that analysis. I'd have to read the case more carefully to decide where I come down on it, though in my extremely brief browse I think the majority has the better of the argument.

But this nonetheless serves as a good example of a simple point: there is no straight line connection between conservative jurisprudence and economic liberty. In many circumstances, there is a more straightforward left-libertarian alliance against unnecessary government licensing regimes which serve only to obstruct disfavored classes from economic opportunity. Sometimes, conservatives will join them (the majority opinion here was written by Justice Alito); in the right circumstances sometimes one sees a massive cross-party consensus on these issues. But there remain plenty of cases where conservative politics and conservative legal analysis implies propping up economic protectionism and government red tape. Any assumption of a natural alliance between economic freedom and conservatism is a myth.

The Latest Anti-Vaxx Congressman

Newly elected Tennessee GOP congressman Mark Green is a doctor. He's also dipping his toes into the conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism.

A soon-to-be congressman from Tennessee told constituents Tuesday he believed vaccines may be causing autism, denying data from the Centers for Disease Control and other institutions disproving such a theory. 

Not only did Republican Mark Green, a Congressman-elect from Clarksville who is also a medical doctor, express hesitation about the CDC's stance on vaccines, Green said he believed the federal health agency has "fraudulently managed" the data. 

His remarks came in response to an audience question at a town hall meeting in Franklin from a woman identifying herself as the parent of a young adult with autism. The woman was concerned about possible cuts to Medicaid funding. 

"Let me say this about autism," Green said. "I have committed to people in my community, up in Montgomery County, to stand on the CDC’s desk and get the real data on vaccines. Because there is some concern that the rise in autism is the result of the preservatives that are in our vaccines.

Anti-vaxx conspiracies are actually tend to cross ideological borders, though the precise vectors are a little different. On the left, the conspiracies generally focus on greedy pharmaceutical companies selling a bogus product (or worse, infecting children so they can sell yet more bogus products). On the right, the tale usually is one of malicious government bureaucrats or sneaky elites -- this, obviously, is the approach that Green takes.

There's something else interesting about this story, though. You'll note that while Green was responding to a question from a woman whose child has autism, her query did not (at least as reported) mention vaccines at all. She was worried about cuts to Medicaid funding.

Needless to say, "cuts to Medicaid funding threaten the health of my child" is not terrain Republican congressmen particularly like to stand on. Green's pivot to vaccines is not just a random grasp at a conspiracy theory. It is a deliberate political move -- an attempt to change the conversation away from Green's own policy positions (which, of course, are brazen efforts to strip health care from vulnerable populations) and onto something else. Don't blame my votes on Medicaid for threatening your child's health -- blame those sneaky, untrustworthy government bureaucrats!

Anti-vaccine politics, in short, are by no means the exclusive redoubt of the right. But at the moment they have a particular tactical benefit for conservative politicians: they are a ready-made narrative, which unfortunately has attraction for a lot of people, that distracts attention from their own unpopular policies and instead diverts attention elsewhere. That it also (in its conservative iteration) helps spread suspicion of "government" and "elites" in the process is a bonus.

Of course, the raw political benefit of relying on anti-vaccine conspiracies has to be balanced against the Republican Party's commitment to truth, the common good, and adherence to basic moral principles over transient political advantage. In other words, expect right-wing Republicans to begin embracing anti-vaccine politics completely and without any hesitation whatsoever.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume XLIX: Taylor Swift Endorsing Phil Bredesen

There's this weird element of contemporary pop culture where, at any given moment, there's a celebrity that seems inexplicably hated (it's almost always a woman, and that part sadly is quite explicable).

Anne Hathaway was it for awhile, and I could never figure out why. What's wrong with Anne Hathaway? She seems lovely! Lena Dunham certainly fit the bill for a bit. And then there was Taylor Swift -- who had the extra misfortune of not just being hated seemingly randomly by the masses but also being involuntarily made into a White Supremacist mascot. Ouch.

But now Tay Tay has made a very prominent endorsement in the 2018 midterms -- Phil Bredesen, Tennessee's former Democratic governor, who has very quietly pulled into the lead in his bid to flip the open seat from red to blue.

You can imagine the Nazis are pissed. You can also imagine who they blame.

I can't get the screenshots here (follow the link), but here are two excerpts of comments floating around far-right message boards:

“This looks so ghost written. Ever notice how every celebrity seems to be reciting the same exact script and even use the same exact wording. Not that I’m excusing Taytay, fuck her. I just noticed how she sounds exactly like Chris Evans and all those other faggots who suddenly try to get political. Their tweets always read as if some faggy Jew wrote it for them.”

[...]

“This is Soros trying to bluepill [sic] us by kidnapping /our princess/ they must have blackmailed her or something. We need to save her.”

On that second one, I feel compelled to point out that under Brit Hume rules there's nothing antisemitic there since the poster only said "Soros" and not "Jews". Good thing, too, because if we actually were willing to recognize Soros for the obvious dog-whistle that it is, who knows how many mainstream Republicans would get caught up!

Anyway, fist-bump for team Jew for successfully "bluepilling" Swift (whatever that means) and to Taylor, hey, "shake it off" (whatever that means).

College Is/Is Not About Challenging Cherished Beliefs (Choose One)

Even five years ago, the dominant conservative complaint about American university culture was that it was too offensive. They'd seize upon some program or event they found outrageous -- typically something sex-related like the "Vagina Monologues" -- and talk about how colleges were imposing libertine corruption on our nation's youth. Or they'd pull out some class focusing on Marxism and complain about "leftist indoctrination" of radical ideas. Presentation of such views in an academic setting was, we were told, offensive to conservative and Christian students and hostile to traditional American values. Even as recently as this past summer we saw shades of this at Duke University, where conservatives complained about a freshman reading assignment of an LGBT-themed graphic novel. Such an assignment was uncomfortable and at odds with some students' Christian outlooks and, the argument went, they should not be exposed to it.

Then, seemingly without skipping a beat, the talking points did a complete 180. Now the line is that there is absolutely no right not to be "offended" in a university setting, and persons who register such complaints are whiny, coddled millennials who don't understand the point of a liberal arts education. Any concerns or protests regarding what content is and is not presented in university events, classes, and lectures pose a dire threat to free speech. Is something making you uncomfortable on campus? Good, because that's the whole point of college: it exists to challenge students and make them think critically about what they believe, not to make them comfortable and quiescent.

I write this because, well, I think Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey missed the transition memo.

Students attend college to study great thinkers and prepare for an increasingly competitive job market. They don't go to have their values and traditions sidelined and undermined. I can assure you that university offices of diversity will be subject to increased scrutiny during our upcoming legislative session.

This was in response to a non-binding university recommendation that holiday parties be non-sectarian rather than be overtly about Christmas. (And -- brief digression -- how is that Republican Jewish voter outreach going, Mr. Ramsey?).

Anyway, the clear principle being affirmed here is that the American college experience is not about undermining people's values and sidelining their traditions, unless those people are not white Christian men. In which case, we should all deeply worry about how these groups haven't inculcated the value that college is about being challenged and being uncomfortable.

Who Gave Steve King a Magic Lamp?

Ah, Steve King. The Republican from Iowa has graced the pages of my blog at several points as among the dumbest members of Congress -- defending the "mendacity" of Republican leaders, worrying that women will never have babies if we allow them access to birth control, and referring to America as a nation of slackers. And today, we get a new entry: pining for a return to 19th century voting rules, where only propertied (White) men could vote. You think I'm exaggerating:

“[T]here was a time in American history when you had to be a male property owner in order to vote. The reason for that was, because they wanted the people who voted — that set the public policy, that decided on the taxes and the spending — to have some skin in the game."

King was making a "skin in the game" argument, and we'll put aside my general objections to that argument. I'm not 100% convinced that the only reason voting was restricted to white male property owners was that they, unlike the rest of the population, had "skin in the game". Call me a skeptic if you like.

But if the goal is to see America return to pre-Voting Rights Act electoral rules, King may be getting his wish. Check out this story from Tennessee, where a 96-year old Black woman who was able to vote during Jim Crow is facing disenfranchisement due to the state's draconian new voter ID requirement. The woman actually has a photo ID, just not one that counts under the law. So she went to get one that would qualify, but showing the clerk her (a) rent receipt, (b) lease copy, (c) voter registration card and (d) birth certificate wasn't enough to satisfy the clerk and get the card.

Moot Court Finals Roundup

Good luck to my friends participating in the final round of the University of Chicago's moot court competition. The three judge panel is comprised of Judges William Fletcher (9th Circuit), Diane Sykes (7th Circuit), and Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit). At a lunch talk featuring the three, the host started by introducing the panelists: "To my far right -- physically at least -- Judge William Fletcher."

* * *

Group pushing a resolution honoring the King James Bible also thinks Obama may be the anti-Christ. As The Agitator puts it: "This one may be more difficult to disprove."

Releasing the birth certificate doesn't satisfy the "where's the birth certificate?" crowd. Huge surprise.

Jonathan Freeman remarks on his experience "role-playing" as a Palestinian negotiator (the Israelis were represented by persons affiliated with pro-Palestinian perspectives).

Wisconsin Republicans may finally just repass the anti-union bill, which is tied up in court challenges due to them missing some procedural hurdles as they tried to ram in through minus Democratic presence. This would end the legal problems, but it would return the bill to the news -- hardly what the six Republicans facing recall want at the moment, I imagine.

TNC -- who doesn't make the charge lightly -- declares the wild anti-Obama conspiracy theories, from birtherism to ridiculous aspersions on his academic record, as racism of the bone. Incidentally, I think it was Matt Yglesias on Twitter who observed that, if Obama was an "affirmative action" admittee to Harvard Law, that's arguably the single best case study for the validity of the program, seeing as he graduated magna cum laude, was President of the Law Review, and, oh yeah, became President.

Right-wing Israeli organization honors a Rabbi who urged Jews not to rent apartments to Arabs (the award was presented by Daniel Hershkowitz, a minister in the current Israeli government representing one of Bibi's furthest-right coalition partners).

I'm pretty sure Rick Santorum's accusation that Planned Parenthood practices eugenics is going to be revealed as one of those "not intended to be factual statements" (where, as in Kyl's similar gaffe, "not intended" means "absolutely intended").

Is there anything distinguishing this bill from that overturned in Romer v. Evans?

The GOPs Anti-Muslim Turn

A CNN article begins with a Muslim Republican wondering how his Party went from the one gaining a majority of Muslims votes to one falling over itself to attack Muslims of all stripes. Rep. Peter King (R-NY), ironically perhaps the only member of Congress to have openly declared his support for a terrorist organization, is leading a federal witch hunt of supposed domestic Islamic radicalization -- despite the fact that his core argument (that Muslims haven't been cooperating with American law enforcement) is disputed by, well, all major branches of American law enforcement. And Tennessee is considering a law that more or less criminalizes being Muslim (reading the bill text, incidentally, it is clear that it criminalizes both belief and conduct).

It's sickening. It's the sort of thing that humiliates me as an American.

Frivolity

You can sanction litigants for making frivolous legal claims. I wonder: Assuming Tennessee passes its patently unconstitutional proposed ban on Shariah law, would that extend to any state defense of the law in court?

I mean, talk about your slam-dunks under the First Amendment. This baby not only is sect-discriminatory (a major constitutional no-no), but it directly criminalizes religious belief. You couldn't come up with an easier case if you tried. Indeed, you couldn't have a Free Exercise clause that didn't strike down this law.

Every Inch of America is Consecrated Ground

The New York Times has an excellent report on nationwide protests against mosque construction, in such hallowed American locations like Sheboygon, Wisconsin (hi, Joe!) and Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Of course, the opposition to the New York City mosque that has breached the Muslim-site-exclusion-zone-of-indeterminate-radius could not possibly stem from similar motivations. It is a principled defense of the legitimate pain of 9/11 victims.

(Same ban rules apply to NF, CC, and Joe. Oh, and we'll say Superdestroyer too -- I've been meaning to do that for awhile anyway. I'll decide when -- and if -- I feel like lifting those.).

Tennessee Sense

The Tennessee primaries are done, and after a year in which we've seen candidates like Sharron Angle nominated and incumbents like Bob Inglis (R-SC) knocked off for insufficient crazy, it's nice to see that at least one state seems to have (miracles of miracles!) made sensible choices.

Surprising nobody, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) handily turned back a primary challenge from former Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton, winning by over a 55 point margin. Herenton had once again tried to race-bait his way to victory in this majority-Black district, and once again the voters showed that they weren't having it.

On the Republican side of things, the nominee for Governor is Bill Haslam, the mayor of Knoxville and the only one of the three major GOP candidates in that race not to go all-in on the crazy (Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey had argued that Islam was "cult" that should be deprived of protection on the First Amendment, and Rep. Zack Wamp had floated seceding from America).

So, good for Volunteer State voters on both sides of the aisle. I salute you.

No Worries

The last time Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) faced a race-baiting challenger in his majority-Black African-American district, he thrashed Nikki Tinker by a 60 point margin. I promised at the time that I wouldn't worry that the voters of the 9th District of Tennessee would fall for such naked appeals to prejudice. This time around, Cohen drew a decidedly tougher challenge in Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton, who also is trying to race-bait his way to victory.

Fortunately for my promise, I still don't need to worry -- Cohen appears to be cruising to victory, and by now has to be considered firmly entrenched in the district. And that's a good thing: Cohen is an excellent Congressman who deserves a long and successful career in Washington.

Quiet Riot Roundup

Yesterday was the birthday, tonight is the celebration. Not sure about the lack of blogging though -- it's not like I was busy.

* * *

Right-wing mob urges the lynching of Attorney General Eric Holder -- ironically, because Holder wants to uphold rule of law.

The Winter Olympics start tonight, and Ghana will be representing for the first time.

In sadder news, a Georgian luger died hours before the opening ceremonies in a crash during a practice run.

Voters like gays and lesbians; homosexuals, less so.

Liberal Democrat (UK) MP Baroness Jenny Tonge was sacked from a high profile party position after demanding Israel undertake investigations of completely unsubstantiated allegations of organ theft in Haiti.

Meanwhile, this is a good post on the longevity and impressive staying power of organ theft rumors (not just about Jews or Israelis).

Jews face the highest rate of hate crimes of any religious group in the United States (Blacks are the most targeted overall).

A Tennessee Muslim community is the subject of a sensationalist CBS report questioning whether it is a secret terrorist training facility. It isn't, but gets hit with vandalism anyway in its wake.

It's nice that Glenn Beck disavowed 9/11 troofer-flirting candidate Gloria Medina, but to call it impressive would be to lower our expectations bar underground.

Hedging Hollywood -- a brilliant scheme to induce bad filmmakers to actively try and make their movies worse.

Random Congressional Thought

Am I crazy, or can I see ex-Rep. Harold Ford running for Senate in New York as a Republican?

He's tacking right to run in New York, which makes no sense. He's ambitious enough that I doubt he'd be deterred by some deep connection to the Democratic Party. He'd immediately become the most high profile Black Republican in the country (even more than Michael Steele). He'd ride a boondoggle of gushing press coverage about how the Democratic Party is falling apart (so much so that even a Black man is leaving the party).

Or maybe I'm crazy.

Campaign Mode

If one were designing a video game about Congressional elections, the career of Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) would represent a good template for a campaign mode. Representing a majority-Black, heavily Democratic area of Memphis, Cohen got elected to Congress in 2006 by emerging from a badly split Democratic primary field. In 2008, Cohen didn't have the luxury of a split field, but soundly trounced corporate attorney Nikki Tinker who tried to race- and religion-bait her way to victory. Now, his 2010 match-up is another step-up in competition, facing long-time Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton.

This NYT profile makes it sound like Herenton is basically trying to make the campaign about race. It didn't work for Tinker at all, but Herenton is far higher profile than Tinker ever was. Still, Cohen has had time to entrench himself and appears to have engendered some loyalty amongst his constituents -- Black and White. I'm optimistic about his chances. Though an intervention by Barack Obama in favor of one of the most progressive members of the Democratic caucus would be, I think, both politically wise and greatly appreciated by Rep. Cohen.

Cohen Draws Another Challenge

Five-term Memphis mayor Willie W. Herenton has announced he is resigning in order to challenge progressive lion Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) in the Democratic primary for the 9th Tennessee Congressional seat. After some fretting by yours truly, Rep. Cohen handily turned back a challenge last cycle by Nikki Tinker in a campaign marred by race-baiting and anti-Semitism. But while Herenton's popularity has been flagging of late, he is still a far more credible and dangerous opponent than Tinker ever was. I haven't seen any indicator that Cohen is disliked in his district, but this cycle will be probably his best chance to demonstrate whether he's truly entrenched himself or not.