The End of Caring What Jews Think

Bruce Pearl, Auburn basketball coach and prominent Jewish Republican, has delivered an ultimatum unto Vice President J.D. Vance: cut ties with Tucker Carlson, or he won't support Vance's 2028 presidential bid.

I don't know if Pearl will stick to his guns on this. I do feel quite confident that Vance will not oblige Pearl. Vance, if nothing else, sees which way the winds blow, and there is increasingly little profit in politicians paying heed to Jewish objections.

This, alas, is not unique to any party. If anything, it is more noticeable amongst Democrats -- not because the problem is "worse" there, but because Jews are of course far more successfully imbricated in the Democratic Party coalition and so the waning of influence is far more noticeable. But this cycle has already seen a slew of "local Jews raised the alarm about [candidate]" followed by "[candidate] wins anyway." It's gotten noticeable.

And while sometimes the "alarm" is making a mountain out of perfectly reasonable molehills, it isn't always. Graham Platner's totenkopf is an obvious example; Avila Chevalier attending an October 8 pro-Hamas rally is another. And while Melat Kiros' demurral on whether the Boulder firebombing murder was antisemitic isn't quite as bad as one might think from the topline description, it certainly isn't good. While it is clear (and I'm gladdened) that Kiros is quite clear in condemning the murder, it is in fact still quite bad when "is burning an elderly American Jewish woman alive because one is mad at Israel antisemitic?" is treated as a sort of trick question one must tip-toe around.

These are, in short, reasonable alarms to raise; and it matters that they are often ignored with impunity. And that's a change. So what caused it? Obviously, a lot of factors are in play, but one that looms large for me is that fragmenting of a hitherto relatively unified Jewish political consensus over the past few years. The Leviathan has fallen, and we are now in the era of the warring kingdoms. Here was my prediction at the onset of Trump 2.0, tell me if it looks familiar: 

So what we are looking at over the next several years is an American Jewish community that simultaneously is under unprecedented threat and is wracked by unprecedented internal division. What I expect to see, then, is that a depressingly large proportion of Jewish political action will take the form of fratricidal squabbling and internal jockeying for position. If the suzerain is falling, the border lord upstarts are going to race to annex as much territory as possible.

[....]

Even as external threats grow ever grimmer, Jews will relentlessly concentrate on our own internal power plays -- trying to grab space for ourselves and prevent the growth of our rivals.

Now again, maybe you think that the status quo hegemony of the ADL-type organizations was sufficiently awful that this transition is necessary and salutary, notwithstanding the growing pains. I won't argue the point here. But necessary or no, during the anarchic interregnum it's hard to imagine Jews being able to leverage much in the way of political influence. We are weak externally, and we are weak internally, and that is a very scary position to be in no matter how you slice it. 

I take no pleasure in vindication here. And (since this sort of caveat is always necessary whenever a Jew has a temerity to speak about Jews) I don't claim that this vulnerable position is unique to Jews, or is worse for Jews, or falsifies other vulnerabilities, or anything of the sort. I'm speaking about Jews-qua-Jews, not making some tacit comparative point. But for Jews, this is where we are. And it is a very unpleasant place to be.

This is a change for Jews. It used to be that "Jews are upset about X" was a substantial political negative, either intrinsically (people genuinely cared about Jewish feelings) or at least instrumentally (people correctly calculated that being perceived as being hurtful to Jews was a political loser), now both of those premises are increasingly shaky. The former has been rattled, but (perhaps more importantly) the latter has been decisively falsified. The lesson of 2026 is that backlash from Jews (and I'm trying here to be agnostic as to whether the backlash is "fair" or not) can be safely ignored.

Indeed, I might go further: it's not (at least not always) just a matter of people no longer feeling the need to listen to the Jews. It's more than agnosticism; Jewish discomfort or anger or panic is seen as a sign one is doing right -- akin to (in the Democrats case) learning that an evangelical church is sounded the alarm about the candidate. But even that undersells it, because it doesn't account for the libidinal sense of release being experienced. There is, at least in some quarters, a very strong undercurrent of glee in standing against the Jews -- a sensation that people are throwing off shackles that had constrained them. So it's more than just not caring about what Jews think, and it's more than a sort of negative polarization based on correlating Jews with conservatism. It's a more primal desire that associates Jews with these negative feelings of self-censorship and walking on eggshells and suppression, and now suddenly feeling free to break the chains.

This was central to my thesis about Platner, of course. And he's hardly alone. What crystallized this thought for me was an odd duck story about a local Portland coffee shop, Heretic Coffee, which received a donation routed through the Jewish Federation (the shop had made the news for offering free meals to persons facing hunger due to SNAP cuts). There was clearly some confusion about the donation, which was unsolicited. The shop owner initially reached out unsuccessfully to the Portland JFed, when the gift actually was from someone working through the SF JFed (hence perhaps why the former initially had no idea what the coffee shop was assking about). And the shop owner didn't seem to realize that it wasn't really a gift from the JFed at all, but rather an individual Jewish donor using the federation as a donor-advised fund.

But what could have just been a comedy of errors became something grimmer when the shop owner decided to "do his own research", determined that the gift must be "blood money" due to the JFed's alleged support for Israeli genocide, and defiantly tore the check up. Again, much of this misapprehends the structure of a donor-advised fund in the first place, but I don't actually want to focus on these details. Rather, what stood out to me was the owner's preemptive acknowledgement that he would likely face severe backlash from the Jewish Federation's supporters, and that he was ready for it and eager to receive it and prepared to be martyred by it. At one level, it stands out for viewing Jewish antipathy as a positive -- if the Jews cry out, he won't take that as a cause for concern but as further proof of his righteousness. But at another level, the bravado about his bold stand masks a pretty clear calculation -- and I think probably a correct one -- that the owner doesn't think he'll be martyred at all. For every mad Jew, there will be countless others ready to fete him for his bravery (see also: the Cornell student who said he wasn't interested in working for a Jew and then quickly raised $20,000 off the ensuing backlash).

So yeah. This is a new era for Jews in American politics -- an era where Jewish concerns are routinely ignored, if not viewed as an outright positive. It won't last forever -- nothing does -- but I don't harbor much optimism for the near-term.

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.

Old in Town Roundup

I've arrived in Chicago! I wouldn't characterize myself as "new in town", since I've already lived in Chicago (indeed, in this very building) before. But I am feeling very, very old as I try to unpack various boxes.

Anyway, here's a roundup:

* * *

The Antisemitism Cow finally speaks (beyond just "MOO", that is)!

A pretty big storm is developing at Ole Miss, where a tenure-track professor was summarily fired from his position after criticizing "powerful, racist donors."

Also in academic freedom, albeit garnering less attention: students at the University of Dallas trying to form a racial justice club offering "a welcoming, inclusive community" are encountering stiff resistance from the student government (and some faculty). Opponents claim -- I swear I'm not kidding -- that the club can't be accepted because it would mean conceding that the university might not already be inclusive and welcoming of all students.

Trump issues a new wave of pardons, with special focus on corrupt GOP politicos and American paramilitary operatives implicated in the murder of civilians. Utterly disgraceful.

An interesting and thoughtful interview with incoming Congressman Jamaal Bowman, with special focus on his relationship with the Jewish community (Bowman ousted longtime Rep. Eliot Engel, who is Jewish, in this year's Democratic primary).

Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck, who is also chair of the state party, announces he will refuse to take the COVID vaccine. The GOP has been flirting with anti-vaxx politics for awhile now, but it couldn't have picked a worse time to topple over the edge.

How To Lose a Primary, 2020-Style

So far in 2020, four House incumbents have lost renomination to their seats (five if you count New York Democrat Eliot Engel, though absentee ballots in New York haven't been tabulated). But there are ... differences between what causes a Republican and a Democrat to lose their own party's nomination.

For example, Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) was one of the most conservative members of his caucus -- opposing abortion rights, gay rights, and Obmaa care -- despite representing a D+6 seat. If you're wondering how he got elected in the first place, the answer is that the seat was previously held by his own father who -- in classic machine fashion -- won renomination and then announced his retirement, inducing the local party to hand the nomination to his son. He was defeated by Marie Newman, who narrowly lost a challenge in 2018 and by all appearances is a perfectly normal Democrat. This is not at all abnormal.

Contrast that to what happened last night, where Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) was stunningly unseated by conservative activist Lauren Boebert. Nobody had the race on their radar because Tipton, who enjoyed Trump's endorsement, hardly seemed to have committed any sins against the conservative movement which would generate primary opposition (The Onion notwithstanding). So what was it about Boebert which caused her to surge to victory? Well, she's a qAnon-endorsing conspiracy theorist whose main claim to fame is running a bar called "Shooters" where the staff openly carries guns and which defied orders to shutdown in the midst of the coronavirus epidemic.

Of course, it's not always better when the incumbent loses because of their apostasies -- particularly when one considers what counts as "apostasy" in the modern GOP. Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA) also enjoyed Trump's backing, but lost renomination in a "drive-through convention" to far-right challenger Bob Good. Riggleman's wrongdoing? He officiated a same-sex wedding for two of his former staffers. That's enough to get you bounced in the 2020 Republican Party.

But I guess Republicans did manage to dislodge their most openly White supremacist member this  year -- so good on them for that.

Having Your (Masterpiece) Cake and Eating It Too

The Supreme Court  has issued its long-anticipated decision in the Masterpiece Cake case (where a Christian baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple). It ruled in favor of the baker by a 7-2 vote, but on exceedingly narrow grounds (I'll get to those in a moment) that provide virtually no guidance to resolving similar cases in the future. On the other hand, given the way oral argument went, I'd say we might have even dodged a bullet.

Basically, Justice Kennedy's majority opinion concluded that certain statements by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (which concluded that the baker had discriminated against the couple in violation of Colorado law) indicated that they held anti-religious bias. This bias tainted the proceedings in an unconstitutional manner, and hence the ruling had to be set aside.

On that point, there are two comments worth making. First, in the abstract I wholly agree that religious hostility provides a sufficient basis for invalidating a government action even in cases where -- absent said hostility -- the substantive decision might well be constitutional. If a commissioner in a case like this said "I'll be damned if I'm going to rule in favor of some towel-wearing heathen," that to me is an obvious constitutional violation on its own. So to the extent Masterpiece Cake clarifies that point of law, I have no quarrel.

Second, as applied to the facts of this case I think the evidence of anti-religious animus on the part of the Commission is pretty thin. Certainly, it is microscopic compared to the evidence of anti-religious animus in the travel ban case -- though who knows if that will matter. But if the upshot of this case is that governmental decision-makers need to step more lightly around grandstanding declarations when dealing with sensitive areas of discrimination and religious freedom, that's not the worst thing in the world.

In any event, because the Court's decision was based on a finding of religious animus in the administrative proceedings, Justice Kennedy specifically stated that the Court was making no proclamation on how a case with even identical facts (but absent the biased state-level decisionmaker) should be decided. Hence why we get no real guidance on how to handle similar disputes going forward. But the majority opinion actually contains a lot of dictum emphasizing that there are perfectly legitimate anti-discrimination considerations the state has here and can legitimately impose (in a neutral, generally-applicable fashion) onto religious objectors. So to some extent, the tea-leaf reading off this case is considerably better than one might think.

But while much of the attention has focused on the religious freedom aspects of the case, it's the compelled speech issue that I think will be more nettlesome going forward. The Court declined to wade into that issue in this case, both because it was resting on the narrow religious animus ground and because the relevant parts of the record in this case were surprisingly opaque (Justice Thomas made a game effort to argue that the issue was ripe in this case, but I'm unconvinced).

When does selling a cake become a form of (compelled) expression by the baker? On the one hand, simply selling an "off-the-rack" cake should not be viewed as compelled expression by the seller that they approve of the buyer or what the buyer plans to do with the cake (a half-century old Supreme Court case quite quickly dispensed with a claim that a barbeque vendor could circumvent anti-racism laws compelling him to serve Black customers because doing so would communicate the message that he believes in racial equality, in violation of his religious beliefs). On the far other side, consider cake orders with specific messages to be engraved like "Homosexuality is a detestable sin" (the Colorado Commission received complaints when several bakers refused to bake cakes with that message, and dismissed them). There, the compelled speech claim seems stronger. Presumably, that would have to hold in cases where the text was something like "God loves gay people same as straight" -- it's expression, and if someone genuinely doesn't want to express that message, I don't think the government can compel him to do it.

There are any number of cases in the middle. I don't think a custom-cake order necessarily becomes a case of expression (e.g., a cake with no text but where the purchaser wants a specific design) -- but what if it is specifically requested to have rainbow coloration? Or consider more anodyne messages like "Congratulations Jim and Steve". Such cases are going to reflect some difficult judgments, and we still have only dim contours on what the right legal guidelines are.

As for the other opinions: Justice Gorsuch's was predictably terrible. It rests primarily on the somewhat odd belief that there is a distinct product called a "same-sex wedding cake" that is different in-kind from a "wedding cake" (is it something in the food coloring?). Consequently, Justice Gorsuch can deny that there is any discrimination occurring against same-sex couples because the baker presumably would decline to sell both straight and gay customers a "same-sex wedding cake". This is the same logic through which gay marriage bans were not forms of anti-gay discrimination because gay and straight individuals could not perform a gay marriage, and it is eviscerated both in Justice Kagan's concurrence and Justice Ginsburg's dissent. As Justice Kagan aptly put it: "A vendor can choose the products he sells, but not the customers he serves—no matter the reason." A wedding cake is a wedding cake -- it doesn't magically become a different product because of the sexual orientation of the purchaser.

Indeed, one thing that this case made clear for me is that the category "gay marriage" may have outlived its usefulness. In American law, there are no longer "gay marriages" as a qualitatively distinct entity. There are "marriages", which are sometimes entered into by straight couples and sometimes by gay couples. Of course, people in private life are free to maintain the distinction, and sometimes those private views can carry weight (the obvious case being the right of a religious officiant not to solemnize a gay wedding). But these should be seen as areas where we're departing from the general neutrality of the law and accordingly need justification; the default understanding should be weddings are weddings are weddings.

A Tale of Two Harassers

Jill Filopovic points out the key differences between Democrats and Republicans on sexual harassment and misconduct within their ranks.

It isn't that Republicans perpetuate it and Democrats don't. Both parties have their share of wrongdoers.

The difference is that Democrats -- slowly, fitfully, imperfectly -- are beginning to hold their abusers to account. While Republicans, by and large, continue to shield the predators in their ranks (starting with the one in the Oval Office). There's a reason, Filopovic notes, why Republicans still point to Chappaquiddick and the Bill Clinton affairs -- rounding past 20 years ago at this point -- as their preferred form of whataboutery. In the more recent major cases, Democrats have been much stronger, while Republicans still prefer to protect the boys club.

We saw a great example of this recently in Colorado: A Democrat and a Republican in the state legislature were accused of sexual harassment (the former was a member of the state house, the latter of the state senate). In both cases, an independent investigator substantiated the allegation. The Democrat was expelled, after refusing calls from his own party leaders to resign. Indeed, every single Democratic member of the house voting to do so (Republicans split 16-9 in favor of expulsion).

The Republican? He enjoyed the firm support of his caucus leader, and when Democrats forced a vote on the issue, he kept his job -- with all but one Republican backing him against a motion to expel.

The Sunday Return Roundup

Jill's been out of town this week, which means we missed both Project Runway and Hell's Kitchen. Tonight will be epic.

* * *

Tennessee Mosque opponents plan to argue that Islam is not a religion.

Pam Geller is, as Jeffrey Goldberg correctly adduces, a "vile, racist creature".

A Colorado woman is charged with destroying a controversial piece of art which she says demeaned Jesus.

Dana Milbank argues that Glenn Beck is the conspiracy-theorists go-to source for mainstream validation.

Jon Chait shoots down a ridiculous Christopher Hitchens post attributing the passage of a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide to the nefarious "Isreal Lobby". I'd also refer back to this post.

I find it quite outrageous the fury with which some Orthodox groups react to calling ordained (whoops, apparently that word is taboo too) female religious leaders "Rabbas".

The Quota Dodge

So one of the predominant misconceptions out there today about affirmative action is that it's a quota system. This is false, as I have gently reminded CNN, but it still seems to hold a lot of sway over the electorate when debating plans to abolish equal opportunity programs like affirmative action.

But now, civil rights groups fighting to defend affirmative action are test-running a new plan that seeks to neutralize the misconceptions on quotas. Basically, in response to a Ward Connerly backed initiative to ban affirmative action outright, they are attempting to place on the ballot a counter-measure of their own which would prohibit quota or point-based systems (what were outlawed in Bakke and Gratz, respectively), but would otherwise maintain the ability of the state to use affirmative action as upheld by the Supreme Court in cases like Grutter.

Connerly's people are ticked off, saying that it "was created just to confuse and deceive voters." On the one hand, they sort of have a point -- voters may not understand the difference between the two initiatives, and could vote for both on the misunderstanding that both would bar affirmative action (which would set off one hell of a court battle). On the other hand, the whole thing wouldn't be a problem if anti-affirmative action forces weren't aggressively pedelling the lie that racial quotas are still part of modern affirmative action, so my sympathy for their claims of deception is limited. Moreover the counter-initiative does apparently tell voters that it will uphold legal affirmative action programs, which makes it much clearer.

Most importantly, the counter-initiative helps give Colorado voters a genuine choice as to just what they want to exclude from their state. Do they just dislike quota systems, or do they also want to eliminate counseling programs for freshman college women, mentoring for at-risk minority youth, outreach programs to Latino youngsters, and other race and gender-conscious plans which enjoy much broader support? With the knowledge that all sides oppose racial quotas, the debate can proceed in a far more honest and fair manner than what we've heard thus far. And that's worth celebrating.

See also a certain brilliant and sexy blogger.

Remembering Which Side I'm On

Back when I was in high school, Church/State separation was one of my pet issues. And believe you me, I was a staunch separationist. I wrote my college admission essay on why I believed "under God" in the pledge was unconstitutional. In fact, I wrote my first real blog post about it. It was one of my favorite topics to speak on in debate, and I did so regularly.

My current position of skepticism towards standard separationist doctrine was thus quite some time in coming. And reading this opinion just released by the 10th Circuit, written by Judge Michael McConnell (whose scholarship was instrumental in my shift) reminds me of how far I've departed from my old stance. For even though I (think I) agree with his ruling (at least on an ideal level -- I'm not 100% convinced it comports with the relevant Supreme Court precedents), I still felt a bunch of twinges when I read it where I had to remind myself, "David, this is your position too."

Basically, the case dealt with a Colorado statute which prohibited the assignment of scholarships to students attending "pervasively sectarian" colleges or universities. The state originally enacted the rule to comply with Supreme Court precedents which heavily restricted the usage of state funds for sectarian ends. Twinge #1 came when Judge McConnell was recounting how many of those rulings were overturned. I think that to some degree those precedents were too harsh, but I still instinctively recoil against their loosening.

I had presumed such laws were permissible under Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004). Judge McConnell spends a lot of time distinguishing that case, and while I'm not 100% sure that he's successful, I thought Locke was wrong in the first place (so again, speaking to my ideal state of the law here, not what this panel in this case should have done given the existence of that precedent). Particularly, I do not find the panel's argument that distinguishing "sectarian" and "pervasively sectarian" institutions constitutes impermissible discrimination between religions, though I'm more sympathetic to the argument that the deep inquiry the statute demands into the university's content to see if it's too "indoctrinating" may run afoul of the Establishment Clause.

Twinge #2 came when the college which was suing, Colorado Christian University, was described. It sounds like the type of hard evangelical institution that I want to suck as much power from as possible. But though my paradigm does, broadly speaking, provide greater protection to minority faiths than majority belief systems like Christianity, this appears to be a case where a Christian organization would earn protection under my general accommodationist tendencies. Moreover, another school that will likely benefit from this decision is Naropa University, one of the few Buddhist-affiliated institutes of higher education in the country. And indeed, at first glance the denial of scholarships to otherwise qualified Naropa University students seems to be a dead-on case of the way strict separationist laws can unjustly harm minority practitioners (particularly since Naropa does not appear to be "pervasively sectarian" anyway).

In any event, regardless of how ultimately this case should have been decided (under either the prevailing or my own Church/State doctrine), I found it interesting my gut response opposing the ruling even though intellectually I knew it was closer to my current jurisprudence. I'm glad I could recognize the contradiction when I saw it, but it just goes to show that I haven't managed to extract myself from separationism quite yet.

Lamborn is Nuts

This has no real national significance, but I still am amazed that the Colorado GOP is refusing to endorse one of its own incumbents, Doug Lamborn. Lamborn is, needless to say, crazy, but that usually isn't a barrier. But he also made some major enemies in his own party in the bitterly contested 2006 primary in which he won his seat.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

The Dangers of Thralldom

Covering the upcoming Virginia State House and Senate races, the Washington Post notes the importance of the northern Virginia suburban districts to whether or not the Republicans can maintain control of the legislature. The Republican incumbents are battling against the increased blue tint of their districts, as well as an overall purpling of the state at large. One problem these candidates have faced is that even more moderate voters know that, even if these particular Republicans are talking (even walking) the centrist talk, the Republican Party as a whole is still hanging out on the right wing of things, and that's a major turn-off.

The perils of being a moderate Republican are nothing new. But in certain states, like Virginia, there is another element in play that poses a particular danger to the Republican Party. Because the state has such a strong conservative tradition, the right-most flank of the Republican Party has entrenched itself as the power-brokers. They see themselves as the rightful arbiters of the direction and position of the Party. Even as the state is purpling, it's not a position they'll give up easily, and as a result it locks the GOP into a conservative posture that is no longer electorally tenable.

The sacrificial quality of the activist-conservative branch of the Virginia GOP already demonstrated itself in local primaries, driving out incumbents who weren't seen as sufficiently devoted to the cause and putting formerly safe districts into play.

"It's scary for us," said state Sen. Martin E. Williams (R-Newport News), who lost a primary battle this year to a conservative Republican and whose seat, as a result, is at risk of turning over to Democrats. "Certainly the perception in the public's eye is that we've narrowed our base so much that we can't claim a majority. We've got to appeal to a broader group of people than just people who will sign a no-tax pledge or be pro-life."

Elsewhere in Virginia, Republican leaders have been scrambling to handle two rogue lawmakers in their caucus who are accusing the state Democrats of ties to terrorism because of their relationship with some local Muslim community organizations. It's a low political slam, and one most observers think will backfire, but also the type of attack that resonates with the die-hards. The folks who come out to vote in Republican primaries eat that stuff up, but the independent voters who are becoming more and more important in Virginia read that sort of thing and just recoil. Another example is the machinations of the state Republican Central Committee to give conservative candidate Jim Gilmore the edge in the race to succeed retiring Senator John Warner (R), over the more moderate, but far more electable Rep. Tom Davis. This isn't the best example, because the Democratic candidate, Mark Warner would likely have thrashed both, but Davis at least could have made a solid race out of it. With Gilmore as the nominee, the seat is pretty much in the bag for the Democrats.

Virginia is not the only state where this dynamic is playing out. Out in Kansas, the Republican Party has been mired in a high profile civil war that has sent moderates fleeing to the Democrats en masse. Here, too, the problem was that the state Party was controlled by forces too conservative for its own constituents, much less the state at large. The state board of education had been buffeted by an intra-party spat over whether evolution should be taught in public schools, a battle won by pro-science forces in August of 2006. Meanwhile, a series of high profile defections, capped by former state party chairman Mark Parkinson, set the stage for a banner year for Democrats. Parkinson joined the ticket of incumbent Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who cruised to re-election and positioned herself as a possible 2008 Vice Presidential contender. Fellow turncoat Paul Morrison knocked off Republican Attorney General Phill Kline, who had gained notoriety by subpoenaing medical records of abortion clinic patients, ostensibly to check for evidence of child abuse. And, in one of the top upsets of the year, Democratic nominee Nancy Boyda bested 5-term Rep. Jim Ryun.

In Arizona, Republicans had to essentially abandon the erst-while competitive 8th District last cycle because local voters bucked the national party's preferred candidate to nominate Randy Graf, who was far too conservative to have a chance in the district. Gabrielle Giffords won the race in a landslide. In Colorado in 2002, Republican Bob Beauprez won control of the 7th District by less than 400 votes. Yet, when Beauprez left the seat open to run for governor in 2006, the GOP nominated uber-conservative Rick O'Donnell, who had previously advocated abolishing social security. Democrats won the seat back by nearly 25,000 votes.

In both these states, these strategic lapses came amid general Democratic progress. In Arizona, Democrats also knocked off incumbent J.D. Hayworth in the 5th District there, and are currently eying Rick Renzi's 1st District seat as particularly vulnerable. In Colorado, Democrats have become the dominant political force, capturing the Governor's mansion, both houses of the state legislature, and a Senate seat.

In all of these states, the Republican Party is tightly under the control of its most conservative branch, a wing that simply can no longer compete in general elections, but can still prevent any internal reform to reposition the Party in a more palatable light to their changing electorate. This is a very dangerous position for the Republicans to be in. It gives Democrats free reign to take over huge swaths of the American middle with virtually no substantive opposition. And as these voters continue to trend Democratic, the remaining Republican office-holders will list evermore right-ward, pushing more people away and giving Democrats an even greater advantage.

Attracting the Wrong Sort

Reports The Denver Post:

State Rep. Debbie Stafford, a longtime Republican known for her passionate arguments on behalf of abused animals and foster kids, ditched her party Thursday to join majority Democrats.

The Aurora lawmaker's surprise move - announced as she stood with a dozen cheering Democrats - was the first time in 20 years that a state lawmaker switched parties.

Republican reaction ranged from flippant to seething, as the Democrats' House majority climbed to 40-25 and Republicans were left with just five female lawmakers in the state Capitol.

"I am not leaving the Republican Party as much as the Republican Party left me," Stafford said. "I decided it was time to place myself, and my self-respect, ... with the Democratic Party."

DKos uses the defection as a jumping off point to note just how many Republicans have recently become converts to our cause. It's a signal of the way politics is changing, he said, and proves that our party is on the way up, while the GOP brand is on the decline.

Perhaps. But reading the Post story, a vague flash of memory went off in my head. "Debbie Stafford," I thought, "that sounds really familiar. But why would I have heard of a random Colorado State Representative?"

Oh yeah. This is why:

But Rep. Debbie Stafford, R-Aurora, said at the caucus that she was upset that the bill exempted children under 18.

"We're helping create the next generation of terrorists," she said.

The bill Rep. Stafford was referring to was one that sought to deprive illegal immigrants of all non-critical governmental services. Stafford was pissed that we weren't sufficiently tough on nine-year olds, and had the gall to say that treating them like human beings was akin to a terrorist training camp.

I understand that politics is a numbers game and it's good to have more folks on our team. But let's not forget who this person is, just because she's on our side now. It's not that she's "tough on illegal immigration" -- I recognize my party is split on this. But Stafford's "we're helping create the next generation of terrorists" comment was one of the paradigmatic displays of the extremist anti-immigration hysteria that has gripped too many people in this country. It was ugly, it was hateful, and it displayed a near inhuman attitude towards children.

As much as I'm pleased to see many Republicans coming to their senses and recognizing that their movement has left them, I cannot welcome folks like Stafford to my party.