FREE RADICAL

Meg Whitman's Stunning Hindsight

2010-07-19T19:34:00.000-07:00

So I was driving to L.A. today and I saw a Meg Whitman billboard, in Spanish. Luckily for you, I took four years of Spanish in high school. The billboard's exact words were - and of course I'm paraphrasing - "No on Prop 187 and no on Arizona's law".

Now that's political courage: coming out against a 16 year old ballot measure that was long ago declared unconstitutional. She's not pandering at all. I'm sure it's just that she's been seething about this injustice since 1994. And since it never went into effect, you can understand why she's bringing it up now. Oh, you can't? Hmm.

I understand Meg's next plan is to capture the African-American vote with a billboard that touts her support of the 13th Amendment.

Oh, and by the way, in case any of my conservative friends are reading this... unlike you, Meg Whitman is against 187 and against Arizona's law. She just doesn't like to brag about it in English.

Dear Conservative Hypocrites

2010-06-18T18:14:00.000-07:00

Dear Conservative Hypocrites (that would be virtually all of you),

A recent Supreme Court ruling came down 7-2 involving habeas deadlines in death penalty cases. Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Sam Alito sided with the majority, with Scalia and Thomas, big shock, dissenting. That's right... the four arch conservatives disagreed with each other!

Which begs the question: Since you believe justices are supposed to simply "call balls and strikes" and "impartially interpret the law", which of your four conservative heroes are the radical "judicial activists" in this case?

Thanks in advance for your no doubt intellectually honest answer.

Best,

Adam

Prop 8 Closing Arguments

2010-06-15T22:35:00.000-07:00

Vaughn Walker, the judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (California's Prop 8 trial), put written questions to the two sides in advance of closing arguments, which begin tomorrow, June 16th.

Arch conservative Ted Olson and his strange bedfellow ally, liberal David Boies, are representing the plaintiffs - and doing the Lord's work. They submitted their answers to Judge Walker and took it upon themselves to respond to all of the questions, theirs and those put to the defense. The link to a .pdf is below. Maybe it's only interesting reading to Court watchers and armchair legal nerds like myself, but reading the document brought me to tears. It is a thing of rare Constitutional beauty. Whereas the defense claims are all based on emotion and shoddy post hoc justifications for discrimination, Olson and Boies present hard, crystal clear legal facts. Anyone who claims to value the Constitution - or individual liberties - should read their brilliant argument and cherish it.

I have no doubt that Prop 8 will be overturned at the district level, and the ruling will likely be upheld at the 9th Circuit level. There is still doubt, however, as to how the Supreme Court will rule (although it will almost certainly be 5-4 one way or the other). It's a shame that the conservative wing of the Court is composed of such extreme judicial activists, because the arguments on display here are rock solid, and the established case law is clear. It would take an outrageous act of absolute judicial will to keep Prop 8 in tact, but this Court has shown itself absolutely capable of such activism (see Bush v. Gore). There's no question that the conservative cabal is more than happy to ignore the law when it wishes to achieve a specific political end. That being said, I am cautiously optimistic that Anthony Kennedy, whose ruling in several key cases on point favor the plaintiffs, will be the deciding vote in finally ending the disgraceful discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens, who are clearly being denied the equal protection of the law.

To be sure, both sides are passionate and emotional about this issue. But just looking at the law, only one side has a valid, air-tight, no nonsense Constitutional argument.

That gorgeous argument can be read here.

But Wait, I Thought the GOP Respected The Will Of The People

2010-05-27T20:23:00.000-07:00

Remember when the GOP went apeshit because Congress and the President were ignoring the polls and pushing for the passage of health care reform? We heard a lot about how Democrats were "jamming" their legislation "down the throats" of the American people. That phrase, in fact, became a major conservative talking point and they repeated it ad nauseam whenever they saw a warm body with a notebook or a camera. See, never mind that when George Bush ignored the polls he was a "leader"; somehow, what Obama was doing was different. He's ignoring the will of the people, they wailed, and he's doing so at his peril! One of the loudest proponents of this nonsense was, of course, orange-hued House Minority Leader John Boehner who was practically apoplectic that the White House and the Democratic majority would legislatively accelerate when the citizenry supposedly wanted them to slam on the brakes.

Well it should come as no surprise to you, dear reader, that ideological consistency is not exactly the hallmark of Republican party groupthink.

Because what did John Boehner and all but five House Republicans do today? They voted against the repeal of the deeply discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. Their stance is not at all surprising, of course, but there's one thorny little fact they can't escape: a whopping 78% of Americans recently polled support the repeal effort. 78%. More than 3/4 of the country want this thing gone and yet Boehner and his caucus voted en masse to keep it in place.

Gee, could it be that during the health care debate, the GOP's outrage at Democrats ignoring polls was... fake? Manufactured? Cynical? Could it be that when it suits them, conservatives in Congress are more than happy to turn a blind eye to what the vast majority of the country wants?

We should all call or email leader Boehner's office and ask him: "In light of all the polls, sir, why are you insistent on ignoring the will of the people and jamming this despicable policy down our throats?"

Ah, maybe it's not even worth it. Because luckily for all of us, Boehner and his hypocritical and irrelevant (at least for now) caucus will once again be on the losing end of a major legislative battle... not to mention the wrong side of history.

Rand Paul's America Would be Fine With "No Blacks or Dogs Allowed"

2010-05-20T14:16:00.001-07:00

I certainly have some small "l" libertarian sympathies. Actually, I have quite a few of them - but only to a point. Extremists like Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul of Kentucky show the limitations of doctrinaire libertarianism in a humane, organized society.

Paul, while theoretically decrying racism of any kind, admits to opposing the portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bans private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. His logic? Private businesses are private and, as such, have the right to do whatever they damn well please, even if society finds their practices abhorrent. Any regulation or intrusion on the part of the government, Rand seems to argue, is tantamount to ownership of the business. The People don't own it? Then we get no say.

Naturally, this argument is absurd on so many levels I barely know where to begin. Obviously, the federal government has the right - and the obligation - to protect its citizens from the abuses of those who do business here. Despite the fact that we are a free market economy, it's a regulated market... and for damned good reasons. The belief that private enterprise should have absolutely no restrictions on its behavior is a position well outside of the political mainstream. And as we've seen from the recent abuses of Wall Street and the country's biggest banks, the government "keeping its nose out of it" can bring the entire economy to its knees and practically destroy the country. But we need to butt out?

And what about pollution? Or poisoning? Or fraud? If the government is empowered to decide that business owners are prohibited from acting in a criminal manner - which clearly it is - then who is to say what can or cannot be considered a crime? The vast majority of Americans supports making racial discrimination a non-starter when it comes to business practices on our soil, yet extremists like Dr. Paul don't believe we should have a say, except as it relates to where we spend our money. (And isn't it funny that corporations want to be treated like "people" when it comes to, say, political advertisements and contributions, but want special protections when it comes to breaking the law?)

Why is it that conservatives believe that owning a business is a right and not a privilege? We the People own the playing field and we get to decide the rules of the game. We are allowed to protect ourselves. We are allowed to decide what kind of nation we want to be. It is not our obligation to allow individuals who form companies in our country to run rampant and harm us. As FDR said, "Let us not forget that the government is ourselves and not an alien power over us". And whether the regulations come from the federal, state or local level, businesses need to be licensed and there are certain reasonable (and probably some unreasonable) ground rules they must adhere to if they want the privilege of setting up shop within our borders and taking advantage of all that the amazing American enterprise system has to offer. But of all the plausibly unreasonable restrictions placed on businesses, not racially discriminating is hardly one of them.

We are a nation of laws, and even many supposedly purist Libertarians like Dr. Paul claim to respect the rule of law. Yet they seem to believe that laws should only apply to individuals. Murder? Of course it should be illegal. Bank robbery? Throw away the key. But the minute a private business is involved? If it's the bank that's robbing us? Paul and his ilk suddenly switch tacks and claim that the government shouldn't get any say whatsoever in that business's practices. Or maybe SOME practices, okay, but not when it comes to civil rights laws. But the minute one makes allowances for some government intervention, then one's argument pretty much disintegrates. Why restrictions on fiduciary practices but not, say, hiring practices, or who you can or cannot exclude as a customer? Dr. Paul's ridiculous position can't possibly survive even the slightest amount of critical scrutiny, because, as his recent muddled backpedaling has shown, his logic is as tortuous as my colon... and just full of shit.

Laws are laws are laws, be they criminal or civil. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with making anyone who wants the great privilege of doing business in America to obey a few simple rules. Ought one of those rules be that business don't discriminate on the basis of race? It's an absolute no brainer. Yet Rand Paul's America would welcome restaurants which say "No Blacks or Dogs Allowed". He wouldn't eat there, of course, but he doesn't think he has a choice in the matter as to their existence. Thank God he's wrong.

See, there's that pesky Constitution - the one Rand Paul claims to cherish so deeply. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government wide latitude in regulating businesses - powers that have been regularly upheld by the Supreme Court, especially as it relates to civil rights laws. Even so, Paul's argument doesn't seem to be one of states rights vs. federal intrusion. His argument would seemingly apply to states and municipalities as well. If you believe that no government entity has the right to tell a business how to behave, then really it doesn't matter what government we're talking about. As even the most ardent "Tenther" must admit, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution provides that powers not granted to the feds are reserved to the states or the people. So how about state laws barring discrimination in private business? Or a public referendum? Would Paul object to those too? Sounds like it. Which is why his argument holds no water. You can't profess to love the Constitution while decrying many of its main precepts.

The bottom line is, We the People have every right do decide for ourselves, through legislation, how individuals and businesses must behave if they wish to live and function and profit in our society. We regulate individual behavior and we regulate collective behavior. Sure, you could claim that taking away your right to steal from the corner store is a violation of your freedom, but you'd get no sympathy; instead, you'd be run out of town on a rail. Why should a business's behavior be treated any differently?

Any way you look at it, it's pretty difficult to reasonably argue that the business of America is none of America's business.

Now Obama's NEXT Court Pick Must Also Be A Woman (Not That There's Anything Wrong With That)

2010-05-11T02:07:00.000-07:00

Much is being made - not only by the media and some on the left, but by the Obama Administration itself - of how Elena Kagan's confirmation will bring the number of women on the Supreme Court to a historic high of three, or one third of the nine sitting Justices. This fact, we are being told, is not unimportant. And sure, I think it's terrific - but only because she's a Democrat. Were that third Justice, say, Harriet Miers, I obviously wouldn't be as thrilled with the benchmark.

So great, three liberal (we hope), women on the Court: historic, exciting and a long time coming.

However, here's a question:

Obama has already chosen Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Does this not box him into choosing another woman if he gets another pick? I ask this because the likeliest seat he will have to fill will be that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no spring chicken and recently battling cancer. A Ginsburg retirement would reduce the number of women on the Court back to two. How could Obama then nominate a man to replace her? If hitting the historic threshold of three women is so important, so worthy of note, then isn't maintaining that level once it has been reached just as critical?

It seems this kind of crowing will make it much more difficult for Obama to appoint, say, a Merrick Garland to the Court if it is indeed Ginsburg's robes that need to be filled. And it may be just such a centrist choice that Obama will need to make in a Senate even less dominated by Democrats. But what would Obama say? "Despite the importance I placed on having three women Justices, I just HAD to appoint this man this time out, he was the ideal candidate, even though I passed him over twice before"? It may have made more sense for the President to have gone with the demonstrably liberal Diane Wood now, while he still holds a whopping majority, and to have saved the stealthy Kagan for later, when perceived moderation - and possibly another woman - will be even more required.

To be sure, Obama could go ahead and appoint an even more moderate woman than Kagan next time out... or, of course, pay no mind to the sex of the nominee and select a man. Which would be fine... but then he may not want to emphasize the 1/3 level too loudly now. Because as of this moment, I don't see how he can walk back the bragging and appoint anyone other than another woman to replace Justice Ginsburg. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Of course, maybe we'll get really lucky and it'll be one in that other bloc of five that he gets to replace, in which case all bets are off. But I'm not holding my breath.

A Perfect Enemy

2010-03-15T20:23:00.000-07:00

Those on the left who are willing to scuttle health insurance reform simply because we lost the battle over the public option are no better, in my view, than those so-called PUMAs who, during the 2008 presidential campaign, threatened to vote Republican if Hillary lost the nomination to Barack Obama. Just as those aggrieved Clintonistas were allegedly willing to punish all of America and vote for a GOP candidate whose stated views were diametrically opposed to everything they ever stood for, there are some congressional Democrats who seem willing to hand the Republicans - and the health insurance lobby - a massive victory on both tactics and substance, harming in the process the very constituency they supposedly represent.

And make no mistake - voting "no" on this health bill is the same as voting Republican. Is the legislation perfect? Far from it. Is a real public option vastly superior to what is being offered here? Damn straight. Should the bill pass anyway? It's an absolute no-brainer. The idea that anyone on the progressive side of the fence would punish 30 million currently uninsured Americans, and those with pre-existing conditions, and those who need preventative care, and those whose premiums are sky high, and on and on, by peevishly voting against a bill that, whatever else it is, is better than the status quo is unimaginable to me.

Take Dennis Kucinich (please!). Kucinich, supposedly a liberal champion of The People, doesn't seem to want to genuinely accomplish anything, preferring moral victories to actual ones. He has an opportunity to help enact historic legislation the likes of which no other Congress or Administration has managed to pull off, extending health insurance coverage to most Americans while curbing the industry's most abusive practices. And he's apparently willing to walk away from it because it's not nearly as good as can be. Kucinich knows better than almost anyone that getting something major done in Congress is nearly impossible, never mind major and ideal. That he would vote to kill this bill even though it does a laundry list of demonstrable good, knowing full well it was a pitched and bloody battle even to get this much, is hard to fathom.

Dennis wants to take his bat and ball and go home, not accepting, like a grown up, that politics is compromise and that as a congressman he is uniquely positioned to continue the fight to strengthen the legislation in the future. Since its inception, the Social Security Act, for example, has been amended many times; there is no reason to believe that it won't be the same with health care. Yet Kucinich and his ilk seem more than happy to see health reform fail, no matter that if it does, nobody will take it up again for a generation.

That is precisely what Republicans in Congress are counting on and Kucinich is poised to hand them this victory, gift wrapped, because he's disappointed that the bill doesn't go far enough. It is wildly irresponsible and enormously destructive.

Right now the current system is the starting point for any argument and hold-out Dems are tilting at windmills. So why not have Obamacare be the new starting point and continue with the tilting? As long as you're going to lose, why not mitigate your losses and get what you can get first? The only logical answer is that Kucinich just likes being a martyr to lost causes, and doesn't want to have to give up his self-righteous posturing on this issue. But passing this bill and continuing to fight for a public option - or even single payer - are not mutually exclusive.

Whether or not to accept compromise and incrementalism in legislation is, of course, an age old argument. In fact, it dates back at least to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. I would remind Rep. Kucinich and his apologists that there were many delegates in Philadelphia who didn't think the U.S. Constitution went "far enough". There were all sorts of competing plans, and even controversies and eventual compromises over hot-button issues like slavery (see "abortion", 2010). Some delegates were, of course, ready to walk away and several of them only voted for it when promised that a Bill of Rights would immediately follow. Sound familiar? It is not unlike the promise the House has extracted from the Senate to immediately pass fixes to the current health bill via reconciliation. Regardless, fixes to the Constitution didn't stop at its adoption. Subsequent to the original 10 amendments, there have been 17 more, the most recent one adopted in 1992.

Must we honestly pretend that every single one of the signers of our U.S. Constitution was 100% happy with the results on the day they signed it? I quote Benjamin Franklin, who said:

"There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall ever approve them. I doubt, too, whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution".

Exactly. And so he signed it. Because he was mature, a statesman, a pragmatist... he battled for what he wanted, but settled for the best that he could get and he wasn't willing to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

When it comes to health insurance reform, Franklin's words should be Kucinich's, merely replacing the word "Constitution" with "legislation" and Convention with "Congress". Because no other Congress is going to net us a stronger initial bill, not next year, not a decade from now, and Kucinich knows it. Does he think opposition to the public option is simply going to vanish overnight and that the next President who tries health reform will pass it with ease? Is he not at all a student of history?

So who do you want to be, Mr. Kucinich? Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton? Or a guy like Elbridge Gerry, who walked away from signing the U.S. Constitution... simply because there was not yet a Bill of Rights? A Bill of Rights, by the way, which, as promised, strengthened that flawed Constitution... a mere four years later.

Gerry's objection may have been well intentioned, but his refusal to see the Big Picture proved to be misguided; Franklin, meanwhile, did the right thing. This is obvious, of course, in hindsight. Unfortunately, what we're asking for from Kucinich is far tougher... it's called foresight. Luckily for him, we have history as our guide.

UPDATE: KUCINICH CHANGES MIND, WILL VOTE YES

The Cutest Kitten You've Ever Seen In Your Life

2010-03-15T00:29:00.001-07:00

Okay, I lied. There's no kitten here. But how else could I get you to read this? Have you seen how many hits kitten videos get on You Tube? If I had titled this honestly - something like "An Overlong, Repetitive Rant About The Theory of Constitutional Interpretation" - I doubt you would've clicked. As it is, it's going to be very hard to keep you here. I mean, after all, you could be updating your facebook status right now or checking out Roger Ebert's latest tweet. Anyway, here goes nothin'. Make it to the end and I'll give you a parting gift.

So it became national news recently when comedian Glenn Beck used the bully pulpit of his Fox News television program to urge people of faith to leave any house of worship which advocated "social or economic justice". Why on Earth would he loudly and publicly take such an anti-Gospel position? Because those terms, Beck told his audience, are really code for Communism and/or Nazism.

Wow. Just wow. It was a stunning, confounding proclamation, even for a clown like Beck. Because seriously, the New Testament is about social and economic justice more or less in the way that Schindler's List is about the Holocaust. Picture a studio executive saying "Make that movie, Steven, but without any suffering Jews in it" and you get the general idea.

This time, the man who earns his daily bread by going too far went too far, as evidenced by a vocal reaction from many prominent religious types. It seems on its face to be a fairly clear cut case of one wacky guy shooting his mouth off and not necessarily speaking for others, but there's something far more interesting at play here. In fact, this Biblico-Becktian brouhaha got me thinking about the United States Constitution.

See, there are two schools of thought when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Conservatives tend to favor what is known as "constructionism". Strict constructionists argue that there should be no reading of the document other than that which reflects the unerring intent of the original framers. Never mind that there's no particular reason for considering the 55 politicians who drafted the document, or the 39 who signed it, to have been wholly infallible; never mind that the framers themselves were often wildly at odds with each other; never mind that they couldn't possibly have envisioned the various issues that might crop up in future generations. Despite all of this, the rigidly doctrinaire constructionist crowd doesn't believe you have, say, a constitutional right to privacy if those specific words weren't written down in the original document or in one of its many ratified amendments.

Liberals tend to be more "developmentalist", viewing the Constitution as a living, breathing document, the specific clauses of which can be interpreted more widely in light of modern legal dilemmas which were unforeseen at the time of its 1787 adoption - or as Chief Justice Earl Warren put it, "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society". It would be hard to argue that the framers wouldn't eventually have come to a consensus on issues such as privacy, or reproductive rights, had those been 18th century concerns, but that is exactly how constructionists - or their only marginally more open-minded cousins, originalists - expect us to behave; if it didn't exist then we must pretend it doesn't now.

This progress-hindering position is complicated by the existence of the Ninth Amendment, which states that

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

Meaning just because the document doesn't specifically grant that aforementioned right to privacy, doesn't mean one doesn't exist. In fact, this language was specifically added by those fabulous, supposedly fault-free framers to prevent die-hard constructionists from later attempting to apply the maxim "Expressio unius exclusio alterius" ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"). So when a conservative protests "Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to an abortion?", one could quite reasonably point to the Ninth Amendment and say "where does it say I don't?"

The constructionist argument is further complicated by the fact that the original framers' specific intentions are, by definition, open to interpretation (which essentially is the difference between a constructionist and an originalist, the latter of whom will at least acknowledge some wiggle room). Whereas a constructionist wants a strict reading of original intent, an originalist will claim to want a reasonable one; both, however, demand adherence to what they see as the specific designs of the framers, frozen in time in 1787. Or at least pretend to. As University of Tennessee College of Law Professor Thomas Davies has written about the Court's current conservative majority:

"As practiced in the Supreme Court, originalism is merely a rhetorical pretense under which justices justify their personal predilections by falsely claiming fidelity to historical meaning, while actually ignoring or altering the historical meaning."

In other words, conservative judicial activism. Despite the many problems with the "framers' intent" position, both in theory and praxis, it has become a Republican shibboleth. As far as the right is concerned, (alleged) fidelity to historical meaning is the overriding concern of Constitutional interpretation.

Which brings us back to Glenn Beck and the Bible. Yes, the Bible. The Bible may be the only document that many uber-conservatives will assert that they value more than the U.S. Constitution. When George W. Bush was asked at a 1999 GOP presidential debate in Des Moines who his favorite political philosopher was, he didn't say, for example, "Thomas Jefferson", a Founder and early proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. Instead, he answered "Jesus". Several of the other GOP hopefuls then fell over themselves to agree with the choice. Left unexamined was the fact that from a political standpoint, Jesus was a die-hard liberal who preached nothing if not pacifism and the kind of social and economic justice lamented by Beck. He was also an anti-money demagogue who routinely demonized the wealthiest among us. So why the philosophical incoherence?

When it comes to the Bible, you would think that these same conservatives - for whom "original intent" is the whole ball of constitutional wax - would insist on a close reading to glean its "framers' intent" and that they would then behave accordingly. Well, not so much. Which is a funny thing. Because even more than the Constitution, the intent of the language in both the Old Testament and New is remarkably, inarguably clear.

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death". - Exodus, 35:2

A strict constructionist, or even an originalist like Antonin Scalia, would have to maintain that the framer's intent was that anyone working on the Sabbath should be put to death. A developmentalist like Earl Warren, however, would argue that modern morays lead us to a new conclusion, perhaps only that one should honor the Sabbath as a day of rest. It is this "interpretation" that we as a society now widely accept. Score one for the activist liberals.

"Do not wear garments woven from two types of thread... do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard... if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, do not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and you shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt". All followed by the admonition "Keep all of my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord". - Leviticus, 19:19, 19:27, 19:33 and 19:37

God's intent in Leviticus 19 is not really open for interpretation: a modern adherent must be staunchly pro immigrant and be so while never getting a hair cut or, as the famed Letter To Dr. Laura cleverly notes, wearing a cotten/polyester blend. Doesn't exactly sound like Clarence Thomas, does it? And yet Thomas is an originalist whose entire legal world view, like most conservatives, is all about framers' intent. I don't get it. Isn't God the original Founding Father?

Some would quibble that I'm talking Old Testament, and there's a New One. So here are just a few things Jesus said about money and wealth:

"Jesus said unto him, if thou wilt be perfect go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." - Matthew 19:21-22

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." - Matthew 6:24

"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil... but you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness." - Timothy 6:4-12

"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty." - Proverbs 22:16

"Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days." - James 5:1-3

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:23-24

And, of course, the biggie:

"Then He will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." - Matthew 25:31-46

How must an originalist view these biblical admonitions? There is only one obvious answer: Jesus was a passionate advocate for the poor, distrustful of the wealthy, and if you don't look out for the needy, the sick, the homeless, even the prisoner... you're going straight to hell. Oh, and those of you who would give tax breaks to the rich? You shall come to poverty. Yet a Glenn Beck seemingly has no problem calling for Christians of all stripes to ignore Jesus' clear words in favor of a modern, relativist reading of The Bible more attuned to our present day, evolved needs and beliefs.

American conservativism has bastardized the book's original lessons so drastically that there is now even a Prosperity Gospel, propounded by the likes of Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen, which goes as far as to argue that Jesus blesses his believers which riches; gifts of health and wealth to which they, as his faithful followers, are clearly entitled. No matter that this flies in the face of an originalist reading of Christ's own words. This is exactly the sort of "creative interpretation" of the Bible that conservatives rail against with the Constitution... and yet when it comes to their own most sacred text, such an über-liberal view is de rigueur.

So the questions beg to be asked: how is it that to a conservative mind, what is supposedly the literal, unerring Word of God is open for miles wide interpretation, but the creation of 55 warring politicians must be narrowly defined as if it were the unerring Word of God? How can they believe that the framers were perfectly clear when they were vague but that their Lord and Savior needs an army of interpreters when he was perfectly clear? God is not infallible... but some liberal lawyer named Rufus is?

I guess this leads to one inexorable conclusion: either progressives have been right all along to employ a broader interpretation of the Constitution - one that, like Glenn Beck's view of the Bible, evolves along with society - or conservatives give infinitely more credit to the Founding Fathers than they do their Heavenly Father.

Thank you for getting to the end of this rant. As a gift, I give you this.

Enjoy. You deserve it.

Breaking News: Reagan Calls Medicare Socialism!

2010-03-06T11:11:00.001-08:00

"If you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free." - Ronald Reagan

One of the biggest of "big government" social programs is, of course, Medicare. It pays for medical care for seniors and it is wildly popular. And in the interest of full disclosure: it is currently saving my mother's life.

Even anti-health care reform/big government protestors cherish it. At a testy health care town hall meeting last year in, of all places, South Carolina, an angry senior famously yelled at Rep. Robert Inglis "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Similarly, President Obama received a letter from a woman which read "I don't want government-run heath care. And don't touch my Medicare."

Medicare is so ingrained in the American sociopolitical fabric, so much a part of who we are as a nation, that it has become, it seems, post-partisan. Indeed, Republicans of all stripes now routinely cast themselves as staunch defenders of Medicare, but it wasn't always that way. As Joe Conason wrote at truthdig.com:

When the nonsense messages about “death panels” and assisted suicide are swept aside, the most consistent Republican argument in the health care debate is that reform will somehow endanger Medicare. The Democrats, who created Medicare and have protected the program from Republican presidents and legislators for the past five decades, were suddenly determined to destroy it with budget cuts. Only the Republicans, who opposed Medicare from the beginning, could now be trusted to preserve the program from the dastardly president and his allies in the congressional majority.

As Conason notes, Republicans campaigned against Medicare from the word go. They screamed that it was a massive government takeover of health care that would lead to socialism; to Americans losing their liberty. Sound familiar?

Here was the final Senate vote tally in favor of the legislation President Johnson signed into law:

Democrats for - 57

Republicans for - 13

The yes votes came from the likes of Bobby and Ted Kennedy, Gene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, Birch Bayh and George McGovern. The nays came from the likes of Strom Thurmond. There was some support from moderate Republicans like Jacob Javits (New York, of course).

On the house side, 70 Republicans voted against it, including Gerald Ford, Donald Rumsfeld and Bob Dole, who bragged about that vote as recently as his 1996 presidential run.

Regardless, the measure passed and it was a huge win for progressives and for the country... and it came after years of bitter partisan fighting dating back to Teddy Roosevelt. It's not exactly a new thought: great victories often come at the end of great battles.

And how exactly do you think the current GOP would vote on Johnson's legislation if this were 1965? Think Eric Cantor would vote for it? How about Michelle Bachmann? How about John Cornyn or Richard Shelby or Jeff Sessions?

We all know how Al Franken would vote.

The message is as obvious as a child's "no duh": without liberalism, without progressivism, there would be no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Social Security. These kinds of programs, including Obama's health care overhaul, are what progressives have been fighting for - and conservatives railing against and demonizing - since time immemorial. Yet we now can't imagine what our country would be like without them.

This is the age old battle between progressives and conservatives: we claw to make progress, they hunker down to retard it. We end up improving in increments... and the status quo that conservatives are seemingly bred to defend changes, the goalposts move, generally in the more progressive direction. The idea of Medicare used to be the ceiling, now it is the floor.

So go ahead and pass health care reform, guys, and let 'em scream. In a generation or less, Republicans will be campaigning on its behalf like it was their idea all along and forced to lie - as Reagan did in his 1980 debate against Carter - about the rationale behind their previous opposition.

The make-up of the Senate in the 89th Congress was a whopping 68 Democrats and 32 Republicans. Those crazy, over-reaching, activist liberal Democrats ran roughshod over the minority and jammed through that massive government expansion into health care. Thank God they did. Can I get an amen?

I think the message is clear: if you think that Washington is broken, are tired of impediments to progress and want politicians to actually get something done, something positive to move our nation forward... then you need to learn the right lessons from history.

The answer is to give Obama more progressive Democrats, not fewer.

The Myth of the Nuclear Option

2010-03-03T20:23:00.000-08:00

"Nuclear Option" (2005) - term used by majority Republicans during Bush Administration when threatening to re-write the rules to do away with the filibuster.

"Nuclear Option" (2010) - term used by minority Republicans during Obama Adminstration when trying to protect at all costs their use of the filibuster.

What a difference half a decade makes. I mean, I realize it undermines my credentials as a world champion cynic to profess shock at hypocrisy in politics, but these GOP clowns really take it to absurd levels.

In 2005, Republicans were in the majority. And they didn't like that Democrats were filibustering ten of George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Dem filibustering on Bush's budget-related legislation they didn't mind quite as much, because for those bills they were able to use a process called "reconciliation" to get around the blockade; a process they didn't hesitate to use. But judicial nominees can't be reconciled, so GOP leadership threatened to eliminate the filibuster altogether as it related to judges. Not only did they refer to it as the "nuclear option" but they actually had the (world's most enormous) balls to call it the "constitutional option". Naturally, thanks to incestuous amplification, their mindless, bleating followers started repeating the same terminology and talking points. If one listened to talk radio, one would have concluded that the Democrats' use of the filibuster was anti-democracy, anti-Constitution and almost certainly meant the end of the Republic unless immediate and radical corrective action were taken.

That's when the so-called Gang of 14 - 7 Senators from each party - got together and forged a compromise. In the end, these 7 Democrats agreed not to filibuster Bush's judges "in all but extraordinary circumstances" and the 7 GOPers agreed not to vote with their leadership to re-write Senate rules to eliminate judicial filibusters. (And thanks to that "compromise" we have extreme right wing corporate whore judges like Priscilla Owen on the federal bench). The Republican "moderates" took a lot of heat from the leadership and the base for that agreement, but boy, I bet they're glad now!

Because now it's 2010. The Republicans are in the minority. And funny thing, now they no longer consider the use of the filibuster "unconstitutional". In fact, they're using it like crazy, for judicial nominees, for routine appointments, for almost every piece of legislation that the Democrats put forward. After all, they're protecting the Constitution! Up is now down, wrong is now right, etc. etc. And can you imagine what they would say if Harry Reid threatened, like they did, to take their divinely inspired filibusters away? Unthinkable. So naturally, the Democrats will do the same thing the Republicans did when they had the power -- they will use "budget reconciliation", when possible, to get around the blockade.

But wait!

NOW, suddenly, conveniently, "reconciliation" is the "nuclear option"! Yes, folks, the very same tactic Republicans repeatedly used to "jam through" (their words) legislation in the face of Bush era Democratic filibusters, they are now describing in terms best reserved for The End of Days. And once again, their mindless, bleating followers are repeating the same terminology and talking points, completely free of any and all irony. If one listened to talk radio, one would conclude that the Democrats' looming use of reconciliation is anti-democracy, anti-Constitution and almost certainly means the end of the Republic unless immediate and radical corrective action is taken.

Of course it's shockingly dishonest. Of course it's stunningly hypocritical. Of course it's transparently silly. But you knew that already. And so do they. They just don't care. Because the truth about conservatives is, they're really good at this kind of hypocrisy and their small tent laps it up. The rest of the public, meanwhile, is hearing about many of these routine parliamentary procedures for the first time.

And why is that? Why didn't the public get riled up about reconciliation when the GOP did it? Because they never heard about it. It was "inside baseball" and the Democrats didn't make a federal case. They lost, they licked their wounds, and they let the chips fall where they may. Elections have consequences and the rules are the rules. They didn't irresponsibly suggest that reconciliation was some sort of fascist putsch because, you know, it wasn't. But these GOP freaks will scream and yell and suck up all the available media oxygen coloring perfectly reasonable Senate actions - actions they have repeatedly availed themselves of - in ridiculously extremist terms. If only their own would call them on it, or collectively shrug, but fat chance.

The funny thing is, the Senate and House have already passed competing health care bills "the proper way". If the House adopts the Senate bill lock, stock then Obama can sign it into law. Many will scream they bludgeoned it through with reconciliation, but they will either be lying or misinformed. It's only subsequent changes or amendments to that law which would then be passed through reconciliation. And big deal. You may not like it, it may mean a bill you despise becomes law, it may mean you lost, but there's nothing at all "nuclear" about it in any way, shape or form. Principled opposition to the bill I can understand. There are parts of it I hate too. But phony mass hysteria about age old process is just insulting.

The GOP is hollering now that if the Democrats use reconciliation to improve the bill once it becomes law, that an appalled and outraged public will throw them out en masse. Probably just wishful thinking, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's true. My reaction is... fine. So be it. It would be nonsensical, but it would be fair. We elect Congress and the President to do a job. Both parties use the tools at their disposal to do that job as they see fit. You don't like the job they're doing, even if I think you're outraged about the wrong things? Hey, that's what we have elections for.

But when the Republicans are back in power, when down is back to up, and wrong to right, and they routinely use "reconciliation" while demonizing the Democrats' use of the filibuster... well, I hope "the American people" aren't stupid enough to have forgotten their newly discovered procedural outrage. What's bad for the cooked Democrat goose needs to be bad for the resurgent GOP gander.

Jesus Christ Announces Candidacy; GOP Attacks!

2010-02-28T23:30:00.000-08:00

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth... it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" Matthew 19:23-24

I continue to maintain that if Jesus Christ came back today, took a shave and a haircut, and ran for president on a New Testament platform, the Republican Party would absolutely savage him.

Turn the other cheek? Blessed are the peacemakers? Dick Cheney would attack him for being soft on terrorism and making the U.S. more dangerous.

Mary Magdalene? Sarah Palin would mock him for "palling around with prostitutes".

The least among us? Michael Steele would freak on him for his "crazy nonsense empathy".

Healing the sick? Ron Paul would holler that "health care isn't a right!"

Driving the money lenders from the temple? You cannot serve both God and money? The camel/needle bit? Socialist scum! (And Wall Street would have a stroke).

Judge not lest ye be judged? Gay lover!

Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them? Pray in secret? Well, I think we know what a Mike Huckabee might say about that.

And the rabidly anti-tax tea baggers? What do you think they - or any House and Senate Republican for that matter - would make of Jesus telling the voters to "give Caesar what is Caesar's"?

Arch-conservatives would not recognize Jesus if they fell over him and they most certainly would not like him. He despised money and the accumulation of wealth, rejected violence and bloodshed, warned against self-righteousness. He was, in conservative parlance, "un-American". If they met face-to-face, Ted Nugent would probably take a swing at him. Jesus, of course, would turn the other cheek. Ted might then very well blow a hole through it.

Politics indeed makes strange bedfellows and the marriage of conservative Christianity with corporate Republicanism is, well, decidedly strange. I believe this unholy union has knocked these faithful off their spiritual path, led them away from their Christ, the spirit of whom is almost nowhere to be found in their political philosophy. The religious of the far right, in my view, have almost zero understanding of their own supposed savior and ignore most of his core teachings, often with relish.

How has the religious right strayed so far? For this politically active group, the Gospel has, over time, commingled with corporate Republican ideology and has formed what can only be called a GOPspel. This GOPspel is downright schizophrenic from a theological standpoint. But the waters have been so muddied that a new generation of Christian Republicans probably no longer understands the difference. I'm fairly sure there are evangelicals in this country who don't realize that putting an end to the capital gains tax was not one of Christ's primary concerns. Not to mention elevating the right to bear arms above almost all others. And where in the Sermon on the Mount did the Prince of Peace rail in support of federalism and tort reform? Don't they realize that Jesus had his own set of talking points?

I am by no means criticizing all Christians. There are millions of liberal and moderate Christians in this country who absolutely understand that it is difficult to reconcile being "pro-life" and pro-death penalty; millions who don't believe that life is only sacred until the moment of birth and therefore support programs to assist the poor, the needy, the forsaken, the living; millions who are 'yes' on marriage equality and 'no' on waterboarding; in short, there are myriad Christians who take their professed beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Regardless, the single greatest achievement of the modern Republican Party - and it's a truly stunning achievement - has been to convince a certain segment of Christendom that pre-emptive war, torture, supply-side economics, corporate welfare, deregulation of the markets, union bashing, tax cuts for the wealthy, anti-environmentalism/climate change denial, knee-jerk federalism, bearing false witness and leaving those aforementioned least among us to their own devices are actually bedrock Christian values. These folks opt for singing the Nazarene's praises while ignoring his words. They see no irony in their aligning a beatific Jesus with a bombastic Limbaugh, as if Christ chomped a cigar on the capitalistic road to Calvary. See, they don't believe in Jesus, so much as they have appropriated Jesus. Their grotesque, bastardized version of him has become a mascot for their movement, but bears no resemblance to the guy the book they love describes. But this GOPspel, despite its absurd hypocrisy and theological sophistry, is likely here to stay and it has real world repercussions. Without the perverted Word, there could be no perverse Sarah Palin.

But there would still be Daniel Berrigan. And there would still be Frank Schaeffer.

Because after all, Jesus was a liberal. In fact, his liberalism was the rock upon which his whole philosophy was built. And he told his followers quite clearly that day upon the Mount, in the Parable of the Two Builders: ignore it at your peril.

GOP: "Poison is Fair, Antidote Un-American!"

2010-02-25T14:30:00.000-08:00

Let's see if we can put the "Health Care Reform Bill Legislative Tactic Debate" into some perspective.

The Republicans using the parliamentary procedure known as the "filibuster" while insisting it's unfair for the Democrats to use the complimentary procedure known as "reconciliation" is a bit like...

For football fans:
... Bill Belichick stacking eight in the box to effectively stop the Colts run game and then seriously expecting Peyton Manning to promise not to pass the ball downfield until time expires.

For baseball fans:
... repeatedly bunting, while insisting that the opposing defense agree to always be positioned at double play depth.

For Bridge players:
... your opponent playing a trump card, then demanding, in the name of fairness, that you swear not to play yours.

For Chess players:
... black opening with the Najdorf Variation, then loudly complaining of unfairness when white considers countering with the Perenyi Attack.

For Law & Order fans:
... defense counsel doing a fifty box document dump on Jack McCoy's desk during discovery, then going in front of the cameras and insisting he publicly stipulate that he won't hire a speed reader. Bum bum!

For aficionados of Rochambeau:
... calling on your opponent to rule out covering your "rock" with her "paper".

For Republicans:
... complaining about the Democratic use of the "filibuster" and then using "reconciliation" (see Bush tax cuts 1 and 2 and their subsequent extension, plus crappy Medicare bill).

For everyone else:
The filibuster exists as a tool to be utilized by the minority; reconciliation exists as a tool to be utilized by the majority. To avail yourself of a legislative rule that benefits your side while whining that your opponents must categorically rule out a wholly legitimate counter-measure is the height of disingenuousness.

I could do this all night.

Clearly, Republicans in Congress have trouble with the basic concept that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Live by it, die by it, friends. What's good for the goose is good for the... zzzzzzzz.

Sorry, it's all so obvious I just put myself to sleep.

Just like the GOP. "We get to use the poison, but shame on you for using the antidote. Oh, unless we're in charge. Then stop. Strike that. Reverse it."

If Senate Dem leadership wimps out and actually buys this line of shit, then they deserve everything they get. Unfortunately, it's the rest of us who will truly suffer.

Scott Brown's Jobs Bill No Brainer

2010-02-23T20:49:00.001-08:00

Newly minted Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R!) had two choices:

A) Vote for cloture on Obama's jobs bill and incur the wrath of conservative dittoheads and tea baggers - most of whom can't go to the polls in his state - but actually have a shot at getting re-elected in Massachusetts...

B) Be a doctrinaire, obstructionist conservative hero, but a likely one-term GOP Senator in that still vastly blue state. And maybe an answer to a question in a future edition of Trivial Pursuit®.

He chose A. And the right wing tweetosphere went ballistic.

Do these short sighted latter day critics not understand the political reality of representing Massachusetts? They should be thrilled with Brown's cloture vote (and maybe even some future votes like it), because it means he might get to keep the seat; a seat from which he will vote with them thousands more times - in votes both procedural and substantive - than a Democrat would. I believe the technical term is "picking your battles".

It seems, however, that these unthinking carpers would rather enjoy short-term political Schadenfreude than long term strategic gain. It's more about hurting Obama for them than it is about cleverly and stealthily advancing their overall agenda for years to come. Hence, the hyperventilating hissy.

Partisans on both sides of the Democrat-Republican divide hate their turncoats. But there's a major difference between a Scott Brown and, say, a Joe Lieberman. Brown would've been punished by the majority of voters in his state for obstructing the jobs bill, so he smartly chose to advance debate; the GOP ought to grin and bear it (and to be sure, leadership has) considering what it will yield them in the future. Even Mitch McConnell gets that keeping a historically blue seat red will require some occasional compromise. Lieberman, however, would have been rewarded by his voters for supporting the public option, yet killed it anyway. Democrats are right to be furious, as it will yield them absolutely nothing. Brown was answering to voters; Lieberman to donors.

Not to mention the fact that had Brown voted the other way, the outcome would have been no different, giving him even less incentive to risk alienating the Mass(es).

Don't get me wrong, I love watching the opposition get apoplectic.

But, sadly, Brown's savvy vote will do far more for Republicans in the long run than if he had chosen to just be a Palinesque demagogue darling with no real shot at a political future. As their (maddening) luck would have it, they're probably going to benefit from it despite themselves, kicking and screaming all the way.

The Confounding Case of the Publicly Choking Man

2010-02-18T19:54:00.001-08:00

So there's this guy in a restaurant and he starts choking on a piece of his New York strip. He's turning colors and is on the verge of dropping dead right then and there when a quick thinking fellow diner leaps from his seat, throws his arms around the frantic choker and performs the Heimlich Maneuver. Tragedy is averted. The choker's life, almost over mere seconds before, is miraculously saved. Certainly not what our hero had planned when he and his wife went out for their Date Night, but he did what he had to do, what any of us would've done in the same situation. Frankly, there was really no other option. And what does our Good Samaritan get for his troubles? A law suit. The fellow he saved has decided to sue, citing some broken ribs.

It's a classic story, really, one that most us of have heard in some permutation or other and that the vast majority of us have had the good sense to be appalled by. We are shocked, as we should be, by the abject lack of gratitude on behalf of the saved man. How could he? Why would he? What is he thinking? This is what's wrong with America! This jerk would have been dead if not for the selfless diner and yet our hero, who by all rights should be thrown a parade, now has to defend his actions in court and perhaps be held liable for damages by a jury of his peers. We hope, of course, that the jury shares our outrage and smacks down the plaintiff, wanting nothing more than to shake the defendant's hand before he leaves for the courthouse parking garage. But stranger things have happened.

The U.S. economy, and citizens, are the Choking Man.
Barack Obama is the Heroic Diner.
The Recovery Act is the Heimlich Maneuver.
The temporary hit to the deficit is the broken ribs.

At the tail end of the 2008 presidential campaign, our economy almost completely collapsed, the facts here are not in dispute. Economists across the political spectrum were issuing dire warnings that truly bold action had to be taken in order to avoid another Great Depression. And although President Obama certainly would have preferred to take office without needing to employ such drastic measures, he had no choice. Time was of the essence and the victim was turning blue.

To be sure, the stimulus was massive, as it needed to be in order to be effective. Might there have been some side effects to the action, some injury sustained in its application? Absolutely. Nobody was thrilled with adding to Bush's record debt, but when you see your deceased Aunt Tillie frolicking with your childhood puppy at the end of a long white tunnel, and the doctor revives your sorry ass with defibrillation paddles, you don't sue him for malpractice because it left a nasty bruise on your chest that's gonna take a while to heal.

A year after the passage of The Recovery Act - and concurrent aggressive action by the Fed - the economy is on the mend. There is still a ways to go, jobs to be created, more stimulus dollars to take seed. But the growth is real. The catastrophe was averted. We did not, thanks to our President's boldness, drop dead. So what is his reward?

He gets attacked, blamed, slandered by the same jokers who are now on the road to recovery. They tell us he squandered his first year! Never mind that we were on the verge of Brother, can you spare a home? Never mind that we were thisclose to the American Dream morphing into one of those disturbing nightmares where you keep walking up and down the same street trying to find your bank, but can't seem to remember where they put it.

Yes, Obama's critics are just as galling as the ungrateful choker in our little morality play. And make no mistake, the "injury" they're complaining about is minor; another 3/4 of a trillion in debt that will eventually need to be dealt with is nothing compared to what might have occurred.

I am not advocating some deontological approach to politics whereby a man is judged solely on the motives of his actions and not by their consequences. In that scenario, Obama would have been heralded for the stimulus even if it hadn't worked, because, you know, his intentions were good. Kant might've made that argument, but I'm not drunk enough to do so here. This is consequentialism, folks; the result has been demonstrably borne out; the means have been duly justified by the end. In light of the skin of our teeth rescue, not only are Obama's critics disingenuous and peevish, but they ought to be the target of virulent public opprobrium. How could they? Why would they? What are they thinking? This is what's wrong with America!

No matter. In this story, as in our other, the saved man is shameless. He is taking his fight to the court of public opinion and he is doing his damnedest to have our protagonist held liable for the pain and suffering that he sustained. It is petty, it is small and it is indefensible. I sincerely hope that the jury - in this case comprised of American voters - smacks down those who would punish the Samaritan and instead clap him on the back and hoist him on their shoulders. This particular trial will go on for at least another three years before we get a final verdict; if the economy fully recovers and thrives, that is almost certainly what will occur.

And yet I worry. Because sometimes juries get it wrong.

It's Freezing in Washington... and Then There's The Weather

2010-02-17T19:28:00.000-08:00

I get a kick out of Obama critics who point to the absurdly shrill tone coming out of Washington and lay it at the President's feet. Look at your messiah, they mock, he said he'd change the tone and he hasn't! In fact, it's rarely been worse! How do you like him now?

These people are profoundly missing the point. They seem to be equating a failed attempt to promote bipartisanship with being to blame for the lack of it.

But listen to the President's words. Watch his (not Congress's) legislative tactics. Take note of his ardent if naïve desire to bridge the ideological gap. Obama clearly wishes everyone would take a deep breath, stop with the ad hominem attacks and work together for the common good. If the opposition is going to refuse to do so, however, and in fact will instead ratchet up the rhetoric to truly bizarre/birther/Bolshevik levels, then this says far more about them than about him. The GOP wants to stick its gnarled, clubbed foot out as Obama runs by and then say "See? He couldn't cross the finish line! He's flat on his face! We told you!" Sorry, kids. That's not how it works. You don't get to fulfill your own pathetic prophecy and call it revelation.

After many campaign promises to "change the tone in Washington", George W. Bush's actual words and general mien did nothing to try and soothe the savage beast. His administration instead chose to divide and conquer and wedge and stoke. What made his promises hollow, then, was not that they never came to fruition, but that there was never a good faith effort to make good on them; Bush preferred to shove his foot up the opposition's ass and then piously wonder aloud why it didn't give them pleasure.

The same, for good or for ill, cannot be said for Obama. The end result of his overtures is irrelevant. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but for the sake of this argument, it's those intentions that matter. The olive branch appears to be real, whether or not the GOP then grabs that branch and turns it into a switch.

CNN Polls Are Killing My Mother (An Inflammatory and Inaccurate Headline)

2010-02-16T19:08:00.001-08:00

So I was sitting in my mom's hospital room, see, and she had CNN on the wall-mounted television. I keep trying to convince her that watching the likes of Sanchez and Blitzer is only going to make her sicker, but she insists on torturing herself. And me. Because despite my admonitions and better instincts, what do I do when I need to kill time as the nurse rolls in the blood pressure cuff or hangs an antibiotic or flushes out my mother's PICC line? I mindlessly stare at the mindless anchors on the mindless T.V.

Today we caught a glimpse of a story that gave my mom a new round of nausea and drove me nuts, not a long trip to begin with. Surprisingly, this afternoon's cable outrage wasn't about misguided tea baggers or a certain sub-mental former governor. But it may have been worse: just over a year into his presidency, the network said, only 48% of Americans polled believe Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected.

Naturally, I think this is moronic and ultimately meaningless. But putting aside my own personal political bias - wherein I believe that despite some absolutely fair criticisms of the White House, anyone who doesn't treasure Obama's seriousness, competence and certifiable sanity is a hopeless jackass - let's just put this poll into some quasi-objective perspective.

At the equivalent juncture in his presidency, only 45% of respondents in a similar poll believed that Bill Clinton ought to be re-elected. And despite the fact that he lost the popular vote, was installed by the Supreme Court after a protracted court battle, and did nothing of note in his first nine months, a whopping 70% of those queried believed George W. Bush deserved re-election in February of his second year.

So the question is begged: Holy God, why? From where I sit, it goes something like this:

After four years of George H.W. Bush, we were in a recession. Bill Clinton came into office and was forced to pass a stimulus bill to grease the country's economic wheels and get things moving again. The stimulus passed without a single Republican vote. The GOP spent the next year hammering Clinton for his spending despite the fact that we were in the nascent stages of what would be an economic renaissance. By the time the mid-terms came along, Clinton had squandered a lot of capital on a failed attempt at health care reform, and minority GOP obstructionism - compounded by a self-defeating majority and truly insane anti-Clinton rhetoric from the opposition - led to voters dropping the hammer on Democrats. (As we now know, of course, Clinton won a resounding re-election despite the early skepticism).

After two terms of Clinton, W. takes over, inheriting a terrific economy and an enormous budget surplus. He is forced to do nothing when he takes office but sit back, concentrate on his party's corporate priorities (like passing gift legislation for credit card companies, making it harder for average Joe plumbers to file for bankruptcy protection) and enjoy the fruits of his predecessor's labors. In mid-August of 2001, his approval rating is a relatively high 57%, but that's no surprise. The world is at peace, the economy is humming and the opposition, while by no means in love, is not wholly intractable. None of this has anything to do with Bush, of course, he just hasn't screwed anything up yet. And what the hell, he seems like a nice guy to have a beer with. Even so, by September 10th of that first year, according to Gallup, he has slipped to 51%. (Barack Obama's September 10th first year approval was exactly the same, 51%, and that was after the unpopular TARP extension and the controversial stimulus, actions for desperate times that early Bush had no need of).

Truth be told, by early September, Bush is on his way to becoming a one term footnote - the goofy, unprepared frat boy, surrounded by Cheneys and Roves, who the grown ups send out to read "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren - when two planes strike the Twin Towers. Stunned Americans - indeed the world - coalesce behind the president. Mere days after being at 51% approval, he's now at 86%. Five months later, 70% of respondents apparently gush he should be re-elected. Had that poll been taken in the absence of 9/11, you can be sure the results would have been profoundly different. Context is everything. Sadly, though, this so-called "popularity" affords him the political cover to ram through an extremist agenda, both at home and abroad, with very little resistance. Resistance, in fact, was futile; worse, it was "un-American".

By the time W. leaves office, we are most certainly not at peace and the economy is not just in a shambles, it's almost completely shattered. Not only does 9/11 happen on Bush's watch, but he cynically uses it as a pretext to fulfill a long-standing neo-conservative goal of re-invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein. Despite plunging us into this wholly elective war, and another more justifiable conflict in Afghanistan, he asks for no sacrifice from Americans and instead passes outrageous, expensive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, draining the country's coffers at the worst possible time. The war and the tax cuts are, of course, nothing less than a government spending spree, and if there's one thing that's worse than "tax and spend" it's "borrow and spend". Regardless, not only does Bush enjoy near uniform Republican support, but he manages to get some Democrats to go along as well (if there is one thing Republicans do far better than Democrats, it's obstructionism. Dems don't seem to have the stomach for it). When Bush flies back to Texas for good, he leaves behind a squandered surplus, enormous new debt, a depleted military fighting two wars, a world in whose collective eyes America has lost huge amounts of respect, the first of the much maligned TARP bailouts, and - having put the finishing touches on a twenty four year masterpiece of rampant government de-regulation - the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Whew.

In comes Obama, on a wave of good will and public desperation for the kind of leader with whom you'd eat an arugula salad. He is immediately forced to take drastic measures to pull us from the economic brink. He signs a massive stimulus bill to grease the country's economic wheels and get things moving again. The stimulus passes without a single Republican vote. The GOP spends the next year hammering Obama for his spending, despite the fact that we are in the nascent stages of... is any of this sounding familiar? If not, I refer you back to paragraph six. But what the hell, let's keep going: by the time the mid-terms come along, Obama will have squandered a lot of capital on a failed attempt at health care reform, and GOP obstructionism - compounded by a self defeating majority and truly insane anti-Obama rhetoric from the opposition - is seemingly leading voters toward dropping the hammer on Democrats.

So this is the cycle we're stuck in, folks. Republicans destroy the economy and Democrats get punished for acting like grown ups and fixing it. And the only ones truly to blame for this maddening circumgyration are the shockingly myopic voters who don't see the forest for the trees.

I am sanguine that Obama's troubling numbers are fleeting. Despite a 2001 approval rating that topped out at 90%, a massive outpouring of war time support, epic fear-mongering, and a fairly weak opponent, Bush won re-election by a mere 2.4 points. Conversely, the initially under-appreciated Clinton did so by a whopping 9. If history is truly repeating itself, then Obama will be re-elected, and convincingly. It would help if the GOP were to offer up a Bob Dole in 2012 (Palin, anyone?), essentially just token opposition that Obama will bulldoze right over. But nothing can be taken for granted, especially in this absurdist political climate; a climate in which every outlandish claim or silly "movement", no matter how comical or demonstrably false, receives the full, crushing weight of the media's obsessive, 24 hour attention without much attendant critical scrutiny. And, of course, it's all about the economy, stupid. And jobs, stupid.

Whatever. Here's the only moral of the story as far as I'm concerned: if these poll numbers are an accurate snapshot - which is far from a given - then the average voter is short-sighted, stupid, and amnesiac, with not even a tenuous grasp on the rudimentary concept of cause and effect.

Now if I could only get my mom to stop watching CNN. Oh well, at least she has decent health insurance.

Sarah Palin: Lifting Our Spirit Like It's The Lusitania

2010-02-10T17:30:00.000-08:00

So let me see if I can wrap my head around this:

Once and future White House hopeful Sarah Palin, speaking to an organized gathering of tea baggers (who clearly have enough disposable income in this economy to pay the hefty ticket price), follows former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo's blatant race-baiting by mocking Barack Obama's message of hope. Something about "How's that hope-y change-y stuff workin' out for ya" or what have you. All the while she has written on her hand a crib note: "lift American spirits".

Seriously, are she and/or her followers really that dense? Are they truly that irony free? Do they not recognize that vaguely queasy feeling in the pit of their collective stomach as cognitive dissonance?

Oh, simple Sarah, you Juneauan jughead, allow me to spell it out for you. On your palm, if need be. If nothing else, Barack Obama's "hope" message was intended to - wait for it - lift American spirits. And in the context of the election, it was wildly successful. Or were you too busy preparing the concession speech you weren't allowed to give to notice?

How exactly does Palin think one lifts American spirits? By tearing down the president's attempts to lift American spirits? That's quite a strategy. No wonder she needed a reminder.

I'm going to search Amazon and see if I can find her "Lifting American Spirits For Dummies". Or maybe she can just listen to a few of Barack Obama's inspiring teleprompter speeches. You know, the ones that won him a premature Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, I think we can all agree that Obama didn't win the prize based on any actual achievements thus far on the world stage. He won it because, well, like, I mean... he lifted the world's spirits. Which I suppose is an achievement of a certain sort. One that, apparently, Sarah Palin wants to emulate. But only after she makes fun of it.

I guess the real question is... are her followers really that stupid that they don't see past the silly buzzwords and empty rhetoric? The diametrically opposing viewpoints coming out of the same mouth? Or is it more like willful ignorance?

Maybe it's simply like being a rabid sports fan... even when you know your team sucks, you still desperately want them to win.

Or perhaps they're just writing it off as "satire".

All I know is, Sarah should realize that she's far better at being a polarizing figure, a mud slinger, a sower of discord, then she is being like Obama or even Reagan - either of whom could easily be described as a "charismatic guy with a teleprompter" who was elected in large part because of his successful appeals to hope and optimism and the American spirit. But I guess she didn't need a reminder on her palm to be a disgraceful hate monger whose every syntactically challenged utterance does a profound disservice to the teachings of Christ. I suppose that just comes naturally.

Which is fine, politics needs ditch diggers too, nothin' wrong with her playing to her strengths. But there is still an art to politics and ya gotta have some rhetorical consistency if ya ever expect to get past your fanatical base and win over an independent or two. So for Palin to deride a message of optimism on the one hand while literally scribbling on the other a "note to self" to try it...

... well, that's just fucking retarded.

Tony Perkins is a Psycho

2010-02-09T20:43:00.000-08:00

From what I understand, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins claims that America "might have to return to the draft" if it allows gays to serve openly in the military. Why, you ask? Because, according to Perkins logic, so many soldiers would quit or never enlist.

So let me get this straight (no pun intended). These soldiers know that gays are currently serving right next to them and have no problem staying in the military. But if the gays come out and ADMIT it, then it's so egregious that everyone will quit?

This is like someone saying "I mean, I know deep down that the guy next door is a serial killer, but that's fine, as long as he doesn't officially tell me. If he tells me, well, then I'm gonna sell my house".

The idea is absurd on its face.

Obviously, soldiers know full well there are gays and lesbians in their ranks. It doesn't cause them to quit or refuse to enlist. The idea that there would be mass attrition merely because something they already know is confirmed is really stupid.

Oh, and if supposed patriots did stop protecting their nation simply because a fellow soldier they were already serving with without incident turned out to be different than they thought? That would be an act of unconscionable cowardice and an indefensible betrayal of the nation they swore to defend.

Luckily, this nonsense is only coming from the mouth of a cowardly hate monger like Tony Perkins who, despite being a former Marine, is a demagogue who does not actually speak for our men and women in uniform. I think I'll give more credence to the words of Defense Secretary Gates or Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen than I will someone as execrable as Perkins.

Why Republicans Ought To Keep Filibustering

2010-02-09T19:23:00.001-08:00

Many Democrats - myself included - have been terribly frustrated by the opposition's use of the filibuster to prevent an up or down majority vote on almost every piece of legislation coming out of the Senate. The filibuster was once a tool that was invoked only when absolutely necessary; now it is used simply to stop the majority from being able to do anything at all. It will be interesting to hear the way these short-sighted Republicans describe the filibuster when the shoe is on the other foot. For example, although he now is a big fan of the strategy, GOP senator Jim Bunning once complained during the Bush Administration that "It seems as though there are Members in this body who want to filibuster just about everything we try to do". And so it goes. And it will only get worse. But I'll save that for another rant.

What I can't for the life of me figure out is why some on the left think that they can shame Republicans into knocking it off and allowing legislation to come to a vote. Why on Earth would they do such a thing?

Republicans are availing themselves of a legitimate parliamentary procedure in order to stop a legislative agenda that, rightly or wrongly, they believe would destroy the country (never mind that eight years of their legislative agenda almost did). Whether they are terribly wrong and terribly destructive - and I certainly believe they are both - is irrelevant. The bottom line is, it's working. If they were being punished for their obstructionism politically, plummeting in the polls and poised to lose elections, they would be forced to cave. But quite the contrary; not only is this tactic preventing policies they despise from becoming the law of the land, but it actually seems to be a pathway back to political popularity and relevance. For them to stop now would be insanity.

Appealing to fair play, bipartisanship or the democratic principle of majority rule is not going to change GOP hearts and minds. As long as the voters aren't angry with them, the filibusters will continue. The absolute only thing that could get it to stop would be an electoral blood bath for the GOP in 2010. Such a blood bath does not seem to be on the horizon; in fact, voters may very well reward the GOP for its obstructionism - intentionally or not - if the anti-incumbent mood continues. After all, the majority of incumbents in both houses of Congress are Democrats.

President Obama, Senate Democrats and those of us on the left can cry foul all we want, but the Republican Party knows where its bread is buttered. Render Obama completely ineffective and get rewarded for it at the ballot box? It's an absolute no-brainer.

This is why Obama needs to stop appealing to those on the other side of the aisle to work with him - it's not going to happen - and instead start a public campaign to change public opinion about the political stone walling. He needs to connect the dots for voters and get supporters downright riled up. If the prevailing winds change, and a fickle public once again turns on Republicans, then Obama might be able to effect the kind of change he was elected to implement. The opposition would then have no choice but to go along or get steamrolled.

If the American public truly wants change and is tired of waiting for it - if they want Obama to deliver what he promised on the campaign trail - then what they by all rights should do is give Dems a fucking 70 seat majority and render the forces of obstruction completely moot. They should smack down the GOP for standing in the way of progress. But this isn't happening.

I'm not convinced that it's because most Americans now suddenly oppose the Obama agenda; and I definitely don't believe that the Republicans are speaking for anything even close to a majority of Americans. Sadly, I'm afraid it's that most Americans don't even have a basic grasp of how Congress works or get why the system is as dysfunctional as it is and therefore know only how to throw the bastards out instead of giving the bastards the tools they need to be effective. (And yes, I'm an obnoxiously elitist intellectual snob, I stipulate to that, we can move on).

Regardless, if the current trend continues, Obama and the Democratic majority will get the blame for the standstill, even though it's actually short sighted, under educated voters who are at fault. Voters are the only ones who can change GOP behavior. It's entirely in our hands.

So if you really want president Obama to be an effective leader, if you truly want the opposition to stop playing politics, if you want the filibusters to stop and the country to move forward... the time has come to stop wasting your time yelling at Republicans in Congress - they've stuck their wet fingers in the wind and are acting smartly - and start yelling at your friends and neighbors.

Wind direction is notoriously capricious; wind direction can change.

When Harry Met Harry

2010-02-03T00:01:00.001-08:00

When my late father was alive, we would have raucous arguments over gay marriage. My dad was nominally a Democrat but considered himself a real law and order traditionalist. He was not your typical bigot - and he believed in some notion of civil unions - but claimed that "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals. His arguments were, of course, illogical and inconsistent, never mind that we were essentially arguing over a word. A big one for him had to do with nature. "If everyone were to become gay, the species would cease to exist". I pointed out to him, not always calmly, that his arguments were horse shit. Obviously, the whole world wasn't suddenly going to become gay and legalizing gay marriage wouldn't do anything to swell the number of homosexuals already extant. Further, homosexuality, since it existed in nature, was by definition natural. And regardless, none of these was a constitutional argument about governments and benefits and who may or may not register with the state as a couple. And on and on. Despite my relentless logic - and his offering no rebuttal argument other than "this is how I feel" - I made no inroads; on this issue he was hopelessly stubborn. (I have no doubt, but cannot prove, that had he lived to see this epic court battle in California, and had read any of arch-conservative Ted Olson's cogent articles, such as this one, he would have finally turned a corner). But here's the wild inconsistency that bothered me most. My whole childhood, whenever I would defend homosexuality (I was a precocious kid and quite literally grew up in the theater), my dad would complain about how promiscuous and indiscriminate gays were. "They'll stick their penises in a hole in the wall and not care who's on the other side," he told me on more than one occasion. He was appalled by this behavior. And yet he later saw no irony in the fact that when gays and lesbians wanted to settle down, get married, be monogamous - all the virtues of American life that he most propounded - that he wanted to discourage this behavior as well.

This very irony is the thing that strikes me most as I look at the arguments against marriage equality and against gays in the military. There is no doubt that these bans are based almost solely on animus toward a suspect class, because what the bigots clearly want more than anything is to deny those whose behavior they despise any semblance of a traditional American life with all its attendant perks and pleasures. After all, how can they convince the rest of us that homosexuality is an abnormal, aberrant, perverse and anti-social undermining of America's traditions if gays and lesbians are allowed to embrace those traditions? How will we ever continue to believe that homosexuals are all just a bunch of mincing girly-men or man hating shrews who hate American values if they are allowed to prove their mettle and their patriotism on the battlefield? Wanting the same traditional things the rest of us want goes against the narrative about homosexuals that their detractors have labored so long and hard to create. The only way for the opponents of equality to prevent widespread societal acceptance of homosexuality is to try and force gays and lesbians - by hook or by crook - to adopt the very behavior and lifestyle the bigots claim to despise. The irony is as deep as it is painful. "This isn't who you are," the haters seem to claim, "this is who you are! And don't you dare try to change one bit!"

It is a bedrock of conservative thought that marriage is one of our most important institutions and that when it is widespread, it is a net gain for society. It is also a conservative no-brainer that serving one's country is one of the most noble things one can do. To oppose gay marriage and gay military service, then, is to intentionally try to deny some American citizens those very things which you yourself believe are good for society and to force them to live what is in your own view a less virtuous, less honorable, less courageous, less noble, less fulfilling life than you are allowed to pursue. But what else is a gay hater to do? Without this self-fulfilling prophecy of a "degenerate" homosexual lifestyle, anti-gay sentiment loses a huge chunk of its raison d'etre, and naturally, committed homophobes just can't have that.

I'm reminded, bizarrely enough, of When Harry Met Sally. There's that scene in the deli, where Meg Ryan has the loud orgasm and Estelle Reiner, watching, envious, announces "I'll have what she's having". But what if Sally turned and yelled "No, I don't want you to have what I'm having, because old people having sex is gross and you don't deserve to have something that feels this good! That's reserved for us young, beautiful people! Fuck off, you old bag!" We would think she was a cold, heartless, selfish, mean-spirited bitch. And we would be right. But this is, in fact, exactly what the anti-gay forces are saying: "Hell yes, it feels fantastic... but we don't want you to have what we're having".

In light of all of this, I can't imagine how the Supreme Court can get around the fact that California's ban on gay marriage is based almost solely on the hatred of a specific class of people, which makes it a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. Because rather than celebrate that gays want to reform their alleged historical promiscuity and embrace a conservative ideal, which by all rights they should, the bigots are hellbent on making gays continue to sit in the back of the societal bus - all the while raving about the glorious view from the front.

Well sorry guys... it just doesn't work that way. What's good for the straight goose is good for the queer gander.

Celebrity Deaths

2010-01-28T18:56:00.001-08:00

Howard Zinn... J.D. Salinger... in the wake of Citizens United, does Miramax count as #3?

The Rocky Road To Equality Begins January 11th

2010-01-05T08:41:00.001-08:00

The Declaration of Independence gave the fledgling United States a mission statement: we were to be the country that acknowledged every citizen's unalienable rights; rights which included, but were not limited to, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"; rights our government would never take any action to abridge. It is for this reason, in large part, that civil rights battles ought not be waged solely by those whose rights are being restricted or denied, but by anyone who believes in the America our founders so eloquently envisioned and encoded into law. And although oppressed minorities have often formed the passionate activist core of various bruising civil rights battles over the years, it has taken the participation of committed members of the majority to push those movements over the top. It took whites fighting for desegregation and the Voting Rights Act, it took men fighting for women's suffrage, and it takes heterosexuals - millions of of whom voted against Proposition 8 in California, even in a losing effort - to help advance the cause of gay rights.

I am one such heterosexual. In fact, I have long believed, and continue to argue, that marriage equality is the defining civil rights issue of my generation.

Although the opposition has gone to great lengths to confuse the public with innuendo, fear-mongering, appeals to personal prejudice and, in most cases, outright lies, the question of marriage equality is actually simple and bracingly clear: from a legal and constitutional standpoint, the government can no more deny gay Americans the right to civilly marry than it can deny them the right to use the post office. And how various pastors, rabbis, priests, imams or their congregants feel about either issue is, even if it were understandable, wholly irrelevant. The same can be said of our elected officials. They can huff and puff, block and bluster, delay and decry, but at the end of the day, whatever their personal beliefs and legislative tools, they may not be able to, despite their best efforts, undermine so solid a Constitution.

An America that willfully ignores the Constitution and continues to deny the LGBT community the equal protection of the laws is not an America I am proud to live in. There is very little I can personally do other than to continue to speak out for equality whenever I am given the opportunity and to use my admittedly limited powers of persuasion to try to open heretofore closed minds; to patiently and didactically explain to anyone who cares to pay attention the finer points of civil and constitutional law, hoping against hope that - self taught lay person that I am - I'm not mucking it all up.

Irrespective of how I or anyone else feels about gay marriage, however, the decision is going to be made for all of us - sooner than we realize - and it is going to come, as it should, from the courts. And although we'll hear a lot of screeching about judicial activists trying to shove their personal beliefs down the throats of a beleaguered, tax-paying, God-fearing majority, that is precisely what the courts are set up to do. There is a reason we have three branches of government, why we have the separation of powers, checks and balances. And the judiciary has been given very specific duties by the Constitution; chief among them is to interpret the law - and in the case of the Supreme Court, the document itself - and to enforce its protections, even if we citizens disagree.

On January 11th, 2010, opening arguments are set to begin in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for what is arguably the most important civil rights trial since Loving v. Virginia in 1967, which struck down anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. The trial is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, et al and it claims that in light of Proposition 8, which amended the California State Constitution to exclude gays from the right to civilly marry, the California Constitution is therefore in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. If decided for the plaintiffs, Prop 8 would be overturned and gay marriage would once again be legal in California, as its state Supreme Court had previously held. Any victory in this venue, however, will be largely academic. There would likely be an emergency stay put on the ruling until it could be heard at the appellate level by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington State. A victory at this level would again likely not go into effect before being heard by the United States Supreme Court, where it would, by definition, face its toughest test. And while victories at the district and appellate level would be heartening, proponents of gay marriage shouldn’t get too excited until that final determination is made.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is remarkable on several fronts. For one, the named defendants are on the side of the plaintiffs. Gov. Schwarzenegger, despite being the titular defendant, was not in favor of Prop 8 and his administration has filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the plaintiffs' position, as has Attorney General Jerry Brown, also named. Both are essentially throwing up their hands and conceding that the state has no valid legal argument in defense of its own constitutional amendment.

But perhaps most remarkable of all, the plaintiffs' case is being argued by none other than Ted Olson, a major figure in the conservative legal movement. Olson was George W. Bush’s Solicitor General from 2001 to 2004 and was the lawyer who famously argued for the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, the decision of which handed Bush the presidency. Equally surprising is that David Boies, Al Gore's representative in that watershed case, has joined forces with his former courtroom nemesis Olson to fight for marriage equality. And although this sounds at first blush like a real “kumbaya” moment in jurisprudence, not every interested party is on the same page. The ACLU, and many of the gay rights organizations that have been waging this battle the longest, do not agree with the strategy of taking it to the federal level or with the timing of the fight itself. Several of these groups put forth a motion to intervene as plaintiffs, but their motion was denied by judge Vaughn Walker who is hearing the case. He ruled, probably correctly, that Olson and Boies have the necessary legal and constitutional chops to proceed without assistance.

The skeptical and frustrated civil rights groups have some fair arguments. They have long advocated fighting these battles locally, often at the state-wide level, slowly winning hearts and minds and desensitizing voters to gay marriage without a potentially incendiary, all-encompassing federal ruling. It has been their fondest hope that by time the Supreme Court got involved, there would already be a broad consensus in support of gay marriage by the states. They further argue that the current make-up of the Supreme Court is not conducive to a ruling for the plaintiff and that if they were to lose, two things will happen: 1) There will be a devastating legal precedent on the books and 2) Olson and Boies will slink back to their high paid private practices and leave the pieces to be picked up by the very groups who were against the strategy in the first place and who are being excluded from participating in the trial in any meaningful way.

Regardless, the trial is going forward and we ought to all pay close attention as it proceeds because it has the potential of eventually making marriage equality the law of the land.

Ted Olson, for his part, has expressed full and total confidence that he will prevail. Publicly, he is behaving as if victory were a fait accompli and I would like to believe him. As Solicitor General he spent four years arguing in front of this same Supreme Court (sans newly minted Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor) on behalf of the Bush Administration. He is about as conservative a legal scholar as one can find and yet has gone on record as being completely mystified as to what legal argument Prop 8’s proponents could possibly proffer. And he certainly has, by all accounts, an encyclopedic knowledge of the Constitution and an intimate understanding of the current players on the Court.

I am not nearly as confident as Mr. Olson. To the extent that I’m hopeful, here’s why: Olson is right. Prop 8’s proponents don’t, in fact, have any legal argument whatsoever that could possibly hold constitutional muster in any objective sense. The language of the amendment in the California Constitution is nakedly discriminatory and a clear violation of the federal Constitution’s 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, especially in light of the precedent set by Loving v. Virginia. The good news for those of us who are fighting for marriage equality is that “marriage is sacred” is not a legal argument and the legalization of civil marriage has nothing to do with houses of worship, which will continue to be allowed to define marriage as they please and only perform those ceremonies which conform to their theological criteria. What the plaintiffs will argue, quite correctly in my view, is that no state is allowed to deny to any of its citizens the equal protection of the laws and that the federal judiciary has a constitutional obligation to enforce such equal protection against a violating state.

But here’s why I am not as sanguine as Mr. Olson about our chances: the current Supreme Court majority. Olson, the victor in the legally loathsome and indefensible majority opinion in Bush v. Gore (which literally, stunningly, declared “this is a one-time only decision and should not be considered precedent”), should know better than anyone: the four so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court – Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito – are the true “judicial activists” that conservatives claim to despise and raise so much campaign cash railing against. This far-right wing cabal has shown no compunction in ignoring the law, and its own precedent, in order to advance a pre-conceived social agenda; those four are the living definition of “activist”. Because they don’t want to see gay marriage as the law of the land, they will likely do legal contortions – as they did in Bush v. Gore – to reach the conclusion they want to reach. So egregious was their activism in 2000 that it prompted former Charles Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi to write a piece for the Nation called “None Dare Call It Treason” in which he argued that the majority decision on behalf of Bush was not just wrong, but, in fact, downright traitorous. (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi)

I have no reason to believe that any of those four justices will suddenly have an epiphany and realize, like Olson apparently has, that supporting marriage equality is the true conservative stance. Nor do I expect them to say “We personally hate the idea of gay marriage but the Constitution is clear”, which is what by all rights they ought to say. Instead, they will likely twist themselves – and their words – into a legal pretzel and come up with some cockamamie rationale for voting against it which will be both an insult to the intelligence and an assault on the Constitution they swore to uphold. If we assume that the more liberal four – Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor – rule to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s still theoretical decision in favor of the plaintiffs, then this leaves Anthony Kennedy. Justice Kennedy, if indeed he’s the tie-breaking vote, will be single-handedly responsible for forever changing the face of America in favor of equal rights for all or, conversely, for setting the civil rights movement back in a potentially irreparable way.

Kennedy is hard to read. He certainly has a mostly conservative bent. He has ruled with the conservative majority in some pretty shocking decisions, not the least of which was Bush v. Gore. However, he also wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, in which he and Sandra Day O’Connor voted with the liberal bloc to strike down anti-sodomy laws in Texas, and, by extension, any other state that had them on the books. The 6-3 ruling was decided on 14th Amendment grounds, with five justices holding that it violated Due Process guarantees and O’Connor holding separately that it violated Equal Protection guarantees. Naturally, Scalia, Thomas and then Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented. It should not be assumed, however, that just because Kennedy voted to decriminalize private, consensual gay sex between adults that he will vote to force gay marriage on the states.

I could be (and profoundly hope I am) wrong, but I fear that it goes against Kennedy’s nature to want to be responsible for such a sweeping decision - one that will trump “voters' rights” and cause such major social upheaval - even if the law is crystal clear. And I imagine he will be under tremendous pressure from the Chief Justice and his fellow conservatives on the Court to rule with them. He certainly has not been immune to their jurisprudent charms in the past, and we have no reason to believe he will be this time, especially on a case with such wide-ranging social consequences. It is for these reasons that I will be more than shocked if the Supreme Court reaches the legally correct decision, despite Mr. Olson’s stated - dare I say "supreme" - confidence.

Only time will tell if my pessimistic prediction proves correct. First, we have to win at the district and appellate levels (and such wins, though likely, aren’t a slam dunk), and then wait until the Supreme Court hears the case. It's going to be awhile. In the meantime, I think it would behoove us to pay close attention to the initial trials and the rationales that are used in the resulting decisions. When oral arguments are at long last heard by the Supremes, we will be on the verge of – and perhaps one single justice’s vote away from – either one of our country’s greatest civil rights victories or, like the “separate-but-equal” decision Plessy v. Ferguson, one of its most embarrassing legal stains.

Wherever one stands on the issue of gay marriage, or on the wisdom of fighting Perry v. Schwarzenegger at this time or in this venue, the wheels are in motion; the judicial train has left the station. Now all we can do is sit back and wait to see what kind of country we have: an honorable one that doesn’t just pay lip service to protecting every citizen's unassailable right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, but actually does it... or a hypocritical one that upholds the Constitution only when it doesn’t get in the way of its own petty prejudices. I sincerely hope it's the former, not just for my gay friends, but for all of us.

For good or for ill, history begins January 11th. I'm going to be a witness to it. I hope you'll join me.

One Year In

2009-11-04T19:02:00.000-08:00

On this first anniversary of the election, I thought I'd post one of my favorite blogs ever. It's just a collection of homemade videos of election night parties from cities all over America. The polls close in The West and everyone thinks CNN is going to call California for Obama... instead they call the election. Mayhem ensues. Scroll down. Click. Enjoy.

Countdown To Victory

THE PUBLIC OPTION - MY PEDANTIC PRIMER

2009-09-09T00:50:00.000-07:00

Going into tonight's big health care speech by Obama, I just need to rant for a second. Because I've found that a lot of people I speak with - even supporters of health care reform - are confused about what a "public option" is and why it needs to be "robust". So here's the skinny:

Right now, let's say you can choose from three insurers - Aetna, Kaiser Permanente and Blue Cross. Each of the three can charge whatever they want for premiums, whatever the market will bear. And the market will bear far, far more than it should, because, you know, people don't want to go bankrupt trying not to die. But these are for profit companies, and they need to please their shareholders and their boards and pay out huge bonuses and spend untold millions on marketing and political lobbying. How do they do that? By denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, refusing to pay for tests and treatments that doctors deem medically necessary, and, of course, continuing to raise premiums.

So what's a public option? It's company number four. It's the Uncle Sam Insurance Company. It would not mean free coverage. People would still pay to be covered. But because there is no profit motive - and less bullshit overhead - there is no reason to exclude people with pre-existing conditions, and denial of care won't be necessary and costs can still stay low. And anyone who tells you that it will mean "government bean counters will be making medical decisions" is just plain wrong. First of all, right now, insurance company bean counters are making medical decisions. How is that any better? And they make those decisions - usually to the patient's detriment - because they have a profit motive. Without that motive, there's no reason for bean counters to screw policy holders out of doctor recommended care.

Why does the public option need to be "robust"? Because unless the government administered insurance is nationwide and strong, it won't have the leverage and bargaining power to keep costs low and coverage fair.

So why are so many people against the "public option"? Well, the misinformed oppose it because they misunderstand it. They think it means the government dictating care to doctors - or deciding when people live or die - when it's actually just a cheaper, more effective way for people to get insurance. And since insurance companies are already making those life or death decisions, what's the difference? Why wouldn't you want an option which had less incentive to deny care?

For those who know full well what a public option is and still oppose it, it's because it threatens the one thing they hold most dear - their bloated profits (or political war chests). The very argument used to oppose the public option is the proof that it's effective. Opponents claim that the coverage will be so good, and so inexpensive, that private insurers won't be able to compete. It's hardly the truth. There will still be plenty of people who opt to stay with their private plans. And if people run in droves to the public option then it is solely because it is effective. Which means that the private insurance is ineffective. Politicians who oppose the public plan are simply protecting insurance companies from having to be effective! How exactly is that competition?

The public plan by definition won't be Cadillac Coverage - that would be untenable if costs are to remain low. Which is why private insurance companies will always have a very lucrative role. There will always be Americans willing to pay a premium for what they believe to be better coverage. Generic ketchup is cheap and accessible - and it gets the job done on your hamburger - but millions of us still buy Heinz. The brand names - in this case the major insurers - aren't going away.

A public option is not single-payer (where private insurers disappear and doctors and hospitals get to bill a single government source which then pays out all reimbursements), it's not government run health care, it's not socialized medicine, it is absolutely no different than the medicine we have now. It's simply another insurance option, one that by definition will be so cost effective and successful and popular that politicians want to kill it because it will be too cost effective and successful and popular.

AETNA is Heinz Ketchup. Kaiser is Hunts. Blue Cross is Del Monte. And the public option is the grocery store's brand. The store's ketchup is cheaper because it doesn't have the marketing expenditures and corporate bonuses that the other brands have. And plenty of people buy it because they have to save money wherever they can but still desperately need their condiments. Regardless, most Americans still buy the brand names and Heinz, Hunt and Del Monte thrive. And just because the store itself also owns the generic brand, and can use the product as a loss leader, giving it an "unfair advantage", those are the rules of the marketplace and we all take them for granted. Maybe it even forces the big guys to lower the price of ketchup in a way they could have collectively avoided before. Nobody is rioting in the streets over this. It's how business works. At the end of the day, we all manage to get the ketchup that works for us and plenty of money is made, and God bless us everyone.

So what's the big fuckin' deal? Private insurers might be forced by a public option to lower premiums and increase coverage and stop denying care to make a buck? Bonuses might be pared down, you say, to allow for this? It may make their absurd profits merely ridiculous? Am I demonizing the insurance industry? You bet your ass I am.

It is the job of the American government to protect the American people, not to use all the power at its disposal to protect a specific industry from having to adapt or die. A public option is merely one more choice in a menu of choices. Why shouldn't we all have the opportunity to pay less and get decent coverage? Why is protecting the insurers from irrelevance more important than protecting American consumers from being forced to overpay for a shitty product? Why is it so terrible and un-American to keep them honest?

If Blue Cross decided on its own to unilaterally drop prices and increase coverage and never turn anyone down, would those against the public option scream that Blue Cross was unfairly forcing the other two companies to compete with it? Would Blue Dogs and the GOP ask the government to intervene and force Blue Cross to re-raise their prices and water down their coverage to meet what Aetna and Kaiser were doing? It's absurd on its face, but that's what opposition to the public option is: rage at the idea that private insurance would have to negotiate deals as effectively as a supposedly ineffective government. Are we really trying to protect the industry's unfettered right to collude against us?

So for the record, any so-called health reform without a public option is no reform at all. It is merely a reinforcing of the health insurance oligarchy and it ensures less choice, not more, and more "take it or leave it" behavior from the few companies that monopolize the industry; lets 'em gouge with impunity. I am not anti-business or anti-profits. I am, however, against profits, particularly grotesque profits, when they are earned by harming consumers and not giving them the quality product that they paid for... especially when there is then no recourse. Jump to one of the competitors, you say? They've all agreed to behave the same way. Only a public plan would have the teeth to be a truly viable alternative; would afford you the opportunity to give the insurance company you want to punish a big "fuck you". Only a public option would have the ability to force the monoliths to change their ways and behave like good corporate citizens. They ain't gonna do it on moral grounds (you hear me, Evangelicals?), or principle, so what else is going to motivate them?

Single-payer does away with private insurance altogether. And although I think that would be terrific, that's not what a public option does in any way, shape or form. It's just another insurance company... one that's less expensive, more effective and, because profits are not an issue, one that allows decisions about care to be made by doctors and not bean counters looking for any way to screw you out of coverage. After all, you can't really claim out of one side of the mouth that Obama is for unlimited, profligate spending and then claim out of the other that he wants a bureaucrat to kill grandma so he can save a few bucks.

And as a little coda: I'm not one who goes around suggesting that people flout the law. Far from it. I pay my taxes accurately and on time and I don't even itemize although I'd probably save money. But if legislation is passed - as is currently being contemplated - requiring that all Americans buy some kind of insurance or pay a tax penalty, but a public plan is not one of the options we are allowed choose from, not only will I refuse to buy the insurance (because I will not allow the government to force me to enrich a private company under penalty of law) but I won't pay the tax penalty either. Let 'em throw me in jail. At least in there I'll be able to see a doctor for free.

Said It Before, Will Say It Again

2009-02-16T13:48:00.001-08:00

Roland Burris is a disgrace. He is not only a buffoon, he's also a liar. I have no love lost for most politicians, but having a joke like Burris in the Senate is a true embarrassment for the Democrats.

Burris is one of the most blatantly, transparently power hungry politicians I have seen in quite some time - it's kind of breathtaking actually - and I imagine he would have been very comfortable in a Banana Republic or some Third World dictatorship. He is smug, maniacal (ego and megalo) and obnoxiously coy; he may even be a tad delusional. But although he's a comical figure worthy of mockery and derision, he's also dangerous, the kind of guy who puts his own political ambition ahead of human life: while running for Illinois governor from his post as state attorney general, he is alleged to have continued to pursue the execution of a demonstrably innocent man. His own deputy resigned her job in protest.

It's no surprise that Republicans are pouncing on reports that Burris may have perjured himself in his testimony to Congress and are now calling on him to resign. Well, it's not just Republicans - you can add my voice to that same list. Burris is execrable and he has got to go.

The U.S. Senate is already a circus, the last thing it needs is another crazy clown.

HOW IS THE STIMULUS PACKAGE LIKE THE INVASION OF IRAQ?

2009-02-10T03:17:00.000-08:00

When Resident Bush was told by military experts that the size of the fighting force he was sending to Iraq was too small - that he needed more troops if he wanted to wage his war effectively - they were dismissed, in some cases quite literally. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki - now Obama's Secretary of Veterans Affairs - was fired after he warned the administration that it would need hundreds of thousands of troops in order to be successful. It was only later, when Bush belatedly called for his "surge" and it began to bear fruit, that Gen. Shinseki was vindicated.

The uber-competent Barack Obama wants to wage his war against this devastating recession effectively, so he is listening to economic experts - and he is taking their considered advice to heart. To a person, and from both sides of the liberal/conservative divide - those whose job it is to understand economics (and I certainly don't mean senators or congressional representatives) are telling him that any stimulus meant to jolt this woeful economy - the "financial fighting force" he must send if you will - must be enormous if it is to be effective. And as Obama himself noted in his first prime time press conference, these economists include former advisors to John McCain and both Bushes.

Now, judging by his current posturing in the Senate, a President McCain might very well have ignored or fired such advisors and opted instead for a too small, tax cut laden stimulus that fit into his rigid political world-view but would have had catastrophic effects; later, after things went to Hell in a handbasket - he'd have needed an additional "surge" in order to get things working properly. And if past is prologue, we can assume that McCain would've then crowed about the success of the surge, hoping that everyone would forget his initial opposition to funding things properly from the get go.

Well unlike his inept predecessor, or his erstwhile opponent, President Obama is actually taking the experts' advice and making a good faith effort to do things right, right out of the gate, even though it's not an easy sell. While tiresome GOP politicians are, no shock, screaming that we're spending too much - and trying to score cheap political points - world class economists of all stripes have made it abundantly clear: the stimulus must be massive if it's going to work. Obama has listened and, unlike the arrogant, willfully ignorant former president, has no intention of second guessing the educated and the expert, despite the potential political consequences if a package of that scope were to fail. We can disagree about the specifics of the package itself, but any way you slice it, President Obama is, blissfully, a serious man for serious times.

Now it's entirely possible that the stimulus is, in fact (believe it or not), too small, or that specific items in the package won't work as intended, so that further monies will be needed down the road to keep the economy afloat. But the odds of that necessity have been reduced drastically because we finally have a president who gets sound advice from people who know their business and doesn't dismiss it out of hand because it gets in the way of his pre-conceived notions or plans. A president, in short, who wants to get it right the first time.

So let's just beat the crap out of the horse, despite the fact that rigor mortis has long since set in: had George Bush listened to the experts who warned him that he needed a huge initial "expenditure" of "troop capital" in order to be successful in Iraq, the subsequent surge wouldn't have been necessary and a lot of pain, heartache and devastation would've been avoided. Instead, Bush fired those experts and bulldozed ahead with his woefully inadequate, poorly thought out, but more politically palatable plan. The consequences were dire.

Thank God that in this time of global economic crisis we have a thoughtful, sober president like Barack Obama at the helm, one who puts sound policy before political ideology or gamesmanship. As Obama himself said, the last thing he wanted for his presidency was to have to come in and spend close to a trillion dollars we don't have. But rather than offer a more easy-to-swallow package at half the price (as the increasingly unserious McCain put forth) only to watch it fail spectacularly, spawning the inevitable public mea culpa and then a scramble to clean up the attendant (but avoidable) mess, we have a chief executive who believes that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right - and he's not shooting the highly knowledgeable messengers who have told him in no uncertain terms how it needs to be done.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO WERE PISSED ABOUT RICK WARREN

2009-02-03T23:11:00.000-08:00

For those of us who were legitimately irritated by Obama's choice of noted, bloated bigot Rick Warren to do the inaugural invocation, it is important for us to give a shout out to the administration today for something truly admirable. Obama's Justice Department has re-hired Leslie Hagen, fired by Alberto Gonzalez when rumors of her lesbianism reached his desk.

From NPR:

"NPR first broke the story of Leslie Hagen's dismissal last April, and the Justice Department's inspector general later corroborated the report. Now, Hagen has returned to her post at the department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. In 2006, Hagen was the liaison between the main Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys' committee on Native American affairs. The chairman of that committee, Tom Heffelfinger, described Hagen to NPR last year as "the best qualified person in the nation to fill that job." Hagen's performance evaluations had the highest possible ratings — "outstanding" in each of five categories. The job came up for renewal every year. After the first year, Hagen was surprised to hear that she would have to move on.

As NPR reported in April, a top aide to the attorney general had heard a rumor that Hagen was a lesbian. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is against Justice Department rules. But Monica Goodling, senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, had Hagen removed from her job anyway.

That was more than a year ago. The inspector general eventually confirmed the NPR report and added new details, saying Goodling not only ousted Hagen but also blocked Hagen from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.

The paperwork makes it official as of Monday, Feb. 2. Hagen now has her old position back, but this time it's a little different. Her contract no longer comes up for renewal every year. Now, the job is permanent".

So Rick Warren got his insipid minute or two in the national spotlight - something symbolic and ultimately meaningless - while the administration's Hagen hire is truly substantive. If this is how the Obama administration actually ends up treating the LGBT community, judging potential hires solely based on their abilities (except maybe their ability to pay their taxes), it will prove once and for all that actions speak louder than words.

Here's To Lilly Ledbetter

2009-01-28T17:41:00.000-08:00

Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration have done something terrific that couldn't get done in the 110th Congress and it will likely fly beneath the radar because of all the stimulus talk. They passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which had been languishing ever since Republicans defeated it the last time it came up for a vote in 2007.

All the measure does is give workers filing equal-pay lawsuits more time in which in to file their claims. It is named for Lilly Ledbetter, a longtime employee of Goodyear, who had a clear, demonstrably valid case for pay discrimination overturned by the Hell-bound majority of the Supreme Court - I'm talkin' to you, Antonin - not on the merits, mind you, but because her claim wasn't filed within 180 days of when she first accepted an offending paycheck.

That's right... as far as the Court and Congressional Republicans are concerned, if you're a woman who discovers that all the men in your company get paid more than you for the exact same job, it doesn't matter that you can objectively prove discrimination, or that it may take you some time to actually discover that your pay is different; if you don't file within six months of the first discriminatory paycheck, you shouldn't be able to seek a judicial redress of your grievance. (Don't be too shocked. This is the same Court majority, after all, who invoked the Equal Protection Clause to appoint that poor discriminated against minority George W. Bush to the presidency).

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act renews that six month statute of limitations with every discriminatory paycheck, and rightfully so. The Court's terrible ruling actually gave employers impetus to be secretive, rewarding them if they managed to keep paycheck disparity secret for a mere six months. Passing this act was such a no-brainer that it's hard to fathom that with the exception of Arlen Specter, every male GOP Senator voted against it this week (all four GOP women voted for its passage, as did every Democratic Senator who was available. Sadly, Ted Kennedy, a longtime champion of the bill, was too ill to cast his vote).

Republicans supposedly opposed the bill largely because it would "contribute to frivolous lawsuits". This disingenuous position begs two simple responses:

a) Why is the need to fight frivolous lawsuits more important than fighting discrimination?

b) If a lawsuit is frivolous... it gets tossed out on the merits. If a lawsuit is frivolous... the plaintiff loses.

So what are they afraid of? This bill doesn't guarantee plaintiffs a positive outcome, it simply gives them a fair amount of time to discover any discrepancy and seek to right a grave wrong. Period. Those with valid cases will win, those with weak cases will lose. This is how the system is supposed to work and elected officials shouldn't be in the business of throwing up obstacles to the average American seeking justice. But for some truly confounding reason, Republicans think that employers need all the defending and that American workers are the enemy.

Many of the very same Republican senators who voted against this measure are the ones running around screaming that Jesus is their idol, yet they never once seem to lift a legislative finger to help the least among us. Well American workers suffering from blatant pay inequity based solely on their sex are clearly among those in our society who need the most vocal champions. But this has always been the GOP strategy... convince "average folks" that you are for them, while actually doing everything in your power to protect entrenched power and corporate interests.

The Democrats supported this bill, the Democrats passed it, and a Democrat will sign it into law. This could easily have been done in the last Congress and been a positive, bi-partisan bill for Bush to sign into law, but it didn't get done. Something tells me that nobody will remember this come election time when some jackass Republican who voted against it is throwing a bowling ball on the campaign trail and bragging about how he's just a regular guy who believes in straight talk and fairness for the average folks who are gettin' the shaft.

Then again, this is the same party that thinks all you have to do to appeal to women is pick an asshole like Sarah Palin to run for office; actually fighting for policies that make life better for average, hard working women? Well clearly, that's just crazy talk.

This is why majorities matter, why who gets to set the agenda matters, why who has the presidency matters. Legislation like this clearly shows that the two parties are not the same. Not every bit of legislation is as dramatic as an $825 billion stimulus. Other legislative priorities are moving forward which should make us all thrilled that the Democrats are once again in charge; and we shouldn't forget to pay attention to the small, incremental changes like this one that simply make America a more perfect union.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is truly a victory for women and for workers, and it was brought to you by Congressional Democrats and Barack Obama's pen.

In Defense of Lobbyists

2009-01-22T18:08:00.000-08:00

I'm getting sick and tired of listening to people criticize Washington "lobbyists" as the root of all evil. I dare say a vast majority of these critics don't even have a working understanding of what a lobbyist is or does. It reminds me of the constant demagogic pummeling "trial lawyers" got from the Bush administration, as if representing injured plaintiffs in tort cases is somehow inherently less moral than defending corporate interests.

So what exactly is a lobbyist? A lobbyist is simply a person - usually an expert in his or her field - hired to try and influence legislation on behalf of a "special interest" - another nebulous term meant to scare and/or outrage you. Except that everyone has a different definition of "special interest". While a Democrat might be outraged that some heavy industry is trying to weaken environmental controls, a Republican might be furious that an anti-crime group is urging Congress to pass tougher gun laws. Interests are interests are interests. Calling an interest "special" is just a way for your opposition to marginalize your cause. It's not unlike when bigots refer to gay rights activists as wanting "special" rights when in fact all they are asking for is "equal" rights. The idea of a "special" interest goes against our collective idea of fair play, but in reality we are simply talking about specific causes, many of them valid.

So a "special interest group" is not unlike a union: one worker has little power; a band of workers has much greater leverage and collective bargaining ability. And since one person may not have much political influence, banding together as a group to collectively try and influence the political process is not in and of itself a bad thing. Further, lobbyists are often an important part of pinpointing issues for legislators to look at and then educating them and their staffs on the subject.

How a lobbyist goes about winning that influence? Well, that's what we're really objecting to. Especially if there is some sort of financial quid pro quo. But objecting to the sickening influence of money in the political process is not the same as objecting to lobbying, per se, and we should not mistake the issue by targeting lobbyists for extinction.

The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people... to petition the Government for redress of grievances" (this right actually dates back to the Magna Carta, except that we were dealing not with congresses but with kings). This is, in essence, what a lobbyist does. On behalf of whatever group is hiring her, a lobbyist petitions the government, often attempting to influence agendas, votes or specific legislation. Want a civil rights expert with Washington contacts to appeal for more protections for the LGBT community and educate lawmakers on gay rights issues? Hire a lobbyist. Determined to buy your manufacturing plant more time to clean up its toxic waste? Hire a lobbyist.

You too have the right to petition your government for redress. Will it listen to you? Give you access? Pay attention to you? Not bloody likely. That's the real problem. The real problem is that most of us can't afford access and therefore will not to be taken seriously. Lobbyists per se aren't to blame, they're just doing their jobs. The real bad actors here are the politicians, congressional staffs and administration officials who won't grant access to individuals. But then again, can you blame them? There are a lot of nuts out there - just read the user comments on your typical political blog, left or right. Government officials have to have a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Are you more likely to take a meeting with an articulate, well prepared expert who's representing a vast group of people or the crazy guy who keeps calling your executive aide screaming about socialism?

Yes, of course, there is potential for abuse and corruption in the lobbying process - we see it all the time - but there's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Lobbyists are formally registered and have to file reports twice a year about the contacts they've made. There are protections and regulations in place. Now it's possible that those protections are woefully insufficient. But any attempt to limit lobbyists' influence should be done only as it relates to unethical or illegal behavior. And most of that illegal behavior is ultimately the fault not of the lobbyist, but of the elected official who is swayed by it. I suppose the argument boils down to who you believe is more responsible - the guy who offers the bribe... or the recipient who doesn't immediately reject it out of hand. I don't blame Monica Lewinsky for showing the President her thong as much as I blame Bill Clinton for not grabbing her by the lapels and angrily tossing her out of the Oval. And that defense contractor who allegedly bought Duke Cunningham's house in exchange for millions of dollars in defense contracts would have received bupkes had Cunningham not been seduced by the offer. If it were not for the complicity of those with the power, we'd only talking about attempted crimes.

So lobbyists are not really the problem... corruption is the problem. And, to the best of our ability, we should root out and fight corruption wherever we find it. And if transparency plus reasonable restrictions and regulations regarding lobbying help us do that, then fine (and to the extent that the Obama administration is trying to voluntarily, prophylactically fight corruption by limiting lobbyists from serving in administration jobs, I mostly applaud it - but I'm glad they've allowed themselves waivers as an out clause). But let's not forget that pesky little First Amendment. And just as a terrorist attack doesn't justify us shredding the Constitution, neither does political corruption justify mindlessly smearing and scapegoating an entire industry of often well meaning activists who are simply exercising their Constitutional right to petition their government.

If your congressman, senator or president is unduly allowing lobbyists to influence official decisions - especially for illegal gain - or if they only allow access to the lobbyists who contribute the most money, or the ones who shower them with gifts and favors, then by all means fire them. You can do that in the voting booth. If laws have been broken, they should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Corrupt lobbyists and politicians are no doubt scum and everything we can legally do to end the egregious influence of money and corporate power in the political process, we should. And when an administration as ethically bankrupt as the Bush-Cheney crowd literally allows the lobbyists and massive financial contributors to write the laws, we should scream bloody murder. But don't pretend that, across the board, the words "lobbyist" and "corruption" are interchangeable.

Hating all lobbyists is like hating all lawyers or hating all unions, even if they serve a valuable purpose. It's mindless and ignorant - but it's convenient and great for scoring cheap political points.

Burris & Rush: The Worst People In The World

2009-01-01T16:27:00.000-08:00

Roland Burris and Bobby Rush are clowns. They are a disgrace to their state, this country and to the civil rights movement. Leaving aside the issue of whether Burris is a man of integrity who deserves to be in the U.S. Senate (he isn't), the fact that these men would inject race into an issue which clearly has nothing to do with race is disgusting. Rush equated those of us who oppose Burris' appointment by Blagojevich to - I'm not kidding - segregationist George Wallace. As if anyone who opposes any candidate of color, for any reason whatsoever, and under any circumstances, is an unreconstructed racist. What a lowlife, piece of shit of a human being. To dishonor those who spent their lives truly fighting for civil rights by making a mockery of the "racist" accusation, by utilizing it for purely political demagoguery, ought to consign Rush and Burris to the Seventh Circle of Political Hell. I hope this backfires, that these men are roundly condemned and openly mocked, and that they are never again taken seriously by anybody, for any reason.

Shame on Bobby Rush. Any good work he has done in his life is massively undermined by his shockingly vile and disingenuous maneuverings in this case.

Blago's Pick Sought Death Penalty For Innocent Man

2008-12-31T17:02:00.000-08:00

From propublica.org:

Former Illinois attorney general Roland Burris, embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s pick to replace Barack Obama in the Senate, is no stranger to controversy.

Public fury over the governor’s alleged misconduct has masked the once lively debate over Burris' decision to continue to prosecute – despite the objections of one of his top prosecutors – the wrong man for a high-profile murder case.

While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.

But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris’ own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.

Burris refused. He was running for governor.

"Anybody who understood this case wouldn’t have voted for Burris," Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, told ProPublica. Indeed, Burris lost that race, and two other attempts to become governor.

Burris’ role in the Cruz case was "indefensible and in defiance of common sense and common decency," Warden said. "There was obvious evidence that [Cruz] was innocent."

Deputy attorney general Mary Brigid Kenney agreed, and eventually resigned rather than continue to prosecute Cruz.

Once Burris assigned Kenney to the case in 1991, she became convinced that Cruz was innocent, a victim of what she believed was prosecutorial misconduct. She sent Burris a memo reporting that the jury convicted Cruz without knowing that Brian Dugan, a repeat sex offender and murderer, had confessed to the crime. Burris never met with Kenney to discuss a new trial for Cruz, Kenney told ProPublica.

"This is something the attorney general should have been concerned about," Kenney, now an assistant public guardian in Cook County, said in an interview. "I knew the prosecutor’s job was not merely to secure conviction but to ensure justice was done."

Kenney was not alone in her beliefs. Prior to Cruz’ 1985 trial, the lead detective in the case resigned in protest over prosecutors' handling of the case, according to news reports at the time.

And rather than argue Burris’ case before the state supreme court, Kenney also stepped down.

"What I took away was that [Burris] wasn’t going to do anything to seem soft on crime," Kenney said. "He didn’t have the guts."

In her resignation letter, Kenney claimed Burris had "seen fit to ignore the evidence in this case."

"I cannot sit idly by as this office continues to pursue the unjust prosecution of Rolando Cruz," she wrote. "I realized that I was being asked to help execute an innocent man."

Burris' response at the time: "It is not for me to place my judgment over a jury, regardless of what I think." (We have also left a message for Burris at his office and will post an update if we hear back.)

State prosecutors carried on with the prosecution, even after DNA evidence in 1995 excluded Cruz as the victim's rapist and linked somebody else—sex offender Brian Dugan–to the crime.

Eventually, prosecutors’ case hit a wall. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed Cruz's conviction and granted him a third trial. (The court declared that the trial judge in the case had improperly excluded Dugan’s confession, and thus compromised Cruz's defense.) In the new trial, Cruz was acquitted. The judge in that case concluded, "I'd hope and pray the person or persons - whoever is culpable - is brought to justice."

In late 1995, Cruz finally walked free after serving 11 years on death row for a crime he did not commit.

A grand jury later indicted four sheriff's deputies and three former county prosecutors for their roles in the Cruz case. They were eventually acquitted. Burris was never accused of any wrongdoing or misconduct. Dugan is scheduled to stand trial for the crime next year, 26 years after it was committed.

My New Career

2008-12-09T16:48:00.000-08:00

I'm considering a new career as a conservative columnist because it seems like they'll take almost any idiot seriously, no matter how stunningly specious, dishearteningly disingenuous, dangerously dishonest or downright dumb. And, yes, I'm talking about you Bill Kristol. Not just you, of course... but certainly you.

Lesson For All You Dicks Out There

2008-12-05T14:04:00.000-08:00

Someone should tell Dick Cheney that this is how you behave when you have nothing to hide. Oh, and also when you have a genuine respect for democracy.

Boy Does Howard Dean Not Get it

2008-11-18T15:18:00.000-08:00

DNC Chair Howard Dean welcomed the decision to keep Senator Joseph Lieberman as head of the Homeland Security Committee and, consequently, in the Democratic Caucus, saying the move was pragmatic, magnanimous and politically shrewd.

"You know, the desire of revenge is great, of course. But the truth is public policy doesn't run on revenge very well," he said. "And when you see the trouble this country has gotten into in terms of foreign policy, where Bush basically ran a foreign policy based on petulance because he was mad at, for example, Mexico, for abstaining on the Security Council when the Iraq War came up, if you have to actually run the country, it is best not to do it based on feeling of anger towards your enemies."

Note to Howard: It's not, and never has been, about revenge. The whole point is, the Bush foreign policy that Dean is bashing is the one that Lieberman has been vigorously defending. America voted for a new approach and Lieberman hardly represents that approach - in fact he has railed against it and labeled it "dangerous". His betrayal of the Party aside, he has been a shitty chairman with the wrong priorities and the wrong views.

Mr. Dean, how wrongheaded exactly does a caucus member have to be to lose a chairmanship? Do seniority and collegiality trump all other substantive considerations? Because the backroom, boy's club mentality is most certainly not what the American people voted for in this election, even if it is in this case cloaked in self-aggrandizing magnanimity.

It is also completely insulting, irresponsible, and obnoxiously presumptuous to characterize thoughtful, reasoned opposition to Sen. Lieberman's committee chairmanship - of which I have heard much - as being motivated by "revenge". Speak for yourself, dickhole.

Dickhole? Was that necessary? I'm clearly not as magnanimous and collegial as the Democratic caucus.

My Email To Democratic Senators

2008-11-17T13:36:00.000-08:00

November 17, 2008

Dear Senator _____________:

When voting on Joe Lieberman's fate tomorrow, please ask yourself: "Has he truly been an effective chairman? Do his now stated values and priorities mesh with those of the Party and the incoming administration?" I personally believe the answer to all those questions is a resounding no. Forget retribution, Lieberman should be stripped of his gavel on the merits. It is absurd to accept that Democrats must continue to give the chairmanship of an important committee to someone who worked tirelessly to defeat them and their policies in a national election. It certainly doesn't help his cause that he dishonored himself by using innuendo and smears, but the over-arching point is, he thinks the Party is wrong - even "dangerous" - and clearly has a belief system more in synch with the opposition. If he wants to bolt the caucus, let him. He's only staying for the chairmanship anyway; he obviously doesn't care about the good of the Party and he certainly doesn't share our vision of the country going forward; he made that abundantly clear on the stump for McCain, where he fought that vision every step of the way.

Please don't be fooled into letting Lieberman stay on in some symbolic gesture of good faith or healing. Yes, the Senate is a collegial body, but putting an important committee in the hands of someone so utterly myopic, petty and, above all, wrong, is not doing the American people any favors, however magnanimous it may seem on the surface. If this election has shown anything, it's that the American people are craving competence, forward-thinking change and, at long last, a sensible, sober, diplomatic foreign policy agenda. Joe Lieberman represents none of these things.

He proved to the good people of Connecticut that they were foolish to re-elect him as an independent who would keep Bush honest; let's not let him make fools out of the Democratic caucus as well.

60 Seats, 60 Schmeats

2008-11-17T12:43:00.000-08:00

This meme about the importance of a 60 seat majority in the Senate has to stop going unchallenged. Just having 60 Democrats does not give us a "filibuster proof majority". For that to be the case, all 60 would have to be in lockstep every time there was a motion for cloture. Considering that there are Democratic Senators in red states who have their own political realities and/or actual philosophies to face (see Nelson, Ben or, formerly, Miller, Zell) that would be nearly impossible. By the same token, it's possible that even at 58 or 59, a Republican Senator or two from a blue state could be counted on for cloture, but only on occasion (and that would still mean holding on to all Dems).

Having 70 Democrats in the Senate would likely be a filibuster proof majority, because you could probably always count on ten of the surplus to vote to end debate. But just getting to exactly 60? Needing every single Democratic senator to stay in line with no defections? It's not only absurd, this whole "60 is critical" argument, but it keeps getting repeated in the media and blogosphere as if it were sort of Gospel truth.

McCain's Mistake = Party's Future?

2008-11-15T12:31:00.001-08:00

What's truly amazing about the soul-searching the GOP is now doing in the wake of its electoral drubbing, is this Hamlet like dithering over whether or not Sarah Palin should now be the de facto leader of the party. I guess I shouldn't be too shocked at how absurd that is. It must be hard to search a soul you don't have.

Think about it. Palin's only on the national stage because a losing candidate picked her. End of story. Are they really going to let Team McCain's knee jerk whim dictate where they now go?

Had McCain not chosen her, Palin would still be an obscure governor known to only the politically nerdy and the most passionate partisans in the Evangelical wing of the party. Oh, sure, her name would pop up from time to time in Time, in some article about "the country's most popular governors" and that would be just about that. (Meanwhile, there are seven people in Alaska. If five of them like you, I guess you have, like, a 70% popularity rating). But McCain jettisoned objectively qualified candidates such as Romney and Ridge - I'm talking skill set, not ideology - and, bowing to pressure from aides who felt the need to throw some red meat to the base and shake up the race, chose the woefully unprepared Palin.

That's the story in a nutshell - a desperate, flailing, erratic candidate makes a knee-jerk decision against his own better instincts. Despite initial enthusiasm, it proves to be catastrophic. The pick is widely considered to have been cynical and, above all, terribly irresponsible, driving away even longtime principled conservative intellectuals. The press, of course, goes nuts for the narrative because the governor and her family seem born to be on reality television. The media can't seem to get enough of this telegenic "hockey mom" and her every syntactically challenged utterance. And that's why she should now be seriously considered as a potential party leader?

Look, it's entirely possible that the GOP needs a "rock star" but lest we forget, Jim Morrison was a rock star and he died obese in a bathtub in Paris, lying in a pool of his own vomit. U2's Bono is a rock star but so is that drummer from Guns 'n Roses who ended up on "Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew". It has to be the right kind of rock star (Obama fit that bill for the Democrats quite nicely wouldn't you say?), one with a massively popular agenda to go with the celebrity, and not just a potential train wreck who sucks up media oxygen and draws crowds.

Choosing someone to be your new leader shouldn't come from the political equivalent of drawing straws, which is essentially what McCain did. There was certainly no real thought put into it (other than the most superficially strategic) and nobody but the most Testament-obsessed could claim that she was more qualified to step in as president than any other name on McCain's short list - or even long list. So consider those names. Why isn't Pawlenty the new leader? Or Romney? Or Thune? Or Huckabee? Or Jindal? Well, maybe one will be, dithering be damned.

Regardless, the idea that Palin should stay on the national stage even though she was only brought there in desperation by a candidate nobody could get excited about is beyond asinine. Republicans love to attack McCain for all his myriad mistakes and heresies. So why even consider giving his last major mistake - maybe even his defining one - such a lasting impact on the party? Because if Palin does, God forbid, have some future in national politics, we will all have that fierce ol' independent minded maverick John McCain to blame. And for a guy who used to delight in bucking the far right wing of his party, what a tragic irony that will be.

Allow me finish with a cute but apt little analogy: on August 19th, 1951, Major League Baseball's St. Louis Browns signed a player named Eddie Gaedel. Not unlike Ms. Palin, Eddie was not ready for the big leagues. You see, he was only 3'4" tall. Regardless, he was signed by Browns owner Bill Veeck as a publicity stunt and, also not unlike Ms. Palin, was strictly controlled by his new boss. He was told, in no uncertain terms, to wear the uniform and stand at the plate - but for the love of God, don't swing. Luckily for The Browns, Eddie didn't "go rogue". Although he hinted that he might be tempted to swing at a pitch, he kept the bat on his shoulder, looked at four straight balls, and was issued, as Ms. Palin initially was, a free pass. The die-hard fans, as you might imagine, went wild. But as excited as that walk may have briefly made the crowd, the Tigers kept their focus, Gaedel's base running surrogate was stranded on third, and the Browns still went on to lose that game by a 6-2 landslide. Let history show: the Browns had the temporary, manufactured moment that quickly brought the stadium to its feet; the Tigers just played better baseball and won.

The GOP should take note. Publicity stunts will only get you so far and despite the success of getting him on base, and the deafening cheers that accompanied his 90 foot walk, nobody dared to suggest that Eddie Gaedel was the new future of baseball. In fact, they threw him out.

Vindication

2008-11-15T11:37:00.000-08:00

This video compilation is brilliant and well worth watching the whole thing.

Peter Schiff, the president of Euro Capital, has been warning of the financial meltdown for the past two years... and the hyenas on Fox News mocked him for it. Every single thing he's been saying turned out to be prophetic - and they literally laughed in his face.

Jesus himself could come back and speak truth to these douchebags, and he'd be run out of town on a Rupert Murdoch-owned rail.

A Simple Explanation of Marriage

2008-11-07T02:23:00.000-08:00

Contrary to popular misconception, there is not one societal institution called “marriage”. There are actually two: one is religious and the other is civil. A religious marriage is between you and your higher power; a civil marriage is between you and your government.

Let’s assume for the moment that you are a Catholic. You can go down to City Hall and get hitched, but the Church would not recognize it or consider you to be married as far as God is concerned. Barring that religious ceremony, you would still be living in sin, despite being legally married and enjoying all the privileges the state provides to those who have entered in such a union. Similarly, your parish priest could marry you in an endless ceremony involving kneelers and incense and votive candles, and you would then be married in the eyes of God. But unless you secured a marriage license first and returned it fully filled out to the county clerk’s office, you would only be married in the eyes of God. And while that may keep you from burning in hellfire, you would not be entitled to any of the legal benefits of marriage in your state.

So there you have it: two completely different types of marriage. The only way in which they coincide is that the government has been kind enough to legally recognize marriages performed by clergy (as long as the appropriate paperwork and filing fees accompany it), allowing couples to kill two proverbial birds with one proverbial stone. That, however, is the only way in which the two types of marriage overlap.

A religious marriage, among other things, allows you to have sexual relations with your spouse without incurring the wrath of God. It is, in theory, supposed to last until death you do part, but as we all know, that is one part of the “sanctity of marriage” that many of its most ardent defenders choose to ignore. A civil marriage, on the other hand, guarantees nothing in the afterlife. It does, however, grant the married couple tax breaks, joint ownership of property and assets, inheritance rights, next-of-kin and medical decision rights, and Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits, among others. This is just the tip of the iceberg: there are actually 1,400 legal rights conferred upon married couples living in the United States. Most of these benefits cannot be secured by entering into a mutual contract. The upshot: denying a couple the right to a civil marriage means denying them these benefits. Many opponents of same sex marriage like to claim that gays and lesbians already enjoy the right to enter into a civil union. Unlike a legal marriage, however, employers and insurers, for example, are not required to recognize a civil union – conferring rights becomes an option and not a requirement.

The United States of America may have a predominantly religious populace, but it is officially a secular nation. We enjoy a separation between Church and State; in fact, this separation - thank you, Thomas Jefferson - is one of the main precepts upon which this country was founded. Our fore-parents were fleeing from the tyranny of the Church of England and wanted to form a nation of civil laws completely separate from God’s law. Every citizen has the right to Freedom of Religion – but also to freedom from religion. In America, nobody has the right to impose his or her religion on anyone else.

So despite what Prop 8’s proponents would have you believe, the issue of same sex marriage has nothing to do with religion. Just as the Catholic Church (or Mormon Church or Lutheran Church or your local mosque or synagogue) is free to not recognize my marriage, they are free to not recognize any marriage, gay or straight. The claim that churches will lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform gay marriages is a patently false one. Gay marriage was legal in California prior to Proposition 8’s passage and no church lost anything. It makes for a great scare tactic, but there is not one iota of truth in it. Ask yourself: is the church required to marry you? If not, then it follows they are not required to marry anyone.

So now that we’ve established that state conferred marriage rights have nothing to do with religion, we are left with civil marriage. Civil marriage is the only issue on the table in the same-sex marriage conversation. This is where the Constitution becomes involved. The federal Constitution has an Equal Protection Clause, part of the 14th Amendment. The EPC states that “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and it empowers the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states. So every time that a politician or activist screams that “judges are imposing their will on the people” when they overturn a law or ballot measure on constitutional grounds, they are being intentionally dishonest: all the judges are doing is interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. Attacking the judiciary may make for good politics, but the judges are merely doing their job. We have three branches of government, we have checks and balances, it’s how the nation was designed.

Because of the Equal Protection Clause, no state may grant protection and benefits to any citizen that they do not grant to all citizens. Segregation was once considered legal under the concept that blacks and whites were kept separate, but treated equally. This despicable “separate but equal” doctrine was overturned by the U.S. States Supreme Court in the landmark case Brown v. The Board of Education. Today, opponents of same sex marriage want to bring back the unconstitutional concept of “separate but equal” by advocating that heterosexuals be granted civil “marriages”, while same sex partners be granted civil “unions” – separate but theoretically equal. Putting aside the fact that any such arrangement would not pass constitutional muster, civil unions are hardly equal anyway, in that they do not provide all of the rights, benefits and protections of marriage. The good news for opponents of same sex marriage is that the Equal Protection Clause limits only the powers of the government and not those of private parties. Again, this means that churches, synagogues and mosques can choose on their own whether or not to perform or recognize any marriage, while the state may not.

Now I’m no lawyer, but it really does seem to me to be that simple. Legally and constitutionally speaking, as I see it, the government has two options: grant no couple marital rights and protections or grant any couple who wants it those same rights and protections. There really is no wiggle room. Either get out of the marriage game altogether, and let religious marriage be the only game in town… or abide by the Equal Protection Clause.

In America’s not so distant past, whites and blacks could not intermarry in some states, and these anti-miscegenation laws were not overturned until 1967. You heard me – 1967. In the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, wherein these laws were declared unconstitutional, the Court cited – you guessed it – the Equal Protection Clause. Well, just as the states no longer have the right to refuse marriage rights to interracial couples, they similarly have no right to deny them to same sex couples, on the exact same legal grounds.

Proposition 8 passed by a simple majority of voters and it would amend California’s Constitution to eliminate the rights of same sex couples to marry. This is a clear violation of the federal Constitution, which, as I've written, prevents any state from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Proposition 8 is, by definition, federally unconstitutional and will likely end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, challenged on Equal Protection grounds. If past is prologue (and the Court is big on precedent), the Supremes will have a hard time upholding a ballot measure so clearly in violation of the 14th amendment. But we shouldn’t be too sanguine about our chances, because as evidenced by the loathsome decision handed down by the Court in Bush v. Gore, the court has shown itself willing to make decisions that go against every legal precedent it has previous held when it feels like putting politics first. Were they to reject so clear a 14th Amendment violation in this case, it would be a true stain on the nation.

Regardless, the next time someone tries to tell you that a ban on same sex marriage is about religion, or free speech, or the protection of children, don’t believe it for one second. That’s politics, not policy. Religious marriage, although sadly much discussed in this case, is not relevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, opponents of gay marriage will continue to cloud the issue with a myriad of attacks that are wholly irrelevant and appeal solely to emotions or religious preferences; arguments by which they attempt to give their own deeply held personal beliefs or biases the power of law. And while I understand they may personally be repulsed by the idea of same sex marriage - and fear a nation that tolerates it - there were plenty of Americans who were equally repulsed by the idea of interracial marriage; of women’s suffrage; of giving African-American slaves full citizenship. This is precisely why we have a constitution – and a judiciary to enforce it - and don’t interpret our laws based on the whims of the populace.

Once again, for the cheap seats: religious marriage will continue to be what it is and always has been; this is only a matter of civil marriage, only a matter of whether or not any state government may deny any citizen rights and protections granted to other citizens. The short answer is, no state may. And since the government has no immediate plans to take away the 1,400 marriage rights that get conferred upon those preferred couples, then they must confer them on any adult couple who wants it as long as they pay for the license, have the ceremony performed by a judge, justice of the peace or willing clergy, and return the license fully filled out.

Separated At Birth?

2008-11-05T19:41:00.000-08:00

Forget the comparisons to Abe Lincoln of Illinois. I can't help but think of another intellectual Illinois politician with a self deprecating sense of humor, one who also went to Harvard Law (if not as successfully), one for whom a convention speech also helped propel him to the nomination; one whose oratory was considered eloquent and thoughtful, even electrifying, but who, not unlike Obama, was viewed suspiciously, considered an elitist, by some in the working class, a group he had trouble wooing. Oh, and both candidates had pictures circulate which showed them with holes in their shoes.

The massive difference? One lost the presidency twice, and handily, winning only 162 electoral votes combined. The other just more than doubled that total while being elected to the presidency.

Yes, it seems to me that we got to make up for past electoral mistakes; we elected Adlai Stevenson with a jump shot.

Barack The President

2008-11-05T11:38:00.000-08:00

I'm flooded with oxytocin, so forgive me if this is a little gushy and maudlin:

You've no doubt heard of Joe The Plumber. Well last night, over 60 million of us voted for Barack The President. And as a result, Barack Hussein Obama is now the president-elect of the United States of America.

Now I have nothing against cranky white men with milquetoast names: I am one. But Americans of all creeds, colors and various reproductive anatomy have something to offer this great nation too. Obama's "exotic" background and skin color certainly don't qualify him for anything, but for the first time in our nation's history, they didn't disqualify him out of hand. I can't tell you how proud that makes me. What a thing to be a part of.

Don't underestimate the historical heft of this moment. A candidate of color, with a progressive agenda, a relatively thin resume and a "foreign" sounding name, overcame stunningly long odds, past political precedent and a ferocious smear campaign, to become elected to the presidency in a center-right country. In order to do it, he had to pretty much run a flawless campaign. And so he did just that. He out-organized, out-strategized, out fund-raised, and out-classed his opposition at every turn, running what is widely considered to be the finest campaign in our lifetime.

Obama was the perfect combination of inspirational and intellectual; of rhetorical and realistic. He was stable where McCain was erratic; competent where McCain was inept; thoughtful where McCain was reckless; lucid where McCain was ill-defined. In short, he was everything people look for in a president. Sometimes that's not enough. Such competence is not always rewarded by the electorate. This time it was.

It didn't hurt that the political climate was ripe, and voters were realizing (finally!) that it's okay for our leaders to be smarter than we are... especially in times of global-economic crisis and geopolitical instability. I think America said, in essence, "after eight years of 'the president with whom we'd like to watch a NASCAR race' leading us into unmitigated disaster, it's time for a little seriousness". We also realized, I hope, that behind the aww shucks, "what-me-worry?" shit-kicking was a greedy, truly elitist agenda that served the needs of the privileged few over everyone else; and that relished the perquisites of power while blatantly shunning the classic Constitutional values upon which this country was founded. Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me. Trick me three times? We won't be tricked again.

As I've said before, the road is going to be a rocky one. Inspiration is easy, governing is hard. And the hole the neo-cons have dug for us will not be easy to climb out of. But I do believe, and not without reason, that if anyone can make it happen it's this singular man with his impressive mind, shockingly sound instincts, strong political will, and world-class temperament. It's actually not the "inspirational" Obama I'm excited about today (although I love that guy). It's the smart, competent, realistic and, yes, liberal Obama who I believe can actually govern that I'm looking forward to watching.

In the meantime, those of us who supported him have every right to be proud and to revel in the victory. We refused to be bullied, duped or pandered to by the politics of fear, smear and distraction. We knew that we had a good thing on our hands and we weren't going to allow ourselves to vote against our own interests any longer. And in the process we got to not only pick the best candidate for the job, but to stand up for the very diversity of background and experience that makes this country such a brilliant experiment.

There will be a time to cast a jaundiced and critical eye in Obama's direction. There will be a time to hold his feet to the fire, to take him to task. There will be a time to pressure, to scold, to call his administration to the carpet. We must ultimately be vigilant citizens and not gushing fans.

But for now, he gets the benefit of the doubt. For now, he gets our good will and unflinching support. Because despite what missteps lie ahead, he's been 100% right thus far about his key premise: he told us that yes, we could... and yes, we did.

Barack The President

2008-11-04T23:31:00.000-08:00

One of the great nights of my life.

When the polls in the West closed at 8PM... and instead of just calling a state, the graphic came up on CNN: "Barack Obama Elected President"... man, oh man.

The cheering, the chills, the tears.

I will admit to a certain amount of Schadenfreude that Palin and her ilk have been resoundingly repudiated. But more important, I'm just so honored and proud to have been a part of electing this singular, impressive human being to the American presidency.

More later... I have to go back to crying now.

All Eyes Are On Virginia

2008-11-04T13:50:00.000-08:00

I think I'm going to be sick. My heart can't take much more of this.

I Just Voted

2008-11-04T10:28:00.000-08:00

Whatever the ultimate results, I just had the profound honor of voting for Barack Hussein Obama for president of the United States and had the added privilege of voting against the deeply discriminatory Proposition 8. It's not often in life you get to be on the right side of history twice on one ballot.

Election Eve

2008-11-03T15:16:00.001-08:00

Well, here we go. And what a long strange trip it's been. This is all I have to say:

If a candidate as singular and superb as Obama - with the temperament, intellect, competence, stability and grace he has so clearly shown - can't beat a candidate as weak and inept as the wildly careening McCain and his polarizing Palin... especially in this political climate... then what Democrat ever will again?

It is seriousness above all that Barack Obama has offered, in stark contrast to the whiny, petulant, tantrum throwing smear campaign offered by his opposition. I will proudly choose competence, stability, reason, intellectual curiosity, and, yes, hope every time over an incumbent party so completely bankrupt of ideas that all they can do is attack, malign, insinuate and impugn. But if demagoguery about socialism and "associations" wins out over an appeal to our better angels... especially with all that is facing our nation at home and abroad... then what serious candidate could ever win again?

2000 was a tragedy. 2004 was mystifying. But if Barack Obama is not elected in 2008, I can honestly say that I doubt I'll never cast another vote in my life. I would be so disgusted with the body politic that what would possibly be the point?

If one of the most exciting candidates we've ever seen on the world stage is somehow beaten by an erratic, aging pill whose campaign has been universally derided by even some of his staunchest supporters, what would ever be the point of participating? This would no longer be anything remotely close to a country I recognize.

I'm voting tomorrow for Barack Obama. I hope to God he wins. I truly don't know what his loss would do to me. I do, however, know what it would say. And it isn't pretty.

Please vote tomorrow. I am... and I'm casting a vote for seriousness.

Will Minnesotans Vote For A Comedian?

2008-11-02T15:22:00.000-08:00

The polls are tight and fluctuating in the three man race for the Senate in Minnesota. Can Al Franken pull this out or when push comes to shove will Minnesotans just not feel comfortable voting for a comedian, no matter how intelligent, reasoned and passionate? That's right, I'm asking the question...

... will Al Franken be a victim of the Shecky Effect?

My Conspiracy Theory

2008-10-29T17:13:00.000-07:00

Here's a fun conspiracy theory I concocted:

What if the source of the Obama-Khalidi video is a McCain supporter (after all, who else would try to "bust" Obama by sending it to the L.A. Times in the first place?) and he or she refuses to let them release it, because the supposed "suppression" hurts Obama more than the tape's release?

So basically McCain's peeps would be ensuring the tape wouldn't be released so that they could spend the weekend screaming that it's not being released.

Oooh, I like this. I think I might be on to something.

And Speaking of Information Suppression...

2008-10-29T11:48:00.000-07:00

Maybe John McCain should show us all how its done by directing the Navy to release all records surrounding the car crash in 1964 that may have killed someone. You know, since the Navy is deliberately suppressing information that could provide a direct connection between John McCain and... someone's death. Plus a massive cover-up on his behalf.

The L.A. Times information/Obama-Khalidi connection is already a matter of disclosed public record. Nobody is denying that Obama was at that going away party. It's been discussed ad nauseam. All the Times is doing is protecting its source -- which has the added, unintended benefit of keeping the McCain camp from quickly using out of context video footage, grained up, slowed down, turned black and white, with ominous voice over, to mislead voters at the eleventh hour. I understand why that would frustrate them, but it's not the Times job to provide them with fodder for their smears.

Guess its not enough for McCain that all the relevant information about Obama-Khalidi is in black and white and has been read all over. Guess he would rather be able to twist the information without any reasonable, analytical context. Maybe he should just Xerox the Times story and hand it out at his rallies. Ooh, wait, he may not know what Xerox means. "Mimeo", Senator. Does that ring a bell?

So how about it, Senator? The Khalidi info is already out in the world, courtesy of the L.A. Times. Why keep suppressing the accident report? Ready to call the Navy, sir?

There Is No There There

2008-10-29T11:07:00.000-07:00

From The McCain Camp regarding re: Professor Rashid Khalidi.

"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."

Umm... one little problem. The Times didn't suppress information - the paper made the information public. The only reason that the world knows about this existence of the tape... is because the L.A. Times wrote a story about it. Duh. If they had wanted to "suppress information" they'd have never mentioned the tape or written a story about Obama and Khalidi and nobody would've been the wiser. Does the McCain camp really think people are incapable of critical thought? That if they just constantly manufacture fake outrage about non-stories, that one of them will stick?

How about this, from the Huffington Post, as the icing to this absurd cake:

McCain Funded Work Of Palestinian His Campaign Hopes To Tie To Obama

"During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)

The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."

So let's just get this straight: the L.A. Times writes a story about Obama and Khalidi and is then accused of suppressing the information it publicly disclosed simply because it's protecting the source material it used to write the story... and McCain funded the same guy he's accusing Obama of having an association with. Oh, and throw in a little "Fear the guy with the scary Arab name" race baiting while you're at it.

Nice try, guys. Better luck next time. Maybe if you hadn't been the Campaign Who Cried Wolf with all your Lipstick On A Pig/Obama's a Secret Muslim Marxist/Pals Around With Terrorists nonsense and phony anger, this might've been taken seriously. Although it still would've been easily refuted.

Sarah Palin Is A Socialist

2008-10-29T02:31:00.001-07:00

A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, then mere governor of Alaska Sarah Palin told the New Yorker magazine:

“We’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

She even talked about how Alaska is like a socialist state. Now she wants to hammer Barack Obama for "sharing the wealth" and being a socialist and wanting collective ownership of resources (which, by the way, he doesn't).

What a fucking hypocrite. She's such a lying piece of shit it's almost hard to fathom.

Lies, Damn Lies, McCain

2008-10-27T17:24:00.000-07:00

There are lies, there are damn lies and then there is the McCain campaign.

As its opening salvo for the final week before Election Day, the GOP ticket is taking dishonesty to a stunning new level. Refusing to give up on their only remaining argument despite its questionable efficacy, McCain and Co. are renewing their claims that Barack Obama is an unrepentant socialist who wants to take your hard earned money and give it to people who don't deserve it. The only problem is, their entire premise is built around a flat-out lie.

In order to "prove" his absurd claim, and justify his faking a brand new round of outrage, McCain is quoting an old Obama interview which supposedly advocates government redistribution of wealth. Here's the problem, though: quoted in its entirety (which obviously one can't do when one is, you know, lying), Obama actually made the conservative argument that government should not be in the business of redistributing wealth. So there you have it. Obama and McCain are actually in agreement. McCain knows this full well, of course, but his now widely discredited team managed to find an interview where Obama used the English words "redistribution" and "wealth" and, no matter the context, is trying to cast it in such a way that it proves that Obama is a socialist. Except that it doesn't. And he isn't.

For those of us who care about the truth, here are the cold, hard facts:

Barack Obama does not want the government to redistribute wealth; he wants to reallocate tax burden. Period. How does he do this? He asks the wealthiest Americans, in a time of two outrageously expensive wars and fearsome financial crisis, to "sacrifice" by paying taxes at the same rate they did on January 20, 2001, the day George W. Bush took office. He achieves this simply by letting Bush's tax cuts expire - the very same tax cuts McCain opposed on principle before he lost his moral compass. Almost everyone else gets a tax cut. That's the whole, evil plan. Clearly, this has nothing to do with wealth redistribution, it simply asks those who have the most to pay what was previously their fair share under the robust Clinton economy, while easing the burden on those Americans who have been getting shafted for years. If that's socialism, then count me in.

The good news is, no truly undecided voter believes that Obama is a socialist - if they did, they wouldn't be undecided. By all rights, McCain should be hammering Obama on issues that are already part of the conventional wisdom about him and this isn't one of them. Americans have met Barack Obama, have listened to him in the debates on the stump, and, whether they are completely sold on him or not, they believe him to be a reasonable, thoughtful man with a steady hand and good judgement. Average Americans in droves are thinking critically: if Obama is so clearly a socialist, then why have thirty plus newspapers switched their endorsements from Bush to Barack? Why is his candidacy supported by prominent, principled conservatives such as Ken Adelman, Charles Fried, Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell and the editorial board of the deeply conservative Chicago Tribune? How about the uber-wealthy Warren Buffet? Any one of these distinguished people or bodies would relish the opportunity to knock down a wealth-pilfering socialist. Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders isn't running for president. Anyone silly enough to buy into the Obama as Socialist nonsense is already firmly entrenched in McCain's column. To think that the rest of us would become convinced in the eleventh hour by an easily disprovable out of context quotation shows an amazing desperation and lack of understanding about the current climate. If this is what passes for an October Surprise - "we found a partial quote we can manipulate!" - McCain's electoral goose is cooked.

What's truly amazing is that the McCain people thought that this might work despite the fact that we are a) living in the Internet Age where obvious lies can quickly be debunked and b) that they are running against an on-the-ball Obama rapid response team that is leaving no bald faced lie un-dissected. Further, much to McCain's detriment, his dissembling fits into what has become the dominant narrative of his campaign: that he has run one of the most loathsome campaigns in American history and has dishonestly smeared Obama over and over again. One more myth publicly debunked is simply another nail in McCain's political coffin and Americans are now primed to believe that he is full of it.

The McCain crowd seems to believe that if they simply cast the election as if it were a series of children's books ("Joe The Plumber", "Bob The Boat Builder", and now, disgustingly, "Barack The Redistributor"), that frightened independents will flee Obama in droves. The only problem is, the American people aren't children and they are largely repulsed by McCain-Palin's condescension. Obama's stated priorities are hardly the stuff of "Goosebumps" and we all realize that now is the time for reasoned, grown-up discourse and not silly name calling; nobody wants to be caught in the wake of a Swift Boat when their family's future is on the line.

McCain fundamentally misunderstands what Americans need right now in a leader. If he were embodying a rage that already existed, he might be well on his way to the White House. But it's not his job to manufacture rage that doesn't exist. Much to his chagrin, this election is not a referendum on scary government intervention; it is a referendum on rampant greed and de-regulation. No reasonable, middle income voter is going to believe that John McCain is the right candidate to mend that which his own party's entire philosophical underpinning has wrought -- and the economic equivalent of a prey-on-your-fears Orange Alert is hardly going to turn the tide.

John McCain has had the breathtaking temerity to claim that he always "100% tells the truth" despite a veritable laundry list to the contrary. Now I'm not naive and I understand that politics is bare-knuckled and dirty, especially in the last week of a dying campaign. But outright lies still must be loudly repudiated and certainly not rewarded. When Obama "goes negative" he simply takes something demonstrably provable (McCain's pro-Bush voting record, say) and casts it in a negative light - unpleasant, maybe, but fair enough. The McCain-Palin camp, however, takes something completely untrue (Obama is a socialist who wants to control what is yours) and, since it has no basis in fact, tries to make it sound true by flat out lying. The former tactic is arguably "negative"; the latter is downright dishonorable.

There is one silver lining, of course. I truly believe that the reason Obama is solidifying his lead in state after newly purple state is because the American voter knows that if you have to lie in order to make your case... then you clearly don't have a case to make.

McCain's Nuanced Fiscal Policy Position

2008-10-20T15:33:00.000-07:00

The new McCain/GOP fiscal policy:

"We want you, the Average Joe, to keep your money and for you, not the government, to decide how best to spend it. Unless you decide to spend it donating to Barack Obama - then it's a travesty and in dire need of investigation and reform".

Email I Sent To The Vile Diane Fedele

2008-10-16T19:00:00.000-07:00

Dear Ms. Fedele,

Your food stamp mailing was the single most disgusting, vile, bigoted, blatantly racist, shockingly ignorant thing I have seen this election cycle - and that's saying a lot. You do your group, your party and the human race profound discredit. And your laughable contention that fried chicken, ribs, Kool-Aid and watermelon were simply random food items is obviously a bold-faced lie and an insult to any thinking person's intelligence. I don't know if you're a religious woman, but I can say without a moment's hesitation that your mailer was stunningly anti-Christian and, for that matter, anti-American. Shame on you and all the hatred you and your group so clearly stand for. Your mindless actions are a disgusting and shameful embarrassment and you personally are everything that's wrong with the Republican party; you set the principled conservative movement back decades because you publicly represent it... and you so clearly lack anything even remotely resembling principles. Perhaps we should all be glad that you have shown the world your true colors and agenda. Regardless, I feel very blessed that my friends, family, community and country don't share your so-called "values".

Oh, and by the way, Jesus was very clear that we should take care of the least among us -- for the record, that's what food stamps help us to do.

If Anyone Tells You It's Liberals Who Play The Race Card...

2008-10-16T18:06:00.000-07:00

... feel free to show them this. A GOP group sent out this image of what food stamps would look like under an Obama administration. But nooooo, there's no racism in this campaign.

The woman responsible actually had the unmitigated gall to claim, with a straight face, that the food items she chose - fried chicken, ribs, watermelon and Kool-Aid were random items: "just food to me... I didn't make the connection".

And I'm willing to bet this vile, hateful bigoted liar considers herself a Christian.

If anyone feels like calling Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated president Diane Fedele and letting her know what you think of her little joke, here's her contact info:

Chaffey County Republican Women:
Email: ChaffeyCommunityRWF@cfrw.org.
Diane Fedele (President)
Email: diane1354@mindspring.com

Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated
P.O. Box 974
Upland, CA 91785
Phone: (909) 981-0493
Fax: (909) 982-6880

And here's the full story.

Joe The Plumber's Keating Connection?

2008-10-16T12:14:00.000-07:00

There are rumors flying that Ohio's own Joe The Plumber Wurzelbacher might be related to Ohio's own Robert The Felon Wurzelbacher: son-in-law of Charles Keating. Robert W. served time over the whole Lincoln Savings & Loan debacle which almost derailed McCain's career.

Right now these are just unsubstantiated rumors. It's entirely possible the two Ohio Wurzelbachers don't even know each other. But since it seems clear that Joe is a GOP plant and not a genuine middle income undecided (just read the interviews with him), the potential connection is worth exploring.

You would think even the McCain camp wouldn't be that stupid, but you never know. Desperation is a funny thing.

UPDATE: Seems that there is no connection between the two Wurzelbachers and the rumors were just that. There's plenty to suggest, however, that the whole "Joe The Plumber" things was a silly set-up. The more that comes out about this joker, the sillier the McCain camp looks.

Read My Lips: There Has Been No Voter Fraud

2008-10-14T22:25:00.000-07:00

It's so simple a six year old could understand it: the only one getting defrauded in the so-called ACORN scandal... ACORN.

Follow the alphabet:

a. ACORN hires freelance people to register voters and pays them by the card.

b. Some of these workers forge registration cards to try and squeeze extra money out of ACORN.

c. ACORN, by law, is not allowed to destroy these cards. Instead, ACORN itself flags the cards as corrupted and turns them in as such. That's right, ACORN regulates itself. That's the law and they comply with it.

d. Regardless, it doesn't matter how many fake registration cards are filled out. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Alfred E. Neuman... none of these "people" can show up at the polls and vote. So where exactly is the fraud, other than that freelance workers tried to defraud ACORN?

e. The GOP-FOX machine riles up the base by lying and faking moral outrage about non-existent voter fraud, trusting that nobody will pay attention to the details. Nothing to offer on the economy and plummeting in the polls, this is all they have.

The end. That's the whole story. Fake cards filled out to steal from ACORN. ACORN flagging them and turning them in properly. A waste of time and paper, to be sure... and terribly obnoxious on the part of these low wage, part time workers... but no possibility of actual voter fraud of any kind.

Now that's some straight talk, my friends.

The GOP trying to get legitimate voters purged from the rolls? To suppress turnout among fairly registered voters? Now not only is that truly dishonorable... it's downright treasonous. That's the real voter fraud story of this election.

Why The Slime Isn't Working

2008-10-09T15:07:00.000-07:00

The recent ugliness in John McCain's campaign reminds me of the late days of George H.W. Bush's campaign against Bill Clinton in '92. The economy was terrible, Bush was out of touch and had nothing to offer, his record was on trial, and he was trailing in the polls. Desperate to turn things around, he and Mary Matalin tried everything they could to slime Clinton. Like McCain and Palin, the Bush camp faked moral outrage.

"Clinton protested the Vietnam war while at Oxford!" It didn't work.
"It's not that he protested, it's that he did it on foreign soil!" It didn't work.

It didn't work because there was profound insecurity among Americans regarding the economy and voters wanted real solutions, not silly attacks. Had it been a time of peace and prosperity, such a strategy might have actually yielded dividends. Certainly, voters don't always reject silliness, ad hominem attacks and wedge politics (right Al Gore? right John Kerry?).

But they certainly do reject such tactics when the stakes are so high for themselves and their families and only one candidate is addressing the issues seriously. As the economic situation worsens, the more McCain's attacks on Obama's patriotism, superficial associations, middle name, and just general "otherness" will smack of desperation and fall on deaf ears.

Right now, voters don't want to have a beer with the president. They want the president to fix what's ailing us... so they can afford to buy beer for themselves.

Unfortunately for McCain (and for us), he has no other options. The "maverick" can't buck his party too much by offering the kind of liberal New Deal activism that fixing the economy will require (although he has kinda-sorta tried, while simultaneously and schizophrenically attacking government as being the problem, not the solution). And in terms of popular opinion, he's also on the wrong side of the Bush Doctrine, which makes him cede the foreign policy debate to Obama as well (the curve ball looked like a fast ball in his wheelhouse til the bottom dropped out and he whiffed with a big, fat swing for fences).

The only argument McCain really had that might've resonated with undecideds - Obama's readiness or lack thereof - he completely threw away by picking the least qualified running mate in the history of the Republic. Every time Sarah Palin questions Obama's readiness, the only sounds that can be heard are those of collective jaws dropping and the universal slapping of knees. And then an angel loses its wings.

All the GOP is left with, then, is fear-and-smear tactics, the purging of eligible voters from the rolls, and, if they're really lucky, Diebold machines both defective and "defective". All they can do is try to get folks to vote against Obama, because there's no sensible reason for them to vote for McCain.

"He knows Bill Ayers!" - it's not working.
"It's not that he knows him, it's that he's lied about how well!" - it's not working.

"He eats greener lettuce than you! Pronounces 'Pakistan' more correctly than you!" - nobody cares.

"He's a terrorist who hates America!" - undecideds don't believe it. If they did, they wouldn't be undecided. They've met Obama now. They've seen him in action. They know he's serious and reasonable. They may not be fully sold on him yet, but nor do they believe the worst about him. Those sorts of attacks are only appealing to the unwavering, ultra-committed base.

Barring some unforseen October Surprise, the Bradley-Effect-To-End-All-Bradley-Effects or outright election thievery, McCain's chances of capturing the White House are dwindling and rapidly.

So between now and November 4th expect the GOP sludge machine to be in full force... but, thanks to the current state of the world, not full effect.

I Found Something On Which To Agree With The Latter Day Bill Clinton

2008-09-22T23:47:00.000-07:00

Attacking Sarah Palin is a non-starter. If that's what we concentrate on between now and November, we're going to lose.

I'm getting tired of blogging about politics. Tired of preaching to the choir. Tired of despising half the electorate in the country.

If people actually paid attention, or had even a vague understanding of how the government functions, Obama would be twenty points ahead in the polls.

I'm losing my faith in humanity and in the ultimate triumph of common sense.

Politics is profoundly stupid. Voters are profoundly uninformed. And I, it seems, am an unreconstructed elitist.

Now if you'll excuse me, there's an arugula salad with my name written all over it.

Though I Sleep In Exile (Part 3)

2008-09-10T11:47:00.000-07:00

I dreamed last night that I was on Saddle Road, in the shadow of the great volcanoes Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. The 1940s were in their infancy and I was an American serviceman in the interior of Hawai’i’s namesake island. There was pavement behind me but not in front of me and after a brief period of confusion I realized that my fellow soldiers and I were actually building the road as we walked. The Army Corps of Engineers was nowhere to be found - just us enlisted men. Some of us cleared, others graded, and still others paved; a well-oiled machine. We had no formal plan, no real expertise, but we had momentum and esprit de corps; we steadily marched forward, singing canteen songs like “Hitler Has Only Got One Ball” and “Kiss Me Goodnight, Sergeant Major” as we created the access road to Pohakūloa Training Area in the Humu’ula Highlands. We were doing a shitty job. Our road, while functional, was precarious, uneven, ill-conceived. And yet we continued on, not reasoning why, with something approximating pride. At some point I looked down at my name patch. Naturally, it said “Salt”.

Even in my dream I had memories. I remembered having been there before when there was no road. I recognized certain landmarks, some with delight. I could keenly feel the lingering psychic pain left by the surprise aerial assault on the Harbor. And, perhaps most significant, I specifically remembered having once been on the summit of Mauna Kea and gently weeping as I looked into the Western sky. I could picture it vividly, as if it had actually happened to me. And I recalled exactly what it felt like to be up there at 14,000 feet with air so thin that I could hardly catch my breath and my tears stinging my cheeks in the frigid wind. As we clearedandgradedandpaved, I described to the others in great detail just how profound the experience had been to me and we all agreed that it was vital that I get there again, before it was too late.

It wasn’t until after I half-woke up, cold and exhausted and lying in an alpha-haze in a cramped train car on the Trans-Siberian railway, that it became clear that I was not me in my dream. I was my father.

I’ve only just awakened and Petros has already started in on me. I gather that he’s been looking out the window lost in thought; probably he’s been anxiously waiting for me to open my eyes.

“He was funnier than Descartes,” he says. “And certainly funnier than Kant. I mean, there’s nothing even remotely humorous about Transcendental Idealism.” He’s talking about Søren Kierkegaard again. I’m still too tired to get sucked into this.

“And don’t even get me started on all these latter day mereological nihilists! Don’t tell me that my chair doesn’t exist. It’s not my misperception, I’m sitting in it for fuck’s sake.”

It takes me a bit to get my bearings. I can still taste the ashy Hawaiian air on the tip of my tongue. I dig the gunk out of my eyes and manage to take a look around the train car. We are traveling platskart, third class but with reserved seats. I now understand why locals also refer to this as ‘hard class’ because already it feels like a gulag. The carriage sleeps just north of fifty and there are no compartments, just blocks of bunks lining the corridors.

There are people everywhere: crying babies, obnoxious children, chattering hausfraus. Somehow we’ve ended up close to the bathrooms and the samovar (which is an urn for hot water), so there’s extra traffic as passengers gather to have a piss or prepare their weak tea. Pete had wanted to spring for semi-private compartments in second class which we would have had to share with only two strangers but I wouldn’t hear of it. I was secretly hoping he’d get ticked off at my stubbornness and go off by himself to travel in more luxury, but he ultimately decided that despite the trade-off in comfort this would be a better way for him to meet more people and practice his rusty Russian. Him and his fucking silver linings.

Ekaterinburg is behind us now and we’ve been riding all night; Siberia officially began while we slept. I was hoping to be awake as we crossed that symbolic line, but the train’s sneaky undulations lulled me into an unsuspecting sleep only minutes after we left the station.

Before the train was Moscow and before Moscow was the red-eye from LAX, which was pure torture. I have an incapacitating fear of flying and even though I came to Siberia to die, the usual panic set in as the plane began to taxi and I spent nearly the entire flight drained of color and drenched in sweat. “Death is death is death,” you might argue, but I claim that there’s a huge difference between defining the terms of your own demise and exploding in a big ball of fire shortly after take-off. I want to proactively plot my last days, choose the moment and the method, know that my penultimate breath is upon me and still have the last to make peace with it; no fair disintegrating somewhere over the Atlantic.

Corinne and I got into a huge argument just hours before I had to be at the airport. This kind of pissed me off because she knows how much I hate to fly and she wasn’t even trying to coddle me. And considering what little time we had left together it infuriated me that she wanted to spend it fighting. The whole thing started at my going away party and continued in the car and then back at her place. She had the nerve to be mad at me just because I’m slinking off to die. Everyone else thinks I’m just taking a year to backpack around Europe and happily toasted my journey with champagne, but Corrine got the whole unvarnished. So other than Pete, she’s the only one privy to what I’m really doing here and somehow she’s managed to take it as a personal affront, as if somehow she’s not enough to make me choose life or seek redemption or whatever cozy little thing. Corinne always makes everything about her.

I knew I never should have told her the truth, but she’s historically had this way of getting me to disclose things even when I’ve promised myself to be circumspect. I don’t know how she does it. She’s definitely the only one who knows that I’ve spent the last year and a half starring in my own line of adult movies under the Nom de Porn “Epstein Epstein”. I’ve kept this a secret even from Pete, who, although he’s certainly not puritanical, would probably object under philosophical grounds and give me some cockamamie spiel about Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which, as I understand it, requires one to "act only according to that maxim by which one can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." Kierkegaard may be his favorite comedian, but when it comes to making me feel like I’m an unethical philistine, it’s always that damned kraut Kant that Pete ends up shoving down my throat. The last time he tried it I shut him up by hollering “I don’t give two twats about some Teutonic teacher’s tired tautologies!”. The alliteration was so arresting it rendered him speechless for a good minute and a half, after which he completely forgot what he was haranguing me about. And a good thing too. I hate German philosophers even more than Danish ones. The most annoying part, of course, is that he would be right. I certainly don’t think it should be a universal law that everyone get fellated on camera by damaged white trash and then sell it for profit on a website called jewhorsecock.com.

When I broke down and told her about my adventures in porn I figured she would blow a gasket. For some reason, though, it didn’t bother her. I think what she’s always been most afraid of is that I would fall in love with someone other than her, that another woman would get the gift of my intimacy. Strictly professional blow jobs she could handle. Strictly professional blow jobs were no threat. And the more of those I was getting from porn stars the less likely it was that I would meet someone to actually love.

There was a time Corinne and I thought we were in love with each other. We might have gone on for quite a while like that, too, unthinkingly coupled up and living in a modicum of what was passing for contentment, had we not been abruptly forced to confront our complacency head on.

You know what? I think maybe I should save that part for later. But what if there is no later? Fuck. I don’t know if I’m getting ahead of myself or if I need to frantically get you all caught up before it’s too late. Or is this all just useless back story and am I skirting the real spine altogether? Frankly, I don’t even know what the through-line is anymore or what overarching point it is that I’m trying to make. If I end up having the time, and if you end up having the patience, maybe I’ll be able to get there. In the meantime, I guess I’ll just have to beg your indulgence. I’ll fully understand if you decide that this is just a jack off that isn’t going anywhere meaningful and give up on me mid-narrative. How can I complain? After all, aren’t I planning to give up on myself mid-narrative too?

Well, I suppose losing you is a chance I’ll have to take. Because right now the achingly beautiful morning light is streaming into the train car, the other passengers are beginning to rouse themselves, and for whatever reason, I don’t feel like talking about Corrine anymore, whether she’s relevant or not. For good or for ill, I need to let this ad hoc autobiography come out of me how it will, in streams of possibly muddled consciousness, without regard to structure or readability, even if I risk dying before its raison d’ etre is ever revealed.

Someone claps me on the back and it stings, badly. I momentarily see red and have to fight the urge to spin around and throw a punch. If there’s one thing I hate, it’s being clapped on the back or boxed on the ears. Well, I guess that’s two things - but they both send me into a blind rage. I turn angrily to find myself face to face with a hairy bear of a man, barrel-chested and grinning from ear-to-ear. He has an atrocious comb-over. He’s also, I notice, missing a couple of teeth. I suspect the ones that remain are pretty rotted. Comb-Over is hollering at me – loudly – in Russian while laughing and waving a bottle under my nose. Whatever it is that’s so goddamned funny, I wish he’d let me in on the joke, cause at the moment, I’m still seething about the back clap.

“This is Viktor,” offers Pete, apparently translating.
“Of course it is,” I say.
“He wants us to drink with him. Vodka.”
“Da! Da! Wodka!” bellows Viktor Comboverich.

Frankly, despite the egregiously early hour, I could use a drink. To settle me. I have a sinking feeling that if I accept the first shot, I might be opening Pandora’s Box, but then again, I don’t want to be rude and Viktor seems pretty insistent, what with the clapping, waving and yelling.

Rumor has it that if you utter the Russian word for alcoholic – alkogolik - train-riding imbibers hell-bent on dragging you down with them will slink off and leave you alone. Unfortunately I really am an alkogolik so declining a drink isn’t really an option for me.

“Tell him I thank him most graciously and would be happy to drink with him,” I say.

Pete translates dutifully. The next thing I know the three of us are raising glasses filled to the brim and downing them completely, as is the custom. We toast in our native tongues: Viktor in Russian, me in English and Pete in whatever it is they speak in Ottawa.

Viktor, it turns out, is a coal miner from the Kemerovo Oblast. He is on his way to join his wife and two children for what he says, without a trace of bitterness, is a much needed holiday on Lake Baikal. Viktor has spent much of his life riding these trains and it shows; he seems very at home here, socializing with the other passengers and drunkenly shouting his opinions, usually followed by a booming laugh, even if what he’s just said isn’t at all a joke. Drink clearly makes him loquacious and within minutes we know all sorts of tidbits about his life. As a boy, he dreamt of becoming a cosmonaut like his idol Yuri Gagarin, but ended up following his father into the mines. He’s married to his childhood sweetheart Natasha – “my plump goddess” he calls her – and has two children, a boy and a girl, both in their teens. The girl is Katya and she is plump like her mother. The boy is Alexander, but they call him Sasha. Sasha is a whiz with numbers, but he doesn’t talk much - the doctors say he is “unique”. I assume the kid is autistic, but even if Viktor said that, I doubt Pete would have understood the word. Whatever it is that ails his son, Viktor doesn’t seem at all bothered or embarrassed about it. He simply shrugs it off as a matter of unvarnished fact.

Kemerovo, he tells us, has gone into a terrible nose-dive since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The economy is in a shambles. People are fleeing the area in droves in search of greener pastures. There are so few eligible women in one neighboring village, he tells us, that a resident recently petitioned President Putin for permission to marry his cow. The trademark laughter bursts out of him again, only this time we all get the joke.

Pete asks him about the working conditions in the mines and the treatment of the miners, and now our new friend really lights up. Despite his many years of grueling physical labor, and the toll it’s taken on his body, Viktor still has a mischievous gleam in his eye and a generous spirit. He induces us to toast to his fellow miners, downs another shot, and begins to tell us about what he calls his proudest moment.

“It was the late 1990s and the government was chronically overdue with our wages,” Viktor says and Pete interprets. “So after about six months of not getting paid, we got fed up, went on strike and blocked the rail lines across Siberia - both directions! And their detour routes too! Over four hundred trains were stopped on the tracks!”

I can’t help but marvel that Pete knows the Russian words for ‘detour’ and ‘chronically’.

“And it wasn’t just us miners,” Viktor says. “Others joined in too - teachers, scientists, laborers, students. Real comrades! To comrades!” And again we drink. My vision is beginning to blur. “We even had people in wheelchairs helping us block the trains,” he continues. “And pensioners! To pensioners!” This is getting absurd. I think I need to sit. Viktor, for his part, sighs with deep satisfaction.

“I wish you could have seen it,” he tells us. “We’d had strikes before, but this… this was different, this was something special. Tuleyev declared a state of emergency.”

It doesn’t seem to occur to Viktor that we have no idea who Tuleyev is or was. He is lost in boozy reverie and is beaming proudly, his barrel chest puffed up to full capacity.

“Tell me, gentlemen,” he says, shaking his head in amazement. “Can you imagine working for no pay for half a year?” He laughs uproariously.

It may be the booze talking, but I really like this guy and feel a kinship. For some reason it’s suddenly important to me that he know that I’m truly a fellow traveler and not just a fellow passenger. I suddenly have the urge to tell him all about the time I almost got arrested confronting anti-abortion activists in front of a Planned Parenthood Clinic in the San Fernando Valley. We were holding up big blue signs that said “Keep Abortion Legal” and chanting little ditties like “Operation Rescue, You’re A Lie, You Don’t Care If Women Die”.

But I keep my mouth shut. Somehow I just don’t think the story will translate and I don’t want to risk upsetting this wonderful camaraderie we’ve created out of vodka-soaked whole cloth. After all, I have no idea how a middle aged miner and father of two from southwestern Siberia feels about abortion. All I know is, the guy seems decidedly pro-life, in the best sense of the term. He is everything I’m not and I really wish I could find a way to convey to him just how superior he is to me.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter, because the train is pulling into Tobolsk, off the main line, and our mini bender has come to an abrupt end. Viktor is staying on the train, but we are getting off because Lonely Planet Petros is demanding to see the old capital. Viktor seems genuinely saddened to see us go. Even his parting back clap is half-hearted.

“It was an honor drinking with you sir,” I tell him. “You are my better and you are an inspiration.” Viktor again throws his head back and howls.

But I wasn’t trying to be funny.

"Christian" Palin to Mock Obama's Hard Work

2008-09-03T17:30:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin is set to mock Barack Obama in her acceptance speech tonight. Defending her own experience, the text reads in part:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Talk about hypocrisy and not understanding your own professed religion. Someone needs to tell Ms. Palin that Jesus Christ was a community organizer.

Palin Pick Proves Impotence

2008-09-02T11:51:00.000-07:00

In what universe could a vice presidential pick rally the extreme, doctrinaire, rigid conservative base of the Republican party while at the same time appealing to suffering Hillary Clinton supporters?

The answer, it seems, is not this one.

The Palin pick may have achieved goal one, but the voters from goal two seem less than pleased with the insulting, nonsensical pander. And independents have plenty of time between now and November to be turned off and/or equally insulted.

Further, it is obvious to anyone who is paying attention that McCain wanted Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge but dared not enrage Karl Rove or the evangelical base. He "wanted" it and he's the nominee. So what happened? Daddy Rove wouldn't give him permission?

What kind of leader is this who doesn't just pick who he thinks is best qualified for the job? What kind of commander-in-chief will we have who allows himself to be pushed around by the political people instead of following his own intellectual compass?

Oh, wait, we already have a president like that.

This is beyond bad judgment. McCain has shown with the Palin pick that he is flat out weak and impotent and unwilling to truly lead his party or his country where he wants it to go.

Does Sarah Palin Love Her Country?

2008-09-02T09:48:00.000-07:00

I know media (and Karl Rove) hypocrisy is hardly news and possibly not even worth getting riled up about, but it must be said:

Sarah Palin was, in the early 90s, a member of a fringe Alaska secessionist party. She did not become a Republican until 1996.

Now... if it were disclosed that, oh, I don't know, Michelle Obama, say, had been a member of a secessionist party at ANY time in her life - even as a teenager and even for two days - can you imagine what Rove and the media would do with that? Can't you just see the blaring lower third chyrons on Fox: "Michelle: Love It Or Leave It!" and CNN: "Does Michelle Love Her Country?!" etc.

The media would be in a breathless tizzy and the GOP would be going nuts.

So why the silence about Palin and her relatively recent anti-American associations? Where's the outrage? Where's the "does she love her country?" story line?

And, more importantly, why do the Republicans always get away with this nonsense, but never seem to be the victims of it?

Roosting Chickens

2008-09-01T12:48:00.000-07:00

Maybe if Sarah Palin didn't oppose sex education programs her teenage daughter wouldn't be pregnant. Food for thought.

Although in her defense, this is Alaska we're talking about: there's nothing to do, some romantic nights last for months, and it's really fucking cold. 'Fucking' clearly being the key word.

What did you expect Bristol Palin to do with her free time? Build igloos for Habitat?

Regardless, the more I learn about this hypocrite, the more ridiculous I realize she is. Unfortunately, Dan Quayle was ridiculous too. And look where that got us.

Ted Was Right (Updated)

2008-08-29T07:52:00.000-07:00

Ted, one of my few blog commenters (and someone I've never met) has been saying for months that McCain would tap Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his vice president. I thought it was a complete non-starter. I thought poor Ted was deluded. In fact, it wasn't until about a week ago that I started to agree with him.

And Ted was right. As improbable as it is, Ted was absolutely right. It looks like McCain's pick is, in fact, Palin.

Congratulations, Ted. Today is for you.

Despite the fact that it could backfire horribly, I think McCain made the pick he had to make, avoiding the quicksand trap that was Romney and the slug of Nyquil that was Pawlenty, while managing to make what he hoped would be perceived as "a bold choice" with the attendant PR bonanza. He's trying to burnish his "maverick" credentials while not pissing off the party at the same time. And now all we'll hear about is whether or not still disaffected Hillary women will flock to McCain and his "hockey mom" running mate. Also hard for Biden to go after her too harshly (although the DNC - and I'm delighted this is so - doesn't seem to have such compunctions). I thought at first that any time a Democrat questioned Palin's readiness to be commander-in-chief, the GOP would scream sexism and try to rile up Dem women, picking the scabs of the Democratic primary, and rally them to the cause... except it seems plenty of conservatives (and two of Palin's home state newspapers) are making the same argument.

So the real question is -- will it work? Will his pick be perceived as "bold" or "reckless"? Will choosing Palin seem savvy, as I initially thought in the moment, or desperate and condescending, as I now realize?

It seems as though, thank God, Clintonistas are not only not biting, they are downright offended. And offended they should be. The idea that a woman who's been a governor 20 months and whose sole foreign policy credential seems to be that "Alaska is close to Russia" could be a surrogate for a woman with Hillary's skills and encyclopedic knowledge is truly insulting. Now couple that with the fact that their agendas are diametrically opposed, and even women who were threatening to vote McCain can't believe he's trying to sucker them in this way. But wait, there's more: McCain only met Palin once prior to choosing her, passed over far more "ready from day one" candidates solely (seemingly) because Palin is a woman, has encouraged her to compare her candidacy to Hillary's (pissing off Republicans AND Democrats in one fell swoop) and did all of this despite the fact that he's a 72 year old five-time cancer survivor running to be president during one of the most critical eras in our nation's history, both at home and abroad. Talk about bad judgement. Talk about knee jerk decisions. Talk about the wrong temperament to be president.

Essentially, McCain allowed Obama to make his choice for him. He put the election before the country in the most obvious way.

John McCain made one of the only choices he could make, politically speaking, in the face of Obama's historic candidacy and the potential of siphoning off some of his fan base. If it wasn't going to be a black man, it had to be a woman. Not gonna be Powell, so it became Palin, though why he didn't go for Texas' Kay Bailey Hutchison is truly a mystery (not pretty and "congenial" enough for ya John?)

But politics is only half the game. And in terms of substance and the Big Picture... yikes. What a tragic pick.

Eight Is Enough

2008-08-28T22:25:00.001-07:00

Truly, one of the great - if not the single greatest - political moments of my lifetime, both in substance and in symbolism.

Although I thought it was a little odd when Obama declared "Eight is enough!" and 84,000 people started chanting "Betty Buckley, Betty Buckley".

Like A Hillary Woman Scorned

2008-08-26T09:15:00.000-07:00

That crybaby douchebag Debra Bartoshevich is at it again.

The former Democratic superdelegate from Wisconsin - a pissed off Hillary supporter stripped of her credentials for saying she would vote for McCain at the convention - is now getting her revenge on the party that wronged her for actively campaigning for the GOP candidate. In a conference call set up by the Republicans she touted McCain's past quotes questioning the efficacy of overturning Roe v. Wade despite his full-throated promises to do so now.

What a horrendous and small-minded human being this Bartoshevich is. She is actually encouraging Democrats to vote for a Republican who has promised to stack the court with more Scalias, winking and nodding that he won't really do it. Either she believes this and she's deluded, or she really doesn't care and is therefore even more vile than I first imagined.

The fascinating thing about these PUMA freaks is that there is nothing Obama could do to win them over short of making his entire administration about coddling Hillary.

Is he talking about the issues that matter to them? The economy, health care, the war, poverty, education, restoring America's reputation around the globe...? Of course he is. Her agenda is his agenda. The only thing that Obama is doing wrong... is that he's not Hillary. And that he won. And so he can't win with these cult-of-personality sycophants. This is not a battle for the ideological heart and soul of the party, like we had with Carter and Kennedy. That I could almost understand. This is merely a battle over bruised egos and sour grapes.

For these so-called Democrats, the agenda is irrelevant, the future of the country is irrelevant, only Hillary's ambition and legacy matters. It's sickening, it's pathetic and it's deeply damaging.

I guess it's true that Hell hath no fury...

Double Damned

2008-08-24T14:56:00.000-07:00

In the day since Joe Biden was announced as Obama's prospective #2, the McCain camp has released an ad slamming Obama for choosing a running mate who was once critical of him... and another ad slamming Obama for not choosing Clinton because she was once critical of him.

This is what is called talking out of both sides of your mouth. It's also called hypocritical, disingenuous, and a host of other less-than-flattering terms.

It is part and parcel of the McCain-Rove "damned if you do, damned if you don't" strategy. Blast Obama for being political if he meets with troops overseas;blast Obama if he cancels such a visit and imply he's a troop hater. Mock Obama for refusing to travel to Iraq; mock Obama for traveling to Iraq. And you can bet that if Obama had tapped Clinton, they'd be going hog-wild ranting about how he chose someone who was once critical of him.

To the thoughtful election-watcher, this is politics at its most cynical and silly. Unfortunately, it tends to work. They figure that if they make sure Obama can't win... then Obama can't win. It is my fondest hope that the Obama camp turns around and does the exact same thing to McCain - perhaps using the withering, no nonsense Biden as the primary mouthpiece - especially if McCain picks Romney, but also if he doesn't. We'll see if the entirely fair turnabout whips up GOP whining about "negative attacks from Obama", which it no doubt will.

Meanwhile, to any Hillary acolytes out there who are tempted to reward McCain for his "Clinton was snubbed" pot-stirring, I say to you, as ever, and with all due respect... please by all means continue to go fuck yourself.

Sorry Time Magazine, Romney Is Now Out

2008-08-23T16:32:00.001-07:00

Despite the fact that Time and much of the media has been presenting it as a fait accompli, there is now absolutely no way John McCain can pick Mitt Romney to be his running mate, if he ever was going to (and I admit, I was one who thought he would).

Even if we ignore the uproar it would cause with faith voters - especially the Huckabee crowd - it seems that the McCain camp has now settled on its strategy for attacking the newly minted Democratic ticket: Obama has added his harshest critic to his team, the guy who said he wasn't ready to lead - but that McCain was.

So now how does McCain tap Romney? The two men loathed each other and there's plenty of evidence to support it, far more than the one or two quotes from Biden about Obama and filled with much more bile and vitriol. So unless McCain only wants to use this argument for a week or ten days until he picks his own #2, there is absolutely no way he can go with Mitt.

So who will it be?

McCain may be feeling a lot of pressure now to pick a "game changer". But barring his ability to do that, I would bet on a Pawlenty, or some other fanboy surrogate who has no track record of anti-McCain statements and won't inflame the religious wing. Lieberman, by the way, who spent a campaign season ostensibly fighting for Al Gore, and has a vote-with-the-Dems paper trail a mile long, is a total non-starter and pro-choice Ridge is probably out too, despite the trial balloon, unless McCain truly panics about Biden being from Scranton, which I doubt.

Regardless, I have to believe that Romney is now politically untenable, despite the fact that he has always probably been the best choice for McCain. And if he is still the guy, then McCain is going to immediately lose his only real critique of Obama-Biden as a ticket.

Will the one week of fundraising and jabs have been worth it?

8 Oz. Burger Bar

2008-08-23T11:48:00.000-07:00

I hope a restaurant review doesn't seem too weird to be posting, but I'm sick of politics today, and exhausted from the veepstakes thing. So in the aftermath of my early morning Biden text, I thought I'd write something a little different...

So I went on this date last night and, after seeing "Elegy", a flawed but beautiful adaptation of Philip Roth's novel "The Dying Animal" starring Ben Kingsley and Penelope Cruz, we ended up eating at 8 Oz. Burger Bar on Melrose, where the old Table 8 used to be. If you live in L.A. and you love greasy American food, you've gotta give this play a try.

There were so many items on the menu we were excited to sample that we didn't even manage to get to the eponymous 8 Oz. burger. Instead, we ordered a bunch of the "small plates" or "small bites" or something. This included:

Mini kobe beef corndogs with purple mustard.
Deviled eggs.
Fried olives stuffed with sausage.

And the piece de resistance: a short rib grilled cheese sandwich. Holy shit. Are you kidding me?

It was like eating an American greasy-spoon version of tapas. Fun, social, eccentric, delicious.

The corndogs were really good, three to an order. The mustard didn't look purple under the dim lighting, but we decided to take their word for it. It was ideal - not too spicy, not too bland. The deviled eggs were pretty perfect. Not as good as my mom's or hers, but excellent nonetheless.

The olives I could have done without. I'm sure if you're an olive person, they're amazing. I may have been swayed by the fact that my date (let's call her, oh, I don't know... C.C. Names have been changed to protect the innocent - or the guilty, depending on your perception) observed, right as I was about to bite into one, "they're good, but they kind of have the aftertaste of old gym socks... or sweaty balls". At that, I almost aspirated mine.

But the short rib grilled cheese, my God. It might be the perfect sandwich. Great for late night, great if you're hung over, really just great. A thing of rare beauty. I didn't even technically finish my half, partly because the sweaty ball thing made me a little queasy. But as I sit here writing this, I wish I had the rest of it (even cold) and I seriously want to just go and get another one.

Oh and the cocktails are brilliant. C.C. had an Elderberry Daiquiri or two while I stuck to their signature Manhattan. It was one of the best I've had in L.A., totally authentic, made as it should be, with rye, sweet vermouth and orange bitters. They also gave me, in one glass, the equivalent of about three of them. So I think I drank about four all told. (And no, Mom, I wasn't driving).

The space itself is worthy too - hip atmosphere, dim lighting, high tables and low, and lot of pretty people chowing down fairly unpretentiously. It's a solid date choice but perfect for groups of friends too.

Next time I will definitely try the burger (perhaps with the artisan heirloom tomato ketchup), but there were also other "tapas" style items we passed over that sounded fun. And we never even managed to get to dessert. The place was a little loud, which makes more intimate conversation a little difficult, but we had entertaining and enlightening conversation nonetheless while simultaneously bonding over corndogs and sweaty balls.

Thanks for the 1AM Text

2008-08-23T04:18:00.000-07:00

For a campaign that did such a masterful job building up tension, the Obama people really blew the big moment. I got my text at 1:00 AM and my email at 3:15AM. And both came long after media outlets were already reporting a flight from Chicago to Delaware and Secret Service at Biden's house.

Why did they allow the moment to become so anti-climactic? Was it a technical gaffe? The whole media world was in a froth all day, why not really capitalize on that? The text/email thing turned out to be terribly lame and disappointing.

Meanwhile, I knew all along it wouldn't be Bayh, but I wanted to jinx it. I swear!

I actually like Joe Biden a lot and I think he'll be a very effective attack dog. McCain and the GOP will bring up stupid stuff like the "plagiarism" bit and some of Biden's gaffes, but I have to believe it won't stick. McCain may have some plagiarism issues of his own (and worse, tends to change the facts of his own life story) and also has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth... and he's at the top of the ticket.

If it couldn't be Clark, I guess I'm glad it's Biden. He's smart, passionate, a regular guy and has great national security creds. And, sorry Hillary, there's no footage of him mocking Obama relentlessly. It's the right choice. I hope I don't end up regretting feeling that way.

Will There Be a Bombshell?

2008-08-22T14:18:00.000-07:00

I'm starting to think that the Obama camp has made a tactical blunder by creating so much excitement/expectation/tension over the veep text, unless it's truly a bombshell pick.

If after all this build up he names one of the three expected names (Biden, Bayh, Kaine), it will seem like a let down and the media may just do a collective shrug.

I hate to say it after all I've argued against, but imagine the mass hysteria if we all look at our phones and it says "Obama choose Hillary Clinton".

It will be a massive story -- at least for a few days. I think once the hoopla died down and the attacks began in earnest, all of the fairly obvious flaws with the pick would surface.

And based on how he described his pick yesterday to the media - ready to be president, help navigate tricky issues overseas and here abroad, willing to challenge his thinking - he could easily have been describing Clinton. And he made a point of avoiding pronouns.

It's still a long-shot, I'm sure. But I have to say, if it's not Clinton or Powell or Gore... some really phenomenally exciting narrative twist like that... they may have been better off creating less of a mystique around the pick.

Obama Has Made His Pick

2008-08-21T16:48:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama told the media today that he has made his pick. He still isn't saying who it is, not yet, but you heard it from me first:

It's Evan Bayh.

I just know it, in my political gut. But I will never be happier to be proven wrong, for my finely honed and corn-fed beef fed political gut to be off its game. (Yes, to clarify, that means my gut has been fed with corn-fed beef).

Not only will we have to hear all the hysteria from the Hillary people, we'll also have to hear it from the rest of the "don't move to the center" netroots, not to mention the McCain camp reminding us ad nauseam that Obama said the Iraq vote was a major test of presidential judgement, also ad nauseam.

Oh, and now this leaves the door open for McCain's pick to be a so-called "game changer". I'm gonna ralph.

I think Bayh would be a perfectly capable vice president, maybe even a perfectly capable president, but... this will not go well. I am not happy. Unless Obama goes on to win every Kerry state plus Indiana.

Then I'll be thrilled.

My 3 Name (And by 3 I Mean 7) Short List

2008-08-18T14:23:00.000-07:00

Since this is probably the last time I'm gonna get to do this prior to getting a text message wherein I will be proven wrong, Obama's running mate will be one of the following:

Joe Biden
Tim Kaine
Jack Reed

With very dark horse surprise long-shots:

Colin Powell
Hillary Clinton
Al Gore
Wes Clark

Those often mentioned who will not be chosen:

Evan Bayh
Bill Richardson
Sam Nunn
Kathleen Sibelius
Tom Daschle
John Kerry

If it is either Bayh, Nunn or Richardson, I'm gonna vomit. And once I clean up the last of the spittle at the corners of my mouth, I'll still stagger to my feet and vote for Obama. Cause, you know, I'm not a moron. (My issues with Bayh, bayh the bayh, are not necessarily related to my policy differences with him, or any inability on his part to be an effective #2, but because I believe it would be a political mistake).

Neither of the Republicans mentioned, Chuck Hagel or Dick Lugar, will be tapped.

Of the likely choices, I'm hoping for Biden. He may stick his foot in his mouth, but so does McCain, all the time. Biden will be a popular choice with the netroots and an effective attack dog. And there's no questioning his foreign policy resume.

Of the profoundly unlikely choices, I'm still not-so-secretly rooting for Clark.

My New Pro-Life Hero

2008-08-18T12:00:00.000-07:00

If you want to read one of the most well argued, self-aware pieces ever written by a member of the pro-life movement, then look no further.

Former Evangelical leader Frank Schaeffer persuasively argues that the Republican leadership has simply used the issue of abortion to get votes and build a winning coalition, without ever doing anything to actually reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. Further, he makes the case that if you really care about life issues, then you vote for the candidate most likely to promote a culture that values life - not just as it relates to the unborn, but to all human beings - and that candidate is Obama.

Unfortunately, Schaeffer is probably preaching the progressive choir. Regardless, it's worth reading in its entirety, if for no other reason than we could do worse than to use his arguments as a template for talking points - especially since it is rumored that pro-McCain 527s are gearing up to smear Obama for being in favor of "infanticide".

For what it's worth, when Schaeffer admitted that the Republicans don't lift a finger to help the poor and that Christianity still "denigrates women's sexuality", I almost wept.

McCain Thinks Corsi's Lies are Hilarious

2008-08-16T09:28:00.000-07:00

When asked about the libelous pack of lies "Obama Nation", written by former Swift Boater Jerome Corsi, John McCain said "gotta keep your sense of humor".

Now here's the thing - I'm first a foremost a comedy writer. I consider myself to have a pretty sophisticated and well-honed sense of humor.

And I don't get it.

It's one thing to claim that the Britney-Paris commercial was meant as comedy. Arguable, but, at least it's... arguable. Corsi's book, however, is a purported work of scholarship (at least according to Mary Matalin) and was not intended as satire. This isn't Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" (which, by the way, was filled with actual facts), this was just a poisonous screed jam packed with nothing but flat out lies and misstatements about Obama - lies which the Obama campaign has successfully responded to and discredited on an itemized basis.

So how is this funny?

Did McCain find it funny when the 2000 Bush campaign spread vicious lies about him in South Carolina? Did he just chuckle and shake his head and say "Oh, that Georgie, what a card"? Is that why he so embraces Bush now?

McCain can't reconcile himself to the fact that - because it's the only shot he's got - he's running a low-end, Karl Rove inspired, "tear down the other guy" campaign. It goes against everything he has ever claimed to believe in. And so he can sleep at night, he just says "oh come on, it's funny". It's a tactic meant to allow the lies to fester while painting anyone who complains as a whiner or kill-joy.

Mr. McCain... I've met comedians. Comedians are good friends of mine. And you, sir, are no comedian. And neither, most certainly, is Jerome Corsi. Ask John Kerry how funny he thinks Corsi is. Swift Vote Veterans for Truth was not an improv troupe.

So while Barack Obama is repudiating and backing off of fair, lucid analysis about McCain from thoughtful surrogates like Wes Clark, McCain is allowing the worst kinds of attacks and lies about Obama to take seed. The Obama camp needs to take the gloves off. It's time to get a little riled up and let it be known that vicious lies and vile insinuation aren't acceptable campaign tactics... and they are most certainly not "humor".

Personally, I think the best way to start this new offensive is for Obama to name Wes Clark as his running mate and get the real argument started again. We all know McCain will be useless domestically... it's time to make the very legitimate, serious, and unfunny case that he would also be useless abroad.

If McCain complains, Obama can just tell him he's kidding, and then ask if he lost his sense of humor when he turned 102.

A Spotlight For Warner (But Not Too Big)

2008-08-13T11:24:00.001-07:00

The Obama campaign has chosen Virginia Democrat Mark Warner to be the keynote speaker at the convention. I've always liked Warner and was an early champion of his in the presidential race before he decided not to run.

I've often wondered, however, if Warner has a Edwards like skeleton in his closet. Just wild, irresponsible conjecture on my part, but I'm intrigued by why he chose not to run (maybe he felt like he couldn't beat Hillary) and why he took his name out of VP contention early on.

Maybe the reasons he has demurred are wholly reasonable and without prurience. But if it is because of some sort of skeleton, Warner has shown the kind of judgment that an egomaniac like Edwards clearly doesn't possess and has put party before personal ambition.

Whatever his reasons for backing off from attempting to become De Facto Leader of The Free World, I look forward to hearing him speak at the convention.

Howard Wolfson's Latest Nonsense

2008-08-11T10:09:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson (courtesy of the paraphrase):

If John Edwards' affair hadn't been covered up, he wouldn't have been a viable candidate, Hillary would have received most of his Iowa votes, and she would now be the nominee because her momentum after Iowa would have been unstoppable.

Absolutely reasonable assumption. And if the guy sitting next to me at the poker table had folded his losing hand earlier, I would've had a flush. But he stayed in too long and I ended up with 5, 10, J, 8 of hearts, Ace and 9 of diamonds and a 2 of clubs.

How Hillary would have performed in a hypothetical alternate reality to the one she was competing in is irrelevant. We all have to play the hand that we're dealt and she royally blew hers.

Georgia On My Mind

2008-08-10T23:08:00.000-07:00

Russian tanks have rolled into Georgia, and some Americans are outraged.

"It's just like Katrina!" one peeved Southerner was overheard to have said. "Georgia is under attack, and FEMA is nowhere to be seen. Clearly, George Bush hates all the blacks in Atlanta".

Other critics claim that our military is so over-extended in Iraq that there are no troops left to defend the Peach State, which may soon fall to Russian control.

It is reported that many well-regulated militias from Eastern Alabama and Northern Florida are flooding into Georgia, ready to exercise their Second Amendment right to "blow those former Commie bastards to Kingdom Come" - and maybe stop for supplies at The Piggly Wiggly.

Meanwhile, the administration's tepid response has freaked out many South Carolinians who worry they might be next.

Said U.S. deputy national security adviser Jim Jeffrey: "We have made it clear to the Russians that if the disproportionate and dangerous escalation on the Russian side continues, that this will have a significant long-term impact on U.S.-Russian relations."

Really Jim? Invading and bombing our country's 9th most populous state, birthplace of Dakota Fanning and DeForest Kelley, not to mention the site of Jeff Foxworthy's childhood home, might have a significant impact on relations? Duh, Jim. Duh.

And where are Georgia's leaders in this time of geopolitical brouhaha?

As of press time, Georgia governor Sonny Perdue (R) was unavailable for comment but rumored to be hiding in a secure, undisclosed location with Dick Cheney, Elvis Presley and Max Cleland's left leg. Of the four, only the leg is said to be willing to see combat.

Ironically, Russian leaders have called on native Georgian Jimmy Carter to help resolve the conflict, but the Bush administration has asked him to mind his own business and do what he does best: resolve conflicts overseas.

In related news, the invasion of his home state is believed to have hurt Sam Nunn's chances to be named Obama's running mate.

John Edwards: Cheating Son of a Mill Worker

2008-08-08T14:44:00.000-07:00

Well it finally happened. John Edwards has admitted to cheating on his desperately ill wife then repeatedly lying about it. And with this fact safely tucked away in his thick skull, he tried to win the Democratic nomination for president.

I am consistently amazed to read the comments of many Edwards apologists who couch this as an "it's none of our business, why are we so immature about sex in this country?" issue and don't understand a very important distinction:

For many of us, it's not necessarily that Edwards cheated. That sordid fact is ultimately between him and his wife. But he ran for president, and allowed his name to be mentioned as a possible veep selection, knowing this was out there ready to be discovered. If you think our hyperventilating, hypocritical culture is stupid, fine, but it's this same hyperventilating, hypocritical culture that Edwards chose to run in, knowing full well that if caught the media would hyperventilate and hypocrate (okay, I made that last word up).

At this unbelievably critical time in our nation's history, with so much at stake, for him to risk handing the presidency to the GOP had his campaign managed to catch fire is absolutely unforgivable. Especially considering the fact that two such enormously talented, popular, qualified candidates were already running (Obama, Clinton) and there was no reason for him to believe that the party really needed him.

Shame on John Edwards. His sex life is between him and Elizabeth. His hubris and narcissism could have effected us all.

Update: My friend Amy has always loved Edwards and we've gone back and forth about it over the years. It's one of the only political disagreements we've ever had. While she was charmed by him (must be a chick thing), I always felt he was too plastic and arrogant and I just didn't trust him on a visceral level. Well, Amy ate crow on my facebook page today. Poor thing, I think she feels as cheated as Elizabeth. But I love the sweet, sweet vindication. I'm kind of a jack ass that way.

Update: I'm kind of impressed with the last couple sentences of Edwards' statement. He said:

"In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up -- feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself".

For what it's worth, I like that he's acknowledging that he believed himself special and that he admitted to being egocentric and narcissistic (both of which are accurate descriptions). Not many politicians would describe themselves that way, even when caught with a hand in the nookie jar. Bill Clinton certainly never did. Doesn't really change anything, especially since he still chose to try and win the nomination after supposedly doing a full compliment of mea culpas to his family, long after he was theoretically chastened and humbled. I guess it's hard to teach old narcissists new tricks.

The Tuesday before The Wednesday?

2008-08-05T12:36:00.000-07:00

More hints? Or are we crazy acting like this is the DaVinci Code?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As speculation over the number two slot rises, presidential candidate Barack Obama and potential v.p. contender Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana joined forces Monday, signing a letter with eight other senators that urges Defense Secretary Robert Gates to increase medical coverage and care for Iraq war veterans left with serious brain injuries.

The senators point to a recent study from the RAND Corporation that estimates 320,000 troops from the two Iraq wars experienced a traumatic brain injury, or TBI.

"We are concerned that at a time when TBI is recognized as the signature wound of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan," the senators write, "one of the most widely accepted and critical rehabilitative treatments for this injury… cognitive rehabilitation therapy, is excluded by the military's … health insurance program."

The other senators signing on to the letter include political notables Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-CT.

Obama and Bayh's names are clearly perched at the top.

Update: Bayh has said today that despite their both flying into Northen Indiana tonight, Obama has not asked him to be VP nor do they have any plans to meet privately. Doesn't mean it won't happen, however, and I imagine Bayh is just as intrigued as some of us seem to be by the possibility. Once again, though, I take this as a slim shred of hope that it won't happen. As noted on Talking Points Memo today, Bayh co-chaired the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq with McCain and Lieberman and I really don't think that's the kind of national security cred that Obama needs. He needs a running mate who can bolster his view of Iraq, not one who has historically been at odds with it.

Update: Clearly, it didn't happen. At least not on Wednesday. Still breathing a sigh of relief and holding out for a choice I can really get behind without holding my nose a little.

Poor Deluded Pamela, Who I Think Is 47

2008-08-05T01:23:00.001-07:00

This is an actual quote from Pamela1961, a commenter on The Huffington Post, regarding the back-and-forth with Obama and McCain as to who is injecting race into the... race.

Obama seems to be getting a taste of his own political medicine. Near the end of his race with Sen. Clinton he used Rovian tactics. Actually it started with South Carolina way back in the beginning as his advisors, other staff and the media started using the race card one too many times against Sen. Clinton.

It's truly bewildering when Clinton supporters accuse Obama of having repeatedly played the "race card" against her, yet never offer even a single concrete example of him having done so.

Did Obama pry open Bill Clinton's lips with pliers, form them into a patronizing sneer, and force him to obnoxiously demean Obama's South Carolina victory as a state Jesse Jackson won? Did Obama hold a gun to Hillary and make her tout her support from "hard working Americans, white Americans"?

Hey, look, I came up with two actual examples.

Are the Clintons racist? Not on your life. They've spent a lifetime fighting for civil rights and equality. Did they play racial politics out of Hail Mary desperation? You bet your sweet fanny. With electoral math staring her in the face, she was forced to go low (just as McCain is now) - an understandable tactic considering the position she was in, but lets not pretend it was otherwise. Obama consistently tried to take the high road and Clinton had to quite literally mock him for it. Couple that with her out-right demagoguery on Michigan/Florida - one of the most cynical latter day conversions I've ever had the pleasure to witness - and there's no question about which of the two was campaigning from the muck.

Unfortunately, not unlike McCain now, the relentless negativity helped Hillary make a last minute surge. Ultimately, though, I have to believe that McCain too will fall short, though I harbor no illusions about the power and efficacy of negative campaigning.

Evan Bayh on Wednesday?

2008-08-04T23:33:00.000-07:00

I read a pretty compelling blog on The Huffington Post today that predicted that Obama will announce his veep selection Wednesday... and that it will be Evan Bayh.

I absolutely believe the Wednesday part. It will be Obama's last chance to announce and get some decent press before the Olympics starts - and the Games go all the way to the convention.

Will it actually be Bayh? On that end, I wasn't completely sold, but had a sense it might very well be true; in any case, I certainly wouldn't be shocked. Bayh has seemingly been a finalist in the last few Democratic campaigns and may finally be considered seasoned enough to be chosen -- but, naturally, not too seasoned. Obama's holding an "unannounced event" in Bayh's home state of Indiana on Wednesday that many journalists are being urged not to miss - and he's traveling with the former Hoosier-for-Hillary. He's young (but not too young), vital (but won't overshadow Barack), and has some national security cred. In short, the selection wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. What would surprise me is that the Obama campaign would make an announcement that will seem anti-climactic in retrospect based on the hints its now dropping. I'd prefer to find out that the Indiana setting was a head fake.

If it is Bayh, he of the strong political pedigree, I'll be glad of the telegenics and Red State appeal, but be deeply worried about how his past vocal support for the war (and sometimes for W.) will play itself out in the hyperventilating punditocracy... and in the hyperventilating blogosphere. For a rabid base already concerned about Obama's drift to the middle, choosing Bayh won't do a whole lot to keep them from being up-in-arms (though it would likely make many an Obama fence-sitter feel pretty safe - those who want an excuse not to vote for McCain, but still feel too "uncomfortable" or "nervous" to vote for this Obama character who they worry might secretly have a radical agenda).

Now if Obama does choose a Bayh, will McCain counter by picking a woman? It would certainly be bold; it might be his only shot at a game changer. Frankly, I doubt it, though, as I believe the initial wave of breathlessness and the attendant media brouhaha would ultimately give way to a brutally critical picking apart of the "readiness" of any of the women he might choose (Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin, etc.) I still think he'll go with Romney or Pawlenty.

I know the odds of Obama picking Wes Clark are astronomical at this point - especially in light of Obama's repudiation of Clark's clear-eyed comments about McCain's command expertise. But I'm still holding on to a shred of hope... the same way I did in 2004 when I was resigned to the fact that my beloved Red Sox would never actually make it to the World Series that year, let alone win it. After all, they were down 3-0 to the hated Yankees and no team in league history had ever come back in the ALCS from such a deficit. But I still tuned in to game four and hoped. And against all conceivable odds, the Sox managed to make the game's most improbable comeback, win four straight, and dispatch the Yanks.

And then there was the bloody sock... and the lunar eclipse... and a curse reversed. Miracles do happen.

Obama-Clark 08. Not bloody likely, but damn it... I still have until at least Wednesday to fantasize about it.

Vote McCain: He's Sarcastic

2008-08-02T15:23:00.001-07:00

A great blog from Chris Kelly on The Huffington Post

McCain Admires and Respects Britney Spears

2008-08-01T20:56:00.000-07:00

So McCain puts out a commercial comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. The implication? Barack's just another airhead who's famous simply for being famous. Absurd? Of course. And yet:

McCain: "All I can say is we are proud of that commercial."

followed by

McCain: "I respect and admire Sen. Obama. We just have stark differences."

So is McCain saying he also respects and admires Britney and Paris? How exactly does he reconcile the two comments? Obama is all style and no substance, famous for no good reason, but you admire him? Respect him?

McCain has turned out to be a real douchebag.

And the worst part is, it seems to be working. As many gaffes as he's made, and as embarrassing, negative, substanceless and childish as his campaign has been, he's narrowing the gaps in many polls, including Ohio and Florida.

Truly depressing. It's really too bad that democracy has to, by its very definition, involve the participation of the lowest common denominator.

UPDATE: I'm fully aware that McCain's people are crazy like foxes. They've managed to change the subject away from Obama's successes and their own missteps and gotten tons and tons of free publicity. Good or bad, everyone is talking about them (even me). McCain is suddenly the story. It's really the only way that could manage to make that happen, since he has absolutely nothing substantive whatsoever to say or offer so all he can do is try to undermine Obama by any means necessary.

Quick, Kill Him Before We Find Out He Didn't Do It!

2008-07-31T15:29:00.000-07:00

Sometimes humanity really stuns me.

The Alabama Supreme Court voted today to stay the execution of a man on death row (who for 26 years has maintained his innocence) because another inmate has signed a sworn declaration admitting to the crime.

That's not the stunning part.

What's shocking is that the vote to temporarily spare him was 5 to 4. 5 to 4! That means four justices voted to continue with the execution despite the potentially exonerating affidavit.

Now look, it might turn out the the guy is guilty anyway. It was a hired killing situation and the victim's widow - who served ten years in prison - has said that it was the spared man she hired. But when dealing with the ultimate penalty, for which there is no possible corrective, why not make absolutely 100% sure that you have the guilty party? Why take a chance that you could be wrong (especially when the main accuser is a woman who had her husband murdered)? I mean, it's not like the guy is roaming the streets free, he's been rotting in prison for almost three decades and he isn't going anywhere any time soon.

If it's proved that he's guilty, there's still plenty of time to kill him. So why vote to continue an execution when there's even the slightest chance that you've got it wrong? No matter how you feel about the death penalty, I can't imagine anyone wanting to kill an innocent person, so why not take the additional time to pursue the new evidence before shoving in the needle? What's the rush? Afraid he might die of natural causes first?

I don't know who those four justices are who can so cavalierly elect to end a life, but it truly sickens me and saddens me - and it's exactly why the death penalty should be completely abolished.

Please Tell Me They're Kidding

2008-07-30T12:51:00.001-07:00

This is a true story, not a headline from The Onion. McCain launched a new campaign ad - I think that's supposed to be taken seriously - comparing Obama's celebrity to that of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. The shtick of the ad is "he's a hugely famous international celebrity, but is he ready to lead?"

I don't even know if I should bother to be outraged. I think everyone but the already die-hard McCain voters will feel that their intelligence has been insulted. Way to tear down a United States Senator who's dedicated his life to public service and shown a tremendous grasp of both inspirational oratory and public policy minutiae.

So glad McCain is planning on running a clean, attack free race.

But just for the record, cause I've got nothing better to do: Spears and Hilton are "celebrated" largely for their embarrassing antics. Obama is famous for inspiring millions with a positive personal and political message. Don't quite get the comparison. Clearly, he's ready to lead, because he's already leading and millions want to follow him. He's famous as a leader, not because he flashed his vagina in a car.

How come Obama has to run around saying how much he admires McCain's service and sacrifice, but McCain gets to say that Obama is no better than a celebutard and is allowed to completely trivialize a serious man's admirable life's work?

I think Obama's campaign should run a response ad, comparing McCain to Estelle Getty.

Hey Netroots: Zip It

2008-07-30T09:48:00.001-07:00

You know, I keep reading blog posts and articles about progressives' unhappiness, or at least unease, with certain moves Obama has made or may make, whether it's his general election drift to the center or his potential vice presidential pick (Tim Kaine specifically).

I consider myself to be a progressive (I think). But I also consider myself to be a grown-up (more or less). And as a grown man in the world, I am rational and aware enough to understand that Obama is not trying to get elected as President of the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party. He's trying to get elected President of The United States. To do that, he needs to appeal to a far bigger slice of the electorate than we make up.

If Obama's publicly staked positions were more in line with the so-called netroots, he would make a terrific and exciting failed candidate. Like George McGovern, Adlai Stevenson, and Eugene McCarthy (among others) before him, we could all sit around and tsk and cluck and shake our heads and wonder what might have been. What might have been if, you know, he had actually been able to win.

Here's a thought: let's get Obama elected first and then hold his feet to the fire about the issues that matter most to us. But he's not going to be able to effect meaningful change if he's not sitting behind the desk. And he's not going to be sitting behind the desk if he can't broaden his appeal to include all Democrats (including the Blue Dog kind), like-minded Republicans and a big chunk of independents. He can't build a winning coalition simply by toeing the progressive line and refusing to be, err, nuanced.

As much as we would love to live in a world where all our candidates could be doctrinaire true-believers and stubbornly consistent on every issue that matters most to us without getting punished for it, we don't. So if you want Obama to be an admirable also ran, keep up your whining - there's no doubt that the Democratic Party loves its martyrs. But if you want him to actually be president and have a shot at undoing all the damage, well then grow up, shut up and help out.

There will be plenty of time for haranguing him later. Maybe even, God willing, eight years of it.

Bobby Seale was Jewish?

2008-07-29T23:27:00.000-07:00

Some delightful quotable quotes, with thanks to A Treasury of Great American Scandals by Michael Farquhar.

"The Jews are [an] irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards."

"What about the rich Jews? The IRS is full of Jews... Go after them like a sonofabitch. The Jews, you know, are stealing in
every direction."

"Most Jews are disloyal, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you."

"Newsweek is totally - it's all run by Jews and dominated by them in their editorial pages. The New York Times, the Washington Post, totally Jewish, too."

"Aren't the Chicago Seven all Jews?"

"There's a hell of a lot of Jews in the District, see... the Gentiles have moved out."

"You know, it's a funny thing. Every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews... What is the matter with them? I suppose because most of them are psychiatrists."

"Listen, the lawyers in government are damn Jews."

"The problem is the U.N. The United States is getting kicked around by a bunch of goddamned Africans and cannibals and horrible people and the rest."

"[Women in government are] a pain in the neck, very difficult to handle."

"With blacks you can usually settle for an incompetent, because there are just not enough competent ones."

"That's the problem, finding a Mexican that is honest. And Italians have somewhat the same problem."

All heartwarming quotes courtesy of Richard M. Nixon, 37th President of the United States. But at least he went to China. And in his defense, it's true, I do believe in legalizing pot.

Oh Dear God

2008-07-29T13:54:00.000-07:00

The Jon Voight op-ed was much worse than I initially realized.

Rather than just take exception to Obama on issues and policy, which would be fair enough, Voight makes the unequivocal claim, with of course not a shred of evidence, that the clearly sensible, thoughtful, mild-mannered Obama will run the country with the mindset of the angry reverends Wright and Pfleger and that Obama's reign would usher in a "socialist America" the likes of which we've never seen.

It's almost hilarious. Except that it's infuriating. So one of two things. Either:

a) Voight knows that his accusations about Obama are untrue and is simply practicing demagoguery so that his chosen candidate will get elected - especially since all the issues favor Obama, so what else can you say to deter people from voting for him?

b) He actually believes the outrageous nonsense that's coming out of his mouth.

Frankly, I'd prefer that the answer were a. Yes, it would be disgusting and evil, but at least it wouldn't be completely insane.

Lying demagogues I get. It's just plain stupid people I can't figure out.

Jon Voight Slams Obama

2008-07-29T13:43:00.000-07:00

Jon Voight? Really?

He's quoted as saying that Obama "falls short in every way".

I don't know, Jonny, Obama seems like a really good father. Which is more than we can say for you.

Why is it Angelina won't even let you meet your grandchildren?

Glass houses, sir. Glass houses.

I'm not suggesting you should shut up, or aren't entitled to use your marginal fame to support a political candidate, I'm just not really sure you have the credibility as a public figure to have your words carry much weight.

Although I suppose the Ostracized Father lobby might give McCain a second look thanks to your endorsement.

Ack! So Frustrating!

2008-07-27T17:46:00.000-07:00

In response to Lee Stranahan's John Edwards story on the Huffington Post, someone wrote "I heard he was there [at the Beverly Hills Hotel] meeting with financiers about a movie on poverty. Let Senator Edwards handle this his own way."

Seriously.

And I responded: "A movie about poverty? Watch out, Dark Knight".

And the Huffington Post deleted it! I don't understand - it was on topic, it's not profane or an ad hominem attack... and frankly, it's kind of funny.

I mean, can you imagine that trailer?

Deep baritone voice: "In a world where children go without dinner... one man with perfect hair will save them all... or die trying. Matthew McConaughey is..."

It's infuriating because there's no way of protesting when they delete a comment you make and they add it to the "Deleted Comment" meter on your profile page (mine is currently at 3, and I have no idea what the other two were). Now I feel like I'm wearing a big scarlet "D" on my chest.

I wish I knew who these humorless moderators are and what standards they're using, cause I see far worse "flaming" than that on THP - and jokes that aren't nearly as funny.

The Coming (Shit) Storm

2008-07-27T00:27:00.000-07:00

This John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story is going to blow sky high.

I agree with Lee Stranahan that those of us in the progressive blogosphere are foolish if we think it will all just go away because we wish it were so.

Here's a deeply fascinating story from last year which foreshadows the current storm that's a-brewing. The article, by Huffington Post's Sam Stein, reads like Woodward and Bernstein. I half expected someone from the Edwards campaign to blurt out that Arianna was gonna get her tit caught in a big fat ringer.

Amazing that the Edwards people have managed to keep this quiet for as long as they have. It's out now, though, and if this plays out the way I imagine it will, Edwards political career is likely over. We must not let this get in Obama's way, or suck all the media oxygen out of the presidential campaign, and getting out in front of it in the best way to make sure it doesn't.

John Edwards isn't running for president and he's not going to be the vice presidential nominee - so there's no reason his private peccadilloes, no matter how distateful or salacious, should distract us from the critical job of putting a Democrat in the White House.

Ignoring the story won't work, however; sucking it up and dealing with it - honestly, thoughtfully and swiftly - might.

No matter how you slice it, though, this is gonna get ugly. I can smell the Republican Schadenfreude from here. It's not a nice smell.

Sorry, Ma

2008-07-26T00:16:00.000-07:00

So my mother called today to complain that some of my blog posts are vulgar. She's not a fan of "Hey Jill Iscol: Go Fuck Yourself" and other such profane rants. ("I could do without that" were her exact words).

I labored to explain to her that as a blogger, I am not held to a journalistic standard and have no obligation to be thoughtful, reasonable or mature.

She said "Yes, but I hold you to a higher standard."

So I told her that if all writers were worried about living up to their mothers' standards, we probably wouldn't have much of the world's great literature; that, for example, I'm pretty sure Henry Miller wouldn't have written Tropic of Cancer if he had been concerned about what his mother would think.

Believe it or not, I think she bought it.

Maybe There Is A God

2008-07-25T23:48:00.000-07:00

In a victory for good, clean common sense, the Wisconsin Democratic Party voted today to strip known moron Debra Bartoshevich of her delegate status for threatening to vote for John McCain at the Denver convention.

Bartoshevich has since backpedaled from her threat, saying she made the statement during an emotional time and hasn't yet made up her mind.

Hasn't made up her mind about what? Whether to vote for a platform diametrically opposed to the one her chosen candidate was for? Whether to actually support a Republican who ridiculed Obama's health care plan by calling it "HillaryCare"? Whether to cast a ballot for the guy determined to overturn Roe v. Wade? Whether to refuse to support a candidate whose policy positions differ from her vanquished favorite's only in infinitesimal ways and instead help the guy whose party has spent years trying to destroy said hero?

Someone should tell Bartoshevich that the vast right wing conspiracy is not her friend. And now, thanks to her own douchery, neither is her own party. (Yes, I made up that word and yes, I like it).

With her empty, impotent, nonsensical threat (someone should also tell her McCain is not now, nor has he ever been, in the running to be the Democratic nominee), Bartoshevich managed to marginalize herself right out of the convention and into the realm of embarrassing footnote/potential Trivial Pursuit question twenty years hence. And that's more than she deserves.

What an asshole. Good for you, Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Throw the baggage out.

I Knew John Edwards Didn't Want To Be VP...

2008-07-25T21:22:00.001-07:00

... but I didn't know he didn't want it that bad.

The National Enquirer - or as I like to call it, the Paper of Record - allegedly has a panoply of proof that former Senator John Edwards was at the Beverly Hills Hotel meeting secretly with a woman not named Elizabeth... and said woman's baby (also, for what it's worth, not named Elizabeth). There was reportedly a clash between Edwards and the "reporters" who jackpotted him, after which a visibly shaken Edwards was escorted off the premises by a security guard who later confirmed Edwards' identity.

It is rumored that the woman, Rielle Hunter, is or was his mistress and that the child is his, though Ms. Hunter denies her kid has senatorial parentage.

Now I could be wrong, and it's been a while since I've vetted anyone personally, but I'm fairly sure that if you're cheating on your cancer-ridden wife and knocking up other women while the missus battles to stave off death... nobody is going to want to vote for you for vice president, or anything else for that matter, even if you are the son of a mill worker.

Of course, if this story is true, he might be a son of something else entirely.

Here's a link to the bizarre tale, but take it with a grain of salt, it is after all Fox News and other than the Gray Lady - and again I mean the Enquirer - nobody else seems comfortable enough yet to run with it.

In Edwards' defense, the woman claims the baby was fathered by Andrew Young, a former campaign official of Edwards' - and the married father of three has also said he is the baby daddy. So it's entirely possible that the child's paternity is only senatorial adjacent and this was a perfectly innocuous late night, secretive hotel meeting with an attractive, blonde single mother and her baby. Who knows, maybe Edwards is a whiz at calming kids with colic. After all, he is the son of a mill worker.

Which begs the question: why run and hide in a bathroom from reporters shouting questions if you have nothing to be ashamed of?

Sounds to me like Edwards is trying to avoid even the appearance of innocence.

My conspiracy theory: he knows he's done nothing wrong, but wants desperately to become toxic so he doesn't have to turn down an Obama overture. In this scenario, it was he himself who tipped off the tabloid and then pretended to be panic stricken!

Sheesh, John, if you're that against being veep, just say no. But trying to make yourself look like Bill Clinton is a little over the top and frankly not very believable. I mean, seriously... you're the son of a mill worker.

McCain Says He'd Prefer To Speak In Germany As President

2008-07-24T15:41:00.000-07:00

He could, too. Just dye his hair black and give him a little mustache. You sure he didn't mean Chancellor?

I Love Obama Dearly, But...

2008-07-24T12:15:00.001-07:00

... he's being more than a tad bit disingenuous when he claims that he is making his overseas trip as a senator and not a presidential candidate.

How many senators, on their various trips abroad, stand in front of 200,000 adoring fans and proclaim "this is our moment, this is our time" while the entire world media films it and beams the images around the globe?

I mean, honestly, Barack. Cut it out. You're there as a candidate, and you're doing a brilliant job of showing American citizens that simply by electing you they will have already done a huge amount of the work it will take to get America back in the good graces of its allies and in the high esteem of a world longing to once again clutch us to its ample bosom.

His opponent for the presidency was relegated to a photo op where he met "ordinary Americans" at a German restaurant in German Village, Ohio. I guess it was meant to be a reprimand. A rebuke of arrogance. Didn't work. Although it definitely worked as a general rejection of vision, scope and global engagement and a wink and a nod at provincial xenophobia. Nothing like chiding your opponent for having both the desire and the ability to inspire the entire world.

Although you can hardly blame McCain for trying anything he can to undermine the success of Obama's rockstar tour - and he certainly can't do that by competing on the same level. Can you imagine how a similar speech by McCain would have been received? He would've been speaking in front of three former members of the Wermacht, a dozen or so skinheads and maybe that creepy guy in Austria who kept knocking up his own daughter in the basement.

And even they would've criticized the color of his background and left.

Ohhhh... McCain's Running For Governor of Louisiana!

2008-07-24T09:46:00.000-07:00

(CNN) -- One day after it was revealed that Sen. John McCain was to hold a closed-door meeting with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, Jindal said Wednesday that there is no way he will fill the bottom half of the GOP presidential ticket.

"I'm not going to be the vice presidential nominee or vice president," Jindal told Fox News. "I'm going to help Sen. McCain get elected as governor of Louisiana."

That explains everything. I'm so relieved.

Where are the Follow Up Questions?

2008-07-22T17:41:00.000-07:00

I think it oughta be a law:

Any GOP senator, congressman, surrogate, mouthpiece or pundit who makes the claim that Barack Obama is "frighteningly inexperienced" (as some jerk-off Republican rep. did today), needs to be asked: "Do you think George Bush was too inexperienced to be president?" and if the answer is no, then "Why?"

You know, considering that when Bush was appointed, he had barely ever even traveled outside the United States and had literally zero foreign policy experience. Oh, and he was governor of a state where it's actually the Lieutenant Governor who has all the power and the governorship itself is largely ceremonial.

Naturally, pointing out Bush's inexperience isn't exactly a selling point for Obama, but only because W. is universally considered to be a disaster. But these GOP fearmongers argue that Bush is a terrific president, so why wasn't his inexperience "frightening" to them?

Of course, the whole thing is absurd. We don't just elect presidents, we elect entire administrations which employ and consult thousands of experts in all policies foreign and domestic. Whether we elect a former president of the Harvard Law Review (Obama) or a former ne'er-do-well Yale Cheerleader and failed businessman (W.), the cabinet, the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon, the NSC... they'll all still be there to do their jobs. What's important in these matters is simply the ability to think critically, a strong moral compass, and the right priorities.

Obama, unlike our current president or his would-be GOP successor has all that and then some.