..................................................................................................................................
Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona predicts pro-gay marriage GOP presidential candidate
By Adam Edelman, March 31, 2013
An up-and-coming Republican Senator said Sunday it was “inevitable” that the GOP would field a presidential candidate who supports same-sex marriage.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” was asked by guest host Chuck Todd whether he could “support a Republican presidential candidate someday who supported same-sex marriage.”
"I think that's inevitable,” Flake said. “There will be one, and I think he'll receive Republican support, or she will, so I think that the answer is yes.”
But when pressed a moment later on whether he could see shifting his own position on same-sex marriage, Flake maintained that he is a traditionalist.
"I still hold to the traditional definition of marriage," Flake said, adding that his views, unlike those of many of his colleagues, were not “evolving.”
In recent days and weeks, several U.S. senators from both major political parties have said their views on the controversial topic had shifted or were changing.
In the past week alone, at least four Democratic senators, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), have flipped on the issue, fully endorsing same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month, Republican Sen. Rob Portman, of Ohio, became the first GOP senator to announce support for same-sex marriage after his son came out to him as gay. On Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said her views on the issue were “evolving.”
The wave of public announcements on the topic comes as the Supreme Court takes on two significant cases related to gay rights. The high court recently took up challenges to California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and withholds benefits from married same-sex couples.
Even as some shift on the matter, others have remained steadfast in their opposition.
"I don't ever think you'd ever see the Republican Party platform say 'we're in favor' of same-sex marriage,” Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, said during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”
..................................................................................................................................
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Saturday, March 30, 2013
The American way has been poisoned
..................................................................................................................................
Proof: Politics & Friends Don’t Mix If Politics Trumps Friendship
A blog by Gary LaPierre, March 30, 2013
Our world…..our society…our well-being….and in particular our politics have become so divisive, even long-term friendships can’t survive anymore. Particularly when one side of the politic is ready to dismiss the other side altogether, as woefully uninformed and just plain wrong in their thinking.
I”d like to tell you about two married couples who have known each other for close to fifty years. In fact the two women have known each other for more than sixty years and have never had a cross word. They cared for each other since childhood. Both survived some harrowing, traumatic and frightful times as children, often times pulling their families apart, but never each other. One always stood up for the other and no matter what the obstacle in one woman’s life, the other was there for her and while time and distance separated the two at various times over a half century, the friendship survived and in their older years, actually thrived. The husbands of these two women always got along, never a difficult moment. They could discuss anything and everything…and often did. They shared time, swapped stories and traveled many parts of this country and Europe with their wives and one might have asked……”what possibly could bust up a half-century relationship among four people, two of whom shared life experiences dating back to early childhood?” I have the answer:
Politics. Just plain old politics, 21st century style.
The divisiveness that has poisoned the American way, including the total dismissal of anyone, anything with an opposing view is in some ways heart-wrenching to watch. It’s there, and to think these two couples can no longer speak, or communicate in any fashion with each other is a sad commentary on what our world has become. One member of the foursome became so obsessed with her beliefs (yes, her) that she’s now convinced she’s the smartest person in the room (any room), the other three members of the foursome are not worthy of being heard. Nope….not even “heard” because their politics is unworthy….and surely their intellect is no match for the smartest person in the room. As well he should I suppose, the husband of this closed-minded woman appears to have caved to the divisive side of things….a survival mode I’m sure.
Five decades and more of friendship and history, gone to the ugly divide this country has become when it comes to the human discourse of political events. Yup, when politics trumps friendship, count me as “un-enrolled.”
..................................................................................................................................
Proof: Politics & Friends Don’t Mix If Politics Trumps Friendship
A blog by Gary LaPierre, March 30, 2013
Our world…..our society…our well-being….and in particular our politics have become so divisive, even long-term friendships can’t survive anymore. Particularly when one side of the politic is ready to dismiss the other side altogether, as woefully uninformed and just plain wrong in their thinking.
I”d like to tell you about two married couples who have known each other for close to fifty years. In fact the two women have known each other for more than sixty years and have never had a cross word. They cared for each other since childhood. Both survived some harrowing, traumatic and frightful times as children, often times pulling their families apart, but never each other. One always stood up for the other and no matter what the obstacle in one woman’s life, the other was there for her and while time and distance separated the two at various times over a half century, the friendship survived and in their older years, actually thrived. The husbands of these two women always got along, never a difficult moment. They could discuss anything and everything…and often did. They shared time, swapped stories and traveled many parts of this country and Europe with their wives and one might have asked……”what possibly could bust up a half-century relationship among four people, two of whom shared life experiences dating back to early childhood?” I have the answer:
Politics. Just plain old politics, 21st century style.
The divisiveness that has poisoned the American way, including the total dismissal of anyone, anything with an opposing view is in some ways heart-wrenching to watch. It’s there, and to think these two couples can no longer speak, or communicate in any fashion with each other is a sad commentary on what our world has become. One member of the foursome became so obsessed with her beliefs (yes, her) that she’s now convinced she’s the smartest person in the room (any room), the other three members of the foursome are not worthy of being heard. Nope….not even “heard” because their politics is unworthy….and surely their intellect is no match for the smartest person in the room. As well he should I suppose, the husband of this closed-minded woman appears to have caved to the divisive side of things….a survival mode I’m sure.
Five decades and more of friendship and history, gone to the ugly divide this country has become when it comes to the human discourse of political events. Yup, when politics trumps friendship, count me as “un-enrolled.”
..................................................................................................................................
You're darn tootin' that we have no sympathy for senators or members of congress making $174,000 a year!
..................................................................................................................................
Lawmakers tighten belts amid automatic budget cuts
By Jim Abrams, March 30, 2013
Members of Congress are traveling less and worrying more about meeting office salaries. Their aides are contending with long lines to get inside their offices and fewer prospects of a raise. Such are the indignities thrust upon the men and women who brought the country $85 billion in government spending cuts this month.
There probably won't be much sympathy for a senator or congressman making $174,000 a year who is in no danger of being furloughed or laid off, at least until the next election. Still, there has been an effort, especially in the Republican-led House, to show that no one should be exempt from sacrifice.
"As those who are charged with the care of taxpayers' dollars, we need to lead by example," Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., who chairs the House Administration Committee, said last week in promoting a bill to slash the budgets of House committees by 11 percent.
Earlier in March - after Congress and the White House failed to come up with an alternative to across-the-board cuts in most federal programs - the House imposed an 8.2 percent reduction in lawmakers' personal office budgets. That came on top of 11 percent cuts to members' office budgets during 2011-2012.
"We've drastically reduced travel both for myself and my staff," said Republican Rep. John Campbell, who must cross the country to visit his southern California district. He said he tends to stay in Washington on two-day weekends rather than return home. "I'm more productive here when I'm not rushing to get home," he added.
Campbell said other "little things" he is doing to economize include reducing the office phone bill, cutting off magazine and newspaper subscriptions and using email rather than letters to communicate with voters.
Rep. Luke Messer, a freshman Republican from Indiana, said he hired fewer people when he came to Washington because "we essentially began the term knowing there was a high possibility of a sequester"- Washington-speak for the automatic spending cuts.
So far, congressional staffers appear to have escaped the furloughs that are likely to send thousands of public servants home without pay for several workdays over the next six months and disrupt some government services. "I hope to avoid that," said Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., "but we will take any steps to ensure we don't exceed our budget." Under House rules, a lawmaker must pay for excess spending out of his or her own pocket.
The fiscal pressures are weaker in the Senate, where senators have staff budgets about double the amount of the $1.3 million average in the House and where the office cuts ordered because of the sequester were limited to 5 percent.
While staffers still have their jobs, they may have a harder time getting to them. Security officials have cut costs by closing 10 entrances and several side streets around the Capitol complex, creating long lines to get through screening stations. People "have started to adjust to those changes at the entrances," although it is still a challenge on busy days, said Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer.
Gainer, who oversees nearly 1,000 security and administrative employees, said he hopes to abide by the 5 percent sequester cut without layoffs by enlisting 70 or 80 people for a voluntary retirement program.
Some House members also are feeling the pinch during the two-week Easter break, a prime time for foreign "fact-finding" tours. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced last month that members must book commercial flights rather than make use of more convenient but more expensive military aircraft.
Some Democrats have complained the GOP enthusiasm for frugality has come at too high a cost.
"At a time when most members of this body are representing newly formed congressional districts with a need to open new offices or move to new locations, we find ourselves with an 8.2 percent decrease in the very operating budgets that support constituent services," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.
Wasserman Schultz, who also is the Democratic Party's chairwoman, criticized House Republicans for cutting budgets while spending some $3 million for the legal defense of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
"We are past the point of cutting what we want, and we are now into cutting what we need - our ability to attract and retain expert staff," said Rep. Robert Brady of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the House Administration Committee.
Brad Fitch, president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works to improve congressional operations, said it's still possible that House members will have to resort to furloughs or layoffs. So far, he said, they have been able to cope with the cuts of the past three years with less drastic steps, such as reducing the size of their staffs through attrition, making more use of interns and using email rather than mass mailings.
At the end of 2011, Fitch's group recommended 46 possible ways for members to cut $90,000 from their 2012 budgets, ranging from pay freezes, holding more town hall meetings by telephone, delaying purchases of new computers, eliminating Washington staffers' visits to district offices, closing district offices, eliminating bottled water from offices and reviewing spending on food and beverages for constituents.
..................................................................................................................................
Lawmakers tighten belts amid automatic budget cuts
By Jim Abrams, March 30, 2013
Members of Congress are traveling less and worrying more about meeting office salaries. Their aides are contending with long lines to get inside their offices and fewer prospects of a raise. Such are the indignities thrust upon the men and women who brought the country $85 billion in government spending cuts this month.
There probably won't be much sympathy for a senator or congressman making $174,000 a year who is in no danger of being furloughed or laid off, at least until the next election. Still, there has been an effort, especially in the Republican-led House, to show that no one should be exempt from sacrifice.
"As those who are charged with the care of taxpayers' dollars, we need to lead by example," Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., who chairs the House Administration Committee, said last week in promoting a bill to slash the budgets of House committees by 11 percent.
Earlier in March - after Congress and the White House failed to come up with an alternative to across-the-board cuts in most federal programs - the House imposed an 8.2 percent reduction in lawmakers' personal office budgets. That came on top of 11 percent cuts to members' office budgets during 2011-2012.
"We've drastically reduced travel both for myself and my staff," said Republican Rep. John Campbell, who must cross the country to visit his southern California district. He said he tends to stay in Washington on two-day weekends rather than return home. "I'm more productive here when I'm not rushing to get home," he added.
Campbell said other "little things" he is doing to economize include reducing the office phone bill, cutting off magazine and newspaper subscriptions and using email rather than letters to communicate with voters.
Rep. Luke Messer, a freshman Republican from Indiana, said he hired fewer people when he came to Washington because "we essentially began the term knowing there was a high possibility of a sequester"- Washington-speak for the automatic spending cuts.
So far, congressional staffers appear to have escaped the furloughs that are likely to send thousands of public servants home without pay for several workdays over the next six months and disrupt some government services. "I hope to avoid that," said Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., "but we will take any steps to ensure we don't exceed our budget." Under House rules, a lawmaker must pay for excess spending out of his or her own pocket.
The fiscal pressures are weaker in the Senate, where senators have staff budgets about double the amount of the $1.3 million average in the House and where the office cuts ordered because of the sequester were limited to 5 percent.
While staffers still have their jobs, they may have a harder time getting to them. Security officials have cut costs by closing 10 entrances and several side streets around the Capitol complex, creating long lines to get through screening stations. People "have started to adjust to those changes at the entrances," although it is still a challenge on busy days, said Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer.
Gainer, who oversees nearly 1,000 security and administrative employees, said he hopes to abide by the 5 percent sequester cut without layoffs by enlisting 70 or 80 people for a voluntary retirement program.
Some House members also are feeling the pinch during the two-week Easter break, a prime time for foreign "fact-finding" tours. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced last month that members must book commercial flights rather than make use of more convenient but more expensive military aircraft.
Some Democrats have complained the GOP enthusiasm for frugality has come at too high a cost.
"At a time when most members of this body are representing newly formed congressional districts with a need to open new offices or move to new locations, we find ourselves with an 8.2 percent decrease in the very operating budgets that support constituent services," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.
Wasserman Schultz, who also is the Democratic Party's chairwoman, criticized House Republicans for cutting budgets while spending some $3 million for the legal defense of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
"We are past the point of cutting what we want, and we are now into cutting what we need - our ability to attract and retain expert staff," said Rep. Robert Brady of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the House Administration Committee.
Brad Fitch, president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works to improve congressional operations, said it's still possible that House members will have to resort to furloughs or layoffs. So far, he said, they have been able to cope with the cuts of the past three years with less drastic steps, such as reducing the size of their staffs through attrition, making more use of interns and using email rather than mass mailings.
At the end of 2011, Fitch's group recommended 46 possible ways for members to cut $90,000 from their 2012 budgets, ranging from pay freezes, holding more town hall meetings by telephone, delaying purchases of new computers, eliminating Washington staffers' visits to district offices, closing district offices, eliminating bottled water from offices and reviewing spending on food and beverages for constituents.
..................................................................................................................................
Friday, March 29, 2013
The decision has already been made in the court of public opinion
..................................................................................................................................
It's time for High Court to catch up with voters on same-sex marriage
By Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), March 28, 2013
This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the most important civil rights cases of our time – Hollingsworth v. Perry (challenging California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (contesting the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act). Both Proposition 8 and DOMA define members of the LGBT community as second-class citizens who are incapable of the same commitment as straight couples, and as a class of citizens who pose a direct threat to the American way of life.
Since the passage of these laws, our nation has evolved and come to understand that such thinking is not based in reality. Those who believe our nation can promise equality, yet practice discrimination, stubbornly refuse to recognize the contradiction that these laws pose to our nation’s ideals. Most Americans now recognize an enlarged meaning of equality and would accept a broad application of the equal protection clause that would make same sex marriages legal everywhere in the nation.
Polls increasingly indicate public sentiment favors marriage equality, as my election last November as California’s first openly gay member of Congress shows. I was not elected in the state’s liberal strongholds, such as San Francisco or Santa Monica, but in Riverside County, one of the areas that heavily supported Proposition 8 in 2008, adding to its narrow 2 percent passage statewide.
If given the opportunity, I believe voters would have reinstated same sex marriage in California last year, just as voters in Washington, Minnesota, Maine, and Maryland decided ballot measures that affirmed marriage equality. Moreover, beyond Republican Senator Rob Portman’s change of heart, Democratic Senators from red-states stepped forward in support of marriage equality, with Kay Hagen of North Carolina being the latest.
President Obama is fond of quoting Martin Luther King’s belief that the arc of history bends toward justice, but on the matter of marriage equality, the arc of which the President speaks has lately become an acceleration curve.
Not that the court should base its decision on public opinion, but rather it should muster the boldness to affirm what is constitutionally and morally right and not be so concerned with making an untimely decision that it fears the public will not accept. Sometimes the court leads public opinion, as in the case in which Chief Justice Earl Warren forged a unanimous decision in Brown v Board, a decision that President Eisenhower had to enforce with federal troops in Little Rock. The unanimity of the court and a cooperative president who enforced the decision compensated for large portions of mid 20th century America deeply gripped in racism.
In cases where the Supreme Court is unlikely to achieve unanimity, the question of a timely decision is relevant. Some pundits now speculate that many of the Justices are reticent to repeat a protracted backlash that accompanied the 5-4 Roe v. Wade decision and that is why they might shrink from making a 50 state solution decision regarding marriage equality.
The Windsor and Perry cases now before the court are unlikely to be decided unanimously, but even with a divided decision, the majority should be secure in acting boldly.
It is time for the Supreme Court to catch up with the people of this nation, and deem both of these discriminatory laws what they are and always have been – unconstitutional.
It’s time to overturn DOMA and Proposition 8, and allow the nation to accelerate towards justice. The people are ready. The Supreme Court will be ratifying a decision that has already been made in the court of public opinion.
..................................................................................................................................
It's time for High Court to catch up with voters on same-sex marriage
By Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), March 28, 2013
This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the most important civil rights cases of our time – Hollingsworth v. Perry (challenging California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (contesting the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act). Both Proposition 8 and DOMA define members of the LGBT community as second-class citizens who are incapable of the same commitment as straight couples, and as a class of citizens who pose a direct threat to the American way of life.
Since the passage of these laws, our nation has evolved and come to understand that such thinking is not based in reality. Those who believe our nation can promise equality, yet practice discrimination, stubbornly refuse to recognize the contradiction that these laws pose to our nation’s ideals. Most Americans now recognize an enlarged meaning of equality and would accept a broad application of the equal protection clause that would make same sex marriages legal everywhere in the nation.
Polls increasingly indicate public sentiment favors marriage equality, as my election last November as California’s first openly gay member of Congress shows. I was not elected in the state’s liberal strongholds, such as San Francisco or Santa Monica, but in Riverside County, one of the areas that heavily supported Proposition 8 in 2008, adding to its narrow 2 percent passage statewide.
If given the opportunity, I believe voters would have reinstated same sex marriage in California last year, just as voters in Washington, Minnesota, Maine, and Maryland decided ballot measures that affirmed marriage equality. Moreover, beyond Republican Senator Rob Portman’s change of heart, Democratic Senators from red-states stepped forward in support of marriage equality, with Kay Hagen of North Carolina being the latest.
President Obama is fond of quoting Martin Luther King’s belief that the arc of history bends toward justice, but on the matter of marriage equality, the arc of which the President speaks has lately become an acceleration curve.
Not that the court should base its decision on public opinion, but rather it should muster the boldness to affirm what is constitutionally and morally right and not be so concerned with making an untimely decision that it fears the public will not accept. Sometimes the court leads public opinion, as in the case in which Chief Justice Earl Warren forged a unanimous decision in Brown v Board, a decision that President Eisenhower had to enforce with federal troops in Little Rock. The unanimity of the court and a cooperative president who enforced the decision compensated for large portions of mid 20th century America deeply gripped in racism.
In cases where the Supreme Court is unlikely to achieve unanimity, the question of a timely decision is relevant. Some pundits now speculate that many of the Justices are reticent to repeat a protracted backlash that accompanied the 5-4 Roe v. Wade decision and that is why they might shrink from making a 50 state solution decision regarding marriage equality.
The Windsor and Perry cases now before the court are unlikely to be decided unanimously, but even with a divided decision, the majority should be secure in acting boldly.
It is time for the Supreme Court to catch up with the people of this nation, and deem both of these discriminatory laws what they are and always have been – unconstitutional.
It’s time to overturn DOMA and Proposition 8, and allow the nation to accelerate towards justice. The people are ready. The Supreme Court will be ratifying a decision that has already been made in the court of public opinion.
..................................................................................................................................
The Supremes dislike fractured rulings
..................................................................................................................................
Gay marriage at high court: How a case can fizzle
By Mark Sherman, March 28, 2013
Late in the oral argument over same-sex marriage in California, Justice Anthony Kennedy made a startling comment, given the months of buildup and mountain of legal briefs that have descended on the justices.
"You might address why you think we should take and decide this case," Kennedy said to lawyer Charles Cooper, representing opponents of same-sex marriage.
One might have thought the court had already crossed that bridge.
But now the justices were openly discussing essentially walking away from the case over California's Proposition 8, a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, without deciding anything at all about such unions.
Indeed, this case offers a rare glimpse at the court's opaque internal workings, in which justices make cold political calculations about what to do and Kennedy's often-decisive vote can never be far from his colleagues' minds.
The court on Wednesday concluded two days of arguments involving gay marriage. In the second case, a constitutional challenge to a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a majority of the court appeared likely to rule that legally married gay couples should be able to receive a range of benefits that the law currently reserves for straight married couples.
The decision to hear the DOMA case was easy. The Supreme Court almost always has the final word when lower courts strike down a federal law, as they did in this case.
Proposition 8's route to the Supreme Court was not as obvious. The appeals court ruling under review by the justices seems to have been written to discourage the high court from ever taking up the case because it applies only to California and limited a much broader opinion that had emerged earlier from the trial court.
And yet in December, the court decided it would hear the case. It takes a majority of five to decide a case a particular way, but just four justices can vote to add a case to the calendar. And the court does not disclose how the justices vote at this stage.
It seems apparent after the argument, though, that it was the conservative justices who opted to hear Proposition 8. It also seems that one factor in their decision was that this could be their last, best opportunity to slow the nation's march toward recognition of gay marriage at a time when only nine states and the District of Columbia allow gays and lesbians to marry - despite a rapid swing in public opinion in favor of gay marriage.
From their comments and questions Tuesday, Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia indicated they preferred what they called the cautious approach: allowing the debate over gay marriage to play out in the states and not overturning by judicial fiat the will of California voters who approved Proposition 8 in 2008. Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his custom, said nothing during the argument, but he and Scalia were dissenters in the court's earlier two gay rights cases in 1996 and 2003.
Chief Justice John Roberts also had tough questions for lawyers for the same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry, and for the Obama administration.
Scalia sought to counter Kennedy's comment, and a similar one from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that maybe the court should get rid of the case.
"It's too late for that, too late for that now, isn't it? I mean, we granted cert," Scalia said, using the legal shorthand for the court's decision to hear a case. "We have crossed that river, I think."
Once or twice a term, occasionally more often, the justices do dismiss cases after they have been argued, without rendering opinions and establishing a rule for the whole nation. The language they use is the wonderfully vague "dismissed as improvidently granted." Roughly translated, it means "sorry for wasting everyone's time."
That is one potential outcome, discussed publicly by Kennedy and Sotomayor.
Another possibility would be a decision limited to the technical legal question of whether the Proposition 8 supporters have the right to defend the measure in court. If they don't, the court can't reach the broader issues in the case.
On this point, Roberts' view seemed more in line with questions from some of the liberal justices.
So why would a justice who appeared favorably inclined to California's ban on gay marriage want to rule that the case should not even be in front of the court?
The answer is that Roberts might want to dispose of the case in this narrow way if he saw a decision in support of gay marriage emerging and wanted to block it. Or, he might choose this route if the justices appeared unable to reach a decisive ruling of any kind.
Narrowly based decisions sometimes seem more attractive to the justices than fractured rulings.
One example is the court's 2009 decision in a voting rights case in which eight of the justices agreed to sidestep the looming and major constitutional issue in the case after an argument in which the court appeared sharply split along ideological lines.
..................................................................................................................................
Gay marriage at high court: How a case can fizzle
By Mark Sherman, March 28, 2013
Late in the oral argument over same-sex marriage in California, Justice Anthony Kennedy made a startling comment, given the months of buildup and mountain of legal briefs that have descended on the justices.
"You might address why you think we should take and decide this case," Kennedy said to lawyer Charles Cooper, representing opponents of same-sex marriage.
One might have thought the court had already crossed that bridge.
But now the justices were openly discussing essentially walking away from the case over California's Proposition 8, a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, without deciding anything at all about such unions.
Indeed, this case offers a rare glimpse at the court's opaque internal workings, in which justices make cold political calculations about what to do and Kennedy's often-decisive vote can never be far from his colleagues' minds.
The court on Wednesday concluded two days of arguments involving gay marriage. In the second case, a constitutional challenge to a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a majority of the court appeared likely to rule that legally married gay couples should be able to receive a range of benefits that the law currently reserves for straight married couples.
The decision to hear the DOMA case was easy. The Supreme Court almost always has the final word when lower courts strike down a federal law, as they did in this case.
Proposition 8's route to the Supreme Court was not as obvious. The appeals court ruling under review by the justices seems to have been written to discourage the high court from ever taking up the case because it applies only to California and limited a much broader opinion that had emerged earlier from the trial court.
And yet in December, the court decided it would hear the case. It takes a majority of five to decide a case a particular way, but just four justices can vote to add a case to the calendar. And the court does not disclose how the justices vote at this stage.
It seems apparent after the argument, though, that it was the conservative justices who opted to hear Proposition 8. It also seems that one factor in their decision was that this could be their last, best opportunity to slow the nation's march toward recognition of gay marriage at a time when only nine states and the District of Columbia allow gays and lesbians to marry - despite a rapid swing in public opinion in favor of gay marriage.
From their comments and questions Tuesday, Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia indicated they preferred what they called the cautious approach: allowing the debate over gay marriage to play out in the states and not overturning by judicial fiat the will of California voters who approved Proposition 8 in 2008. Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his custom, said nothing during the argument, but he and Scalia were dissenters in the court's earlier two gay rights cases in 1996 and 2003.
Chief Justice John Roberts also had tough questions for lawyers for the same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry, and for the Obama administration.
Scalia sought to counter Kennedy's comment, and a similar one from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that maybe the court should get rid of the case.
"It's too late for that, too late for that now, isn't it? I mean, we granted cert," Scalia said, using the legal shorthand for the court's decision to hear a case. "We have crossed that river, I think."
Once or twice a term, occasionally more often, the justices do dismiss cases after they have been argued, without rendering opinions and establishing a rule for the whole nation. The language they use is the wonderfully vague "dismissed as improvidently granted." Roughly translated, it means "sorry for wasting everyone's time."
That is one potential outcome, discussed publicly by Kennedy and Sotomayor.
Another possibility would be a decision limited to the technical legal question of whether the Proposition 8 supporters have the right to defend the measure in court. If they don't, the court can't reach the broader issues in the case.
On this point, Roberts' view seemed more in line with questions from some of the liberal justices.
So why would a justice who appeared favorably inclined to California's ban on gay marriage want to rule that the case should not even be in front of the court?
The answer is that Roberts might want to dispose of the case in this narrow way if he saw a decision in support of gay marriage emerging and wanted to block it. Or, he might choose this route if the justices appeared unable to reach a decisive ruling of any kind.
Narrowly based decisions sometimes seem more attractive to the justices than fractured rulings.
One example is the court's 2009 decision in a voting rights case in which eight of the justices agreed to sidestep the looming and major constitutional issue in the case after an argument in which the court appeared sharply split along ideological lines.
..................................................................................................................................
If a corporation wants to be favorably viewed, it better watch its political stances
..................................................................................................................................
Poll: Public wary of corporate politics
By Byron Tau, March 27, 2013
Americans are skittish about corporations getting heavily involved in hot-button issues like gay marriage, abortion and health care reform, according to a new poll.
A Global Strategy Group survey found that 31 percent of Americans feel it’s appropriate for companies to weigh in on social issues including same-sex marriage or abortion. Fifty-six percent of those polled said it’s inappropriate for companies to take a stance on issues that do not affect their business.
Major American brands like Chick-fil-A, Papa John’s and others have found themselves embroiled in controversy over staking out political positions. Chick-fil-A faced boycott calls from some progressives when a senior official blasted same-sex marriage. Papa John’s caused a similar controversy last year when the CEO said President Barack Obama’s health care law would case pizza prices to rise.
The survey also found that a corporation’s perceived political identity was correlated with brand favorability ratings.
Corporations that were seen as partisan by the public got lower favorability ratings, while “nonpartisan” or middle-of-the-road companies were viewed more favorably.
MTV, Nickelodeon, and other companies like Weightwatchers, Whole Foods, Toys R Us, Amazon and Target were seen as liberal, while Wells Fargo, News Corp, Chick-fil-A , Marriott, Staples and Hilton were seen as conservative. Those companies received much lower favorability ratings than companies seen by consumers as nonpartisan — including Apple, Walt Disney, PepsiCo, Costco and Coca-Cola.
The study found that companies perceived by consumers to be in opposition to their political values experience a 42-point drop in brand favorability. Consumers who agree with a corporation’s political position show no more likelihood to have a more favorable impression.
“These are big indications for companies considering wading into political waters to test those waters first,” said Nick Gourevitch, senior vice president and director of research at GSG. “If people disagree with a position, it’s bad for brand favorability — and could be very bad for business. Likewise, if a position is controversial, companies need to be ready for it to become a very public position.”
The poll surveyed 806 Americans 18 years or older in the fall and winter of 2012, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.45 percent.
..................................................................................................................................
Poll: Public wary of corporate politics
By Byron Tau, March 27, 2013
Americans are skittish about corporations getting heavily involved in hot-button issues like gay marriage, abortion and health care reform, according to a new poll.
A Global Strategy Group survey found that 31 percent of Americans feel it’s appropriate for companies to weigh in on social issues including same-sex marriage or abortion. Fifty-six percent of those polled said it’s inappropriate for companies to take a stance on issues that do not affect their business.
Major American brands like Chick-fil-A, Papa John’s and others have found themselves embroiled in controversy over staking out political positions. Chick-fil-A faced boycott calls from some progressives when a senior official blasted same-sex marriage. Papa John’s caused a similar controversy last year when the CEO said President Barack Obama’s health care law would case pizza prices to rise.
The survey also found that a corporation’s perceived political identity was correlated with brand favorability ratings.
Corporations that were seen as partisan by the public got lower favorability ratings, while “nonpartisan” or middle-of-the-road companies were viewed more favorably.
MTV, Nickelodeon, and other companies like Weightwatchers, Whole Foods, Toys R Us, Amazon and Target were seen as liberal, while Wells Fargo, News Corp, Chick-fil-A , Marriott, Staples and Hilton were seen as conservative. Those companies received much lower favorability ratings than companies seen by consumers as nonpartisan — including Apple, Walt Disney, PepsiCo, Costco and Coca-Cola.
The study found that companies perceived by consumers to be in opposition to their political values experience a 42-point drop in brand favorability. Consumers who agree with a corporation’s political position show no more likelihood to have a more favorable impression.
“These are big indications for companies considering wading into political waters to test those waters first,” said Nick Gourevitch, senior vice president and director of research at GSG. “If people disagree with a position, it’s bad for brand favorability — and could be very bad for business. Likewise, if a position is controversial, companies need to be ready for it to become a very public position.”
The poll surveyed 806 Americans 18 years or older in the fall and winter of 2012, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.45 percent.
..................................................................................................................................
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Do differences in risk tolerance between women and men determine willingness to run for office?
..................................................................................................................................
Why Are Young Women Running Away From Politics Instead Of Running For Office?
By J. Maureen Henderson, March 27, 2013
The number of women in the Senate may have reached an all-time high, but that isn’t doing much to ignite interest in running for political office among the nation’s young women. New research from DC’s American University finds that college-age women are much less likely than their male counterparts to consider or have considered politics as a possible career path. In a survey of 2100 18 – 25 year-olds, researchers found that young men were twice as likely to report having considered a run for office “many times,” while 63% of young women – compared to 43% of young men – had never considered a future as an elected official. And these gaps exist despite a gender parity in political participation among America’s youth:
“These gender gaps in political ambition are striking because female and male respondents were roughly equally likely to have participated in the political activities about which we asked. From voting, to attending a protest or rally, to blogging or emailing about a cause or issue, to posting about or following a politician or political issue on a social networking site, we uncovered comparable rates of activism. Women and men also held similar attitudes about politics and politicians; female respondents were no more likely than male respondents to hold politicians in low regard, for example. Thus, if attitudes toward politicians and levels of political activity situate college students to think about running for office, then the data suggest that female respondents are at least as well-positioned as their male counterparts,” write Jennifer L. Lawless and Richard L. Fox, authors of Girls Just Wanna Not Run: The Gender Gap In Young Americans’ Political Ambition.
So, if young women are as politically engaged as young men, why aren’t they aspiring to political careers in equal measure? Lawless and Fox identify five factors that contribute to the political ambition gender gap, including the fact that young men are more likely to be socialized by their parents to consider politics as a career option than are young women, young women are exposed to less political information and discussion than are young men and young women are less likely to think they will eventually be qualified to hold political office.
In the case of the last factor, Lawless and Fox found that among young men and women who didn’t feel as they’d be qualified to run for election after becoming established in their careers, 23% of young men vs. 15% of young women still mulled over the idea of putting their name on the ballot anyway. This finding may reflect previous research on differences in risk tolerance between women and men. In particular, a Texas A&M survey of state-level officials that found women wouldn’t consider running for Congress if they stood less than a 20% chance of winning, while men’s decisions to run or not weren’t influenced by long-shot odds.
A lack desire to become the next Pelosi or Palin, however, shouldn’t be taken as reflective of Millennial women’s overall level of career ambition. Lawless and Fox found robust interest among college-age women for careers in business, law and medicine and, last year, the Pew reported that two-thirds of Millennial women identified having a high-paying career as one of their top priorities, while only 59% of Millennial men said the same. Given that both female educational attainment and, in many urban centers, young female earnings best that of young men, young women are putting their money where their mouths are when it comes to chasing their aspirations.
Maybe the new crop of female Senators and the record number of female committee heads will spark an uptick in political aspirations among college-age women, or maybe the next generation of female leaders has cannily surmised that the path to power is more apt to run through the C-suite than the halls of Congress.
..................................................................................................................................
Why Are Young Women Running Away From Politics Instead Of Running For Office?
By J. Maureen Henderson, March 27, 2013
The number of women in the Senate may have reached an all-time high, but that isn’t doing much to ignite interest in running for political office among the nation’s young women. New research from DC’s American University finds that college-age women are much less likely than their male counterparts to consider or have considered politics as a possible career path. In a survey of 2100 18 – 25 year-olds, researchers found that young men were twice as likely to report having considered a run for office “many times,” while 63% of young women – compared to 43% of young men – had never considered a future as an elected official. And these gaps exist despite a gender parity in political participation among America’s youth:
“These gender gaps in political ambition are striking because female and male respondents were roughly equally likely to have participated in the political activities about which we asked. From voting, to attending a protest or rally, to blogging or emailing about a cause or issue, to posting about or following a politician or political issue on a social networking site, we uncovered comparable rates of activism. Women and men also held similar attitudes about politics and politicians; female respondents were no more likely than male respondents to hold politicians in low regard, for example. Thus, if attitudes toward politicians and levels of political activity situate college students to think about running for office, then the data suggest that female respondents are at least as well-positioned as their male counterparts,” write Jennifer L. Lawless and Richard L. Fox, authors of Girls Just Wanna Not Run: The Gender Gap In Young Americans’ Political Ambition.
So, if young women are as politically engaged as young men, why aren’t they aspiring to political careers in equal measure? Lawless and Fox identify five factors that contribute to the political ambition gender gap, including the fact that young men are more likely to be socialized by their parents to consider politics as a career option than are young women, young women are exposed to less political information and discussion than are young men and young women are less likely to think they will eventually be qualified to hold political office.
In the case of the last factor, Lawless and Fox found that among young men and women who didn’t feel as they’d be qualified to run for election after becoming established in their careers, 23% of young men vs. 15% of young women still mulled over the idea of putting their name on the ballot anyway. This finding may reflect previous research on differences in risk tolerance between women and men. In particular, a Texas A&M survey of state-level officials that found women wouldn’t consider running for Congress if they stood less than a 20% chance of winning, while men’s decisions to run or not weren’t influenced by long-shot odds.
A lack desire to become the next Pelosi or Palin, however, shouldn’t be taken as reflective of Millennial women’s overall level of career ambition. Lawless and Fox found robust interest among college-age women for careers in business, law and medicine and, last year, the Pew reported that two-thirds of Millennial women identified having a high-paying career as one of their top priorities, while only 59% of Millennial men said the same. Given that both female educational attainment and, in many urban centers, young female earnings best that of young men, young women are putting their money where their mouths are when it comes to chasing their aspirations.
Maybe the new crop of female Senators and the record number of female committee heads will spark an uptick in political aspirations among college-age women, or maybe the next generation of female leaders has cannily surmised that the path to power is more apt to run through the C-suite than the halls of Congress.
..................................................................................................................................
Huge and lasting political ramifications
..................................................................................................................................
Reluctant Justices May Be Forced To Make History
By Ron Elving, March 28, 2013
Now and then, an issue before the U.S. Supreme Court changes the course of the nation's political history — whether the justices like it or not.
It's happening again with gay marriage. This week the court heard oral arguments in two key cases. One could restore legal same-sex marriage in California; the other could end discrimination against gay married couples in the administration of more than 1,000 federal programs.
The questions from the pivotal justices indicated they might prefer these cases — and these issues — be decided by someone else. Nearly half of each day's session was devoted to questions of standing and jurisdiction, with much of the court clearly skeptical about the task at hand.
Given that politicians were "falling over themselves" to support gay marriage, in his phrase, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed loath for the court to get involved.
Shaking The Foundations
For the justices, it has always been axiomatic that their deliberations are legal and rational and divorced from the winds of political sentiment and the vagaries of political consequences. But for the rest of the world watching the court, this has seemed a conceit often difficult to credit.
The court surely knew it was shaking the foundations of society when it ruled against school segregation in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education), and when it announced its landmark "one person, one vote" principle in a series of cases starting with Baker v. Carr in 1962. And there was little chance it missed the significance of Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the presidential election of 2000.
But it is hard to imagine that the court foresaw, in deciding Roe v. Wade in 1973, that 40 years later we would still be embroiled in a political war over it. Just this week North Dakota enacted a clutch of new laws seeking to force Roe's reconsideration. And in the intervening decades the abortion issue has divided friends and even families, while influencing or determining the outcome of countless elections from local boards to the White House.
Similarly, the majority in Buckley v. Vallejo in 1976, which decided that campaign money enjoyed First Amendment protection as speech, might well be flabbergasted to see how money has changed our politics since. Yet when the court opened the campaign finance floodgates wider still in 2010 in Citizens United, the author of the opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, flat out denied that it would create even an appearance of corruption.
Similarly, for generations, the court refused to take up congressional redistricting plans, no matter how egregious their partisan gerrymandering. Of course, that refusal was itself a huge weight on the political balancing scales, enabling outrageous schemes. But later, when the court did start throwing out such plans on the basis of racial discrimination, the effects were immediate and lasting. Parts of the South began electing black representatives to Congress and legislatures for the first time.
Later, in the early 1990s, when the court pressed the states to create as many of these "majority minority" districts as possible, the unintended byproduct was a concentration of white voters in surrounding districts. That led immediately to an explosion of Republican wins in those districts in 1994 and the GOP had its first majority of House seats from Dixie since Reconstruction. They have had that majority ever since.
Uncertainty As Society Changes
What is believable, and in fact undeniable, is that the court never really knows exactly how its decisions will play out — especially not in the long run. That uncertainty must loom over the justices now as they contemplate the issue of gay marriage.
The attitudinal turnaround in society, as Roberts noted, has happened so fast that the political community cannot scramble fast enough to keep up. As recently as 2008, every major Democratic candidate for president opposed same-sex marriage. This past week, Hillary Clinton joined President Obama and Vice President Biden in crossing over to the new party orthodoxy. So did half a dozen Democratic senators. As of this writing, only nine of the 55 senators in the Democratic caucus are still opposed to gay marriage.
How much of a reversal is this? In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act had the overwhelming bipartisan support of 85 senators and 84 percent of the House, and it was signed into law by Hillary Clinton's husband, who was president at the time. He, too, has recently recanted.
The Democrats are, of course, reacting to polls that show as many as 58 percent of Americans now support gay marriage. Republicans' base has yet to shift on the issue, but their leaders know that among voters under 30 support for gay marriage now crosses party lines.
The dilemma the GOP faces is the clear contradiction between the way things have been and the way things are going. Whatever it decides now will have political consequences for many years to come.
In the end, the court confronts the same dilemma. Whatever decision it makes in its gay marriage cases — including any effort not to decide — will have huge and lasting political ramifications.
Whether the court wants them or not.
..................................................................................................................................
Reluctant Justices May Be Forced To Make History
By Ron Elving, March 28, 2013
Now and then, an issue before the U.S. Supreme Court changes the course of the nation's political history — whether the justices like it or not.
It's happening again with gay marriage. This week the court heard oral arguments in two key cases. One could restore legal same-sex marriage in California; the other could end discrimination against gay married couples in the administration of more than 1,000 federal programs.
The questions from the pivotal justices indicated they might prefer these cases — and these issues — be decided by someone else. Nearly half of each day's session was devoted to questions of standing and jurisdiction, with much of the court clearly skeptical about the task at hand.
Given that politicians were "falling over themselves" to support gay marriage, in his phrase, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed loath for the court to get involved.
Shaking The Foundations
For the justices, it has always been axiomatic that their deliberations are legal and rational and divorced from the winds of political sentiment and the vagaries of political consequences. But for the rest of the world watching the court, this has seemed a conceit often difficult to credit.
The court surely knew it was shaking the foundations of society when it ruled against school segregation in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education), and when it announced its landmark "one person, one vote" principle in a series of cases starting with Baker v. Carr in 1962. And there was little chance it missed the significance of Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the presidential election of 2000.
But it is hard to imagine that the court foresaw, in deciding Roe v. Wade in 1973, that 40 years later we would still be embroiled in a political war over it. Just this week North Dakota enacted a clutch of new laws seeking to force Roe's reconsideration. And in the intervening decades the abortion issue has divided friends and even families, while influencing or determining the outcome of countless elections from local boards to the White House.
Similarly, the majority in Buckley v. Vallejo in 1976, which decided that campaign money enjoyed First Amendment protection as speech, might well be flabbergasted to see how money has changed our politics since. Yet when the court opened the campaign finance floodgates wider still in 2010 in Citizens United, the author of the opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, flat out denied that it would create even an appearance of corruption.
Similarly, for generations, the court refused to take up congressional redistricting plans, no matter how egregious their partisan gerrymandering. Of course, that refusal was itself a huge weight on the political balancing scales, enabling outrageous schemes. But later, when the court did start throwing out such plans on the basis of racial discrimination, the effects were immediate and lasting. Parts of the South began electing black representatives to Congress and legislatures for the first time.
Later, in the early 1990s, when the court pressed the states to create as many of these "majority minority" districts as possible, the unintended byproduct was a concentration of white voters in surrounding districts. That led immediately to an explosion of Republican wins in those districts in 1994 and the GOP had its first majority of House seats from Dixie since Reconstruction. They have had that majority ever since.
Uncertainty As Society Changes
What is believable, and in fact undeniable, is that the court never really knows exactly how its decisions will play out — especially not in the long run. That uncertainty must loom over the justices now as they contemplate the issue of gay marriage.
The attitudinal turnaround in society, as Roberts noted, has happened so fast that the political community cannot scramble fast enough to keep up. As recently as 2008, every major Democratic candidate for president opposed same-sex marriage. This past week, Hillary Clinton joined President Obama and Vice President Biden in crossing over to the new party orthodoxy. So did half a dozen Democratic senators. As of this writing, only nine of the 55 senators in the Democratic caucus are still opposed to gay marriage.
How much of a reversal is this? In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act had the overwhelming bipartisan support of 85 senators and 84 percent of the House, and it was signed into law by Hillary Clinton's husband, who was president at the time. He, too, has recently recanted.
The Democrats are, of course, reacting to polls that show as many as 58 percent of Americans now support gay marriage. Republicans' base has yet to shift on the issue, but their leaders know that among voters under 30 support for gay marriage now crosses party lines.
The dilemma the GOP faces is the clear contradiction between the way things have been and the way things are going. Whatever it decides now will have political consequences for many years to come.
In the end, the court confronts the same dilemma. Whatever decision it makes in its gay marriage cases — including any effort not to decide — will have huge and lasting political ramifications.
Whether the court wants them or not.
..................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Same old whine in new bottles, never mind its color
..................................................................................................................................
Sample Some Popular Political Whines
By Joe Gandelman, March 27, 2013
The phone rings in a big warehouse in Oriskiny Falls, N.Y.
“Is this Political Whines, Incorporated? ”
“Yep. Harry Schmidlap speaking. Welcome to the biggest collection of vintage whines anywhere. We have whines popular with Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, and independents.”
“I have no idea where to begin. Any suggestions?
“Sure,” Schmidlap says. “Do you want a Jewish whine?”
“Yes.”
“Here’s one: I want to go to Loehmann’s.”
” I hope you have better whines than that. Leave the comedy writing to people who are funnier than you — like Michele Bachmann.”
“We do have a Michele Bachmann Whine.”
“You do?”
“Yes. The Michele Bachmann Whine, labeled Obamacare Will Kill Your Grandma, is a classic blend of baloney and misstatement, conjuring up images of a female Pinocchio. Although its creator has been unable to achieve the goal of her whine appearing red, white and blue, it is a bright embarrassment-to-the-Republican Party red. Some people, who’ve sampled this whine, including Bachmann staffers and political consultant Ed Rollins, found it was hard to swallow. It left a bad aftertaste and they don’t want it again. But it’s highly popular at tea parties.”
“I don’t know. It sounds too risky. What’s the most popular liberal whine?”
“One highly popular liberal whine is the Don’t Call Me A Liberal I’m a Progressive Whine, but to be frank, the ingredients and preparation are the same as the Liberal Whine. The most popular liberal whine is the False Equivalency Whine fermented in a lush refusal-to-acknowledge -the-other-side-does-it-too mix.”
“Do you have a Mitt Romney Whine?”
“Made out of sour grapes.”
“Do you have talk show whines? What about Rachael Maddow Whine?”
“Yes, but the Rachael Maddow Whine repeats itself. Take one sip and you’ll repeat the same concept over and over.”
“Really?”
” I just divorced and I should have NEVER given my wife the Rachael Maddow Whine as a peace offering. Now she repeats the same sentence about child support three times, rewording it each time.”
“Do you have another liberal talker whine?”
“For a while we carried the Keith Olbermann Whine but got too many special comments about it being tiresome. And news executives who tried it said it disagreed with them.”
“How about a Rush Limbaugh Whine?”
“An acquired taste,” Schmidlap said. “Rich and loud, the Rush Limbaugh Whine has the subtle flavor of bile, chicken hawk, ham and poppycock. Enjoy this whine while watching Fox News or reading The Drudge Report. It comes in a life-size 375-gallon jug.”
“Don’t you have a conservative whine a bit smaller?”
“Well some whines put out by conservative blogs are much smaller. The Obama Uses a Teleprompter and Obama Plays Golf are really small whines with whiffs of hypocrisy that caress the palate, since other Presidents used teleprompters and played golf. These whines are popular with those who don’t like the taste of facts, and are best enjoyed while writing name-calling, demonizing website comments about blog post writers or columnists.”
“Is there a Sean Hannity Whine?”
” It’s a lower-rent version of the Limbaugh Whine and not as bright or bold and not much thought has been put into it, but people at the RNC love it.”
“What about that new whine I’ve heard a lot about — the New Republican Brand whine?”
” I don’t think you’ll like it,” Schmidlap says. “Everyone’s getting excited about what they say will be this vintage’s rollout in 2014 and 2016. But it’ll be the same, old whine in new bottles.”
..................................................................................................................................
Sample Some Popular Political Whines
By Joe Gandelman, March 27, 2013
The phone rings in a big warehouse in Oriskiny Falls, N.Y.
“Is this Political Whines, Incorporated? ”
“Yep. Harry Schmidlap speaking. Welcome to the biggest collection of vintage whines anywhere. We have whines popular with Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, and independents.”
“I have no idea where to begin. Any suggestions?
“Sure,” Schmidlap says. “Do you want a Jewish whine?”
“Yes.”
“Here’s one: I want to go to Loehmann’s.”
” I hope you have better whines than that. Leave the comedy writing to people who are funnier than you — like Michele Bachmann.”
“We do have a Michele Bachmann Whine.”
“You do?”
“Yes. The Michele Bachmann Whine, labeled Obamacare Will Kill Your Grandma, is a classic blend of baloney and misstatement, conjuring up images of a female Pinocchio. Although its creator has been unable to achieve the goal of her whine appearing red, white and blue, it is a bright embarrassment-to-the-Republican Party red. Some people, who’ve sampled this whine, including Bachmann staffers and political consultant Ed Rollins, found it was hard to swallow. It left a bad aftertaste and they don’t want it again. But it’s highly popular at tea parties.”
“I don’t know. It sounds too risky. What’s the most popular liberal whine?”
“One highly popular liberal whine is the Don’t Call Me A Liberal I’m a Progressive Whine, but to be frank, the ingredients and preparation are the same as the Liberal Whine. The most popular liberal whine is the False Equivalency Whine fermented in a lush refusal-to-acknowledge -the-other-side-does-it-too mix.”
“Do you have a Mitt Romney Whine?”
“Made out of sour grapes.”
“Do you have talk show whines? What about Rachael Maddow Whine?”
“Yes, but the Rachael Maddow Whine repeats itself. Take one sip and you’ll repeat the same concept over and over.”
“Really?”
” I just divorced and I should have NEVER given my wife the Rachael Maddow Whine as a peace offering. Now she repeats the same sentence about child support three times, rewording it each time.”
“Do you have another liberal talker whine?”
“For a while we carried the Keith Olbermann Whine but got too many special comments about it being tiresome. And news executives who tried it said it disagreed with them.”
“How about a Rush Limbaugh Whine?”
“An acquired taste,” Schmidlap said. “Rich and loud, the Rush Limbaugh Whine has the subtle flavor of bile, chicken hawk, ham and poppycock. Enjoy this whine while watching Fox News or reading The Drudge Report. It comes in a life-size 375-gallon jug.”
“Don’t you have a conservative whine a bit smaller?”
“Well some whines put out by conservative blogs are much smaller. The Obama Uses a Teleprompter and Obama Plays Golf are really small whines with whiffs of hypocrisy that caress the palate, since other Presidents used teleprompters and played golf. These whines are popular with those who don’t like the taste of facts, and are best enjoyed while writing name-calling, demonizing website comments about blog post writers or columnists.”
“Is there a Sean Hannity Whine?”
” It’s a lower-rent version of the Limbaugh Whine and not as bright or bold and not much thought has been put into it, but people at the RNC love it.”
“What about that new whine I’ve heard a lot about — the New Republican Brand whine?”
” I don’t think you’ll like it,” Schmidlap says. “Everyone’s getting excited about what they say will be this vintage’s rollout in 2014 and 2016. But it’ll be the same, old whine in new bottles.”
..................................................................................................................................
Will Newtown ever be properly avenged?
..................................................................................................................................
Red-State Democrats: Profiles in Cowardice
By Dick Polman, March 27, 2013
If the gun reform movement sparked by Newtown ultimately comes to naught, rest assured that the top prize for spinelessness will be awarded to as many as eight quaking Senate Democrats.
We all know that the Republicans prefer to do nothing to curb gun violence; their instransigence is to be expected. But they have no political incentive to act – not even to support expanded background checks – when the red-state Democrats are just as reluctant. Gun reform, no matter how modest, doesn’t stand a chance unless those red-staters step up. And yet, despite landslide public support for expanded background checks of private gun purchasers, these quaking Democrats are afraid to endorse even that.
It’s noteworthy that Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s $12-million ad campaign for gun reform targets not just the most theoretically persuadable Senate Republicans, but also is destined for TV screens in red states represented by Democrats. The ads are designed to light a fire under red-state Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.
The Bloomberg ads are slated to run in those five states. Various national polls show that 91 percent of Americans, 87 percent of Republicans and 85 percent of NRA households, support a law that would mandate background checks on gun show buyers. And yet few red-state Democrats have uttered a peep in support.
Granted, some of those Democrats – Pryor, Hagan, Landrieu, Baucus, and Begich – face tough re-election fights in 2014. And, granted, Democrats have to defend 21 of 35 Senate seats up for grabs in 2014, which means that retaining those red states is crucial to the party’s continued control of the chamber. So perhaps it’s understandable that those incumbents would be reluctant to say or do anything that might conceivably bestir the voters in anti-Obama states. And their Senate leader, Harry Reid, who tried and failed to secure an NRA endorsement for his own Nevada re-election in 2010, has done nothing to nudge those incumbents toward any aspect of gun reform.
On the other hand, it doesn’t exactly require a profile in courage for a red-state Democrat to endorse expanded background checks, to tell one’s constituents that screening for bad guys is not inconsistent with the sainted constitutional guarantee of a well-regulated militia. Alas, the abject fear of the NRA apparently remains pervasive, even on a commonsensical issue where the NRA hierarchy is out of step with the NRA rank and file. The current cowardice of that Democratic quintet is pitiful.
Heitkamp is even worse. Newly elected to her seat, she doesn’t have to face the voters again until 2018 – yet she’s in the bunker on background checks, behaving as if expanded screening was a plot to pry guns from cold dead hands. Heitkamp had barely been sworn in when she opined that the White House’s reform proposals were “way in the extreme of what I think is necessary.” Yesterday, a spokesman said she’s “still reviewing proposals on the table.”
There’s a glint of daylight on several Democratic fronts. Donnelly, newly elected in Indiana, says he might be “open” to expanded background checks. Hagan, the North Carolinian, says she might be willing to “start a conversation.” Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota have hinted that maybe they’d vote for expanded background checks (Johnson announced his retirement today, so presumably he’s now free to act in the public interest). Big whoop. If reform is going to stand a chance this spring (forget a new assault weapons ban, that’s DOA already), if the Senate has any hopes of breaking a threatened Republican filibuster, all the red-state Democrats will need to grow spines – on an issue that doesn’t require any bravery.
Because if these Democrats can’t even get it together to support a modest gun reform endorsed by 91 percent of the American people, what hope do we have that Newtown will ever be properly avenged?
..................................................................................................................................
Red-State Democrats: Profiles in Cowardice
By Dick Polman, March 27, 2013
If the gun reform movement sparked by Newtown ultimately comes to naught, rest assured that the top prize for spinelessness will be awarded to as many as eight quaking Senate Democrats.
We all know that the Republicans prefer to do nothing to curb gun violence; their instransigence is to be expected. But they have no political incentive to act – not even to support expanded background checks – when the red-state Democrats are just as reluctant. Gun reform, no matter how modest, doesn’t stand a chance unless those red-staters step up. And yet, despite landslide public support for expanded background checks of private gun purchasers, these quaking Democrats are afraid to endorse even that.
It’s noteworthy that Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s $12-million ad campaign for gun reform targets not just the most theoretically persuadable Senate Republicans, but also is destined for TV screens in red states represented by Democrats. The ads are designed to light a fire under red-state Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.
The Bloomberg ads are slated to run in those five states. Various national polls show that 91 percent of Americans, 87 percent of Republicans and 85 percent of NRA households, support a law that would mandate background checks on gun show buyers. And yet few red-state Democrats have uttered a peep in support.
Granted, some of those Democrats – Pryor, Hagan, Landrieu, Baucus, and Begich – face tough re-election fights in 2014. And, granted, Democrats have to defend 21 of 35 Senate seats up for grabs in 2014, which means that retaining those red states is crucial to the party’s continued control of the chamber. So perhaps it’s understandable that those incumbents would be reluctant to say or do anything that might conceivably bestir the voters in anti-Obama states. And their Senate leader, Harry Reid, who tried and failed to secure an NRA endorsement for his own Nevada re-election in 2010, has done nothing to nudge those incumbents toward any aspect of gun reform.
On the other hand, it doesn’t exactly require a profile in courage for a red-state Democrat to endorse expanded background checks, to tell one’s constituents that screening for bad guys is not inconsistent with the sainted constitutional guarantee of a well-regulated militia. Alas, the abject fear of the NRA apparently remains pervasive, even on a commonsensical issue where the NRA hierarchy is out of step with the NRA rank and file. The current cowardice of that Democratic quintet is pitiful.
Heitkamp is even worse. Newly elected to her seat, she doesn’t have to face the voters again until 2018 – yet she’s in the bunker on background checks, behaving as if expanded screening was a plot to pry guns from cold dead hands. Heitkamp had barely been sworn in when she opined that the White House’s reform proposals were “way in the extreme of what I think is necessary.” Yesterday, a spokesman said she’s “still reviewing proposals on the table.”
There’s a glint of daylight on several Democratic fronts. Donnelly, newly elected in Indiana, says he might be “open” to expanded background checks. Hagan, the North Carolinian, says she might be willing to “start a conversation.” Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota have hinted that maybe they’d vote for expanded background checks (Johnson announced his retirement today, so presumably he’s now free to act in the public interest). Big whoop. If reform is going to stand a chance this spring (forget a new assault weapons ban, that’s DOA already), if the Senate has any hopes of breaking a threatened Republican filibuster, all the red-state Democrats will need to grow spines – on an issue that doesn’t require any bravery.
Because if these Democrats can’t even get it together to support a modest gun reform endorsed by 91 percent of the American people, what hope do we have that Newtown will ever be properly avenged?
..................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Who knew? Feeding raccoons is worse than feeding politicians!
..................................................................................................................................
The Politics Of Raccoons At The Oregon Capitol
Northwest News Network, March 26, 2013
SALEM, Ore. - Depending on who you ask, raccoons are either cute little woodland critters or a menace to pets and humans alike. There’s certainly no consensus on that question in the Oregon legislature. One measure in Salem would ban the feeding of raccoons. It’s an idea that’s proven to be surprisingly controversial.
Kristy Neubo has a small dog. She calls it "Baby. She's a little five-pound shih-tzu yorkie mix.
One night Kristy and her husband were enjoying an evening on the patio of their Lake Oswego home. It's in a wooded neighborhood just south of Portland. And out of nowhere, a raccoon attacked Baby. Kristy and her husband jumped into action.
"He's kicking the raccoon to get the raccoon off Baby, and I'm reaching in to grab her, and the raccoon's attacking both of us," Neubo recalls. "We're real lucky that we all didn't get ripped up."
Another time, Neubo's family was sitting inside their sunroom on a warm summer's evening. The patio doors were open to let the cool air in. And in walked a masked bandit with four paws.
"We couldn't believe our eyes. It just sauntered by us and went right over first to the food dish that's in the kitchen there and started eating our cat's food. And then it sauntered back over and started eating Baby's food. It just sat there watching us within three feet of us."
Neubo says raccoons also started coming into the house through the cat door until she sealed it shut. She says the creatures swarm their neighborhood after dark looking for food. Neubo suspects a former neighbor created the problem by putting out food night after night.
She supports the proposal in Salem to ban the feeding of raccoons. Wildlife advocates say it's a huge problem.
But when the measure came before the Oregon Senate, even supporters weren't taking it very seriously.
"The opponents are the raccoons themselves," says Republican state Senator Alan Olsen, the bill's sponsor. Turns out he was wrong about the level of opposition to the measure. Some of his colleagues said their spouse or friends feed raccoons.
Republican Fred Girod said he likes to feed raccoons himself.
"Don't make me a criminal," he quips.
Girod says he feeds about 50 pounds of food to raccoons every two weeks outside his rural Willamette Valley home. Olsen explained that the bill would mostly act as an educational tool for wildlife officers to use. Fines would be issued only in extreme cases.
But Girod insisted that raccoons are not to be feared.
"I had a pet raccoon as a kid. It was the best pet I ever had. And people are laughing, but it truly was. I would go fishing with it. It slept in my bed."
"It's a really bad way to interact with them," says Bob Salinger, conservation director for the Audubon Society of Portland. He says raccoons are wild animals and should be treated that way. And he says if you're fond of them, you should know that feeding raccoons is perhaps the worst thing you can do for them.
"One of the things that happens when you attract large numbers of wild animals to the same spot over and over, it becomes an easy way to spread disease."
Diseases like distemper, a leading cause of death for raccoons. Wildlife managers have noted several outbreaks of that disease in Oregon in recent months. And distemper can be passed to household pets.
The bill that would ban raccoon feeding has now moved on to the Oregon House, but it remains a contentious issue. A similar attempt failed in the Oregon legislature two years ago. This year, the measure did pass the Senate but only with the narrowest of margins. At 16-14, this was the closest vote so far this session.
..................................................................................................................................
The Politics Of Raccoons At The Oregon Capitol
Northwest News Network, March 26, 2013
SALEM, Ore. - Depending on who you ask, raccoons are either cute little woodland critters or a menace to pets and humans alike. There’s certainly no consensus on that question in the Oregon legislature. One measure in Salem would ban the feeding of raccoons. It’s an idea that’s proven to be surprisingly controversial.
Kristy Neubo has a small dog. She calls it "Baby. She's a little five-pound shih-tzu yorkie mix.
One night Kristy and her husband were enjoying an evening on the patio of their Lake Oswego home. It's in a wooded neighborhood just south of Portland. And out of nowhere, a raccoon attacked Baby. Kristy and her husband jumped into action.
"He's kicking the raccoon to get the raccoon off Baby, and I'm reaching in to grab her, and the raccoon's attacking both of us," Neubo recalls. "We're real lucky that we all didn't get ripped up."
Another time, Neubo's family was sitting inside their sunroom on a warm summer's evening. The patio doors were open to let the cool air in. And in walked a masked bandit with four paws.
"We couldn't believe our eyes. It just sauntered by us and went right over first to the food dish that's in the kitchen there and started eating our cat's food. And then it sauntered back over and started eating Baby's food. It just sat there watching us within three feet of us."
Neubo says raccoons also started coming into the house through the cat door until she sealed it shut. She says the creatures swarm their neighborhood after dark looking for food. Neubo suspects a former neighbor created the problem by putting out food night after night.
She supports the proposal in Salem to ban the feeding of raccoons. Wildlife advocates say it's a huge problem.
But when the measure came before the Oregon Senate, even supporters weren't taking it very seriously.
"The opponents are the raccoons themselves," says Republican state Senator Alan Olsen, the bill's sponsor. Turns out he was wrong about the level of opposition to the measure. Some of his colleagues said their spouse or friends feed raccoons.
Republican Fred Girod said he likes to feed raccoons himself.
"Don't make me a criminal," he quips.
Girod says he feeds about 50 pounds of food to raccoons every two weeks outside his rural Willamette Valley home. Olsen explained that the bill would mostly act as an educational tool for wildlife officers to use. Fines would be issued only in extreme cases.
But Girod insisted that raccoons are not to be feared.
"I had a pet raccoon as a kid. It was the best pet I ever had. And people are laughing, but it truly was. I would go fishing with it. It slept in my bed."
"It's a really bad way to interact with them," says Bob Salinger, conservation director for the Audubon Society of Portland. He says raccoons are wild animals and should be treated that way. And he says if you're fond of them, you should know that feeding raccoons is perhaps the worst thing you can do for them.
"One of the things that happens when you attract large numbers of wild animals to the same spot over and over, it becomes an easy way to spread disease."
Diseases like distemper, a leading cause of death for raccoons. Wildlife managers have noted several outbreaks of that disease in Oregon in recent months. And distemper can be passed to household pets.
The bill that would ban raccoon feeding has now moved on to the Oregon House, but it remains a contentious issue. A similar attempt failed in the Oregon legislature two years ago. This year, the measure did pass the Senate but only with the narrowest of margins. At 16-14, this was the closest vote so far this session.
..................................................................................................................................
Monday, March 25, 2013
My oh my... Michele Bachmann being investigated
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Office of Congressional Ethics Eyes Bachmann
By John Avlon, March 25, 2013
The Hindenburg. The Titanic. Michele Bachmann.
Eighteen months ago, the Minnesota House member was considered an unlikely but undeniable Republican rising star, winning the Iowa straw poll that unofficially begins the primary season. Today, she is embroiled in a litany of legal proceedings related to her rolling disaster of a presidential campaign—including a Office of Congressional Ethics investigation into campaign improprieties that has not previously been reported.
The Daily Beast has learned that federal investigators are now interviewing former Bachmann campaign staffers nationwide about alleged intentional campaign-finance violations. The investigators are working on behalf of the Office of Congressional Ethics, which probes reported improprieties by House members and their staffs and then can refer cases to the House Ethics Committee.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Michele Bachmann's Presidential Campaign Investigated By Ethics Watchdog
By Russell Goldman, March 25, 2013
Federal investigators are probing allegations that Rep. Michele Bachmann, or members of her staff, inappropriately used money raised during her presidential campaign, her lawyer and former campaign staffers said today.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Michele Bachmann Presidential Campaign Under Ethics Investigation: Report
The Daily Beast, March 25, 2013
Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn.) presidential campaign is under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics for campaign finance violations, the Daily Beast reported Monday.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Michele Bachmann’s Political Career Is a Parody of a Tragedy
By Doug Barry, March 25, 2013
If Michele Bachmann's congressional career were a House of Cards-style political drama, it would probably last for about six, one-hour episodes, Bachmann would be played by a tyrannical muppet, and every scene that didn't include her would feature real actors engaged in some variation of the following conversation:
[snipped]
Michele Bachmann's political career, according to the Daily Beast's extensive litany of all her pending legal woes and rhetorical missteps, is like a mountain of dry tissue paper that someone has set fire to.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Office of Congressional Ethics Eyes Bachmann
By John Avlon, March 25, 2013
The Hindenburg. The Titanic. Michele Bachmann.
Eighteen months ago, the Minnesota House member was considered an unlikely but undeniable Republican rising star, winning the Iowa straw poll that unofficially begins the primary season. Today, she is embroiled in a litany of legal proceedings related to her rolling disaster of a presidential campaign—including a Office of Congressional Ethics investigation into campaign improprieties that has not previously been reported.
The Daily Beast has learned that federal investigators are now interviewing former Bachmann campaign staffers nationwide about alleged intentional campaign-finance violations. The investigators are working on behalf of the Office of Congressional Ethics, which probes reported improprieties by House members and their staffs and then can refer cases to the House Ethics Committee.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Michele Bachmann's Presidential Campaign Investigated By Ethics Watchdog
By Russell Goldman, March 25, 2013
Federal investigators are probing allegations that Rep. Michele Bachmann, or members of her staff, inappropriately used money raised during her presidential campaign, her lawyer and former campaign staffers said today.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Michele Bachmann Presidential Campaign Under Ethics Investigation: Report
The Daily Beast, March 25, 2013
Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn.) presidential campaign is under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics for campaign finance violations, the Daily Beast reported Monday.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Michele Bachmann’s Political Career Is a Parody of a Tragedy
By Doug Barry, March 25, 2013
If Michele Bachmann's congressional career were a House of Cards-style political drama, it would probably last for about six, one-hour episodes, Bachmann would be played by a tyrannical muppet, and every scene that didn't include her would feature real actors engaged in some variation of the following conversation:
[snipped]
Michele Bachmann's political career, according to the Daily Beast's extensive litany of all her pending legal woes and rhetorical missteps, is like a mountain of dry tissue paper that someone has set fire to.
[snipped]
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Well, pardon me if I don't care
..................................................................................................................................
You're Probably Not Invited to Mitt Romney's Summer Mixer
By Connor Simpson, March 23, 2013
Mitt Romney is hosting a mixer in Park City, Utah this summer to unite "political, business and other thought leaders," according to the Chicago Tribune, but you probably aren't invited unless you're a future Republican contender for President or a deep-pocketed donor.
The Tribune got their hands on an invitation for Romney's big summer party, though they aren't necessarily on the guest list. It's being hosted by Solamere Capital, the private equity firm founded and run by Mitt's son Tagg Romney, where elder Romney now works and eats cupcakes.
To get on the guest list, you have to be someone important with a bright political future like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, or Romney's former running mate Paul Ryan. As the Tribune explains, the party is an excuse for Christie and Ryan to shake hands with the kind of zillionaires that write checks for political campaigns:
This summer retreat is drawing comparisons to a weekend getaway Romney organized for his campaign supporters last summer. That party earned rave reviews from attendees, and featured a very serious foreign policy speech from Condoleezza Rice and a comedy set from Karl Rove. Among the guests: Arizona Sen. John McCain, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and Jeb Bush.
It was hosted in hotel along the Utah mountains, just like this year's party, a reference to the time he spent organizing the Winter olympics there. Romney's showmanship was the real takeaway of that weekend. At the end of one of Romney's speeches, he had Olympic skiers do backflips off ski jumps into the hotel pools to entertain his guests.
So that's what he has to top this year. Could we suggest Olympic skiers doing back flips off ski jumps through flaming hoops into hotel pools while carrying a pair of puppies each?
..................................................................................................................................
You're Probably Not Invited to Mitt Romney's Summer Mixer
By Connor Simpson, March 23, 2013
Mitt Romney is hosting a mixer in Park City, Utah this summer to unite "political, business and other thought leaders," according to the Chicago Tribune, but you probably aren't invited unless you're a future Republican contender for President or a deep-pocketed donor.
The Tribune got their hands on an invitation for Romney's big summer party, though they aren't necessarily on the guest list. It's being hosted by Solamere Capital, the private equity firm founded and run by Mitt's son Tagg Romney, where elder Romney now works and eats cupcakes.
To get on the guest list, you have to be someone important with a bright political future like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, or Romney's former running mate Paul Ryan. As the Tribune explains, the party is an excuse for Christie and Ryan to shake hands with the kind of zillionaires that write checks for political campaigns:
An advantage for any potential 2016 candidates will be the other guests at the event. If, as expected, the upcoming event draws former Romney donors, it would offer the future contenders a chance to forge relationships with some of those who contributed to Romney’s powerful fundraising operation.So, Romney's new role in the Republican party is being a money man, or at least the guy who knows the money men and women. He's a financier. Which makes enough sense considering he usually gets around with some of the most ridiculously, out of touch rich people in the world.
This summer retreat is drawing comparisons to a weekend getaway Romney organized for his campaign supporters last summer. That party earned rave reviews from attendees, and featured a very serious foreign policy speech from Condoleezza Rice and a comedy set from Karl Rove. Among the guests: Arizona Sen. John McCain, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and Jeb Bush.
It was hosted in hotel along the Utah mountains, just like this year's party, a reference to the time he spent organizing the Winter olympics there. Romney's showmanship was the real takeaway of that weekend. At the end of one of Romney's speeches, he had Olympic skiers do backflips off ski jumps into the hotel pools to entertain his guests.
So that's what he has to top this year. Could we suggest Olympic skiers doing back flips off ski jumps through flaming hoops into hotel pools while carrying a pair of puppies each?
..................................................................................................................................
Sunday, March 24, 2013
GOP trending towards supporting gay marriage
..................................................................................................................................
On Gay Marriage, Public Leads Elected Leaders
By Rick Klein, March 24, 2013
In the fast-moving politics of gay marriage, the nation’s political class is trailing the public — and it’s getting hard to keep up.
Karl Rove is just the latest major political figure to recognize that fact. On ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” today, Rove said he could see a Republican candidate coming out in favor of gay marriage in the next presidential election.
Read more of what Rove said on ‘This Week.’
That’s not the same as saying the GOP nominee will definitely support gay marriage. But the fact that this would be a plausible position inside the Republican Party in time for 2016 is a stunning turnabout. Barely eight years ago, Rove engineered a reelection campaign that took advantage of a wave of state efforts to move in the other direction, by banning gay marriage.
President Obama and his major rivals, of course, all opposed gay marriage back in 2008. The president’s public disavowal of that position is less than a year old, and Hillary Rodham Clinton — a very early 2016 Democratic frontrunner — only officially backed gay marriage last week.
Politicians in both parties are following a tectonic shift in public opinion surrounding gay marriage. In 2004, only 32 percent of voters thought gay marriage should be legal, in ABC News/Washington Post polling.
This month, the same poll had support jumping to 58 percent — a clear majority, powered by growing support across demographic groups. It’s not yet the mainstream position inside the Republican Party, but that’s the trend line Rove and others are reading.
Read more of the ABC News/Washington Post poll.
..................................................................................................................................
On Gay Marriage, Public Leads Elected Leaders
By Rick Klein, March 24, 2013
In the fast-moving politics of gay marriage, the nation’s political class is trailing the public — and it’s getting hard to keep up.
Karl Rove is just the latest major political figure to recognize that fact. On ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” today, Rove said he could see a Republican candidate coming out in favor of gay marriage in the next presidential election.
Read more of what Rove said on ‘This Week.’
That’s not the same as saying the GOP nominee will definitely support gay marriage. But the fact that this would be a plausible position inside the Republican Party in time for 2016 is a stunning turnabout. Barely eight years ago, Rove engineered a reelection campaign that took advantage of a wave of state efforts to move in the other direction, by banning gay marriage.
President Obama and his major rivals, of course, all opposed gay marriage back in 2008. The president’s public disavowal of that position is less than a year old, and Hillary Rodham Clinton — a very early 2016 Democratic frontrunner — only officially backed gay marriage last week.
Politicians in both parties are following a tectonic shift in public opinion surrounding gay marriage. In 2004, only 32 percent of voters thought gay marriage should be legal, in ABC News/Washington Post polling.
This month, the same poll had support jumping to 58 percent — a clear majority, powered by growing support across demographic groups. It’s not yet the mainstream position inside the Republican Party, but that’s the trend line Rove and others are reading.
Read more of the ABC News/Washington Post poll.
..................................................................................................................................
The aversion to high taxes
..................................................................................................................................
Why conservatives need to listen to Bill Maher
By Tom Rogan, March 23, 2013
Even the politically incorrect liberal knows that taxes on the rich have gotten out of hand
For all of the Republican Party's recent introspection and ideological invigoration, conservatives can't simply look in-house to find solutions. We need to breach the bubble and listen to others. For an unlikely starter: Bill Maher.
Recently, Maher shocked his HBO show's audience (and Rachel Maddow) into silence when he declared that liberals might lose his support. Why? Punitive taxes.
"Liberals, you could actually lose me," Maher said. "It's outrageous what we're paying [in taxes]. Over 50 percent. I'm willing to pay my share, but yeah, it's ridiculous."
This is not just a rich guy whining. These comments represent a growing problem for liberals.
Faced with a choice between smaller government and an expansive government with higher taxes, Americans are increasingly choosing smaller government. It's not hard to see why.
At the federal level, where the highest tax bracket is nearly 40 percent, the "rich" provide over 70 percent of all income tax revenue. That's a big number.
And it doesn't end there. Consider state taxes. In California, the top rate (on earnings over $1 million) is newly increased from 10.3 percent to 13.3 percent. In New York, similar tax increases have recently been entrenched. High-income residents in these states are now regularly giving more than half of their income to the government.
I don't like the easy conservative rhetoric surrounding Marxism. But when you pay more than half your income to the government, that's socialism.
The high-tax lobby likes to pretend that marginal rates have little impact on residency and economic activity. But they're wrong. In the 21st century, capital, especially at high income levels, is highly moveable. And economic opportunity and amenities are diversified across multiple locales. (It's not just New York that has high-end restaurants). As a result, individuals and businesses are deciding to relocate to the place of best return.
Consider a 2012 study from the Manhattan Institute. Between 1990 and 2010, the five greatest net-loss domestic migration states were California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey. All high-tax, big-union Democratic states with major debt problems.
The five net-gain domestic migration states? Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona. All low-tax Republican (or Republican-leaning) states.
Of course, not all Americans share the foundational conservative aversion to high taxes. After all, taxing the rich offers the ultimate "tax the man behind the tree" scenario. However, when the man moves out from behind the tree (i.e. relocates to Florida or Texas), everything changes. Now someone else has to pay the bill. Take California, where already-high taxes were just increased on those in the $250,000 to $300,000 income bracket. "Rich" is a subjective term and one that begets a confiscatory system without end.
The lesson for conservatives is clear. Across America, the GOP dominates state legislatures. Why? Because when the liberal governance model hits home, it isn't pleasant.
We must offer an alternative. We must show Americans that tax confiscation isn't positive and that it won't end with the rich. Math is a science to which government expenditures must ultimately reconcile. If conservatives don't rise to this challenge, we know where it'll end: With a generation buried in the grave of a bloated, economically stagnant and morally unjust welfare state.
..................................................................................................................................
Why conservatives need to listen to Bill Maher
By Tom Rogan, March 23, 2013
Even the politically incorrect liberal knows that taxes on the rich have gotten out of hand
For all of the Republican Party's recent introspection and ideological invigoration, conservatives can't simply look in-house to find solutions. We need to breach the bubble and listen to others. For an unlikely starter: Bill Maher.
Recently, Maher shocked his HBO show's audience (and Rachel Maddow) into silence when he declared that liberals might lose his support. Why? Punitive taxes.
"Liberals, you could actually lose me," Maher said. "It's outrageous what we're paying [in taxes]. Over 50 percent. I'm willing to pay my share, but yeah, it's ridiculous."
This is not just a rich guy whining. These comments represent a growing problem for liberals.
Faced with a choice between smaller government and an expansive government with higher taxes, Americans are increasingly choosing smaller government. It's not hard to see why.
At the federal level, where the highest tax bracket is nearly 40 percent, the "rich" provide over 70 percent of all income tax revenue. That's a big number.
And it doesn't end there. Consider state taxes. In California, the top rate (on earnings over $1 million) is newly increased from 10.3 percent to 13.3 percent. In New York, similar tax increases have recently been entrenched. High-income residents in these states are now regularly giving more than half of their income to the government.
I don't like the easy conservative rhetoric surrounding Marxism. But when you pay more than half your income to the government, that's socialism.
The high-tax lobby likes to pretend that marginal rates have little impact on residency and economic activity. But they're wrong. In the 21st century, capital, especially at high income levels, is highly moveable. And economic opportunity and amenities are diversified across multiple locales. (It's not just New York that has high-end restaurants). As a result, individuals and businesses are deciding to relocate to the place of best return.
Consider a 2012 study from the Manhattan Institute. Between 1990 and 2010, the five greatest net-loss domestic migration states were California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey. All high-tax, big-union Democratic states with major debt problems.
The five net-gain domestic migration states? Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona. All low-tax Republican (or Republican-leaning) states.
Of course, not all Americans share the foundational conservative aversion to high taxes. After all, taxing the rich offers the ultimate "tax the man behind the tree" scenario. However, when the man moves out from behind the tree (i.e. relocates to Florida or Texas), everything changes. Now someone else has to pay the bill. Take California, where already-high taxes were just increased on those in the $250,000 to $300,000 income bracket. "Rich" is a subjective term and one that begets a confiscatory system without end.
The lesson for conservatives is clear. Across America, the GOP dominates state legislatures. Why? Because when the liberal governance model hits home, it isn't pleasant.
We must offer an alternative. We must show Americans that tax confiscation isn't positive and that it won't end with the rich. Math is a science to which government expenditures must ultimately reconcile. If conservatives don't rise to this challenge, we know where it'll end: With a generation buried in the grave of a bloated, economically stagnant and morally unjust welfare state.
..................................................................................................................................
Take that, you bigot!
..................................................................................................................................
Howard Schultz to Anti-Gay-Marriage Starbucks Shareholder: 'You Can Sell Your Shares'
By Frederick E. Allen, March 22, 2013
At Starbucks’ annual meeting in Seattle on Wednesday a shareholder complained to the chief executive, Howard Schultz, that the company had lost customers because of its support for gay marriage. Last year Starbucks announced its support for Washington’s state’s referendum backing gay marriage, and in response the National Organization for Marriage launched a boycott of the coffee chain.
“In the first full quarter after this boycott was announced, our sales and our earnings, shall we say politely, were a bit disappointing,” said the shareholder, Tom Strobhar, whom the Huffington Post identifies at the founder of the anti-gay marriage Corporate Morality Action Center.
Was Schultz taken aback? Not in the least. He responded, “Not every decision is an economic decision. Despite the fact that you recite statistics that are narrow in time, we did provide a 38% shareholder return over the last year. I don’t know how many things you invest in, but I would suspect not many things, companies, products, investments have returned 38% over the last 12 months. Having said that, it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. Of all kinds.”
At that point the audience interrupted in cheers and applause. Then Schultz concluded, “If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.” More cheers.
A Washington Post poll this week found that support for gay marriage among Americans has shot up to 58% in favor and 36% against, a complete turnaround in less than 10 years. Schultz’s stand isn’t nearly as daring as it would have been a few years back, but still, it’s impressive to see a CEO think about more than the bottom line and get cheered by his shareholders for it.
See a video of Schultz’s remark, courtesy of the Puget Sound Business Journal, here.
..................................................................................................................................
Howard Schultz to Anti-Gay-Marriage Starbucks Shareholder: 'You Can Sell Your Shares'
By Frederick E. Allen, March 22, 2013
At Starbucks’ annual meeting in Seattle on Wednesday a shareholder complained to the chief executive, Howard Schultz, that the company had lost customers because of its support for gay marriage. Last year Starbucks announced its support for Washington’s state’s referendum backing gay marriage, and in response the National Organization for Marriage launched a boycott of the coffee chain.
“In the first full quarter after this boycott was announced, our sales and our earnings, shall we say politely, were a bit disappointing,” said the shareholder, Tom Strobhar, whom the Huffington Post identifies at the founder of the anti-gay marriage Corporate Morality Action Center.
Was Schultz taken aback? Not in the least. He responded, “Not every decision is an economic decision. Despite the fact that you recite statistics that are narrow in time, we did provide a 38% shareholder return over the last year. I don’t know how many things you invest in, but I would suspect not many things, companies, products, investments have returned 38% over the last 12 months. Having said that, it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. Of all kinds.”
At that point the audience interrupted in cheers and applause. Then Schultz concluded, “If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.” More cheers.
A Washington Post poll this week found that support for gay marriage among Americans has shot up to 58% in favor and 36% against, a complete turnaround in less than 10 years. Schultz’s stand isn’t nearly as daring as it would have been a few years back, but still, it’s impressive to see a CEO think about more than the bottom line and get cheered by his shareholders for it.
See a video of Schultz’s remark, courtesy of the Puget Sound Business Journal, here.
..................................................................................................................................
Saturday, March 23, 2013
The gutless Congressional hypocrites play the long game plan of delay, delay, delay
..................................................................................................................................
The shameful politics of guns: Hypocrisy and fear grips Congress
By Catherine Poe, March 22, 2013
Three months after the slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School, what do we have to show for it? Not much.
We have the President’s promise to the parents and the nation that he would put the power of his office behind getting significant legislation, but no action, only the Gun Violence Task Force led by Vice President Joe Biden.
We have weeks of tears and outrage by Americans demanding gun control, but little or no action.
We have seen umpteen hearings in Congress and state legislatures with testimony by the parents of the murdered children and victims of gun violence like former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, but only Colorado, home of the Aurora killings, passed serious gun control laws.
We had national poll after poll of Americans, saying they wanted a ban on assault weapons, a limit on the capacity of gun magazines and mandatory background checks on all sales, but lawmakers have run and hid from the issue.
Why the shameful politics of gun control? Simple: hypocrisy is the name of the game in both Washington and most state legislatures and fear drives votes.
A grieving nation rallied around the cause of gun control. This was to be the moment when America would finally get sensible gun laws to stop the stampede of gun deaths. Politicians thumped the podium in their outrage at such senseless slaughter of innocents, but when it came time for them to do something, such as draft gun control bills and vote to pass them, they once again let us down.
A GUTLESS CONGRESS
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) worked tirelessly to get the assault weapons ban through committee only to see Democratic Leader of the Senate Harry Reid (D-Nev.) say it will not come to the floor as a bill. Reid claimed he had no choice but to deep-six the assault weapons ban because it fell far short of the number of votes needed to even pass and that the ban could cause all the gun control bills to go under. And thus he basically allowed Republicans and at least six Democrats to dive for cover.
Reid says it will be introduced as an amendment to the package in April, allowing the Senate to vote the amendment down, while voting for other parts of the legislative package. That way they can go home and say they were moderate and they were reasonable unlike people such as Sen. Feinstein and her wild and wooly cohorts.
Thursday the Vice President at a news conference with some of the parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary school victims, asked members of Congress who claim that the politics of gun are too difficult, “How can they say that when you take a look at those 20 beautiful babies and what happened to them?”
Ah, but they can, Mr. Vice President and they do. Even a bluer than blue state, Maryland, is having qualms about banning the Bushmaster M-4, the carbine that riddled the children of Newtown, and the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, used both by the Beltway snipers in Maryland and by the Aurora, Col. movie theater shooter.
The House of Delegates is looking for a way to give exceptions to these weapons, ones designed for the military with maximum deadliness, so Marylanders can use them. For what? To shred targets at target practice? To hold surging fire power in their hands?
What emboldened Maryland delegates to pare away at the assault weapon ban? Yes, yes, we know, the gun lobby was very effective in Maryland, but the Maryland Senate had already passed the bill despite the lobby. Could it be that the U.S. Senate made it possible when they jettisoned their ban, giving tacit permission to the states to do the same? And giving them cover at the same time?
The hypocrisy of the Congressional crocodile tears over the killings in December and the lack of real action tells Americans it is the same Congressional song, just different lyrics.
THE FEAR FACTOR LOOMS LARGE
Then there is the fear factor that afflicts both Republicans and Democrats in rural or Red states, the fear of being targeted by the Tea Party or the gun lobby in the 2014 election. Just look at the Democratic senators who quake at the thought of having to vote with the leadership on an assault weapons ban:
Not certain they could vote for it: Sens. Mark Warner (Va.), Tim Kaine (Va.) and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.).
Don’t want to vote for it: Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) wouldn’t vote for it and he faces a slim to no threat of a real challenger.
But don’t forget Sen. Harry Reid himself who is from a pro-gun state, Nevada, and if he has hopes of running again, he needs to do whatever possible to make the task of passing gun control legislation onerous. And his tactic is working.
However, it is not certain that background checks will even make it through the Senate unless the Republicans get their way that the government would also be forbidden from keeping records of gun purchases. Of the four bills wending their way to the Senate floor next month, the one with the best chance of passage is the law to make straw purchasing and gun trafficking classified as felonies with tough penalties.
Meanwhile, as the winter of Newtown grief turns into the spring of hope and renewal as the first little green shoots poke up their heads, and Americans turn their attention elsewhere, the long game plan of delay, delay, delay is working. Already Americans are no longer as passionate in their gun control fervor and the poll numbers reflect that as support for gun control begins to slip.
An angry Neil Heslin, whose son Jesse Lewis was murdered at Sandy Hook, gets the last word, saying it the best: “Quite honestly, I’m really ashamed to see that Congress doesn’t have the guts to stand up and make a change and put out a ban on these type of weapons.
“No child deserves to be murdered or brutally slaughtered the way these children were.”
..................................................................................................................................
The shameful politics of guns: Hypocrisy and fear grips Congress
By Catherine Poe, March 22, 2013
Three months after the slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School, what do we have to show for it? Not much.
We have the President’s promise to the parents and the nation that he would put the power of his office behind getting significant legislation, but no action, only the Gun Violence Task Force led by Vice President Joe Biden.
We have weeks of tears and outrage by Americans demanding gun control, but little or no action.
We have seen umpteen hearings in Congress and state legislatures with testimony by the parents of the murdered children and victims of gun violence like former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, but only Colorado, home of the Aurora killings, passed serious gun control laws.
We had national poll after poll of Americans, saying they wanted a ban on assault weapons, a limit on the capacity of gun magazines and mandatory background checks on all sales, but lawmakers have run and hid from the issue.
Why the shameful politics of gun control? Simple: hypocrisy is the name of the game in both Washington and most state legislatures and fear drives votes.
A grieving nation rallied around the cause of gun control. This was to be the moment when America would finally get sensible gun laws to stop the stampede of gun deaths. Politicians thumped the podium in their outrage at such senseless slaughter of innocents, but when it came time for them to do something, such as draft gun control bills and vote to pass them, they once again let us down.
A GUTLESS CONGRESS
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) worked tirelessly to get the assault weapons ban through committee only to see Democratic Leader of the Senate Harry Reid (D-Nev.) say it will not come to the floor as a bill. Reid claimed he had no choice but to deep-six the assault weapons ban because it fell far short of the number of votes needed to even pass and that the ban could cause all the gun control bills to go under. And thus he basically allowed Republicans and at least six Democrats to dive for cover.
Reid says it will be introduced as an amendment to the package in April, allowing the Senate to vote the amendment down, while voting for other parts of the legislative package. That way they can go home and say they were moderate and they were reasonable unlike people such as Sen. Feinstein and her wild and wooly cohorts.
Thursday the Vice President at a news conference with some of the parents of the Sandy Hook Elementary school victims, asked members of Congress who claim that the politics of gun are too difficult, “How can they say that when you take a look at those 20 beautiful babies and what happened to them?”
Ah, but they can, Mr. Vice President and they do. Even a bluer than blue state, Maryland, is having qualms about banning the Bushmaster M-4, the carbine that riddled the children of Newtown, and the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, used both by the Beltway snipers in Maryland and by the Aurora, Col. movie theater shooter.
The House of Delegates is looking for a way to give exceptions to these weapons, ones designed for the military with maximum deadliness, so Marylanders can use them. For what? To shred targets at target practice? To hold surging fire power in their hands?
What emboldened Maryland delegates to pare away at the assault weapon ban? Yes, yes, we know, the gun lobby was very effective in Maryland, but the Maryland Senate had already passed the bill despite the lobby. Could it be that the U.S. Senate made it possible when they jettisoned their ban, giving tacit permission to the states to do the same? And giving them cover at the same time?
The hypocrisy of the Congressional crocodile tears over the killings in December and the lack of real action tells Americans it is the same Congressional song, just different lyrics.
THE FEAR FACTOR LOOMS LARGE
Then there is the fear factor that afflicts both Republicans and Democrats in rural or Red states, the fear of being targeted by the Tea Party or the gun lobby in the 2014 election. Just look at the Democratic senators who quake at the thought of having to vote with the leadership on an assault weapons ban:
Not certain they could vote for it: Sens. Mark Warner (Va.), Tim Kaine (Va.) and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.).
Don’t want to vote for it: Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) wouldn’t vote for it and he faces a slim to no threat of a real challenger.
But don’t forget Sen. Harry Reid himself who is from a pro-gun state, Nevada, and if he has hopes of running again, he needs to do whatever possible to make the task of passing gun control legislation onerous. And his tactic is working.
However, it is not certain that background checks will even make it through the Senate unless the Republicans get their way that the government would also be forbidden from keeping records of gun purchases. Of the four bills wending their way to the Senate floor next month, the one with the best chance of passage is the law to make straw purchasing and gun trafficking classified as felonies with tough penalties.
Meanwhile, as the winter of Newtown grief turns into the spring of hope and renewal as the first little green shoots poke up their heads, and Americans turn their attention elsewhere, the long game plan of delay, delay, delay is working. Already Americans are no longer as passionate in their gun control fervor and the poll numbers reflect that as support for gun control begins to slip.
An angry Neil Heslin, whose son Jesse Lewis was murdered at Sandy Hook, gets the last word, saying it the best: “Quite honestly, I’m really ashamed to see that Congress doesn’t have the guts to stand up and make a change and put out a ban on these type of weapons.
“No child deserves to be murdered or brutally slaughtered the way these children were.”
..................................................................................................................................
stealing.......plain and simple
The following is the text of an email submitted to the Olympian publisher:
George:
I hope all is going well with you. Unfortunately, I’m not real happy with a business transaction with The Olympian.
I engaged in conversation with your circulation solicitor in Fred Meyer. He encouraged me to “give it a try for a month”, and so I did.
While balancing my checking account, I noted that there were two drafts from my account, as opposed to one and closer examination of the receipt says I agreed to three months minimum (which I was told didn’t mean anything but was to keep people from taking advantage of the $5 gift card and negating the subscription.
Here is what I’ll do. I’ll deliver the Fred Meyer gift card to The Olympian office and accept a cash return for $25.90, ($12.95 times two) and forget the digital subscription, which I have not yet enjoyed.
Please contact me, or have a local staff member contact me to make arrangements for this transaction.
Attached is a scan of the receipt give to me by your solicitor.
Needless to say, the email was ignored.
I guess McClatchy profits are down and they need the money. Oh well....I probably wouldn't have gotten my money's worth anyway......
Going rogue
..................................................................................................................................
Why I am no longer a Republican
By Damon Linker, March 22, 2013
It has a lot to do with the Iraq war.
This week has been filled with Iraq War recriminations and re-evaluations. While official Washington was strangely silent about the 10th anniversary of the start of the conflict, journalists and intellectuals have been (predictably) more vocal. Prominent neocons have reaffirmed, with minor caveats, their support for the war. Some (erstwhile) liberal hawks have issued full-throated mea culpas. Other liberals, meanwhile, have tried to have it both ways, denouncing the war they once supported while praising its outcome. And of course, lots of people who opposed the war from the beginning, on the right and left, have declared vindication.
My own position on the war fits into none of these categories. Ten years ago, I was working as an editor at First Things, a monthly magazine that's aptly been described as the New York Review of Books of the religious right. (And no, that's not oxymoronic.) The magazine strongly supported George W. Bush's original conception of the War on Terror, and so did I. In his speech to Congress and the nation on September 20, 2001, Bush stated that the United States would seek to decimate al Qaeda as well as every other terrorist groups of global reach. To this day I remain committed to that goal and willing to support aggressive military action (including the use of drone strikes) to achieve it. But thanks in large part to the Iraq war, I no longer consider myself a Republican or a man of the right.
The reason I continue (like President Obama) to support the original vision of the War on Terror is that it was and is based on a correct judgment of the fundamental difference between (stateless) terrorists and traditional (state-based) military opponents. Even the most bloodthirsty tyrant will invariably temper his actions in war out of a concern for how his adversary will respond, and he will likewise act out of a concern for maintaining and maximizing his own power. Political leaders can thus be deterred by actions (and threats of action) by other states. Members of al-Qaeda-like groups, by contrast, seek in all cases to inflict the maximum possible number of indiscriminate deaths on their enemies and demonstrate no concern about the lives of their members. They are therefore undeterrable, which means that the only way to combat them is to destroy them.
Unfortunately, the right began to disregard the crucial distinction between terrorists and states right around the time of the January 2002 State of the Union speech, when President Bush broadened the scope of the War on Terror to include an "axis of evil" consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. After that, the mood among conservatives began to grow fierce. Some columnists denied the effectiveness of deterrence against states and advocated unilateral preventive war to overthrow hostile regimes instead. Others openly promoted American imperialism. Still others explicitly proposed that the United States act to topple the governments of a series of sovereign nations in the Muslim Middle East, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
And these were the intellectually respectable suggestions, published in mainstream newspapers and long-established journals of opinion. Farther down the media hierarchy, on cable news, websites, and blogs, conservatives of all stripes closed ranks, unleashing a verbal barrage on any and all who dissented from a united front in favor of unapologetic American military muscle. The participants in this endless pep rally were insistent on open-ended war, overtly hostile to dissent, and thoroughly unforgiving of the slightest criticism of the United States abroad. Self-congratulation and self-righteousness ruled the day.
Alarmed by the transformation on the right and in the magazine's offices, I wrote a lengthy email in October 2002 to a number of my fellow conservatives, explaining why I thought it would be a serious mistake to turn Iraq into the next front in the War on Terror. My reasons had nothing to do with the administration's claims about Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction; like all commentators on the right, most independent observers, and large numbers of intelligence agencies around the world, I assumed that Hussein either possessed or was actively working to acquire such weapons. Neither was I overly concerned about worldwide public opinion. I objected to what I judged to be three erroneous assumptions on the part of conservatives inside and outside the Bush administration.
First, I believed the administration was wrong to claim that Hussein could not be deterred. In fact, he already had been. In the first Gulf War, Hussein refrained from using chemical weapons against our troops on the battlefield and against Israel in his inept Scud-missile attacks on Tel Aviv. Why? Because before the start of the war James Baker and Dick Cheney sent messages through diplomatic channels to the Iraqi dictator, informing him that we would respond to any use of WMD with a nuclear strike. Israel's Defense Minister Moshe Arens made similar threats. And they worked. Yes, Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he could be deterred.
Second, it was foolish to believe (as Paul Wolfowitz and others on the right apparently did) that overthrowing Hussein would lead to the creation of a liberal democracy in Iraq that would, in turn, inspire democratic reforms throughout the Middle East. This view displayed an ignorance of (or, more likely, indifference toward) the competing ethnic and religious forces that prevailed in different regions of Iraq as well as a typically American optimism about the spontaneous capacity of all human beings in all times, places, and cultures for self-government. Rather than inspiring the formation of liberal democracies throughout the region, an Iraqi invasion could very well empower the very forces of radical Islam that the War on Terror rightly aimed to destroy.
Third, the right was making a serious mistake in assuming that doing nothing about Iraq was inevitably more dangerous than doing something. The U.S. got caught with its pants down on 9/11, and the fear of it happening again was leading the Bush administration to formulate policies based entirely on negative evidence. The super-hawks advocating preventive war seemed more persuasive than those urging a more cautious approach because the former placed an ominous black box at the core of their deliberations — a black box containing all the horrors of our worst post-September 11 nightmares. But reasoning on that basis could be used to justify absolutely anything, and so, I concluded, it was a reckless guide to action.
None of my friends and colleagues on the right responded to the arguments in my email, and few even acknowledged receiving it. By breaking from the right-wing consensus in favor of unconditional bellicosity, I had gone rogue. Over the next year and a half, as the victorious invasion became a bloody mess of an occupation and these same friends and colleagues refused to admit — to me or to themselves, let alone to the public — that they had made a massive mistake, I drifted away from the right and never looked back. (There were other factors, too.)
My dissent had nothing to do with principles; it was a matter of prudence or judgment. On foreign policy, Republicans had become the stupid party. And so it remains 10 years later.
..................................................................................................................................
Why I am no longer a Republican
By Damon Linker, March 22, 2013
It has a lot to do with the Iraq war.
This week has been filled with Iraq War recriminations and re-evaluations. While official Washington was strangely silent about the 10th anniversary of the start of the conflict, journalists and intellectuals have been (predictably) more vocal. Prominent neocons have reaffirmed, with minor caveats, their support for the war. Some (erstwhile) liberal hawks have issued full-throated mea culpas. Other liberals, meanwhile, have tried to have it both ways, denouncing the war they once supported while praising its outcome. And of course, lots of people who opposed the war from the beginning, on the right and left, have declared vindication.
My own position on the war fits into none of these categories. Ten years ago, I was working as an editor at First Things, a monthly magazine that's aptly been described as the New York Review of Books of the religious right. (And no, that's not oxymoronic.) The magazine strongly supported George W. Bush's original conception of the War on Terror, and so did I. In his speech to Congress and the nation on September 20, 2001, Bush stated that the United States would seek to decimate al Qaeda as well as every other terrorist groups of global reach. To this day I remain committed to that goal and willing to support aggressive military action (including the use of drone strikes) to achieve it. But thanks in large part to the Iraq war, I no longer consider myself a Republican or a man of the right.
The reason I continue (like President Obama) to support the original vision of the War on Terror is that it was and is based on a correct judgment of the fundamental difference between (stateless) terrorists and traditional (state-based) military opponents. Even the most bloodthirsty tyrant will invariably temper his actions in war out of a concern for how his adversary will respond, and he will likewise act out of a concern for maintaining and maximizing his own power. Political leaders can thus be deterred by actions (and threats of action) by other states. Members of al-Qaeda-like groups, by contrast, seek in all cases to inflict the maximum possible number of indiscriminate deaths on their enemies and demonstrate no concern about the lives of their members. They are therefore undeterrable, which means that the only way to combat them is to destroy them.
Unfortunately, the right began to disregard the crucial distinction between terrorists and states right around the time of the January 2002 State of the Union speech, when President Bush broadened the scope of the War on Terror to include an "axis of evil" consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. After that, the mood among conservatives began to grow fierce. Some columnists denied the effectiveness of deterrence against states and advocated unilateral preventive war to overthrow hostile regimes instead. Others openly promoted American imperialism. Still others explicitly proposed that the United States act to topple the governments of a series of sovereign nations in the Muslim Middle East, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
And these were the intellectually respectable suggestions, published in mainstream newspapers and long-established journals of opinion. Farther down the media hierarchy, on cable news, websites, and blogs, conservatives of all stripes closed ranks, unleashing a verbal barrage on any and all who dissented from a united front in favor of unapologetic American military muscle. The participants in this endless pep rally were insistent on open-ended war, overtly hostile to dissent, and thoroughly unforgiving of the slightest criticism of the United States abroad. Self-congratulation and self-righteousness ruled the day.
Alarmed by the transformation on the right and in the magazine's offices, I wrote a lengthy email in October 2002 to a number of my fellow conservatives, explaining why I thought it would be a serious mistake to turn Iraq into the next front in the War on Terror. My reasons had nothing to do with the administration's claims about Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction; like all commentators on the right, most independent observers, and large numbers of intelligence agencies around the world, I assumed that Hussein either possessed or was actively working to acquire such weapons. Neither was I overly concerned about worldwide public opinion. I objected to what I judged to be three erroneous assumptions on the part of conservatives inside and outside the Bush administration.
First, I believed the administration was wrong to claim that Hussein could not be deterred. In fact, he already had been. In the first Gulf War, Hussein refrained from using chemical weapons against our troops on the battlefield and against Israel in his inept Scud-missile attacks on Tel Aviv. Why? Because before the start of the war James Baker and Dick Cheney sent messages through diplomatic channels to the Iraqi dictator, informing him that we would respond to any use of WMD with a nuclear strike. Israel's Defense Minister Moshe Arens made similar threats. And they worked. Yes, Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he could be deterred.
Second, it was foolish to believe (as Paul Wolfowitz and others on the right apparently did) that overthrowing Hussein would lead to the creation of a liberal democracy in Iraq that would, in turn, inspire democratic reforms throughout the Middle East. This view displayed an ignorance of (or, more likely, indifference toward) the competing ethnic and religious forces that prevailed in different regions of Iraq as well as a typically American optimism about the spontaneous capacity of all human beings in all times, places, and cultures for self-government. Rather than inspiring the formation of liberal democracies throughout the region, an Iraqi invasion could very well empower the very forces of radical Islam that the War on Terror rightly aimed to destroy.
Third, the right was making a serious mistake in assuming that doing nothing about Iraq was inevitably more dangerous than doing something. The U.S. got caught with its pants down on 9/11, and the fear of it happening again was leading the Bush administration to formulate policies based entirely on negative evidence. The super-hawks advocating preventive war seemed more persuasive than those urging a more cautious approach because the former placed an ominous black box at the core of their deliberations — a black box containing all the horrors of our worst post-September 11 nightmares. But reasoning on that basis could be used to justify absolutely anything, and so, I concluded, it was a reckless guide to action.
None of my friends and colleagues on the right responded to the arguments in my email, and few even acknowledged receiving it. By breaking from the right-wing consensus in favor of unconditional bellicosity, I had gone rogue. Over the next year and a half, as the victorious invasion became a bloody mess of an occupation and these same friends and colleagues refused to admit — to me or to themselves, let alone to the public — that they had made a massive mistake, I drifted away from the right and never looked back. (There were other factors, too.)
My dissent had nothing to do with principles; it was a matter of prudence or judgment. On foreign policy, Republicans had become the stupid party. And so it remains 10 years later.
..................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)