The Pentagon Needs New Messages -- Let's Help

According to the Associated Press, the Pentagon has launched a new effort to spend lots of taxpayer money to do a better job of "selling" the Iraq war to the American people.

The AP story reports:

The Pentagon is buttressing its public relations staff ... and new teams of people will "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle ...

So let's help the Pentagon by offering our own ideas for messages they can use to put a pretty face on the Iraq war. How hard can this be?

Below, I am sharing a few messages or slogans that might be useful for the Pentagon. If you have a message of your own to share, go right ahead:

Perdition Accomplished

Iraq: Sun, Sand and Insanity

And You Thought the Police in New Orleans Were Rogues?

Replay the Course

Simply Embarrassing

Today's Washington Post (not online) shares numbers from a recent Associated Press poll, conducted Sept. 8-30, but this is the first I've seen of it. If this doesn't embarrass Americans, I don't know what will:

QUESTION: How confident are you that votes in (your country's) elections are counted accurately?

Percent saying they are "confident":

Canada 87%
France 85%
Germany 84%
South Korea 84%
United Kingdom 80%
Spain 75%
United States 66%
Italy 64%
Mexico 60%

Six percentage points ahead of Mexico. Given the level of public corruption south of the border, that's nothing to smile about.

Conservatives love to bash France, but their people have a confidence level that is nearly 20 points higher than ours.

Endorsement Exposes the Real John McCain

U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) has called gay marriage "the most important issue that we face today." She has led the call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

It's an amendment that Sen. John McCain voted to oppose. McCain explained his vote thusly on the Senate floor:

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans."

McCain knows this amendment is a crock, and yet he recently endorsed Musgrave, the House member who was the original sponsor of the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment.

Musgrave is facing a tough re-election. Her Democratic challenger, Angie Paccione, is a superb campaigner and has criticized Musgrave's fringe politics. Paccione is airing an excellent TV ad — entitled "Are You Kidding Me?" — that takes Musgrave to task for her all anti-gay, all-the-time agenda.

A recent poll showed Paccione (pu-CHO-nee) leading by 45% to 42%, a statistical dead-heat.

This race is so close that it could be tipped one way or the other by small factors. Yes, even a small factor like the endorsement of John McCain.

For several years, McCain nurtured a public image as a maverick who wouldn't take his marching orders from any group, especially the Religious Right. But that was then; this is now. McCain's visit in May to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and now this endorsement of Musgrave reveal that McCain isn't all that different from the rest of his Republican peers.

McCain is willing to cast aside his principles if that's what it takes to win brownie points among the Religious Right so he can capture the GOP's 2008 presidential nomination.

Confusing Descriptions

One of the reasons why voters don't know all that much about who or what they are voting on is because the media doesn't do a great job of reporting on these matters.

A case in point is Question 1, a proposed constitutional amendment in Virginia. In the opening paragraph of this article on Tuesday, the Washington Post referred to Question 1 as

... a constitutional amendment to ban civil unions.

In the next paragraph, the Post referred to the very same amendment this way:

A Washington Post poll conducted this month showed that a majority of Catholic voters oppose the proposed amendment, which would ban same-sex marriages.

For voters who don't follow political affairs closely, this is pretty confusing.

Does Virginia's Question 1 ban civil unions or does it ban same-sex marriages — or does it do both?

Many people believe it would ban both of them, but nowhere in the article does the Post attempt to clarify what the proposed amendment would do.

Opponents of Question 1 insist that it would ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions because its language forbids the creation or recognition of "a legal status for relationships of unmarried persons ..." Supporters have been less than consistent on exactly what they think the amendment would do.

Meanwhile, in a Quiet Corner of Baghdad .....

The Washington Post reports:

A bustling market in Baghdad's Sadr City became the capital's latest killing ground early Monday when a bomb hidden amid trash and clutter exploded in a fiery inferno, killing at least 26 people and wounding 60 ...

This occurred even though

... U.S. and Iraqi forces had previously established a cordon around the teeming slum, which is controlled by the Mahdi Army militia ...

Shiite leaders pointed to that U.S. operation Monday to accuse the Americans of complicity in the market blast, saying that because they were in charge of searching all vehicles going in and out of the area, they must have allowed in the bomb that was detonated at the market.

These Shiite leaders have much more confidence in the ability of U.S. troops to secure an area than the past three years would justify.

So far, 101 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq this month, making October the deadliest month for American forces since January 2005, when 107 U.S. soldiers were killed.

Oh, wait, I almost forgot to remind you — "we’re winning” this war.

Wrong War, Very Poorly Executed

This is indefensible.

The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces and has failed to provide spare parts, maintenance personnel or even repair manuals for most of the weapons given to the Iraqis, a federal report released Sunday has concluded.
...
The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong hands.

Exactly where untracked weapons could end up — and whether some have been used against American soldiers — were not examined in the report, although black-market arms dealers thrive on the streets of Baghdad, and official Iraq Army and police uniforms can easily be purchased as well, presumably because government shipments are intercepted or otherwise corrupted.

Before anyone can holler that this was some kind of partisan study pushed by Democrats, it wasn’t.

The report was undertaken at the request of Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and who recently expressed an assessment far darker than the Bush administration’s on the situation in Iraq.

Is Michael Steele Playing Dumb on Roe?

The GOP's nominee for the U.S. Senate in Maryland appeared Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." He is Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (at right). Steele was asked this question by host Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: Mr. Steele, if you’re (a) United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?

STEELE: I don’t — vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we’d have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we? I haven’t seen that bill proposed. I don’t think ...

RUSSERT: That’s been introduced in the Senate.

STEELE: I don’t think anyone’s going to propose that this day.

RUSSERT: So you wouldn’t do that?

STEELE: No.

RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?

STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed.

I strongly suspect that Steele was deliberately playing dumb when he was asked about a federal constitutional amendment to ban abortions.

He expects us to believe that someone who has been Maryland's lieutenant governor for three years and who delivered a speech at the '04 Republican National Convention was unaware that the party's '04 platform (p. 84) stated:

... the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution ....

This proposed "human life amendment" language has been written into every GOP platform since 1976. The Republican National Coalition for Life's 2006 candidate questionnaire specifically asks for candidates' views on the "human life amendment to the Constitution."

So it's one or the other. Either Steele is trying to deceive us about his knowledge of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban abortion or he's being honest -- in which case, he's demonstrating a shocking level of ignorance.

Steele has been endorsed by the Maryland Right to Life's PAC. I'm sure they asked him specifically what he thought about overturning Roe v. Wade. I seriously doubt he sounded this ambivalent:

"... that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ..."

If you really believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, that it's tantamount to murder, then how could you respond in such a bland and equivocal manner?

If Jesus Were Running for Office ....

... would a conservative group fund a TV ad like this one?

Bush, Not Despised as Much as Chirac

Turn on a television in almost any region of America, watch it for a while, and you are likely to see a 30-second ad tying an incumbent Republican officeholder to President George W. Bush.

Joe Shlabotnik likes President Bush .... Joe Shlabotnik supports the same position as President Bush .... Joe Shlabotnik wears neckties just like President Bush does .... Joe Shlabotnik once stood within 15 feet of President Bush ....

As much as GOP partisans despised Bill Clinton, his approval ratings were never low enough (not even during the impeachment era) for them to use him as a prop in TV ads as Democrats are now using Bush.

With his current approval ratings in the range of 37 to 40 percent, Bush makes for an easy target this election season.

If the White House is looking for the silver lining, this may be as good as it gets: in France, President Jacques Chirac's approval rating is only 24 percent — and that's up from 16 percent last July.

P.S. — By the way, if the name Joe Shlabotnik sounds familiar to you, you're probably as old as I am.

Santorum, Still Quite Truth-Challenged

Trailing in the polls, Senator Rick Santorum is more truth-challenged than usual. He is trying hard to portray himself as a staunch defender of Social Security. Santorum's website offers this one-sentence summary of the senator's position on Social Security:

Wrote the "Social Security Guarantee Act," guaranteeing seniors' benefits can never be cut.

But the AARP reported last year that a bill co-sponsored by Santorum "would lead to cuts in guaranteed Social Security benefits."

It's also no surprise that Santorum's website neglected to identify him as an enthusiastic backer of the Bush proposal to partially privatize Social Security.

A Revisionist Interpretation of Jefferson's "Wall"

Daniel L. Dreisbach, a professor at American University, has written an article in which he takes issue with the "conventional" interpretations of Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." Dreisbach writes:

... Jefferson’s wall separated the national government on one side from state governments and religious authorities on the other.

Dreisbach's conclusion strikes me as an indefensible leap.

First, the fact that Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom attests to his deep concern with potential friction or collaboration between government authorities (state or federal) and religion.

Second, it was state authorities, not federal, who had attempted in Jefferson's day to establish or recognize specific churches. This was true in the State of Connecticut, home of the Danbury Baptists. As Dreisbach himself explained in the article:

At the time, the Congregationalist Church was still legally established in Connecticut .... Thus the Danbury Baptists were outsiders — a beleaguered religious and political minority in a state where a Congregationalist-Federalist party establishment dominated public life. They were drawn to Jefferson’s political cause because of his celebrated advocacy for religious liberty.

Dreisbach cites a few observations to challenge the "conventional" interpretation of Jefferson's separation view, including the fact that "Jefferson concluded his [letter to the Danbury Baptists] with a prayer."

So what? This argument exposes Dreisbach's prejudice — the assumption that a person who engages in prayer or other manifestations of religious faith couldn't possibly support strict separation of church and state.

Another reason Dreisbach cites is that Jefferson’s metaphor was used "in the service of the free exercise of religion ... (not) to restrict religious exercise ..."

In this particular instance, perhaps that is true. But Jefferson was a man who employed his words carefully and thoughtfully. If Jefferson had intended his metaphor only to apply to "the free exercise of religion," he would have done more to clarify it as such. Instead, he used the term "separation," which implicitly casts religious advancement or endorsement by government to be illegitimate.

A Punchy Slogan

I hope Joe Negron doesn't win the election for Florida's 16th Congressional District, but even I have to admit that he came up with a very catchy, double entendre of a slogan.

Kaus on Gay Marriage

Of the recent New Jersey same-sex marriage ruling, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

The court, by the way, is not being activist. It had no logical option but to apply its equal protection clause to everybody.

Which prompted Mickey Kaus at Slate.com to make this argument:

... the breathtaking speed with which this sort of radical cultural change has gone from being unmentioned to being a litmus test for all rational people is one of the things that worries ordinary voters and turns them into cultural conservatives even though, were activists like Sullivan a little less self-righteous and condescending ("no logical option") these voters might be persuaded to try worthy experiments like gay unions and gay marriage.

Being a resident of Los Angeles must give Kaus tremendous insights into what "worries ordinary voters" who are "cultural conservatives."

It turns out, says Kaus, that these anti-gay-marriage cultural conservatives are surprisingly open-minded. They might really embrace gay marriage were they not visiting Andrew Sullivan's website and feeling talked down to. (Do most of these "ordinary" people even know who Andrew Sullivan is?)

I guess all of those culturally conservative men in the early 20th century who opposed women's suffrage were, deep down, quite open to it; they simply felt the suffragettes were speaking to them in a condescending tone.

I also take issue with Kaus's reference to the "breathtaking speed" with which gay marriage has gone "from being unmentioned" to the current state of affairs. Perhaps 35 years qualifies as "breathtaking speed" in Kaus's world, but I don't think it does in most people's world.

Bigotry and discrimination do not deserve a shelf life.

Totally Shameless Hypocrites

If you think the right-wing "pro-family" conservatives are horrified by the recent New Jersey ruling, think again.

"Pro-traditional-marriage organizations ought to give a distinguished service award to the New Jersey Supreme Court," said the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Land and other conservative religious leaders predicted that the court's 4 to 3 ruling, which was handed down Wednesday, would boost turnout of social conservatives in the midterm elections, particularly in the eight states that have constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage on the Nov. 7 ballot.
...
Before the New Jersey decision, conservative religious groups tried to rally their supporters around the issue of same-sex marriage, but with far less success than they had in the 2004 elections.

Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson, for example, held "Stand for the Family" rallies in three cities in September and October, drawing considerably smaller crowds than anticipated. The first rally, in Pittsburgh on Sept. 20, attracted 3,000 people to a 17,000-seat arena that Focus on the Family had predicted would be full.

The next two rallies, in St. Paul, Minn., on Oct. 3 and Nashville on Oct. 16, were moved from stadium-size venues to smaller auditoriums, and the tickets, which had been on sale for $7, were given away. Each event also drew about 3,000 people, according to Focus on the Family spokesman Paul Hetrick.

"We don't gauge the success by the number of people," Hetrick said, adding: "I don't think it's the rallies [that flopped]. I just think it's more of a challenge to enthuse people about midterm elections."

I see, it's all about winning elections, is it?

It's one thing to do a little dance in private because you think this ruling will help you energize your base, but talking about how gay and lesbian couples getting treated equally under the law makes you want to hand out awards? What the hell? Do you even hear yourselves?

Sorry, you're not Christians anymore, you're total and complete CHARLATANS. You're a special interest who is clearly selling a bill of goods, your business goal is trying to manipulate, control the public, oppress and marginalize anyone who thinks and believes differently than you, and you have no shame about it whatsoever. I wonder if you even really care about same-sex marriage beyond that you think it's a good election strategy.

Sometimes it really is too bad there is no such place as hell.

Just an aside, I was thinking about picking up John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" this weekend. Has anyone read it?

How Gutless Will the Dems Be?

An excerpt from today's New York Times article about the NJ ruling:

Gov. Jon S. Corzine and top legislative leaders -- all Democrats -- are on record as opposing gay marriage and saying they view marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Two years ago, New Jersey Democrats managed to sidestep the gay marriage issue when they passed a domestic partnership law that offered same-sex couples some -- but not all -- of the rights that married couples have.

Yes, they managed to "sidestep" it, but only for two years.

So far, Democrats have managed to piss off both social conservatives (whose votes they rarely receive anyway) and many gay Americans who feel the Dems are trying to weasel out of taking a stand for something that many, if not most, of them (Corzine, for example) know in their hearts is right and just.

Unfortunately, I think we'll continue to hear most Democrats behave cowardly on this issue, especially Dems in the South. It's so much easier to run for the hills or make some meaningless statement like "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" -- blah, blah .....

Of course it is, but why should it be restricted in that way forever? You almost never hear the "between a man and a woman" statement followed with a "because" statement. On the few occasions that a candidate offers a "because," it's the usual reference to the "sanctity" of marriage. In other words, they support legal discrimination against gay couples because their religion tells them to.

I'm sure there are many Democratic activists and candidates who are really annoyed by the ruling, who view it as unwelcome rain on the party's parade. To these gutless wonders who see politics as a mere sport between the blue team and red team, I say, "Too bad. Go to the lost-and-found and retrieve your spine."

Shame on These Florida Dems

From Wednesday's Wall Street Journal (subscription req'd):

(Project) Vote Smart runs a Web site and a toll-free number that tracks more than 10,000 candidates running for federal and state offices. Along with gathering voluminous data on voting records, speeches and endorsements, the nonprofit conducts an exhaustive survey of the candidates' positions on issues ranging from abortion to welfare.

For years, the survey was catching on with incumbents and challengers alike. But lately, the number of candidates taking the survey has dropped dramatically. The reason: Many are afraid their opponents will use the information against them in attack ads.

"We tell our candidates not to do [the survey]," says Rep. Anne Gannon, the Democratic leader pro tempore of the Florida House of Representatives. "It sets them up for a hit piece."

Reading that really pissed me off.

Project Vote Smart (PVS) is a nonpartisan group that was founded by people from both ends of the ideological spectrum, people like George McGovern and Barry Goldwater.

Declining to take the PVS survey deprives the public of important info on candidates' positions. As newspapers shrink in size, more and more Americans are looking for this info online. Snubbing PVS not only deprives voters of critical information, but it does so without shielding a candidate from negative attacks. After all, a candidate's previous votes, speeches, brochures, and appearances at candidate forums provide plenty of fodder for an opponent.

Those who run for public office may feel a certain anxiety over the negative attacks that are likely to be waged by their opponents, but too bad. Seeking public office has never been a comfortable journey in a la-z-boy chair. Nor should it be.

Most candidates can repel or neutralize an opponent's attack if that attack is truly unfair or inaccurate.

Shame on those Florida Democrats and anyone else who has refused to take the survey. You're snubbing both PVS and the voters.

Some Dem Talking Points on the New Jersey Decision

Civil unions are far more popular than the Republican-led congress, than Bush or Cheney, as 54% of Americans support civil unions, which is what the decision is about-- the right of same-sex couples to have the same rights, priviledges and responsibilities under the law as their married hetero counterparts, and it is up to the state legislature what to call it. Something tells me they'll probably go with civil union.

But we're talking about New Jersey, not all of America, which is a state where when asked about civil unions 65% support them and when asked about marriage 53% support full marriage rights for same-sex couples.

This ruling does not reject the will or desires of the majority of the people in the state or even American in general, not that you'll let something like facts and figures get in your way of being a demagogue.

My Name Is America, and I'm an Oil Slut

Even though foreign policy is playing a significant role in driving the debate of Election 2006, a topic that frames much of that foreign policy has received virtually no attention this fall. In this article, John Hughes of the Christian Science Monitor writes:

... the greatest irony of all in this year's election campaign has been the scant attention given to the issue that will have the greatest effect, both domestic and foreign, on most Americans for the next half century. This is their vulnerability to imported energy, notably oil.

A blue-ribbon Council on Foreign Relations task force of experts, chaired by former defense and energy secretary James Schlesinger, declared this month that Americans must slow and eventually reverse their consumption of petroleum products.

... The challenge in the next several decades, Mr. Schlesinger said, is to manage the consequences of "unavoidable dependence on oil and gas," while simultaneously beginning the "transition to an economy that relies less on petroleum." The report warns: "The longer the delay, the greater will be the subsequent trauma."

Neglect of this issue by some of the best minds in this year's political debate seems likely only to exacerbate the ultimate trauma.

Childish Arguments

Jonah Goldberg listens to 5-year olds and finds their logic enlightening.

From a reader:

I am reading the NJ decision. So far, I think I want to marry my mother. Seriously. Our relationship could not be more committed, and I want her to enjoy my health care insurance. The legislature doesn't have to call it "marriage." They can call it "Mommiage."

Yes, two unrelated adults marrying is *just* like marrying your mommy, or a dog, or a goat, or your sister. I mean, if we let a gay couple in New Jersey who have been together for 35 years, who have children and grandchildren, if we allow them to marry how is that different than letting a man marry his mother?

(shake head)

The fact that they use health insurance as an example brings up another point-- people *should* be able to allow family members to get on their health insurance. It is only because our health insurance system is so broken that some of us who have it-- only because we have jobs-- cannot share it with family members who depend upon us.

NJ is More Vermont than Massachusetts

If memory serves, this decision is nearly identical to the Vermont Supremes which left the door open for the legislature to set up a separate-but-equal system where they can call it something else other than marriage.

Only rights that are deeply rooted in the traditions,
history, and conscience of the people are deemed to be
fundamental. Although we cannot find that a fundamental right
to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal
dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex
partners can no longer be tolerated under our State
Constitution. With this State’s legislative and judicial
commitment to eradicating sexual orientation discrimination as
our backdrop, we now hold that denying rights and benefits to
committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their
heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection
guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1. To comply with this
constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the
marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a
parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal
terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and
obligations borne by married couples. We will not presume that
a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than
marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as
the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally
available to same-sex couples. The name to be given to the
statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex
couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter
left to the democratic process.

Personally, I think that is fine. My idealist side wants full marriage, but I'm also a pragmatist, so I care far more about the rights more than whether or not it is called marriage.

The Big Gay Marriage Monkeywrench

So, now that same-sex marriage is effectively legal in New Jersey (PDF) let's get on with the most critical question of the day-- how is this going to impact the election in 13 days?

Well, it largely depends on whether or not gay marriage has lost its shock value. It also depends on whether or not the Dems are actually prepared for this and handle it well. Plus the Foley scandal provides an interesting backdrop to this story, as it has certainly shed some light on the fact that there are far more gay Republicans on the Hill than previously thought. (Well, unless you live in Washington, then it was hardly a surprise.) The GOP can proclaim their ignorance of all things homo but they're running a bit low on plausible denial.

At this point how this goes is anyone's guess. It could certainly reinvigorate the right-wing base but it probably won't have much impact on the 76% of independents who are strongly favoring Dems these days. It certainly won't cost the Dems any blue voters. I think it's also possible that a "let's throw the bums out" wave could very well overpower any dire Chicken Little warnings about teh gays destroying America by (gasp!) getting married.

Mostly this feels like the final test of how much most people care about gay marriage and the average American's ability to prioritize important issues (life, death, health) from the not-so-imporant issues (whether or not Heather and Jen down the street can get legally married). Let's hope America passes with flying colors.

Sinking Even Lower Than You Thought He Could

On his radio program, conservative loudmouth Rush Limbaugh reacts to the political TV ads that Michael J. Fox is doing on the issue of stem-cell research:

"[Fox] is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act ..."

"Clear," My Ass!

This morning on Geraldo Rivera's TV show, the host provided viewers with a brief update on the Iraq war and the White House's recent decision to abandon the "stay the course" mantra. Rivera stated that the administration's move makes it "clear that the president is opening up to new ideas."

Clear to whom? Changing rhetoric doesn't = changing policy.

Bush May Have Opened an Old Wound

The White House's 2005 initiative to convert Social Security to a privatized system was a great, big flop. It created deep anxieties among many Americans, especially voters who are nearing retirement.

So with all of the other troubles that Bush and the Republicans have this election season, the last thing the president would want is to do or say anything that re-ignites the public's anxiety over Social Security privatization.

Yet that's precisely what the president did at this morning's televised press conference. When asked his plans regarding Social Security "private accounts" and other unsuccessful parts of his agenda, Bush told a reporter:

"I haven't given up on any of those issues."

I suspect that the DNC has already started working on a TV ad to make sure Bush's words are heard far and wide.

Bigger than Boston Marriages

I've had a few conversations which have highlighted something people might not understand about why a positive New Jersey Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage could become a national issue.

New Jersey isn't Massachusetts.

New Jersey doesn't have an old blue law law that prohibits marrying people from other states. So if marriage were to become legal any couple from any state could travel there, get married, and then go home and file suit in their homestate. Granted this will probably result in more anti-gay marriage state amendments than gay marriage becoming legal nationwide, not to mention all the states that have already banned same-sex marriage in their state constitutions. However, it could lead to the first real legal challenge to DOMA-- constitutional crisis anyone?

Election Challenges

The very act of voting could prove to be, once again, a mess.

Two weeks before the midterm elections, at least 10 states, including Maryland, remain ripe for voting problems, according to a study released yesterday by a nonpartisan clearinghouse that tracks electoral reforms across the United States.

The report by Electionline.org says those states, and possibly others, could encounter trouble on Election Day because they have a combustible mix of fledgling voting-machine technology, confusion over voting procedures or recent litigation over election rules -- and close races.

The report cautions that the Nov. 7 elections, which will determine which political party controls the House and Senate, promise "to bring more of what voters have come to expect since the 2000 elections -- a divided body politic, an election system in flux and the possibility -- if not certainty -- of problems at polls nationwide."

It is amazing that in our wealthy, technology-obsessed county that we still can't get this one rather simple thing done right and reliably.

Late October Surprise

The New Jersey Supreme Court is announcing its decision on Lewis v. Harris today at 3 pm.

Don't know Lewis v. Harris?

Well, you're about to.

Odds are that today the New Jersey Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of same-sex marriage rights. If you take a cynical view, as I tend to do, this could be the court case that may tip the election in the favor of the GOP. I'm sure that Karl Rove is counting on it to woo the conservative base.

As I see it, we're pretty much screwed no matter how they rule-- in favor, the election is over; opposed, we lost a critical case in a state that is majority pro-gay marriage. Although as I stated yesterday, that would be the preferred ruling at this juncture-- it means that same-sex marriage won't cost us the election, again.

Then there's the outside chance that the American people will wake up and realize that this ruling and the issue of same-sex marriage itself isn't nearly as important as, say, the war or the economy or health care or nuclear profliferation, etc.

Same-sex marriage is not a life or death issue, the only people it is truly important to are the people who want to marry but can't. The very act of legalizing something does not mean that everyone in the society approves of it, that certainly wasn't the case during desegregation or the overturning of miscegenation laws or the fact that gambling and prostitution are legal in some parts of the country.

Anyways, here's to hoping that America has woken up and learned how to prioritize issues that are life-and-death over those that just irritate them personally.

There is one other possibility-- that the NJSC won't really declare anything one way or another and will kick the issue back to the legislature, which would be the best outcome at this point.

Let's Cross Our Fingers...

that the New Jersey supreme court doesn't legalize same-sex marriage between now and Thursday.

Why Thursday?

On 10/26, the chief of justice of the New Jersey supreme court, Deborah T. Poritz, turns 70, and will retire.

Pending before her court at this writing is a potentially explosive same-sex marriage case. In '02, two gay couples sued New Jersey for denying them the right to marry. The Supreme Court finally heard oral arguments in Feb. It has yet to unveil its decision...If the court doesn't rule by next Thursday, they'll be forced to rehear the case with the new chief justice. Observers are fairly certain that the court, will, in fact, tender a decision by Oct. 26.

If the decision comes down in the next 50 hours or so and it is favorable towards people like me, we can all kiss the 2006 Democratic Landslide/GOP Asskicking good-bye.

Tick, tock, tick, tock...

This is reason #69345 I loathe the GOP. They have managed to turn something that should be a victory to anyone who truly values marriage and religious freedom and, via pure demagoguery, turn it into a battering ram to beat up lgbt families and Democrats (regardless of their official stance on same-sex marriage) just so they can get anti-gay religious people to vote in bigger numbers.

It never fails to amaze me that this issue still makes people so irrational that they are willing to allow a marriage that isn't theirs, that has nothing to do with their lives, to trump all of the life-or-death issues facing this country right now. I don't doubt it for a second that if same-sex marriage is legalized in New Jersey this week then the 2006 election will be over before it even started.

Today is one of those odd moments where I find myself wishing against the legal recognition and equality of my own marriage-- well, at least not until after November 7th.

Update: Via Pam's House Blend, the New Jersey's Garden State Equality claims that the ruling does not have to come down before the chief justice steps down, that in fact, there is no real timeframe at work whatsoever.

Taking a quick spin on Garden State Equality's site also gives the Dems a clue or two about how to handle the decision, if it were to come before November 7th-- 56% of New Jersians support same-sex marriage rights.

Bill Kristol's Evolving Predictions

In this article published in September 2003 — that’s 2003, I emphasize — conservatives Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote:

Make no mistake: The president's vision will, in the coming months, either be launched successfully in Iraq, or it will die in Iraq.

Although Kristol and Kagan aren't specific, I suspect that most people would interpret "the coming months" as meaning roughly 5 to 12 months. Any period longer than that, and the co-authors would surely have used "within the next year" or a similar phrase.

So am I the only one who finds this strange? Three years after Kristol co-authored an article saying the fate of the U.S. presence in Iraq would be decided by early 2004, he co-authored this article declaring:

We are at a crucial moment in Iraq .... at this urgent pass, there can be no doubt that we need to stop the downward slide in Iraq by securing Baghdad.

... More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment.

If anyone is guilty of "an artificial timetable," it appears to be Kristol.

Bush Tries to Rewrite History

Referring to Iraq, President Bush recently told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that "it's not about staying the course." But the maker of this TV ad begs to differ with him.

A Telegram for Karl Rove

ABC News:

It's two weeks away, and the 2006 midterm elections look like a referendum on Iraq, a war in which President Bush and his party have lost not just the political center but significant chunks of their base.

An improving economy notwithstanding, opposition to the war remains the prime issue driving congressional voter preference. And the war's critics include not just eight in 10 Democrats, but 64 percent of independents, 40 percent of conservatives, 35 percent of evangelical white Protestants and a quarter of Republicans.

... That spells a continued, dramatic Democratic lead: Fifty-four percent of registered voters in this ABC News/Washington Post poll prefer the Democrats in their districts, 41 percent the Republicans, the highest levels of Democratic preferences we've seen in ABC/Post surveys this close to Election Day since 1984.

A Sign He's Running Out of Issues

It's nice to know that the truly substantive issues are the focus of the U.S. Senate race in New York. According to CNN:

"You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew," New York Daily News political reporter Ben Smith quoted (Republican Senate candidate) John Spencer as saying Friday en route to a debate with (Sen. Hillary) Clinton in Rochester. "I don't know why Bill married her," he was reported as saying, referring to former President Bill Clinton.

The Daily News also reported that Spencer, 59, the former mayor of Yonkers, a New York City suburb, said Clinton had undergone "millions of dollars of work -- plastic surgery" to help improve her appearance. "She looks good now," Smith quoted Spencer as saying.

... Rob Ryan, Spencer's spokesman, denied Smith's account, but acknowledged a conversation took place on the flight from New York to Rochester.

"The comment that he said was something to the effect of, 'If you have ever seen a picture of Hillary Clinton from college,' I think he said, 'Whew, she changed,' " Ryan said in an interview with CNN. "Which is obvious if you look at the picture of her. That is what he said. He never said anything about her having plastic surgery."

Even if he did not make a reference to "plastic surgery," Spencer looks foolish and petty when he starts talking about how his opponent looked -- now or in college.

Biologists Call It: "Followis Bushis Bassius"

In the only state that switched in 2004 from a red state to a blue state, Rep. Charlie Bass (R-N.H.) is trying to fend off a strong challenge from Democratic challenger Paul Hodes. Hodes' campaign has just sent this direct-mail piece (courtesy of Daily Kos) to voters in New Hampshire's 2nd Congressional District.

Nicely done. Sometimes, humor is the best way to cut through the message overload of an election season.

WSJ's Wage Argument Strikes Out

Late last week on its editorial pages, the Wall Street Journal cited a study by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) as proof that immigrant workers don't depress wage levels.

What sector of the workforce did NFAP examine? You've got to read it to believe it:

A new study shows that, as of Aug. 31, a whopping 23% of (baseball) players on active rosters in the majors were foreign born.

... But you don't hear Americans complaining about this group of immigrants. And we're not aware of any U.S.-born hitters accusing the Red Sox home-run champion David Ortiz — or the other Dominican players here on visas — of stealing their job.

One of the most potent anti-immigration myths says that granting visas to foreign workers drives down salaries for Americans in the same field, be it technology or anything else. .... this myth ignores reality. In truth, an employer's ability to hire all the skilled labor he needs tends to lead to higher productivity and, ultimately, a growing economy that will create a demand for more jobs, not fewer.

At any rate, research for the study revealed that an influx of foreigners in the fixed market of 750 major-league roster jobs hasn't depressed salaries.

On the contrary. As the percentage of foreign-born players doubled after 1990, average salaries quadrupled. Among the factors at work: the visa-holders contributed to more exciting play and higher attendance.

Trying to extrapolate by using the wage patterns of major league baseball players as a barometer for all sectors of the economy is laughable.

In the case of pro baseball, we are talking about highly specialized, highly skilled professionals who work seasonally in a business that enjoys a federal exemption from anti-trust laws. It's a huge stretch for even the WSJ to suggest that the wage patterns of these working professionals are a sound basis for assessing wage patterns among, say, child care workers, day laborers in the construction industry, or housekeeping staff at hotels and motels.

The minimum wage for a major league player is at least $300,000.* Last time I checked, that was a little bit higher than the federal government's minimum wage.

I also find it amusing that the WSJ cites the example of big league baseball to make a point about wage levels. After all, free agency and the powerful union — the Major Leagues Players Association — have had a significant impact in providing steadily rising wages for players.

But, of course, the WSJ would never want to credit the union's role in negotiating and supporting high wages. The corporate crowd and the "ownership society" aspirants who are regular WSJ readers would rather believe that higher attendance and "more exciting" play were the key factors.

My sense is that the wage impact of immigrant workers probably depends somewhat on which sector of the economy you're looking at, but (as with so many complex issues) the WSJ's conclusion is prejudiced by its dogmatic adherence to the gospel of the free market.

* - That $300,000 minimum salary was as of 2003. I'm willing to bet that the minimum salary is even higher today.

What He Meant to Say

CNN reports:

A senior State Department diplomat apologized Sunday for having told the Arab satellite network Al-Jazeera on Saturday that there is a strong possibility history will show the United States displayed "arrogance" and "stupidity" in its handling of the Iraq war.

"Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on Al-Jazeera, I realized that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase 'there has been arrogance and stupidity' by the U.S. in Iraq," Alberto Fernandez said in an e-mail ...

Of course he misspoke. What he meant to say was that "there has been gross arrogance and stupidity ..."

Preventing "Future Occurrences of This Type"

Those last five words sound so innocuous, don't they? Today the Associated Press reports:

Columnist Armstrong Williams has reached a settlement with prosecutors regarding payments he received from the Education Department to promote President Bush's agenda.

Under the agreement, Williams admits no wrongdoing but will have to pay $34,000. The deal was reached last week by Williams, the Education Department and its subcontractor, Ketchum Communications.

"The department is happy to see this matter come to a close," Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, said Sunday. "One of the first steps Secretary Spellings took when she came to office is to establish guidelines to prevent future occurrences of this type of situation."

By "future occurrences of this type," McLane is referring to the Bush administration using taxpayer dollars to covertly pay columnists to write articles praising its policies.

By the way, the $34,000 that Williams is repaying isn't a penalty per se; it is the amount that prosecutors determined he was overpaid by the Department of Education.

Sunday YouTube

Blind Melon – "Soul One"

Tillman's Brother Doesn't Mince Words

The 2004 death of ex-NFL football player Pat Tillman in Iraq was supposed to provide the U.S. military with a great public relations opportunity -- much better than those "Army of One" TV ads and, moreover, at no cost. But truth came along and destroyed those plans. (Tillman was killed by "friendly fire," although the details came to light only months later.)

The Pentagon probably expected that to be the end of it. But, as Tapped notes, the Tillman family "is not going away." In this article, Tillman's brother, Kevin (who also served in Iraq), doesn't mince words in giving his assessment of the past few years:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

... Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

The full text of Kevin Tillman's article is here.

Once Fond of Reagan, But Now ....

I just stumbled on this recent post from the blogger at Staunch Moderate, who speculates that this could be a good sign that the map shown on election night TV coverage will be bleeding blue.

Same Costume as Last Time-- Candyman! Candyman! Candyman!

The GOP says Boo!

The Republican Party will begin airing a hard-hitting ad this weekend that warns of more cataclysmic terror attacks against the U.S. homeland.

The ad portrays Osama bin Laden and quotes his threats against America dating to February 1998. "These are the stakes," the ad concludes. "Vote November 7."

Do they think we're a bunch of easily frightened children? Or perhaps they're mixing up Election Day with Halloween? They're just one week apart, both are on Tuesday...

Personally, I think they'd do better if they promised everyone candy. (I could especially do without all the killer bees and the bloody hook, thank you.)

A Little Reverse Psychology?

Or are they trying to make Karl Rove crap his pants?

Conservative voters likely to stay home
The Washington Times

The Republican Party can stave off defeat with a strong turnout on Nov. 7, party leaders are telling the faithful -- but they are finding it tough to sell that message to some disillusioned conservative voters.
...
A top Republican pollster confidentially echoed those sentiments.

"There are very definitely trouble signs in many states of what we call the 'LRs' -- the lethargic Republicans," said the pollster, who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity. "They are unhappy with the president and have little love lost for Congress."
...
It may already be too late to reach many conservative voters, said one alumnus of the 1994 "Republican Revolution" that swept the party to its first House majority in 40 years.

"I sense that conservatives have largely already tuned out to the coming elections, after six years of burgeoning federal spending and inaction on key issues, such as immigration," said former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr.

"The Republican Party has become the party of the government status quo," he said, "and conservatives see no reason to reward it with their votes."

I know we've all heard this before, most of the time it's just right-wing saber-rattling, their way of sending a message to the GOP to not take them for granted and/or give them what they want. Usually it's expressed as anger, although this time around it sounds more like ennui.

Then again, it's also quite possible that this is their way of repackaging and recycling their favorite campaign tactic-- fear. If they can't woo their base they'll scare them into the voting booth.

Will Money Save the GOP's Majorities?

In the current issue of The Hill, Jonathan Kaplan and Aaron Blake write:

For months, Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), has said Republicans would keep their majority in the House because they have the advantages of “members, money and message.”

House Republican incumbents have socked away more money than their Democratic challengers in 34 of 52 competitive districts ...

History shows that money has its limits.

In 1994, the last time an anti-incumbent wave swept the country, Democratic incumbents out-raised Republican challengers but Republicans picked up 52 House seats and won a majority in the Senate, too.

Gaps in the Poll Numbers

The more you sift through the poll numbers for this November's elections, the more confused you can feel.

Here's an example. According to a newly released Zogby poll, the Wisconsin governor's race is a dead heat -- Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle up only by 1% over GOP nominee Mark Green, well within the margin of error. But a Wisconsin Public Radio poll gives Doyle a comfortable 13% lead.

Both of the Wisconsin polls were of "likely voters" and the dates of each poll are virtually identical. The gap may reflect differences in how each pollster defined "likely voters." But who knows?

The Situation Will Not Improve ....

... if the Pentagon and the White House cannot speak honestly and openly about what's going wrong in Iraq. From a news article in today's New York Times:

Every day, administration and Pentagon officials fume — privately, to avoid the ire of the White House — about frustrations with Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, for not confronting the country’s Shiite militias, meaning that there is no end to the daily cycle of attack and reprisals.

It should bother all Americans, regardless of one's position on the war, that Pentagon officials reportedly don't feel they can voice their frustrations openly with the White House.

When anyone within an institution feels they have to hide or downplay their true concerns, then these concerns are never truly addressed and the institution — in this case, government — is ill-served.

I understand why the White House might not want Pentagon officials to voice their frustrations publicly, but if they can't even express them privately with White House officials, then something is deeply wrong.

4 Out of 50

Looks like the VAST majority of Americans have caught on that Bush is one lousy president.

Just how vast? As of yesterday only 4 out of 50 states have approval numbers that are higher than his disapproval numbers.

So, who are the winners of the Most Out-of-Touch People In America Pageant?

Pageant Queen: Idaho, 57% to 40%
1st Runner-up: Utah, 57% to 40%
2nd Runner-up: Wyoming, 52% to 46%
Booby prize goes to: Montana, 50% to 48%

Which state should Bush avoid entirely? Continuing the trend for the past year or so, Rhode Island still likes him the least-- there Bush has 75% disapproval rating.

Satan Can Suddenly See His Breath...

because hell just froze over.

Jonah Goldberg on the war in Iraq.

The Iraq war was a mistake.

Condi Rice, Closet Hammas Supporter

Conservative columnist Joseph Farah seems to think she is. At the Human Events website, Farah writes:

I've waited to deal with the following news development because it is so disturbing to me personally, I needed to let my rage subside.

I can now speak and write coherently about the latest ghastly statements by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice concerning the Middle East. But it's not easy.

What were the “ghastly” statements by Rice that induced a “rage” in Farah?

"The Palestinian people deserve a better life, a life that is rooted in liberty, democracy, uncompromised by violence and terrorism, unburdened by corruption and misrule and forever free of the daily humiliation of occupation. I promise you my personal commitment to that goal."

Those sound like reasonable statements for a U.S. secretary of state to make. But perhaps I’d feel differently if, like Farah, I were an apocalyptic, Bible-based diplomacy person.

This is Farah’s twisted interpretation of what Rice said:

… Rice said America could have no greater legacy than to divide the land of Israel and establish a Palestinian Arab terrorist state …

The suggestion that Rice wants a “terrorist state” is rather silly considering that she specifically said she wants the Palestinians to have “a better life … uncompromised by violence or terrorism …”

Either Farah doesn’t know the meaning of the word “uncompromised” or he’s downright delusional.

Endorsing Allen Without a Real Explanation

The Voice, an African-American newspaper based in Richmond, Va., has endorsed Sen. George Allen in a bizarre editorial. The only reference to "macaca" or allegations that Allen used the word "nigger" is paranthetical:

This has been an election year in which Blacks have had to listen to allegations about which U.S. Senate candidate is a racist, who said the n-word, and so forth. It is sad that when they talk about Black people, it’s only in the context of these trivialities and not about the issues that affect the everyday lives of Black folks.

I'm not black, but I sure know more than a few African-Americans who would not consider the use of racial epithets to be mere "trivialities."

This is the closest the newspaper comes to citing a single thing that Allen has done or cares about that is important to black Virginians:

Sen. Allen’s record with the Black community may have started out blotchy, but we feel that he has learned the most about what is important to the Black community.

So exactly what has Allen learned? The Voice doesn't say. Indeed, the next sentence in the editorial sounds pretty defensive:

We don’t have to justify our endorsement, but we want to tell our readers that a new breeze is blowing and you can either join it or stay shackled in the past.

Actually, the whole point of an endorsement is to make the case for why readers should support a particular candidate. So, yes, a newspaper does have to "justify" its endorsement, at least it does if it expects that endorsement to be taken seriously by readers.

My Very Cautious Optimism...

is fueled by this new poll.

In the survey, Bush's approval rating is at 38 percent, a one-point decline from a previous NBC/Journal poll released earlier this month after the Foley news first broke. Perhaps more revealing, only 16 percent now approve of the job Congress is doing -- its lowest mark since 1992.

And by this as well.

Seventy-four percent of respondents to a new Opinion Research poll say Congress is generally out of touch with average Americans...In 1994, 75 percent of respondents to a CNN poll also said Congress was out of touch...Recent polls have suggested increased voter interest in this election, as growing unpopularity over the U.S.-led war in Iraq and scandals in Congress have boiled over into the political arena.
...
Belief in the so-called "American dream," according to the poll, appears to be split between college graduates and people without college degrees. Sixty percent of respondents who had no college degree said it's impossible for most people to achieve the American dream, while only 38 percent of grads said so.

However, in spite of the picture painted by polls, the Dems have proved time and time again that they can still manage to blow it no matter how well things are going for them.

A this point I'm just hoping that, at the very least, American voters recognize just how bad it is to not have any checks and balances in Washington. The signs are there that people are waking up and paying attention, let's just hope that translates on November 7th.

GOP Candidate in NC Has a Favorite Issue

The Associated Press reports on a debate among candidates in a North Carolina congressional district:

U.S. Rep. Brad Miller chuckled through most of the first debate with his Republican challenger, who led a tense and often awkward discussion about sex-related issues Tuesday.

Vernon Robinson, who has run a series of brash advertisements about the two-term Democratic congressman, charged that Miller wants to import homosexuals to the United States and supported scientific studies that would pay teenage girls to watch pornography.

... A bemused Miller countered by blasting Robinson for a campaign mailer that implicitly suggested the congressman was gay and criticized Miller for being "childless." Miller's wife had a hysterectomy more than two decades ago.

"It's clear that Vernon Robinson is obsessed with sex," Miller said after the 40-minute debate ....

During the debate, Robinson complained that Miller was one of 129 co-sponsors of a bill that would have allowed homosexuals to bring their partners to the United States.

After the debate, Miller acknowledged supporting the bill and said the measure would have produced "a form of a civil union. It is a limited, modest, legal recognition of a long-term relationship so we aren't forcing gays to be in temporary, casual relationships."

... Robinson's deep conservative convictions helped him win a spot on the Winston-Salem City Council in 1997. While he earned re-election four years later, he was ousted last year after he erected a 1-ton monument of the Ten Commandments in front of city hall.

More Allegations Against Cracker Barrel

Rose Rock, the mother of comedian Chris Rock, claims she was recently the victim of racial discrimination at a Cracker Barrel restaurant along the South Carolina coast. Rock says she was seated but ignored for a half-hour.

This isn't the first time that Cracker Barrel has been the subject of discrimination or bias charges. Two years ago, the restaurant chain settled a federal lawsuit citing racial discrimination. The Justice Department said its investigation showed that Cracker Barrel segregated customers by race and allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers.

Worst of all, the investigation found that, in many cases, Cracker Barrel managers encouraged or participated in these bigoted practices.

Earlier this year, a lesbian in New Hampshire filed suit against the company, alleging that she was harrassed and groped by fellow employees. In the early 1990's, a memo written by a Cracker Barrel executive declared that managers should fire employees who did not "demonstrate normal heterosexual values."

Will Karl Rove Pass His Midterms?

Jacob Weisberg ponders this question at Slate.com.

Spoken Like a True Demagogue

"The Democratic plan would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans’ lives."

-Speaker Dennis Hastert, October 17, 2006 press release regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006

Right, because the Dem's rejection of the new law is the exact same thing as giving all terrorists foot massages and facials, right?

I should shut up before I am declared an "unlawful enemy combatant."

How Desperate Is the GOP in Ohio?

In a word: very. Ken Blackwell and the state Republican Party are so desperate that, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer:

With Republican Ken Blackwell trailing by double digits in almost every poll, Blackwell's campaign Tuesday tried to link his Democratic opponent to child sex predators — and the state Republican spokesman even raised questions about Ted Strickland's sexuality.

Blackwell and the state GOP say they are only questioning Strickland's integrity and judgment. The Strickland campaign said the GOP ought to be "ashamed."

At Monday night's final televised debate, and again in a press release Tuesday, Blackwell charged that Strickland should have known that a man arrested for exposing himself to children was on his congressional payroll. He also suggested Strickland backed a U.S. House resolution supported by a group supporting pedophilia.

... "It is fair turf because it does call into question Ted Strickland's management ability and his decision-making,'' said John McClelland, spokesman for the Ohio Republican Party.

... "Ted Strickland has not answered the tough questions," McClelland said. Included, McClelland said, is why Strickland went on a post-1998 campaign vacation with the once-convicted aide to Italy.

"Where was Frances?'' McClelland said of the candidate's wife. "Voters should be able to look at it and make their own decision. We're not going to sit here and say whether or not we think Ted Strickland has a certain preference. It's just not our business ..."

If this was truly "fair turf" to raise, then why did the Ohio GOP wait to raise such an "issue" until their candidate was 27 points behind?

Why the Religious Right Is Annoyed With Condi

In today's Los Angeles Times, staff writer Johanna Neuman reports:

The long-simmering tension in the GOP between gays and the religious right has erupted into open conflict at a sensitive time, just weeks before a midterm election that may cost Republicans control of Congress.

... A recent incident that upset social conservatives involved remarks by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week. With First Lady Laura Bush looking on, Rice swore in Mark R. Dybul as U.S. global AIDS coordinator while his partner, Jason Claire, held the Bible. Claire's mother was in the audience, and Rice referred to her as Dybul's "mother-in-law."

... The Dybul incident "was totally a damper to the base that we need to turn out," said the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition ...

This is ridiculous, and it proves how out of touch Sheldon is with reality. The Dybul incident won't be "a damper" on turnout among religious conservatives because it's the kind of thing that virtually no ordinary voter knows about. The only way it would dampen turnout is if Sheldon and company go to great lengths to publicize it.

So if Sheldon is truly worried about turnout, he will stop talking about Rice and Dybul. If he and other religious conservatives continue to bitch about it publicly (which is certainly their right), then it says they care more about throwing a hissy-fit than they do about re-electing a GOP Congress that, for the most part, has supported their agenda.

No matter how much Bush and other leading Republicans cater to the Religious Right, these evangelical conservatives will never be satisfied until gay people are completely exiled from the party.

Of course, given the GOP platform, one wonders how gay people could feel at home in that party. But, whatever it is that leads Dybul to call himself a Republican, at least I give him some credit for not hiding who he is.

It's an "Emergency" to Give Him a 32% Raise?

From a small article buried deep within today's Washington Post (not online):

The District (of Columbia) mayor would receive a 32 percent raise, from $152,000 to $200,000 a year, under emergency legislation likely to go before the D.C. Council today.

Why is this being done through "emergency legislation"?

Now, I've asked for raises before, but I've never tried that one — “but, boss, it’s an emergency.”

Methinks this is the way to fast-track a big raise through the Council. By the way, the raise automatically includes a raise for the D.C. Council chair, which will probably help ensure passage.

Whether they are D's or R's, politicians are like small children — you have to keep them under constant supervision.

Lowry Makes Us Yearn for the 1950's

National Review editor Rich Lowry insists that those who have warned of the growing influence of religious evangelicals in politics are guilty of "theo-panic." Lowry writes:

The theocracy charge relies mainly on blowing Christian conservative positions out of proportion.

... National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out that you can take all Christian conservative positions — including far-fetched ones like banning sodomy and contraception — and if they happened overnight they “would merely turn the clock back to the late 1950s. That may be a very bad idea, but the America of the 1950s was not a theocracy.”

May be a very bad idea?

All of you women out there who take birth control pills, listen up. Rich Lowry wants you to know that even if birth control pills were suddenly banned, it wouldn't be so bad. In fact, it would sort of be a fun, little trip back through time to the 1950's.

Your fears and anxieties would be assuaged by playing bridge "with the girls," selling Tupperware and wearing your "I Like Ike" button.

Corruption Here, Corruption There

A report by a House committee provides new details on the illegal activities of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) who

... pressured and intimidated staff members of the House Intelligence Committee to help steer more than $70 million in classified federal business to favored military contractors, according to a Congressional investigation made public on Tuesday.

... The inquiry also found that despite numerous “red flags” about the propriety of a particular contract for work on a controversial Pentagon counterintelligence program, committee staff members for three years “continued to accept and support Mr. Cunningham’s growing requests for this project.”

But you don't have to serve in Congress to have a knack for sleaze and corruption; nor must you be a Republican. Authorities arrested New York State Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin (D-Queens) yesterday and filed 43 criminal charges against him.

My favorite? That McLaughlin allegedly stole $95,000 from Little League baseball teams to pay for housing costs.

GOP Worries in the Land of Napoleon Dynamite

Voters in Idaho's 1st congressional district are electing someone to fill an open seat. In a normal election year, this would be a great, big yawn of a campaign. But this is not a normal year.

Slate's Bruce Reed profiles the district and reports that this traditionally strong GOP district is apparently up for grabs. He notes that yesterday's Roll Call reported:

"The latest example of GOP worries about holding onto traditionally staunchly Republican seats was manifested in a new ad buy this week in Idaho's 1st district, where according to a Democratic source, the NRCC just bought three weeks' worth of TV time to defend an open seat that seemed safely in Republican hands."

Prejudicial Evidence

Senator Sam Brownback has leapt from wanting to demonize gays to trying to disqualify someone from getting a job because they have gay friends-- even if that person is one of Bush's judicial nominees.

The Washington Post has an editorial about it.

IF YOU THOUGHT that fights over judicial nominations couldn't get any worse, consider the case of Janet T. Neff, whom President Bush has nominated to a federal district judgeship in Michigan...For Judge Neff, it turns out, once attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple -- and that has Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (R) reaching for the smelling salts and blocking the nomination.

Mr. Brownback has said he wants to satisfy himself that the judge was not presiding over an "illegal marriage ceremony" in Pittsfield, Mass., in 2002 -- before the state legalized same-sex marriage. He has written to Judge Neff asking for an explanation, his spokesman says, and will hold up her nomination until he learns the nature of the ceremony and its legality. "It seems to speak about her view of judicial activism," the senator told the Associated Press.

Excuse me, but as a LAWMAKER who devotes an awful lot of time worrying about other people's marriages you should at least know that even if the judge did preside over the ceremony (she says she didn't) that there is nothing "illegal" about doing so, as it stands all same-sex marriages are "extralegal," and are in no way "illegal." (Except for legalized marraiges between same-sex couples who are in Massachusetts, of course.)

Which raises the question-- do Brownback and his misinformed, gay-hating cronies believe that the adoption of the Federal Marriage Amendment (or similar state-level measures) would ban same-sex couples from having weddings or living as married people? What kind of dreamland are they imagining, one where priests, rabbis and non-clergy folks are arrested for marrying same-sex couples? Have they ever heard of freedom of assembly or the freedom to worship?

The Washington Post editorial sums it up succinctly, "Keeping Judge Neff off the federal bench over such a matter is perilously close to declaring her unfit to serve because she has lesbian friends."

Even Pond Scum Isn't This Scummy

It's been a VERY long time since I've been truly shocked by anything anyone does in the name of advancing a political party, issue or position.

But this actually shocked me-- craven, outright lies wrapped in a nice race-baiting package.

Free Speech, While Supplies Last

Jim Gilchrist, head of the Minuteman Project, was recently invited to speak at Columbia University in New York City by a campus Republican group.

Obviously, Gilchrist's group sparks intense feelings on all ends of the political spectrum. Groups that find the Minuteman Project's activities offensive had every right to stage a protest outside the hall where he was speaking. Or to engage in leafletting. Or to schedule a speaker representing the other side.

Instead of using one of these options, protesters appeared at the Gilchrist event, angrily approached him and essentially pressured him to leave the stage.

The Hartford Courant has published this editorial rightly criticizing the protesters' actions. This freedom-of-speech-for-our-side crap is getting on my nerves.

Era of Distrust

According to a new poll only 16% of Americans believe the Bush Administration is telling the truth about what they knew prior to 9/11, the other 81% fall into two different camps-- they either believe they're "hiding something" (53%) or "mostly lying" (28%).

It looks like we've entered a whole new era of distrust in America, not to mention the wholesale slaughter of sacred cows.

Filming Mysteries

I know we generally don’t write about fiction or filmmaking on this blog, but I’m pissed.

They’re about to wrap up filming of Michael Chabon’s novel Mysteries of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh this week. (I just read it recently on the recommendation of a friend, it seemed especially fitting since I just moved to Pittsburgh, I really loved it.) However, everything I’ve read about the film thus far has been a little odd since whenever they do a list of who-plays-who one of the main characters is conspicuously absent. Now I have confirmation that they actually removed the 2nd main character in the film and totally rearranged the story— and the reason is hardly a mystery.

Mysteries of Pittsburgh is a beautifully written, unusual love story about a young man who has simultaneous affairs with both a woman (Phlox) and another man (Arthur). Not only did they totally strip the same-sex love affair from the story they also eliminated the central gay character (Arthur) entirely. Instead the story is now about the main character and the love triangle between him, his friend Cleveland and Cleveland’s girlfriend Jane. (Jane, of course, is sleeping with both of them.) Arthur and any trace of same-sex love (and sex) is no longer in the story. It has been totally and thoroughly de-gayed.

What pisses me off is that Rawson Marshall Thurber, the director, claims he LOVED the book and was really excited to translate it into a film. If you loved it so much why the hell did you change it so radically? The reason he gives is hardly convincing.

Noticeably absent is a key character from the book named Arthur Lecomte. "It always seemed to me a more efficient cinematic engine to employ a love triangle versus what exists in the book, which is a four-pointed rhombus, for lack of a better term," Thurber explains.

Talk about bullshit. The obvious character to remove would have been Jane, not Arthur, she’s an ancillary character. But instead you turned her into a main character and into his girlfriend and wrote out Arthur?!? There is such thing as artistic license but making this choice completely guts the book. It is totally undeniable that his friendship and love affair with Arthur is the central theme of the book.

Applying Occam's Razor, I posit that you were uncomfortable with the subject matter— not only does it involve same-sex love (and lust) it is also about a young man who identifies as straight who falls in love with and has an affair with a gay man. It's just so sad that he totally rearranged the story, it's a total missed opportunity, as the tender treatment of the fluidity of sexuality is one of the things that makes Mysteries stand out among all other coming-of-age, post-college stories.

The thing I really don’t understand is that this is an indy film with Peter Saarsgaard, someone who certainly doesn’t shy away from a film with a gay themes. Traditionally these are the exact kind of films that can have a gay storyline, although you’d think that in this post-Brokeback era this kind of crap wouldn’t happen anymore. So I just don’t get it.

Obama Groupies, You're Annoying

I am really starting to get annoyed by the liberals in my midst who are forever swooning over Sen. Barack Obama. The guy could belch, and a bystander would whisper, "How eloquent."

Time magazine picks up on this buzz, as Obama graces the cover of its latest issue. In the magazine, Joe Klein writes:

It is 9 a.m. on a fresh, sunny Saturday in Rockford, Illinois, and nearly a thousand people have gathered in the gymnasium at Rock Valley College to participate in a town meeting with their Senator, Barack Obama.

... Just then there is a ripple through the crowd, then gasps, cheers and applause as Obama lopes into the gym with a casual, knees-y stride.

"Missed ya," he says, moving to the microphone, and he continues greeting people over raucous applause. "Tired of Washington."

There's a sly hipster syncopation to his cadence, "Been stuck there for a while."

What gravitas.

Okay, so Obama might make a good president someday. But he hasn't even served two full years in the U.S. Senate. Isn't all of this fuss a bit premature?

Please, liberal friends, stop cooing and try to control yourselves. Let's see whether Obama makes a good senator before we engage in endless prattle about why he should definitely run for president.

The McCain-Hillary Snit

In case you missed it (as I did), last week at Slate.com, Fred Kaplan sorted through the public snit that Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton are having over North Korea blame game.

Kaplan makes it clear where he stands:

Sen. John McCain has skidded his Straight Talk Express off the highway into a gopher's ditch of slime.

And, in making his case, Kaplan walks readers through the events of the 1990s, arguing that "McCain's version of history goes beyond 'revisionism' to outright falsification."

It does look as though McCain is unnecessarily turning this into a partisan battle. But I'm annoyed to see either side engage too heavily in the blame game. Can we agree that it is pretty damn hard for any president — D or R — to accurately decipher the actions, motives and intentions of North Korea's maniacal ruler, Kim Jong Il?

Why Is the U.N. Considered a Joke?

Because most of its leading members insist on treating it like one. The main way they do this is to ignore or undercut the collective decisions that are made at the U.N.

For example, despite the Security Council's unaminous approval of sanctions against North Korea, China has made it clear that it will not conduct searches of cargo going to and from North Korea for material that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction.

In this article, a Korean professor had a clever way of summarizing how Japan, China and South Korea view the sanctions:

"The practical effect is questionable. They (the countries supporting sanctions) are in bed together but they're all dreaming different dreams."

It's About More Than Abramoff

As a follow-up to my last post about the email trail linking Jack Abramoff and Ken Mehlman (pictured at right), let's recognize that this is only partly about the sleaze of influence-peddling.

It's also about the values that guide a political party.

Bear in mind that Mehlman was helping Abramoff and his clients maintain the status quo on the Northern Mariana Islands. The mostly immigrant workers employed by clothing producers on those islands were:

• getting paid well below the U.S. minimum wage
• forced to work 12-hour days, and
• were living behind barbed wire in squalid conditions without indoor plumbing

So here you have Mehlman, the national chairman of the Republican Party, ordering — on Abramoff's behalf — that a State Department employee be fired because he was interferring with these sweatshop conditions.

Does the GOP have any sense of shame?

Aren't the facts of this matter (U.S. officials providing cover for sweatshop activities) enough, without the Abramoff link, to prompt Mehlman's resignation?

My answers are: Not really and No.

It's appalling that the Republican National Committee can say it supports efforts abroad to encourage democracy and other basic American values, when its chairman has protected sweatshop conditions abroad that we would never tolerate on our own shores.

White House Axed Staffer at Abramoff's Request

We know that political pimp Jack Abramoff had some House members in his hip-pocket. Less clear, until this Los Angeles Times article, is the degree to which Abramoff could call in favors from the White House.

A House committee has found that there were more than 400 lobbying contacts between Abramoff's team and the White House. According to the Times article:

For five years, Allen Stayman wondered who ordered his removal from a State Department job negotiating agreements with tiny Pacific island nations — even when his own bosses wanted him to stay.

Now he knows.

Newly disclosed e-mails suggest that the ax fell after intervention by one of the highest officials at the White House: Ken Mehlman, on behalf of one of the most influential lobbyists in town, Jack Abramoff.

The e-mails show that Abramoff, whose client list included the Northern Mariana Islands, had long opposed Stayman's work advocating labor changes in that U.S. commonwealth, and considered what his lobbying team called the "Stayman project" a high priority."

Mehlman said he would get him fired," an Abramoff associate wrote after meeting with Mehlman, who was then White House political director.

It's nice to know that Mehlman knows how to take orders.

Why Is the Post Downplaying This?

Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich (left) has set a new low

in the sordid world of campaign fundraising.

In Maryland, Democrats are hoping to retake the governor's mansion. Their candidate, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, has aired a TV ad noting that Gov. Robert Ehrlich is "under investigation for illegal tactics."

Like many newspapers, the Washington Post does periodic analyses of campaign ads (not available online). In its analysis of the O'Malley TV ad, the Post writes that the investigation "is not as ominous as the (O'Malley) ad makes it sound."

So what's the investigation about? On Sunday, the Post's "Ad Watch" explained:

Ehrlich recently sent out a fundraising solicitation that included real dollar bills and asked potential donors to return them with at least $25 more.

A state elections board official determined there is "probable cause" that the mailer ran afoul of two elections laws, one that prohibits buying votes and one that requires campaign expenditures to be made by check. The matter has been referred to the state prosecutor.

The Post may consider the investigation to be less "ominous" than it sounds in the O'Malley TV ad, but it's hard to take issue with the ad, which makes a factual statement about the Ehrlich tactic being “under investigation” for possible illegalities.

Regardless of how much cash was in each envelope, this was a pretty sordid tactic by Ehrlich — sending actual dollar bills to potential contributors. Why is the Post downplaying this?

Was He Delivering Pot to Tony Snow?

Who knows? When your role is to face the press every day and try to explain this administration's policies, you could use some good weed. From Sunday's Washington Post (not online):

A man who climbed over the White House fence with a bag of marijuana was arrested yesterday, the U.S. Secret Service said.

Alexis J. Janicki, 24, was arrested about 6:30 p.m. and charged with trespassing and possession of a controlled substance, a Secret Service spokeswoman said.

Sunday YouTube

Ryan Adams - "Let It Ride"



"Hard Way to Fall"