So why would you say God would blow up an oil drilling platform off the Louisiana coast? Well, Katrina was because of those devil worshiping, gays down in New Orleans, so you might think this was because the people down there keep electing prostitution supporter, diaper wearing David Vitter, but you would be wrong.

Turns out, it’s all Obama’s fault. I’m sure that comes as a surprise to you, because it certainly couldn’t have anything to do with the Cheney/Bush cabal eliminating all regulatory control. So what did Obama do you might ask. Well I’ll tell you. Follow me here, it’s a little complicated, and has a lot to do with the Jewish Lunar Calendar. Seems Israel celebrated it’s Independence Day on April 19. Then Fox News reported on the evening of the 19th that the Obama Administration had announced the U.S. would no longer automatically stand with Israel in every United Nations Security Council decision. (You know, maybe because Israel keeps bulldozing people’s homes for no good reason, and killing people on humanitarian missions. God certainly can’t put up with that.)

Then, as we all know, it was April 20th that the well blew up.

Related posts

• 2008 Election Wrap-up (0)
• 88 Arab Homes to be Destroyed in Jerusalem (0)
• Craig and Vitter Sponsor Marriage Protection Amendment (0)
• Do You Know a Miracle When You See One? (1)
• DOMA, Obama and the DOJ (1)

I made the point to him that I agreed there were some on the left so as extreme as to be somewhat embarrassing, but the difference was that I’d bet him dinner he couldn’t find reliable reporting on or Youtube videos of left-wing people going to the steps of the Justice Department for the express purpose of trying to incite someone to beat the crap out of a gay person. I challenged him to find a story of a left leaning person who had killed a doctor, or a Youtube of Democratic Congressperson taking to the floor of the U.S. House and calling the death of the college student a “hoax” with the mother of the student in the gallery. He cut short to conversation.

And now come forth the Psalmists. Apparently they are now printing the phrase, “Psalm 109,” on mouse pads, bumper stickers, and even teddy bears. The Biblical verse Psalm 109: “Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children become fatherless; and his wife become a widow.” Frank Schaeffer, a one-time evangelical leader, tells Rachael Maddow that this latest Bible-quoting campaign is nothing short of “trawling for assassins.”

The hate is just beyond belief and frightening, but even more frightening is the lack of outcry from the leading ministers and clerics against such activities.

Related posts

• 2008 Election Wrap-up (0)
• A Discussions of Pauls Letter to the Romans as Concerns Homosexuality (0)
• Bobby (0)
• Book of Eli, The – A Movie Review (0)
• BP Off the Hook for Oil Spill-WorldNet Daily Says it was God (2)

June 15, 2009

Barack H. Obama, President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Recognizing you have a challenging workload, I will get straight to my point. As a gay man and a life-long and active progressive Democrat I could not be more disappointed with you and your administration, nor could I be any more ashamed of the positions you have recently taken.

I voted for you expecting an about face from the medieval policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration on the “unitary executive” and “war powers” theories. I expected new government respect for Constitutional protections concerning privacy and domestic surveillance. I expected a return to accountability for government officials and corporations when they violated the laws of our Country, and I expected your government to respect the right to habeas corpus for the people we imprison. I expected war criminals and those who ordered torture to be called to account. You promised to be a fierce advocate for Gay and Lesbian equal rights, and you and your team has cleared the agenda of any mention of those issues. (DOMA, DADT, ENDA, Hate Crimes)

Not only have you failed to deliver on these promises, you have sought to defend and continue many of the policies of your predecessor. You have provided little in the way of “change I can believe in.”

But I was finally prompted to write you after reviewing the Motion and Brief submitted by W. Scott Simpson, Chief Trial Counsel of your Department of Justice in the case of Smelt and Hammer v. United States.

First is the claim by The White House and DOJ spokespeople that the DOJ is required to defend all laws that are “on the books.” While not entirely true (your oath is defend the Constitution…not specific laws), let’s assume there is a legitimate need for the DOJ to enter this case. That does not mean the Government (my government, the one I help pay for) is required to sink to hateful and demeaning rhetoric, and trot out patently ridiculous arguments. I’m no attorney, but even a layman can determine bigoted and hateful reasoning when it rears its head. If this constitutes “fierce advocacy” for Gay Rights, please just stop.

The claim from line 32 of the brief is the most absurd of all. “DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits.” This is a frequent claim made by religious fanatics in respect to all sorts of laws restricting gay rights based on a claim that all these laws, including DOMA, don’t discriminate against gays and lesbians because they are free to marry people of the opposite sex. No “homosexual” is denied marriage so homosexuals qua homosexuals suffer no hardship. Gay man? Marry a woman, says the DOJ. This is the same formulation used to argue for upholding the Texas homosexual-only sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas: a law banning only gay sex doesn’t discriminate against gays because it equally forbids homosexuals and heterosexuals to have homosexual sex and because it equally allows homosexuals and heterosexuals to have heterosexual sex.

Your DOJ goes on to compare, as the religious right so often does, gay marriages to incest and pedophilia. It is gratuitously insulting to lesbians and gay men, referring (unnecessarily) to same-sex marriage as a “form” of marriage, and arguing (with a straight face, I can only assume) that discrimination against same-sex couples is rational because it saves the federal government money. These arguments go beyond absurd, and merely prove the discriminatory and unfair nature of the law on its face. Really, your administration is determining whether or not to support civil rights based on whether or not those rights might have a financial cost? Seriously?

Your government (because it’s obviously no longer my government) continues to send me a tax bill every year to help pay for the benefits of married people. May I get a free pass from taxes?

Thinking, intelligent people just roll their eyes and laugh at such reasoning. I would laugh too, were this not my life you were talking about in such language. Do you believe that Loving v. Virginia should have been decided differently because it increased the burden on taxpayers to provide benefits to the spouse and family of mixed race couples?

Mr. President, I voted for you with high expectations that your administration would return this country to the principles of fairness, respect, and government of, by and for the people as set forth so eloquently by our founding fathers. The previous administration had created a credible and very real threat to this Republic, and you made a promise during the campaign to restore those founding ideals. During your inauguration, you took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I have to admit that I am, thus far, gravely disappointed in the actions of your administration, and now…I’m just hurt and insulted.

I go about my life trying to earn a living, trying to respect my neighbors, adhering to spiritual and social principles of Methodism, my chosen religion. I work to maintain a home, and help my “significant other” (since I can’t call him my husband lest I offend your Justice Department and place an undue burden on us taxpayers) advance his education.

I expect that same respect from this government, and your administration has failed to provide that basic level of respect. I now ask and expect you to do better.

Sincerely yours

Related posts

• 2008 Election Wrap-up (0)
• A Time For Anger, A Call To Action (0)
• Alito’s America A Scary Place (0)
• And To The Republic…One Nation? (0)
• Bob and Henry Married after 64 Years (0)

The leader of the Republicans, Rush Limbaugh claims she should be stopped because, “She is a horrible pick, she is the antithesis of a judge by her own admission and in her own words. She has been overturned 80 percent by the Supreme Court, she may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals given all the time she’s overturned.” Let’s get right to this reversal thing. Out of nearly 300 decisions, she’s had 6 reviewed by the Supreme Court, and been reversed 3 times…That’s 50%, but then Rush is using that Republican math I guess.

The average reversal rate is 75%. Let’s remember, the SCOTUS reviews cases in which it thinks there may have been an error. So I would think the reversal rate would be on the high side. The issue is how many cases reached the SCOTUS.

Rush goes on to say, “So she’s not the brain that they’re portraying her to be, she’s not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women. She has claimed that the court is all about making policy.”

Well, first, I’ll take a smart Latina over old white men any day. Let’s see what Rush and the other old white men have brought us:

• A stolen Presidential Election
• The Presidency of George W. Bush
• Two simultaneous wars, one of which we entered on false terms
• Government sponsored torture
• The erosion of our Constitutional protections
• The health insurance industry
• Jim Crowe laws
• The Wall Street debacle
• The economic meltdown

And the hits keep on coming. So, I think it’s about time we give someone else a shot. But of course you can’t base a SCOTUS nomination on just that. So let’s take a look at the context of the comment on which they are relying to make their claim that she is a racist. Here’s what Media Matters has on it:

“Contrary to Kelly and Greenburg’s claims, Sotomayor did not say or suggest that Latina or Latino judges are “better” than white male judges, but was instead talking specifically about “race and sex discrimination cases.” From Sotomayor’s speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:”

And now Orrin Hatch has weighed in opposing Judge Sotomayor. Never mind that he voted to confirm her for the Court of Appeals (and, oh by the way, it was George H. W. Bush who nominated her for appeals court). Hatch has his nickers all in a wad over a comment where they claim she said that Judges make policy. The statement on which they are relying is:

“The saw is that if you’re going into academia, you’re going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made.”

It was made as part of panel discussion at Duke University, but let’s get, as Paul Harvey used to say, “The rest of the story.” You see Sotomayor continues:

“And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m — you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating –” 

On MSNBC yesterday, Tom Tancredo (known for singing Dixie with a group of white supremacists  friends, and saying,  “If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case, which is, from my point of view anyway, nothing more than a Latino – it’s a counterpart – a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses.”) was on the air calling Sotomayor a racist:

Unfortunately for her and fortunately for us there are plenty of things that we’ve even talked about her already. I’m telling you, she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context…You can still be a racist and have all those things in your background. You can be a racist and have all that stuff in your background.

Now this is a guy that called Miami a Third World Country, and postulated, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, that we should bomb Mecca. I think all that counts as racism, Tom. This goes way beyond “the pot calling the kettle black.”

NBC’s David Gregory has said that Sotomayor’s personal story opens the door for scrutiny because of how it might influence her rulings. He seems to think it’s a bad thing, but Glenn Greenwald, doing his excellent job of reporting, has found that the Republicans invited Alito to tell his personal story, and how it influences him, during his confirmation hearing. Then it was a good thing. According to Daily Kos:

“In an exchange with Sen. Tom Coburn, who had asked Alito to discuss how his personal experiences shows that “he cared for the little guy,” Alito said that his family’s experience as immigrants influenced his outlook on immigration cases.So when Sam Alito said his family’s immigrant experience influenced his outlook, it was okay, but now that Sonia Sotomayor (who, like Alito, is an appeleta judge) has been nominated to the Supreme Court, she’s a “racist?”

Juan Cole at Informed Comment shows us just how stupid Newt Gingrish’s arguments against Sotomayor are:

“Republican poobah Newt Gingrich has lambasted Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a ‘racist’ because she implied that a Latina woman could empathize with certain situations as a judge better than a white male could, and so would come to sounder judgments.

Just so everyone remembers, this is Newt Gingrich’s idea of the difference between the sexes:

‘If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections…. Males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.’”

And Karl Rove, that bastian of intellectual analysis, has said she is not that smart. ”I’m not really certain how intellectually strong she would be,” he opined on Fox News. Of course that sort of flies in the face of her winning the highest academic honor and graduating summa cum laude from Princeton, then graduating from Yale Law School and being an editor of the Yale Law Review.

There are certainly legitimate areas of inquiry when the Senate fulfills its constitutional advice and consent requirement. Let’s get to those, and cut out the silly horse shit.

Related posts

• 2008 Election Wrap-up (0)
• Administration Changes (0)
• Alito Faces Questions from the Senate (0)
• Alito’s America A Scary Place (0)
• And Another Republican Sex Scandal (0)

I don’t know the final best answer to the healthcare crisis in this country, but I know it’s a mess, and it has to be fixed. Bill Clinton tried, but the Republicans were having none of it. Obama is now trying it, and again, the Republicans are doing all they can to protect the status quo. In fact, even some of the Democrats are bought and paid for by the health insurance companies.

I know one thing that is an absolute certainty. This problem will never be solved until the insurance companies and their influence are removed completely from the process. They have every reason to keep things exactly as they are, and nothing to add to the conversation. They are the ones primarily responsible for the mess we have now.

I have heard some really stupid people who keep complaining that they certainly don’t want the government and some bureaucrat to be responsible for their healthcare. Neither do I. I want my physician making those decisions. The problem is, these people, stand around and ignorantly spouting their Rush Limbaugh talking points have no clue what they are saying.

They make these comments to support Republican positions for keeping things as they are. So what they are saying is that they would prefer to have an insurance company executive and/or (if they’re lucky) some med tech or some other low cost healthcare person, making the decision about their healthcare.

I want everyone who holds such beliefs to think about this…the insurance companies, all of which are publically traded, have absolutely no obligation (none, nadda, zilch) to get you or keep you healthy. Their only legal obligation is to increase shareholder value, and they do that by paying for the least amount of care for you they can.

So, when you all are out there mumbling about our great healthcare, and how you don’t want a governmentbureaucrat involved, just know that you’ve placed your help in the hands of a company that is considered to be in the “financial sector” of the enconomy…and how’s that working for you right now?

Related posts

• 2008 Election Wrap-up (0)
• A Little Religousity Served Up with Your Healthcare (0)
• Alito Faces Questions from the Senate (0)
• And You Thought The FL Legislature Couldn’t Get Crazier (0)
• Beware of the Power of HypnObama-May Result in Educational Diligence (0)

As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation. It would also undermine the overall success of the bill, as the components most singled out for criticism by these governors are among the most productive measures in terms of stimulating the economy.

We have Governors like Bobby Jindal not wanting to provide increased unemployment benefits to people in his state, but he wants to take the money for infrastructure.

It’s interesting that the money they want to turn down is money that would directly help people in need. Jindal claims that his state can’t afford to maintain the extended benefits once the federal money is gone. What he hasn’t done is explain why his state couldn’t write law so as to limit the extension to the time covered in the stimulus…something that is perfectly legal.

These Republicans, especially the Governors with their eye on a presidential run, are playing politics at a critical time in the history of this country. I’m certain I could go through the stimulus package and find things I don’t like, but I’m smart enough to know that, on balance, the issue is getting people working, and getting money in their pockets to spend so that others can be working.

In the meantime, the Republicans are hoping to facilitate a complete crash of the world economy so they might regain a few congressional seats and maybe the White House in a few years. It’s so nice to know they have our best interests at heart. I hope the Obama Administration will quit pussyfooting around, and take up Schumer’s position.

Related posts

• 2008 Election Wrap-up (0)
• Alito Faces Questions from the Senate (0)
• Beware of the Power of HypnObama-May Result in Educational Diligence (0)
• Blood of American Soldiers A Small Price to Pay. Huh? (0)
• BP Off the Hook for Oil Spill-WorldNet Daily Says it was God (2)

This is some progress, but Obama voted for the law when he was a Senator, and during his confirmation hearings last month, Attorney General Eric Holder indicated he would defend the law.

Under the law, a judge is required to dismiss a wiretapping suit against a telecommunications firm if the attorney general explains the firm’s role to the judge in a confidential statement. The government would say either that the firm had no role or that it participated based on assurances that the president had approved the eavesdropping to protect the nation from terrorism.

Judge Walker rightfully notes that the law appears to set no criteria for the attorney general to use when deciding if he will “grant” immunity for a particular company. I’m guessing it doesn’t because then Presidents Bush/Chenney were fighting to protect their friends. Walker is relying on a 1944 Supreme Court ruling which sets constitutional limits on laws granting power to the President.

Oh, I forgot, under Bush, the Constitution was just a “quaint old document.”

Related posts

• RAT-zinger’s Vatican in league with George…? (0)
• $1 Billion Stolen From Iraq’s Defense Ministry (0)
• 2006 Mid-Term Elections (1)
• 2008 Election Wrap-up (0)
• 363 Tons of Cold Hard Cash Shipped to Iraq – No Kidding (0)

Obama had given in way more than he should have, and that concerns me. On the other hand, it allows Democrats, if the plan works, to call out the Republicans on it. I suspect that, despite their public show, many of them are sweating behind the scenes. Probably, like Rush Limbaugh, hoping upon hope that Obama will fail.

What a great spokesperson and leader of the Republican Guard Rush is. His answer to current economic situation…let’s hope Obama fails (so we can fall into a depression of unheard of proportions), so we can try to get our majority back in government. What is unfortunate, a lot of people continue to believe the drivel.

The Republicans, claiming the only solution is to cut taxes, have come out with their own proposal, and guess what, Greg Sargent’s, The Plum Line Blog, is reporting that it’s been determined the Republican proposal will actually raise taxes on a number of people.

In 2008, 4.2 million Americans had to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The Republican proposal would lower marginal tax rates for individuals, but would not reduce AMT rates. Current law requires you to pay the greater of the two rates, so many of those receiving this lower marginal rate would now be held liable for the AMT.

So they’re off to a great start.

Now they’re moaning because of language in the bill that prohibits use of the stimulus funds from being used for religious purposes. According to an article in Salon.com:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told the Christian Broadcasting Network, “Democrats are looking for every opportunity to purge faith and prayer from the public square. This will empower the ACLU with ambiguous laws that create liability for schools, universities, and student organizations. This is an attack on people of faith and I don’t think Americans will stand for it.” His spokesman, Wesley Denton, went even further, saying, “[A]ny school that gets funds to upgrade a student center or building where Bible studies or religious meetings may be held will be slapped with a lawsuit. This bill declares a war on prayer at college campuses in this country.”

In the Senate version, the language that has DeMint’s panties all in a wad is:

No funds awarded under this section may be used for… modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.

Turns out that this sort of language is actually absolutely standard, as has been point out to Faux News. The language doesn’t prohibit funds from going to religious schools; it just means they can’t use it on any of their facilities that are use primarily for religious purposes. Nor would it mean that public schools would have to keep things like Bible studies out of any buildings renovated with stimulus funding. This isn’t some secret, either — it’s legal principle dating back decades.

So, when your job vanishes, thank the Republicans for having no plan except to stall anything the Democrats want to do. Obama bares some responsibility too. He played this stupid “bipartianship game” and allowed the GOP to take control of the message.

Related posts

• 2008 Election Wrap-up (0)
• Alito Faces Questions from the Senate (0)
• Beware of the Power of HypnObama-May Result in Educational Diligence (0)
• Blood of American Soldiers A Small Price to Pay. Huh? (0)
• BP Off the Hook for Oil Spill-WorldNet Daily Says it was God (2)

Warren’s supporters are up in arms claiming that it’s “the gays” who are being intolerant and showing hatred. Even some politically naive gay activists keep saying to let it go, and keep our powder dry for the important issues. Of course, these would be the same activists who led the strategy that cost gay people their rights in ballot issue after ballot issue over the past several years.

So let me be clear in my response. In the case of claims by the Warren supporters (including you Obama), they are correct. I am being intolerant and am applying the standard applied by Warren and his supporters to love the sinner and hate the sin. I believe that the sin of hate and bigotry, most especially when used for monetary gain, should never ever be tolerated. I guess that fits the definition of intolerance, so I am guilty as charged.

Jesus gave us the two most important commandments, and one was to love your neighbor as yourself. Rick Warren has not done that, and has worked aggressively to deny equal rights to gay people, and been dishonest in how he’s gone about it. Warren has compared homosexuality to incests and beastiality to be sure to arouse the gay sex “ick” factor. He has lied about the tradition of marriage in a video he taped in support of California’s Prop 8. Warren said, “We should not let 2 percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage” — that definition being one man and one woman for life, of course, as he states moments earlier in the video — “that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.”

Of course, none of that is true. The fact is that different cultures have supported different definitions of marriage which have included polygamy (see Mormons for the most recent example of this one), marriages involving children, forced/arranged marriages (still practiced widely today), and marriages for dowry. To even hint that Warren’s definition of the “Ozzie and Harriet” norm to which is referring has obtained, only and everwhere, for five millenia is a bold-faced lie, and Warren knows it to be a lie.

Sure, Warren invited Obama to visit his church, but even then he was less than honest. Warren spent an inordinate amount of time on the social hot buttons of abortion and gay rights instead of the promised attendtion on poverty and social justice. Oh, and let’s not forget he promised that McCain would not hear the questions in advance. We now know that too was a lie.

The day after Obama’s appearance, Warren compared abortion to the Holocaust when he said to Beliefnet that an antiabortion voter backing a pro-choice candidate would be like a Holocaust survivor voting for a Holocaust denier.

He’s in favor of the Iraq war, and believes the Syrian government is moderate. In a report in “The New Republic,” Alan Wolfe writes about an experience he had while on a panel discussion with Warren:

When it came time for questions, a woman stood up, proclaimed her Judaism, and asked Warren if she was going to burn in hell. He paused before responding–and then answered her question the only way it could be answered. Yes, he said to audible gasps.

Warren claims he’s not a homophobe, but he basis that judgement on two facts:

1. He’s had dinner in gay homes. (I’m still trying to figure what a gay home is, but I do know he and his staffed lied about hosting a group of gay families on Father’s Day, so it does seem he’s a bit scared of gay people…maybe he’s just a little too afraid of what may come out of it...I’m just saying.)
2. He and his wife have helped people with AIDS in Africa. (I’ve yet to figure this one out. I’m sure there are gay people in Africa infected with AIDS, but in Africa AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease. Warren always makes it a point to qualify this BS about helping people with AIDS with the “in Africa” qualifier. You see, that’s safe with the other wingnuts because we all know the poor unsuspecting savages over there are all straight, and don’t know enough to avoid it, so it’s OK to help them.)

Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN’s Larry King in 2005, “If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn’t reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool.”

According to a story in The Nation:

Warren protests that he’s not a homophobe; it’s just that two dudes marrying, in his mind, is indistinguishable from an adult marrying a child, a brother marrying his sister, or polygamy. He thinks his AIDS relief efforts represent an elevated form of Christianity over those non-evangelical do-gooders whom he compares to “Marxists” because they’re more interested in good works than salvation.

This guy is a fraud among frauds. During an interview in response to the invitation Warren, trying to sound the conciliatory, Holier-than-thou, friendly old-time pastor, said, “You don’t have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand.” Well, the problem with that is you have be allowed in the door to even walk hand in hand. You see Warren’s church, according to a recent version of his website, does not allow gay people to join Saddleback. Interesting that this page was scrubbed from the website after the MSM started picking up on it. Which just furthers my argument that the guy is a fraud. His beliefs last when they make him money, but when they bite him in the ass, he has no problem deleting them.

In polite society today is not acceptable to say racists things. Sure, racism exists and people have racists thoughts. People even make racists comments in private, but it is simply not tolerated in the public square. It’s Constitutional to say racists things, but most people just don’t as they realize there will be a penalty extracted by society. It remains not only acceptable, but in some quarters even fashionable, today to attack gay people, make all sorts of outlandish and dishonest claims about gay people, the “gay lifestyle” and the “gay agenda.” Until we demand that every indignation visited on us by people like Rick Warren is punished in the public square, right-wing nut jobs will continue to build their empires around hating “the gay.” So, NO, I won’t shut up, and YES, I am over the Obama people for this selection. He didn’t invite a racists to give the benediction.

Related posts

• 2008 Election Wrap-up (0)
• Boy In The Striped Pajamas, The – A Movie Review (0)
• BP Off the Hook for Oil Spill-WorldNet Daily Says it was God (2)
• DOMA, Obama and the DOJ (1)
• Finally-A Judge Who Understands the Constitution (0)

The Big Picture

Obama was clearly the winner, and it seems he did it with a tightly run and disciplined campaign. One of the heartening parts of his campaign was that it was funded to a record-breaking level by millions of smaller donations from everyday people. They relied on thousands of volunteers, and brought an untold number of new and younger people into the political system. And I don’t mean just newly registered voters, but more important, people who made an investment of themselves into the campaign. I think that is critical in trying to restore democracy to this country. However, it means those millions have a vested interest in his success. That cuts both ways. It means he should get support, but people will expect results.

Certainly both sides ran attack ads. That is to be expected, but I found Obama’s to be a lot fewer and a lot less nasty. The McCain just went out of their way to be disrespectful to Obama, and hateful in the messages they were putting out. I saw nothing but negative ads from the McCain campaign. At various times throughout the campaign, especially from the end of September during the economic collapse and through the election, McCain gave off a very real attitude of panic and foundering. It was clear that he and his campaign were struggling to find a voice. Obama seemed to remain calm, decisive and above it all…in short, he came off as more Presidential, and I think the voters perceived that.

What Was Different

I believe there was also something of a perfect storm of events and changes in the world that made this election different. Many of these were things the Republicans could not, or didn’t, account for. In the end, I think they make our democracy stronger. 

In previous election years, Republicans have made harsh and hateful statements, but then just denied them later on, and the “liberal media” just dropped it. This time around people were at these events carrying cell phones capable of recording the event, and many did. Then these things hit YouTube and blogosphere picks it up, and the main stream media finally has to acknowledge what was said. I wrote about a great example here where Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) said, “Folks, there’s a real America. Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.” When called on it, he simply issued a statement saying he never made these comments. Unfortunately, some of these old gray hairs just don’t understand these modern conveniences and the viral nature of things.

And we can only hope that this election seemed to be a repudiation of the politics of personal destruction. Like it or not, McCain ran a far more negative campaign, and Caribou Barbie was just plain mean. Certainly there was a segment of the population that loved it, but clearly those messages not only fall on deaf ears, but seem to have a reverse effect. Elizabeth Dole was in a hotly contested race in North Carolina. She had done a poor job representing the state, but at the end ran one of the sleaziest campaign ads I’ve ever seen. It played out on the Internet, and her opponent, virtually overnight, received hundreds of thousands of dollars from across the country, and in the end Liddy Dole lost her seat.

Obviously, the economy had an impact, and the dissmal approval ratings of George Bush made it a bad year to be a Republican, but they counted on the same kind of dirty campaign tactics, and it just didn’t work as well this time. I sincerely hope it is a sign of things to come.

I’m glad Obama had a significant margin of victory, as I am literally not sure the Republic would have survived having the Supreme Court appoint another President. I think early voting made a huge difference, as it made it a lot harder for Republicans to cage voters, and frankly, I give some credit to the blogosphere for getting out information ignored by the main stream media. Certainly much of it was trivial, but in a lot of cases, it was important information the voters should be able to access.

What’s Next

Democrats had better be prepared to govern. The people are now expecting results, and neither branch of government will have the opportunity to blame it on the other, as Democrats are clearly in control.

The Democrats seem to be making overtones of reconciliation to scumbag, Joe Lieberman. I don’t know who he pictures of doing what to whom, but they’d better be good. I don’t care if Lieberman continues to be allowed to caucus with the Democrats, but he’d better not hold a committee chairmanship. However, it appears Reid is prepared to give him one.

Pundits are now running around screaming that Democrats had better not “overreach,” or make changes too fast. I’m sorry. I have a problem with that, and believe this electorate won’t have patience for creeping change. The pundits are basically trying to tell Democrats to not do exactly what they were hired TO do. The electorate has clearly moved toward the progressive side of the spectrum on most issues, and they clearly voted on “Change.” That sounds to me like a clarion call for bold steps. That’s what America is known for.

The Republicans are lining up in the traditional circular firing squad blaming everyone but themselves. They are great at throwing their own under the bus, and this is no exception. Sarah Palin is their favorite target for scapegoating now. Caribou Barbie certainly did nothing to help the ticket. Oh, she excited the base, but were they going to vote for Obama without her on the ticket….NOT! She was a bad choice, she was unprepared and showed it, and she hurt the McCain/Palin ticket, but I think she probably helped down-ticket Republican candidates by getting out larger numbers of the base.

Frankly, she showed herself to be a vindictive and hateful person, but it seems lots of people in Alaska knew that already. She’s as corrupt, if not more so, than most Republicans, and this country would have been ill-served with her as a Vice-President, and I would have predicted the collapse of the Republic if she’d ever become President.

All that said, the campaign operatives need to shut up. It was a bad choice by John McCain, and he, above everyone else, gets to live with the consequences. His hopes of being President are forever over. Going around now making up stupid shit about her is unprofessional and just plain mean. I no longer want to hear it. I don’t care now, and never cared how much was spent on clothes and makeup. She was in the public eye, and of course the campaign needs her to make a perfect impression. I do care that she tried to circumvent public records laws in Alaska by using yahoo email accounts for state business. I care that she misused the power of her office to carry out personal vendettas, but that’s Alaska business. Leave that to them now.

Is Sarah going to be a force in Republican politics, and will she run in 2012? We can only hope, as it will dramatically improve the chances of continuing to expand the Democratic margin. Republicans have traditionally been a very disciplined bunch (a little less so this election, but servile to the party nonetheless), and I suspect this scorched earth policy regarding Palin is an effort by the Republican hierarchy to ensure that Palin can never re-emerge on the national political scene. 

As for the Republican party in general…I suspect we’ll see the religious right try to pull them even further to the right. In an article at Raw Story, David Edwards and Andrew McLemore write about a Fox News interview with Rep. Mike Pence:

When asked by Chris Wallace what “conservative solutions” the GOP would bring to their current minority-party status, Pence said social issues like “the sanctity of marriage” will remain the backbone of the Republican platform.

“You build those conservative solutions, Chris, on the same time-honored principles of limited government, a belief in free markets, in the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage,” Pence said.

I’ll never quite get it with these Republicans. The dirty little secret of conservatism is that they really don’t want limited government. They want to limit the scope of government to carry out programs they don’t like, but they can be counted on to expand the scope of government to carry out programs they do like. They want little government when it comes to social programs like Medicare, but plenty of government when it comes to warrant-less surveillance. They don’t want government to enforce equal rights protections, but loads of government enforcement of immigration laws. They want little government to rebuild New Orleans, but big government to wage war against whichever foreign dictator has pissed them off.

So, the truth is, they aren’t really against having big government, against government doing anything that might smack of progressivness. And whatever government is doing, whether they approve or not, they don’t think they should pay for it. Tax revenues are supposed to somehow magically appear. 

Republicans just don’t get it anymore. David Frum argues (in effect) that the Republican base is shrinking, and if the GOP doesn’t adjust to demographic realities it will go the way of the dodo.

The base is almost entirely white, almost entirely resident in the middle of the country, moderately affluent, middle-aged and older, more male than female, with some college education but not a college degree. Think of Joe the Plumber and you see the core of the Republican party.

 Obama captured nearly 60% of voters under 30. Republicans have painted themselves into a corner with wedge issues. Most Americans want to keep abortion legal, and, especially among young people, hard attitudes on homosexuality are softening. People don’t trust Republicans with their futures and their money. Republicans have been great at campaigning and sloganeering, but horrible at governing. And, it seems they just can’t help themselves. The minions are still in campaign smear mode, holding up every single thing Barack Obama does as evidence that he’s the bad guy. Now they’re complaining about Obama’s transition web site, for pity’s sake.

So I just see more of the same from Republicans. There won’t be any working across the aisle. They will treat Obama worse than they ever treated Bill Clinton. I just hope the Democrats in Congress grow a spine over the next two months.

Ballot Initiatives and Local Issues

I’m obviously not happy with the way votes went on the three anti-marriage amendments, but will save that for a story of its own. Here in Hillsborough County the biggest and dumbest jerk on the County Commission was replaced with a gay man. One small step in the right direction.

Related posts

• A Time For Anger, A Call To Action (0)
• Alito Faces Questions from the Senate (0)
• Beware of the Power of HypnObama-May Result in Educational Diligence (0)
• Blood of American Soldiers A Small Price to Pay. Huh? (0)
• BP Off the Hook for Oil Spill-WorldNet Daily Says it was God (2)