Totally Biased News

Howard Dean vs. Sarah Palin?

2010-10-07T13:46:00.003-04:00

Everyone knows I respect and admire Howard Dean. In my opinion he broke the mold for liberal progressives, and he carries it off without being an extremist. I supported him when he ran for President, and would again. He is one of the dwindling few Democrats who have a voice in party politics that is still talking sense. His leadership of the DNC was the main contributor to the gains the Democrats made in Congress during his chairmanship, and he presided over the battle royale between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with ironclad neutrality.

His neutrality irked Rahm Emmanuel and Speaker Pelosi who were solidly in Camp Obama, and Dean got snubbed for a Cabinet position. (See my OpEd here: The Fall of the House of Dean ) He was tossed up as a serious contender for HHS Secretary, which was eventually given to Kathleen Sebelius, after both she and Hillary Clinton were vetted off the VP short list. Regardless, he took his leave with grace and has been advocating for progressive causes since. Likely he angered the White House further when he loudly denounced any health care reform law that excluded a single-payer (universal) system, openly criticizing Pelosi and the President.(See my OpEd here: Howard Dean Blasts Obama, Sebelius-- Calls Public Option Mandatory) When the Sunday show circuit bore no fruit, he launched his own reform campaign through his PAC, Democracy For America, and I still believe if the Democratic party bosses had listened to him, health care reform would not have been bungled so badly in Congress. (See my OpEd: Howard Dean wades into the healthcare battle)

Dean founded Democracy For America in 2004. DFA is, "the people powered PAC, has over one million members nationwide. DFA is a grassroots powerhouse working to change our country and the Democratic Party from the bottom-up. We provide campaign training, organizing resources, and media exposure so our members have the power to support progressive issues and candidates up and down the ballot..." Most recently, DFA is taking on the Tea Party and its firebrand pin-up girl, Sarah Palin.

Here is an excerpt from a fund-raising email I received from Howard Dean and DFA today titled simply, "Sarah Palin.":

I have been in politics for a long time now and I have never seen more extreme candidates than ones being pushed today by Sarah Palin.

They're not just attacking the work President Obama has done -- they're attacking our social safety net and the building blocks of the modern middle class. They want to kill Social Security and Medicare, abolish the minimum wage and end unemployment assistance. Some have even questioned basic civil rights.

Candidates like Joe Miller, Rand Paul and Christine O'Donnell are pushing an agenda that is more extreme than Bush and Cheney's ever was.

But we can stop them. We have a chance to beat two of Sarah Palin's top candidates with progressive fighters and pick up two seats in the United States Senate -- one in New Hampshire with progressive champion Paul Hodes and one in Palin's own home state of Alaska with small town fighter Scott McAdams.

(Click here to make a donation to DFA.)

Palin is wading into the midterms energetically, and in good American tradition, the election is becoming a referendum on the President and his legislative agenda. State and federal candidates are being forced to align with or against Obama, and one of the loudest voices calling out the President is Palin's. Most observers believe, probably correctly that these are the first sparrings of the 2012 presidential race. I don't think it would be politically wise of Obama to legitimize Palin further by directly attacking her. Most visibly, Bill Clinton has taken on the Obama-surrogate role with his ultra-charismatic campaigning style, but the Dean niche is still skeptical.

Howard Dean is uniquely equipped to fight Palin right now, and if he makes any headway, the Democratic party is going to owe him another huge favor. Dean is an ex-governor, as is Palin, and although the two are oil and water politically, it is what legitimizes both of them. Dean is not in elected office at this time, and therefore has no constituency to please, he can say what he wants. Dean also remains a viable presidential candidate, and has maintained, even increased his credibility with liberals and left-leaning moderates. Much more than the president at this time, Dean is the anti-Palin. He showed his stuff in terms of growing the Democratic party with his "50 State Strategy," and his PAC, Democracy for America supports dyed-in-the-wool liberal progressive policies: reforming the Democratic party, ending the Iraq war, solving the climate crisis and providing universal health care. All the causes seemingly abandoned by the Obama platform so eloquently spun out in 2008. Dean can easily storm the castle over at the Tea Party camp, and he has the ideological headroom to safely distance himself from the taint of the White House at this moment in US politics. Dean can spread the net to liberals and to independents whose critical support is flagging. Both are losing confidence in the president and giving valuable ground to the disturbing uber-conservative ground swell in the GOP calling itself the Tea Party.

Palin did not invent the Tea Party, but they have embraced her as their figurehead. Combined with this and her PAC, SarahPAC, and her growing celebrity, Gov. Palin is still holding the #2 spot in Republican presidential picks for 2012, narrowly behind Mitt Romeny. And the way the Republican primary process works, with their winner-takes-all system, Palin could plausibly shut out the competition with critical early wins. If Howard Dean is targeting Palin it is because he understands the threat she represents to liberal causes. Because of his now-outsider stature, Dean may actually be able to direct the commentary coming into the 2012 election, which is "officially on," once the mid-term Congress is sworn in. If it works, there could be a background rumble, "Dean '12." And wouldn't that be interesting.

To the victor goes the spoils, indeed...........

2010-01-11T10:53:00.002-05:00

Hm. Harry Reid makes racist remarks. There is a love fest and everyone is forgiven.

What bullshit.

I have to say, Michael Steel is right: "There is this standard where the Democrats feel that they can say these things, and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it's racism. It's either racist or it's not. And it's inappropriate, absolutely."

Harry Reid is not resigning over it, of course. But maybe that's because he knows he's going to lose his re-election bid anyway.

This is a livid example of what Obama meant when he said, "Elections have consequences." Yes, they do. The minority party gets shut out, shut down, slapped around. And the winners can conduct themselves any way they please, with total impunity. Look who's running the plantation now.

Also, I'm really starting to wonder what exactly is the point, or the benefit, to Obama never reacting the racist behavior. This isn't the playground, and they are not going to go away if you ignore them. Too much more of it and he's going to start losing the black vote.

baahhh baaahhhh little sheep

2009-12-26T11:13:00.000-05:00

Just a little rant..... It continually amazes me how ignorant some people are. At least this guy likes Hillary Clinton... but again, more examples of stellar garbage. My response was too long for the comment field on his post, and I doubt he would care what I think anyway, so I am posting it here.

+++ +

While I share your respect for Hillary Clinton, a question your evaluation. The White House has certainly not taken power away from the State Dept. -- under Obama & Hillary, State has nearly doubled its diplomatic corps, and almost daily Sec. Clinton is outlining State Dept. policy and agenda, and more than doubled USAID money and participation in a host of global initiatives.

I also question your idea that Clinton is in some way marginalized -- obviously you read the headlines that say she was, but the actual facts tell a different story. Clinton was the point person along with Biden and Gates on Afghan policy, and has done the advance work for every diplomatic trip Obama has taken. She also negotiated the bulk of the new START treaty, and along with John Kerry brought Pres. Karzai in Afghanistan into lock step with US policy / desires. Not to mention... I could go on and on and on, but the point is: Hillary Clinton is US foreign policy, and without her, Obama would have stumbled very bad already. What she has proven as SOS is what she claimed on the campaign trail in 2008: that she has the gravitas and experience to bring foreign leaders -- even hostile ones -- to the table. The reason she "dropped off the radar" is because she shattered her elbow -- not sure if you've ever broken a bone in a joint, but it is one of the most painful and debilitating things that will ever happen to you if it does. The fact that she was only down for a WEEK with it alone makes her super human.

Now, as for "Hillary 2012," -- please. Anyone who seriously thinks that Hillary Clinton will challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012 (or ever again) really has no idea what they are talking about. She is a member of Obama's cabinet -- there is no way, even if she resigned as SOS, that she would attempt to oust her own president. It would be political suicide. Unless Obama doesn't run again or is out of office by 2012. The more likely scenario -- if there is one at all other than her continuing as SOS -- is that she will step up and replace Biden as VP in '12 which will position her perfectly to win in 2016. Particularly becaus eshe has kept her nose clean of Obama's mistakes, and cannot be held accountable for a thing the Senate does any more. She is -- for a change -- above the fray and almost politically bulletproof. And 78% approval ratings, including 56% approval among Republicans is pretty nice, too. She doesn't NEED Obama to get elected, but trying to beat him again would kill any chances she has. (Which are considerable. At this time I believe that most people see her as the most serious contender for the presidency overall.)

Sorry to jump all over you. But this is a pretty immature evaluation of the political situation in America, particularly as it concerns Democrats and the "Hillary constituency." She is a genius and a political encyclopedia and she has been in the forefront of politics since the 1970's -- she knows the rules, the traditions, and how it works. And she's not going to buck the system in a way that would be detrimental to her reputation among Democrats or really anyone, but particularly she is not going to piss off the people that will elect her. There will be no "I told you so," moment.

well if I can't have it all, I'm taking my toys and going home

2009-12-13T10:55:00.000-05:00

Iran offers some of its uranium and the US refuses because it's not all of it. On the grounds that a partial transfer still leaves Iran enough uranium to construct a bomb. Um... isn't letting them keep all of it leaving them enough uranium to make a bomb? More than one bomb? So, it's all or nothing now? What are we? An only child? I guess we are since Barack Obama has declared the US the "only superpower." I suppose that means we can continue the US foreign policy tradition of playground politics. I guess they didn't notice that Ahmadinejad just had a highly publicized love fest with Hammas. But they're not interested in building a bomb... no, no! Goodness me! They want nuclear energy. Mm-hm.

John McCain throws down

2009-12-07T13:07:00.002-05:00

Wow.

John McCain Rips into Obama over closed door partisan meeting

This could be very bad. What a clumsy move. I am totally in favor of Democrats rallying the troops and getting health care passed without or without Republicans, so long as they preserve the core principles of the legislation as laid out by Obama at the Democratic National Convention last year. However, having a flagrantly partisan closed door meeting at the Capitol building...

Bitch PUHLEEZE

2009-12-06T10:41:00.002-05:00

So, someone commented on my article, "Hillary Clinton and David Miliband: political wedding of the new century," and said:

This article is really inappropriate. Grow up.

I've now re-read the article at least 2 times, and I can't find anything inappropriate or immature in it. The only thing I say that might be possibly taken as inappropriate is when I say: Miliband is just the kind of person Hillary Clinton has always admired most: young, brilliant, transformative politicians with forward-thinking ideas and a base in the traditional. It must be like meeting Bill all over again.

And, in fact, I go out of my way to say I don't think there's anything physical between them, that it's a meeting of the minds.

Anyway, I once again broke my no commenting rule and replied: I'm curious what specifically you find "inappropriate" about this article? Have I said anything untrue? Anything scandalous? Anything a thousand other news outlets haven't reported on? And "grow up."? You grow up.

Of course this person will not reply. It's always the flamers that don't leave their contact info or follow up on their own comments.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: Flamers, haters, ignorant assholes, everyone: bring it. But if you're going to challenge me, have some balls and say who you really are and how I can contact you.

Genghis did not have nuclear weapons, Hillary does

2009-12-01T14:14:00.000-05:00

I don't normally reply to comments on my Examiner columns. I can't not take it personally, so I stay aloof from the discussion. I find that not commenting also creates a distance between me and the reader that is productive in the long run, for both parties. The only exceptions I make pretty much are for technical or administrative replies like, "thank you, grammar fixed" or (recently) "yes, omitting that was an error. Fixed." Etc. Although I might stop even writing those. I don't know.

Regardless.

Someone commented on my article, Can Hillary Clinton win the war in Afghanistan?, "Can Hillary Clinton win the war in Afghanistan?

If Genghis Khan could not win there what does Clinton have that he didn't?"

.... gee, let me think. Oh yeah...

Um, nuclear weapons.

From Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics

2009-11-09T21:17:00.002-05:00

No sense in reiterating. I agree.
Read for yourself: How To Divide a Party, In Three Easy Steps!

Palin is now defacto GOP party boss

2009-11-03T12:16:00.001-05:00

Still don't believe me about Sarah Palin?
Apparently she now tells John Boehner what to do, and has the political capital to swing the entire GOP establishment behind a 3rd party candidate she favors. HERE.

One Hundred Responses To A Non-Restaurant Staffer Who Thinks He Knows How To Run A Restaurant

2009-11-02T12:53:00.001-05:00

Bruce Buschel has an "article" in the New York Times small business section titled, "One Hundred Things Restaurant Staffers Should Never Do (Part 1)," containing the first fifty of one-hundred tidbits of advice he has for the people who apparently will be working at the restaurant he is building. Why he has to publish his employee manual in the New York Times escapes me. However, here are One Hundred Responses To A Non-Restaurant Staffer Who Thinks He Knows How To Run A Restaurant:

1. Do not let anyone enter the restaurant without a warm greeting.
Fair enough. Please make sure there is sufficient staff so someone is watching the door at all times. Servers are not hosts.

2. Do not make a singleton feel bad. Do not say, “Are you waiting for someone?” Ask for a reservation. Ask if he or she would like to sit at the bar.
Also fair enough. Although I would add, isn't asking them if they want to sit at the bar the same thing? How about just wait on them, and they will tell you if you didn't bring enough menus. They always do.

3. Never refuse to seat three guests because a fourth has not yet arrived.
You may find this to be very unreasonable as you get down the road. Many, many restaurants have the policy that they will not seat incomplete parties. This is because they are so busy they need the tables to turn -- need them to, not just want the extra money -- because they need to accommodate everyone before closing time. When you tell someone the wait is 45 minutes and it becomes 2 hours because partial parties held up the otherwise smooth process, you have created a snowball effect that is your fault and customers will know it, tell you so, and tell everyone else so, too. This practice also throws off timing for your kitchen, creates double work load for the bar and the servers (for which they will not be double-compensated) and causes frustration cascading from the table to the parking lot and everyone in between. Seating partial parties is a bad policy.

4. If a table is not ready within a reasonable length of time, offer a free drink and/or amuse-bouche. The guests may be tired and hungry and thirsty, and they did everything right.
Yes. However, you must be clear with your staff and your customers what a "reasonable length of time" is. If your host told them 40 minutes and they are complaining after 20, someone needs to remind them politely but firmly of that. This also means an accurate recording and time keeping process at the door. Again, this also means adequate door / hosting staff -- do not make servers be responsible for people who are not at their tables.

5. Tables should be level without anyone asking. Fix it before guests are seated.
Absolutely.

6. Do not lead the witness with, “Bottled water or just tap?” Both are fine. Remain neutral.
What do you mean by this? If your restaurant offers bottled water, severs are doing their job by offering it. If you mean don't call it, "just tap," that's fine. Although I don't believe I've ever been asked that question by a server, nor have I heard it referred to as "tap." In fact, I would lay out money that in 95% of restaurants, if you ask for water, you get tap. Most places leave it incumbent on the customer to specifically ask for bottled or sparkling water.

7. Do not announce your name. No jokes, no flirting, no cuteness.
While I personally agree, and find it totally unnecessary to announce your name, most restaurants encourage it. This is a curious pronouncement, particularly when paired with jokes, flirting and cuteness. Do you assume telling your name to a table is the prelude to coming on to them? And, obviously you are not building a "Hooters." Also, after 20+ years of working in the service industry, I can assure you, if you don't tell them you're name, they will ask.

8. Do not interrupt a conversation. For any reason. Especially not to recite specials. Wait for the right moment.
This is an absolute crock. A restaurant is a business and a server is a sales person. When a server comes to a table it is for a specific business-related reason, not to chit-chat (or joke, flirt or be cute) and customers should know that they need to address business when it comes their way. Not to mention the nearly endless list of things that are time-sensitive and customer-dependent in a restaurant. When a server comes to a table and customers are talking, a polite pause is all that is needed before saying, "Excuse me," or, "Sorry to interrupt, but..."

9. Do not recite the specials too fast or robotically or dramatically. It is not a soliloquy. This is not an audition.
So let me get this right. Not too fast. But not robotically (condescending code word for "slow",) either. And no drama. So really, just don't bother.

10. Do not inject your personal favorites when explaining the specials.
Agreed. Your personal favorites probably aren't specials anyway. "Inject" those when asked what you like, or "what's good."

11. Do not hustle the lobsters. That is, do not say, “We only have two lobsters left.” Even if there are only two lobsters left.
Obviously you are opening a restaurant in the Northeast, as this is the only place in the country lobster is really even a concern. And why not "hustle" them? Don't you want the specials sold? This one barely even makes sense. A house rule, apparently. No experienced server would take this advice seriously.

12. Do not touch the rim of a water glass. Or any other glass.
Absolutely.

13. Handle wine glasses by their stems and silverware by the handles.
Absolutely. Although this does not really warrant being separated from #12, since "any other glass" is already mentioned there.

14. When you ask, “How’s everything?” or “How was the meal?” listen to the answer and fix whatever is not right.
Absolutely. Particularly listen.

15. Never say “I don’t know” to any question without following with, “I’ll find out.”
Any question? How about questions about the restaurant. Servers often act as an impromptu Chamber of Commerce, answering questions about attractions, the surrounding area, etc. Not knowing one of those answers is just fine, and there is no need to go find out.

16. If someone requests more sauce or gravy or cheese, bring a side dish of same. No pouring. Let them help themselves.
Good advice.

17. Do not take an empty plate from one guest while others are still eating the same course. Wait, wait, wait.
Again, this is a complete crock. Even in fine dining it is now an accepted custom to clear plates as they are emptied. Universal sign that it is time to clear a plate: napkin on it. Also, most restaurants expect tables to be "pre-bussed" meaning, plates and silverware cleared before the table is vacated. Not doing so again creates more work for everyone, slows down the entire operation, effecting everyone in the building, customers included. Plates should be cleared as they are emptied. Period.

18. Know before approaching a table who has ordered what. Do not ask, “Who’s having the shrimp?”
By this you must mean, after you have taken their order. Unless you plan to hire psychic wait staff. So, yes, absolutely -- not table auctions. However, this also means there must be adaquate support staff to ensure that servers can, 100% of the time, carry out their own food. Or, there will be an auction.

19. Offer guests butter and/or olive oil with their bread.
Does anyone not do this? I can't remember ever getting bread or rolls at a restaurant my entire life without at least a few butter patties thrown in.

20. Never refuse to substitute one vegetable for another.
Again, I can't imagine any place that restrictive. However, when a customer wants an entire house salad, served in advance of the meal (again, double work for no more money, for anyone, server or business) instead of a scoop full of carrots, they should know they need to pay more for it.

21. Never serve anything that looks creepy or runny or wrong.
This is your way of saying don't serve anything you would not eat. Absolutely, double absolutely. However, this also means that the chefs must be willing to accept send-backs from the servers. No refusing to remake. No threatening, shouting, or arguing. If it's not good enough to go to the table, it does not leave the kitchen. Period, no arguments.

22. If someone is unsure about a wine choice, help him. That might mean sending someone else to the table or offering a taste or two.
This also means you need to educate your staff on wines, or hire staff who already know wine. This may mean staff tastings as well. If you want to run a restaurant that "knows its wine" you need to be willing to write off a few bottles.

23. If someone likes a wine, steam the label off the bottle and give it to the guest with the bill. It has the year, the vintner, the importer, etc.
This is fair as an in-house policy. However, be aware by doing this you are likely forfeiting any recycling or bottle deposit refunds. A bottle here and there is no big deal, but if you get a reputation for such a thing, it is a business concern. Additionally, again, this means you must have adaquate support staff to allow for one person to be dedicated to steaming a bottle for 5-10 minutes.

24. Never use the same glass for a second drink.
This is a matter of taste. And I assume you mean beer, wine and cocktails. Refilling sodas, hot drinks, juices and water certainly bears no call for a fresh glass. And many bar customers prefer to keep their same glass. This is not a rule you can really make and enforce. It is an acceptable general guideline at best. The rest should be entrusted to your staff, who should be able to gauge their own customer's needs and preferences.

25. Make sure the glasses are clean. Inspect them before placing them on the table.
Absolutely.

26. Never assume people want their white wine in an ice bucket. Inquire.
The only beverage that is traditionally served in an ice bucket is champagne.

27. For red wine, ask if the guests want to pour their own or prefer the waiter to pour.
This is a well-known convention. And, it should be covered along with general wine knowledge from #22 and #23.

28. Do not put your hands all over the spout of a wine bottle while removing the cork.
Again, more well-known wine serving etiquette.

29. Do not pop a champagne cork. Remove it quietly, gracefully. The less noise the better.
See #28.

30. Never let the wine bottle touch the glass into which you are pouring. No one wants to drink the dust or dirt from the bottle.
See #29. So, #'s 22-23 and 28-30 are all about wine service. Allow me to reiterate: if you are running a restaurant that even has a wine list big enough to warrant traditional, formal wine service, you need to either a) hire service staff who are trained in fine dining wine service, or b) offer this training to servers when they are hired.

31. Never remove a plate full of food without asking what went wrong. Obviously, something went wrong.
Obviously.

32. Never touch a customer. No excuses. Do not do it. Do not brush them, move them, wipe them or dust them.
This is fair.

33. Do not bang into chairs or tables when passing by.
This is a curious pronouncement. I am unsure why it warrants being on a Top 100 list, as I do not know anyone who intentionally means to "bang into" things. So, service staff who you have obviously seen doing this enough times that it makes your list, either are doing it on purpose to be annoying or passive aggressive, or things are too crowded and the staff can't move around adequately. Either way it needs to be addressed -- by you, not the staff.

34. Do not have a personal conversation with another server within earshot of customers.
A good general guideline. Impossible and unrealistic to enforce. Yes, long protracted conversations about server's personal lives on the dining room floor are in poor taste / unprofessional, but staff are going to talk during their shifts. It's natural and it helps create a comfortable sense of the place.

35. Do not eat or drink in plain view of guests.
Again, a good general guideline. However, particularly on the topic of beverages, staff should have easy and regular access to water or fluids. I have never been insulted or thought I was getting poor service if I saw a busy server grab a drink of water on the fly. Hydration is important, and cannot be overlooked or banned.

36. Never reek from perfume or cigarettes. People want to smell the food and beverage.
Absolutely. Wash your hands. Use an odor neutralizing spray, not perfume or cologne.

37. Do not drink alcohol on the job, even if invited by the guests. “Not when I’m on duty” will suffice.
Absolutely.

38.Do not call a guy a “dude.”
Absolutely. Too casual, even in the most casual environment is unprofessional. Sir, ma'am, folks, everyone, etc., is sufficient.

39. Do not call a woman “lady.”
See #38. You really had to stretch this to get to 50 didn't you?

40. Never say, “Good choice,” implying that other choices are bad.
This is sound advice. However, it is acceptable to praise customer's choices, particularly if you know they were struggling with their choice. "That is delicious," or "you'll love it," are perfectly fine. Set the expectation that they are going to like what they chose. Other choices might not be acceptable, you have no idea. Customers could have health concerns or very specific taste considerations that their server has determined by developing rapport. It is a personal call by the person at the table, in the situation.

41. Saying, “No problem” is a problem. It has a tone of insincerity or sarcasm. “My pleasure” or “You’re welcome” will do.
Again, a good general guideline, but you cannot and should not dictate specific words that servers can and cannot say. The most genuine thing can sound fake an insincere -- or the other way around -- depending on the person speaking, their manner of speech, and their personal cadence. You cannot dictate speech. In #9 you caution against robotic speech -- it applies everywhere.

42. Do not compliment a guest’s attire or hairdo or makeup. You are insulting someone else.
Fair enough.

43. Never mention what your favorite dessert is. It’s irrelevant.
What about when customers ask? They do, they will, they want to know.

44. Do not discuss your own eating habits, be you vegan or lactose intolerant or diabetic.
Again, this is a personal choice. If a customer informs you that they are diabetic, and you are, too, they will feel more assured that they are getting health-safe food from you if you tell them. Allow me to reiterate: you cannot dictate speech.

45. Do not curse, no matter how young or hip the guests.
Yes. This also addresses professionalism.

46. Never acknowledge any one guest over and above any other. All guests are equal.
Including the children? OK, sure, little one. I'll bring you everything you ask for. Everything. You're equal.

47. Do not gossip about co-workers or guests within earshot of guests.
Absolutely.

48. Do not ask what someone is eating or drinking when they ask for more; remember or consult the order.
Absolutely.

49. Never mention the tip, unless asked.
Absolutely.

50. Do not turn on the charm when it’s tip time. Be consistent throughout.
Agreed. It just seems disingenuous and is largely transparent. It will hurt the tip, not help it.

"I have no interest in running for president," until it's time to announce again, that is

2009-10-27T13:23:00.001-04:00

David Paul Kuhn has an article at RealClearPolitics discussing Hillary Clinton and 2016. Here: Hillary 2016? It's a worthwhile read.

Here is my response. Discuss amongst yourselves.

--------------

There are many things that could happen before 2012. Barack Obama hasn't even been president a year yet.

I agree with most of what you say here. I think it is obvious beyond most other things that Clinton has not taken her sites off the Oval Office. She is very conscious of her legacy, and that alone means no achievement is really off the table. I also agree with several who have commented on the DNC's meddling in the delegate process -- under extreme pressure from Nancy Pelosi, which is the part that no one seems to want to talk about.

The part I think you might be -- might be -- wrong about is Biden. I'm not so sure how much Biden and Obama like each other. I think the vitriol that was planted on Clinton really came from Biden. Note that both Joe Biden and John Edwards made public comments that seemed as though they would endorse Clinton after they both bowed out of the primaries. And both of them held multiple private meetings with Clinton before accepting similar invitations from Obama. Joe Biden was placed on the Democratic ticket as VP to neutralize him. The office of VP is little more than a place holder for someone like Biden, who has already had a distinguished career and is easily seen as an "elder statesman." He was the Token Old White Guy.

I think it is a possibility that Clinton may well take what I am going to call the "Condi Path." There was significant pressure for Dick Cheney to resign, and he was about to until GWB insisted he stay. And when it was all going down, I feel fairly confident that Condi Rice would have stepped up to the VP slot. And, I think the same thing might happen with Clinton. I think Joe Biden might step down. I think it may have been discussed as early as last summer 2008. I believe there is a very distinct possibility that Hillary Clinton will be on the ticket as VP in 2012, or even sooner if Biden keeps gaffing his way around Af-Pak. It could easily be cloaked in "personal reasons," so everyone's dignity remains intact.

Hillary Clinton is experiencing a career high, both in position and approval ratings, that she has in essence, never seen before. We've seen from her Senate campaigns that she is capable of pulling together a landslide win. And she has already set the precedent in terms of women running for President. No doubt, anyone who thought a woman couldn't be taken seriously as a presidential candidate ate a healthy slice of crow last year. Her supporters are as loyal and as ardent as they ever were, and she is likely attracting even more. And, in truth, she has a broader support base in Washington than Obama, with the exception of last year when the country was swept up in the wave of electing a black man. What I mean by that is: Hillary Clinton has the support of the Democratic caucus -- they only closed doors and wallet to her when it became obvious Obama was going to be the nominee, but they would come running right back to her if it was the other way around, particularly now. And, all along, she has had maintained higher approval ratings with Republicans, who view her as more moderate and more bipartisan that Obama.

As for 2012. No incumbent president in the modern day has ever not run for re-election. However, keep in mind that Obama has already said he is willing to be a one-term president to get health care reform -- Hillary Clinton's #1 legislative agenda for the last 15 years or more -- signed into law. I believe he is a shrewd enough politician that he could be convinced to step aside for a stronger Democrat in 2012 if his approval ratings stay consistently below 50% for the second half of his first term -- and if there were another Democrat whose approval ratings were trampling his. Ala Clinton. I also believe another Democrat could challenge him and win in the primaries, but I doubt it would be Clinton who would do such a thing. I believe she would only launch a 2012 campaign with the explicit blessing of Obama, or in his absence altogether.

Regardless, Hillary Clinton remains a strong possible for either 2012 or 2016. Head-to-head polling for the General Election last year was also telling. While Obama pulled strongly ahead of McCain in the polls in the 11th hour (he was ahead most of the time before, but by only a few points, and McCain catapulted ahead of him in late summer,) Clinton vs. McCain showed a strong win for Clinton consistently. Polling continued for Clinton even after the nomination went to Obama, and a poll I saw as late as October last year showed Clinton demolishing McCain, while Obama was still hanging on by his teeth. And once the actual votes were in, while it appeared to be a "landslide" for Obama, and much was made about his "mandate" (which is already crumbling as he alientates both sides of the Democratic spectrum) the reality is, he only beat McCain by 2 percentage points. In spite of what the media spin doctors said, it was a very close race.

Note also that Clinton's campaign infrastructure is still up and operating. Of course this is because her campaign debt is "not paid off." I find this claim questionable. I remember early in summer seeing a headline saying the Clinton campaign debt was paid off. Then all of a sudden it was "less than a million." I think it behooves her to keep her campaign operation operating, and the best way to justify that is to maintain the appearance that they are still trying to settle debt from a prior run. But she has more staff, more money, and more activity going on than is really warranted in an off-cycle year. Another thing to watch: if she accepts the Chairmanship of the DLC (which I'm sure would be hers for little more than the asking) that is a sure sign of another presidential run. And, were she to run again, she would have a shield / justification she did not have in 2008: she could easily portray herself as the "reluctant candidate," saying she didn't want to run again, but the public called her to serve, etc.

I believe there are a good number of people who not only wish Hillary Clinton was president, but who believe she would be doing a better job than Obama. And I believe those numbers are increasing, not decreasing. She faced a good deal of skepticism, misogyny and carry-over animosity from Bill in 2008, which I think she has effectively conquered now. By 2012 or 2016 she will have a solid executive career of her own, an even wider constituency, and a track record that was not formed on the coat tails of a man. If she can keep her approval ratings high -- in the high 50's or 60's -- I believe there is little doubt she will run again. Seldom do we see a SecState who maintains independent approval ratings from the President. Condi Rice is a prime example -- she was soaring until Dubbya took a nose dive -- in fact, I am sure GW Bush is the reason she was not selected as McCain's running mate. If Clinton can maintain her own image, her own numbers, and her own constituency, she will be back on the campaign trail at some point. Perhaps the appearance that she is being sidelined by Obama (which is not true -- I believe it is to keep Obama from seeming like her apprentice) is actually helping her maintain autonomy. It could be good.

Obama does nothing, gets credit - again

2009-10-25T12:11:00.002-04:00

Let me just say:

Um, obviously President Obama is going to sign the hate crimes legislation that Democrats managed to attach to a multi-billion dollar defense bill that "must" pass. Do not be fooled that this is him -- in any way -- keeping his promises to the GLBT community. First of all, you can thank Congressional Democrats for expanding hate crimes language to include sexual orientation. It has little if anything to do with the president. And second, all he has to do is sign the damn thing. It's just barely better than when the administration claimed credit for helping gays by doing nothing. As I've already said, doing nothing is still doing nothing.

And, if the public option falls out of health care legislation -- again do not be fooled -- it will be the president's fault. He has bowed to the insurance lobby and greedy corporate drug lords and is actively endorsing the "trigger" plan that Olympia Snowe is advocating. Since when was Barack Obama to the RIGHT of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (well, maybe Pelosi is more liberal, but Harry Reid, who is now the lone voice demanding the public option in the Senate??) As I've also already said, I think Reid knows his Senate career is circling the drain, so he is going full-bore-sacrificial-lamb for the public option, and it just might save him.

What a ##@$@#$ joke. Maybe they'll give Obama another Nobel prize for the second twelve days of his presidency.

2009-09-20T18:52:00.002-04:00

Kyle Sennett on Facebook

Howard Dean wades into the healthcare battle

2009-09-18T13:09:00.002-04:00

Former Vermont Governor, 2004 presidential candidate and most recently former Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean has rolled up his sleeves and waded into the health care battle being waged in DC and across the country. Dean has founded an organization called "America Can't Wait" and is pushing for, "At least 218 House and 51 Senate Democrats," to pass a health care bill that includes a public option... FULL STORY

Race card getting played, but not by Obama, Congress censures Wilson

2009-09-15T20:35:00.001-04:00

Eight months into the "historic" presidency of Barack Obama, the race card is finally getting played. But not by him. The media is suddenly turning their attention to Obama's critics, and his race, and drawing their own conclusions... FULL STORY

bin Laden to President Obama: You are waging a hopeless and losing war

2009-09-14T13:50:00.001-04:00

A new audio tape from Osama bin Laden has been released. Addressing the American people, bin Laden tells the president, "If you end the war (in Afghanistan), so let it be. But if it is otherwise, all we will do is continue the war of attrition against you on all possible axes. You are waging a hopeless and losing war for the benefit of others, a war the end of which is not visible on the horizon." ... FULL STORY

Hundreds of thousands march on Washington, protest government spending, health care reform

2009-09-13T17:20:00.001-04:00

Saturday, September 12th, Washington D.C., the West Front of the Capitol was overflowing with protesters, as many as 2 million some estimates say. The loud and determined mob was another in a series of 'Tea Party' protests that have been galvanizing a populist movement within the Republican party and conservatives all summer... FULL STORY

Al-Qeada plot to kill Secretary Clinton in Kenya almost worked

2009-09-12T14:32:00.000-04:00

The State Department has yet to either confirm or deny reports that a terrorist group associated with Al-Qeada in Kenya attmepted to assassinate the Secretary of State on her official visit last month. However, continued sources are offering information, and the story seems credible... FULL STORY

Interesting Rumor: Hillary for NY Governor

2009-09-11T13:24:00.003-04:00

Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard is pushing a rumor that Sec. Clinton will resign from her post as Secretary of State and run for NY governor. I doubt it's true, but if it is, and she does, and she wins, there's pretty much no doubt she is gearing up for another presidential run.

Crist crushing potential challengers in Senate race, but it's not a walk yet

2009-09-11T13:11:00.000-04:00

Senator Crist? It certainly looks that way. Currently Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) appears to be headed for a landslide win in the 2010 Florida elections which will send a new Senator to Washington D.C. from the Sunshine State... FULL STORY.

SarahPAC Steps Up Its Game

2009-09-01T13:11:00.004-04:00

Former Governor Sarah Palin's political action committee, SarahPAC is gearing up for the big time. The PAC has officially met FEC regulations for being a multi-candidate committee, which increases SarahPAC's maximum per-candidate contribution, and opens up the PAC to campaign on as many platforms as they desire. POLITICO reports that SarahPAC is currently leading in contributions to other candidates, although Mitt Romney's, Free and Strong America PAC, has raised more money by over a million dollars. And Mike Huckabee is trailing in a distant third both in contributions and fund raising. It's still too early to tell what will happen, but this is a gear-up move for Palin, and a common tactic used by presidential candidates in order to facilitate travel and campaign engagements, or to develop "chits." Palin is also testing her mettle with the big boy's club in Hong Kong, and will be addressing Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia (CLSA), a global brokerage firm, an organization that has also hosted Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Alan Greenspan.

test 2

2009-08-24T17:48:00.000-04:00

another test. ignore.

test

2009-08-24T17:45:00.000-04:00

test post. ignore, plz

Howard Dean Blast Obama, Sebelius, Calls Public Option Mandatory

2009-08-24T10:53:00.001-04:00

Howard Dean is campaigning to keep the public option in health care reform. Everyone knows I like Dean anyway -- he was my choice in 2004, and this can go on the list of further reasons why I liked him then and still like him now. Dean Campaigns For Public Option in HC Reform.

Amazing Garbage

2009-08-19T12:15:00.003-04:00

I normally wouldn't waste the typing time to draw attention to something like this. But I just can't resist.

I am naturally drawn to any headline about Hillary Clinton, and in particular I am titillated by any mention of a future presidential run. That's how I came to read this piece of amazing garbage: Hillary Clinton keeping her eye on the 2012 presidency

I won't give it the credence a full reprint here would give.

However, it should be noted that the author, Brian Mark Weber (from his tagline): "...is a professor of United States History at American Military University and professor of English at Anne Arundel Community College. He holds an MA degree in Military History, an MA degree in English Literature, and a BA degree in American History and English..."

An accomplished scholar, one would assume.

Here's some gems from the article:

The demise of President Barack Obama has set the stage for the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2012

This is the opening line of the article. So, apparently Joe Biden is President now, because Barack Obama is dead. Obviously this joker is referring to Obama's declining poll numbers, which in fairness, is somewhat more dramatic than other Presidents in this stage of their presidency. I'll give Prof. Weber that much. (Although it's really Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics.com who explains it believably.)

clearly dissatisfied with her role as Secretary of State

I may have read her completely wrong, but I don't think so. I know a lot about Hillary Clinton, how she operates, and what her long-range strategy planning looks like. A lot. And, it seems to me, Secretary Clinton is happy as a pig in mud over at Foggybottom. She is in her element 100%, is excelling at the job, and still enjoying soaring approval ratings, a good 20 points higher than the President on any given day. She is well on her way to being one of the most respected, famous, and successful Secretaries of State in American history. Which brings me to...

Clinton has not abandoned her dream of becoming the first woman to assume the office of President of the United States

No, she hasn't. Weber is right on that count, no matter what she herself may be saying about it right now. Any smart politician knows better than to talk about running for president until it's time to actually do it. And that time, barring disaster, is 2016. And, entirely contrary to Weber's viewpoint that Clinton's presidential aspirations are "completely dependent upon the failure of the Obama presidency," they are in fact, dependent on the success of his presidency, and on re-election in 2012. The only person who is going to be president in 2012 other than Barack Obama is a Republican. Believe me, I would love to see HRC challenge Obama in the 2012 primaries, win, and take the White House, but it's just not reality. Not any reality.

In closing, let me apologize. I know it seems I trash other journalist a lot. But people read this drivel and believe it. Watching David Letterman last night he said in his monologue something to the effect of, "People are saying that once President Obama's health care plan goes through, 'death panels' will decide end of life care..." This snapped me to attention; people are not saying it - -Sarah Palin said it, and now it has been regurgitated enough times that it has become something "people are saying." Again, drivel, garbage, demagoguery. So, yes, I will continue to criticize other writers who talk out their ass. I guess that wasn't much of an apology.

Take It Off Levi

2009-08-18T13:49:00.003-04:00

Levi Johnston, Bristol Palin's ex and father of her baby confirmed in an interview that he is considering posing naked for Unzipped magazine, a leading nude male publication.

I have to say, take it off Levi, take it all off.

Hillary Loses Her Cool

2009-08-11T14:42:00.002-04:00

A Congolese student questioning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a townhall meeting was translated to have asked, "What does Mr. Clinton thinks through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton?" Needless to say, Secretary Clinton was visibly angry at the question and shot back with a very defensive, ""You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not Secretary of State, I am. If you want to know my opinion I will tell you, but I will not be channeling my husband!"

I'm sure the Hillary haters will jump all over it.

But seriously, what an insulting question. Watch the video here, and you can see the clear pause-and-look-around, did she really just ask me that?? It gets better. Apparently, the student later approached Secretary Clinton to explain she was misquoted and actually wanted to know what President Obama thinks.

I'm not sure which is more insulting.

Go Bill!

2009-08-05T12:16:00.002-04:00

Bill Clinton to North Korea, "Put down the guns and give me the girl!"

And who said cowboy diplomacy didn't work?

Hillary In Steps

2009-08-03T20:47:00.003-04:00

Even more interesting, Thomas P.M. Barnett, at Esquire has a much more detailed, informed, and believable theory that Hillary Clinton will replace Joe Biden in 2012 as Obama's VP, leaving her as the natural successor in 2016.

Hillary vs. Sarah

2009-08-03T20:26:00.002-04:00

Colleen O'Connor at the San Diego News Network has a pretty interesting theory supporting the idea that Barack Obama will be a 1-term president (or "Carterized" as I keep warning, but he doesn't listen for some reason...) and in 2012 we will see Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin.

I'm not sure I believe any of it.

However, two things.

1) I would love it.
2) As I have already said, Hillary would rip into her like a bag of Doritos.

OK, three things:

3) And Hillary Clinton would be President.

Maureen Dowd Is A 'Mean Girl'

2009-07-29T11:47:00.005-04:00

I think Maureen Down just needs another woman to hate.

Read this stellar piece of hack.

So, Maureen Dowd, who was one of Hillary Clinton's most caustic (and yes, misogynist) critics on the campaign trail now describes her thus: "Hillary’s radiant robustness, on the other hand, even with a sore elbow, makes the dictators in Iran and North Korea we’re so worried about seem like frail, little creatures."

While Sarah Palin is: "...aggrieved, paranoid and press-loathing in her new role as bizarre babe-at-large, a Nixon with hair extensions..."

I can't say it enough times: I am not a supporter of Sarah Palin, either, but the vile, disgusting sexism that she is continually bombarded with, having little if anything to do with her actual qualifications or skills, makes me so mad I could spit nails. It makes me want to make a campaign contribution, to vote for her. Hair extensions? Come on Maureen. Really? You really think Sarah Palin has fake hair -- and that has something to do with her character as a politician? These hateful embellishments are nothing more than catty coffee table digs. They further undermine Dowd's credibility and make her look like the petulant one.

Unfortunately, people listen to Maureen Dowd, for whatever reason. In this same article she accuses Sarah Palin of being, "...a demagogue, embodying grievances and playing to people’s worst impulses." Takes one to know one, Maureen.

Michiletti Speaks Directly To the US Audience

2009-07-27T09:39:00.003-04:00

Roberto Michiletti, interim President of Honduras has an article in the Wall Street Journal today titled, The Path Forward For Honduras, which spells out clearly, with factual evidence, what happened in Honduras, why it was entirely legal, and what should happen next.

Micheletti has been a voice of reason through the entire process, and continues to be so. It appears to me his main concern really is the people and the Constitution of Honduras. Maybe we should listen to him.

Rafsanjani Makes His Move

2009-07-19T09:58:00.001-04:00

Here it is: Ayatollah Rafsanjani has picked sides in Iran.

Palin vs. Kerry & Democrats Crumbling Base

2009-07-15T12:12:00.004-04:00

Ah, from one loser to another.

So, yesterday, Sarah Palin had an article in the Washington Post, criticizing the Cap & Trade program recently passed by Congress.

Today, Sen. John Kerry has a response at Huffington Post, claiming in essence that she is completely wrong.

Observations:

They're both right
Apparently Sarah Palin's ideas warrant a rebuttal from John Kerry
(but I thought she "didn't matter" any more...)
Read both articles, and you will be looking at a time capsule of Conservative vs. Liberal

In equally disturbing news, apparently the DNC (Democratic National Committee) is launching a TV campaign ad series specifically targeting moderate Dems, to court them on the health care vote. So, now apparently, the urging of the president, the Democratic leaders in the House, and the entire (liberal) chattering class isn't good enough. They have now activated Organizing for America, the arm of Obama's presidential campaign that got folded into the DNC after the primaries last year, to put "grassroots" pressure on lawmakers and Washington opinion crafters. Why do I find this disturbing? And what does it have to do with Sarah Palin?

It's disturbing because of what it says about Democrats in Congress -- that they are so disunified they need their own electoral machine to campaign them to pass the #1 imperative of their own platform from just 11 months ago.

And it has something to do with Sarah Palin, too: Not only is she clearly remaining viable politically, but she has already said that she plans to campaign in the lower 48 both for Republicans and Democrats who share her views -- this on top of the news that her approval rating among Independents jumped almost 10 points this week. Before anyone jumps all over the "shares her views" comment, here is what she actually cited as her views: limited government, spending restraint, energy independence and strong national defense.

This is getting interesting.

Some Progress On Gay Rights

2009-07-13T12:20:00.003-04:00

The Episcopal Church, in their national convention last week, announced that they would begin performing marriages for same-sex couples, and resume the ordination of gay bishops and other clergy. Bishop Marc Andrus of the Diocese of California said, "It's important that we recognize the equal stature of all Christians in the church so that we model that type of inclusivity in civil society."

A federal judge in California has fast-tracked a case that may overturn Proposition 8 in California.

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has announced that she will introduce an amendment on Tuesday to the Defense Department reauthorization bill that would place an 18-month moratorium on "Don't Ask Don't Tell." It's progress; finally an elected official in the federal government is actually doing something about DADT instead of talking about it. And appropriate that it is Gillibrand, Clinton's successor in the Senate; Hillary Clinton is clearly the truest ally of the GLBT community in the current administration, taking the lead on same-sex equity issues.

It appears, that with one GOP defector in the NY State Senate, the gay marriage debate is back on the table, and the stalemate broken. If Gov. Patterson had more balls, this wouldn't have happened anyway. But he's running way behind in the NY Governor's primary race. Election politics as usual.

Bits & Pieces - Monday, July 13th, 2009

2009-07-13T10:54:00.004-04:00

Bill Clinton really is the first Black president now. Black fraternity inducts Bill Clinton.

It's time to let Hillary take off the burqa. I like this article (titled, Obama's Other Wife) because it takes the "Hillary marginalized by Obama" thread that is going around and brings it into focus, both pointing out that Secretary Clinton doesn't seem bothered by her supporting role, but that it might behoove the president to bring her to the forefront a little more, as he is slowly being caged in by what they call a "White House driven" presidency. In particular they point out that not taking Hillary to Saudi Arabia probably cost the US some concessions that she, and the team at State, probably could have teased out of King Abdullah. (Remembering of course that the Clinton's are pretty tight with the Saudi royal family.)

Sonia Sotomayer's confirmation hearing in the Senate are going on now. Watch here. Overall, I'd say her pre-confirmation campaign has run well, and I expect she will be easily confirmed.

In spite of an overwhelming majority in Congress, Democrats are still eating each other alive over Health Care Reform. Idiots.

President Obama has picked Regina Benjamin as the new Surgeon General.

The political standoff in Honduras is still going on full force, with no concrete results from meetings in Costa Rica this weekend. And someone else agrees with me that the US stance that it was a "coup" is wrong, and this "constitutional order" they are talking about was actually upheld by the "coup." Secretary Clinton herself refused to specifically support Zelaya's return to power, although she did meet with him. Interestingly, the interim president, Mr. Micheletti, seems to have revved up the Clinton Machine to get his own side heard.

Iran's religious elite are still fighting amongst themselves, and it appears that Khamenei may be getting pushed further and further out of the "Ayatollah club". Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri made the following statement: "Those who have lost, religiously and reasonably, the credibility for serving the public, are automatically dismissed, and the continuation of their work has no legitimacy."

The G-8 (really, President Obama) has issued an ultimatum to Iran to comply with demands to cease their nuclear program by September, or we will unchain our attack dog, Israel, and let them obliterate Iran. At least everything's back to normal. I thought for a second we might actually be making some progress toward Middle East peace. I forgot, that's not what anyone wants.

Obama likes nice booty. I say, big deal. I like nice booty, too, and I look at it. Good for you, Barack.

A pretty interesting stand-off between the president and Congress is going on over a signing statement the President issued, indicating he would ignore certain oversight provisions in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 2346). Both parties of the House quickly rejected this, threatening to cut funding if the president doesn't play by their rules. Signing statements, which are a fairly common presidential side-step of Congress, became a big deal during the Bush administration, when George W. Bush challenged hundreds of laws using signing statements, particularly to ignore regulations concerning the use of torture and the pursuit of terrorist suspects internationally.

CIA Director Leon Panetta has implicated former Vice President Dick Cheney in the CIA torture cover-up, putting additional pressure on Attorney General Eric Holder to launch a probe into Bush-era abuses of power.

Palin To Headline Reagan Day Dinner

2009-07-10T09:12:00.003-04:00

Sarah Palin will give the keynote address in Iowa this fall at the Reagan Day Dinner, which is the major GOP fundraiser annually. It is reported she may be on her way to Virginia, too, to campaign for Republicans, in a state that saw huge Democratic gains in 2008.

Everything's Bigger In Texas, Even Sarah Palin

2009-07-09T12:21:00.003-04:00

So, 6 days after her announcement of resignation in Alaska, Sarah Palin is on the campaign trail -- in Texas, again. Palin is back on the stump for incumbent Governor Rick Perry in his re-election campaign, facing what some think will be a tough primary fight against the more moderate U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). Perry is gearing his campaign toward an anti-Washington candidacy, right down Palin's alley. This is not Palin's first trip for Perry, as I reported here, she began campaigning from Perry back in March, coinciding with the launch of SarahPAC. (And the next day the FEC listed Sarah Palin as a 2012 presidential candidate, then quickly denied it, although the listing still exists...)

So, Palin is testing her political capital in Texas, a good place to do it. We'll see. She didn't waste any time getting back on the campaign trail, that's for sure.

Massachusets Sues For Repeal of DOMA

2009-07-08T13:39:00.003-04:00

Pointed out to me by a friend:

The state of Massachusets has filed suit against the federal government, claiming the the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally oversteps its bounds in a state's rights to define marriage.

My friend also thinks this is one of the windows for the GOP to get behind gay rights, and I have to agree. One of the things I soundly agree with Republicans on is state's right / feds out of my personal business. If the gay marriage argument continues to be framed on a state's rights platform, and carried out on a state-by-state basis, there is almost no way the GOP can't defend it, on ideology alone.

MoveOn.org Strikes Again

2009-07-08T12:17:00.004-04:00

Apparently MoveOn.org is mad at Rahm Emanuel. They claim that he has endorsed a "trigger" system in health care reform that would create a public option that is "triggered" when private health insurance is not sufficient. Jake Tapper at Political Punch reports that President Obama responded with the following paper statement from Moscow:

"I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest," the president said. "I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals."

Funny, all that. Since it was Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) who proposed the trigger plan a week ago. While I don't necessarily agree with Snowe on this, she does have a valid concern, stating:

"If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market ... the public option will have significant price advantages." Snowe said having a government option as a backup would be an approach "that bridges both sides" and gives private insurers a fair chance to meet the requirements of the new law. "I don't think we can entirely depend on the private insurance market to deliver. They haven't delivered thus far, and that's why we're in the predicament we're in today."

It should be noted as well that Snowe was the only Republican on the Finance Committee who would not go on-record opposing the public option. And being pretty much the only Republican that President Obama trusts, I'd listen if I were them. With the swearing in of Al Franken yesterday, Democrats "don't need" the GOP any more, and "don't need" Snowe to rally the moderates. Still, we should listen to the people in Congress who know what they are talking about, and Snowe knows.

Sen. Snowe is on the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, and is the former chair and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, as well as a member of the Subcommittee on Health Care, and two other important subcommittees of the Finance Committee focussed on industry, competitiveness, and growth. With Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), who Snowe works with on a daily basis, pushing over a $1 Trillion dollar estimate (or one third of the current US budget) on health care reform (noting also that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security already take up half of the US budget), anyone in their right mind should be able to understand that this health care bill -- and its fallout -- will have a ripple effect through the American and the international economy, effect competitiveness, which effects innovation, which effects effectiveness of actual health care.

Let's look at some of the bad news: the evolving reality that $787 Billion dollars in stimulus spending is not really working. The Vice President admitting that they "misread" the economy. Steadily rising unemployment rates causing a panic for another stimulus package. And steadily declining presidential approval ratings, largely based on economic mismanagement. On yeah, not to mention a -19% approval rating for Congress, which is a 20 point jump from this time last year, but still nothing to write home about.

Democrats have about 16 months to get something done, less really, before midterm elections, and if they think they are going to keep their precious 60-vote majority, they've got some 'splaining to do. Spend, spend, spend, spend, and it's not working. Government takeovers of major American industry, and people who gave their lives to these companies are still losing their pensions. Let me re-state my point about mid-term elections: the Democrats that do get elected are going to look a lot more like Republicans than the Democrats you see today. Fiscal hawks are going to have their day in the wake of the largest spending glut in global history. And they better get health care reform taken care of before it all goes down, or it will go down -- in flames.

So, the White House listens to the one and only Republican who is willing to cooperate on health care, and who has enough seniority and enough gravitas to get more of the GOP on board, and maybe stave off a total I-told-you-so smackdown in 2010, and that pisses MoveOn.org off. I knew I took myself off their mailing list for a reason. For those who have inquired over time: these are the left-wing nut jobs I keep saying Democrats need to say goodbye to. MoveOn.org launched a balls-out, no apology hyper-biased campaign to support Barack Obama for President, even going so far as to circulate and support anti-Clinton campaign materials. Now their beloved messiah has turned out not to be a messiah at all, they've started nipping at his heels, too.

There is no more unity among liberals than there is among conservatives right now. President Obama has talked about the "character of this century," which so far seems to be bitter partisanship, dire economic consequences, and the collapse of traditional institutions. I've said this before, and I believe it the more I think about it: a major ideological shift is underway, not just in the two major political parties of the US, but in America overall. 20 years from now I believe we will have seen a major social revolution, and it is starting now, here, with the collapse of what we once believed was "America." (Where being a doctor or a lawyer was the ultimate American dream career.) I personally believe the most American thing about Americans is our ability to adapt to change, to embrace new possibilities and to make the most of adversity. We've talked and heard a lot about how Republicans need to adapt or perish. I think the American system of government overall needs to adapt or perish, and the health care debate pretty much draws in every thread of the discussion.

Chelsea Clinton To Get Married

2009-07-07T13:42:00.003-04:00

It appears that former first daughter Chelsea Clinton will marry her boyfriend, Goldman Sachs banker, Marc Mezvinsky. The two will be married at Martha's Vineyard in the last week of August. Apparently, the Obamas will be spending their summer vacation there as well.

The Three Presidents

2009-07-07T12:01:00.003-04:00

The media is desperate to find and exploit any rift in the Obama-Clinton relationship, wherein they see endless drama, but in reality it seems there is none. Obama goes to Russia without Hillary. Joe Biden takes point on the Iraq withdrawal. Hillary cancels her trip to Italy for the G-8.

First of all, let's not forget she shattered her elbow. Shattered it. Ouch. I don't know how many people have ever broken a bone or messed up a messy area like a knee or elbow, but let me tell you first hand it hurts like hell. And you'd take a few days off work if you did it, too. I was down with a wrenched knee for a month. Hillary Clinton was back at work three days later. Granted, she doesn't have to walk on her elbow, so it is probably a little easier, but please, give me a break. Excuse the pun.

I think more than likely, what spurred this fresh round of media gossip is Iran. It is well documented at this point that Obama's sharper stance on the post-election turmoil in Iran came at the urging of Secretary Clinton. Then, someone decided that the President did so "without telling her first." Of course these stories all come from "confidential sources," and I just don't believe it. And moreover, so what? If I asked someone to agree with me, and they did it, I'd be happy, not mad that they didn't send me a memo announcing they did. And the likelihood that any public statement made by the President of the United States concerning a major foreign policy issue came as a surprise to the State Department (who apparently originated the sentiment) is nearly unbelievable. Particularly considering the equally well-documented closeness between Obama and Clinton: weekly private meetings, daily phone contact, and admissions by the Vice President that Secretary Clinton frequently trumps him in high-level meetings, that Hillary is Obama's "go to" person on "almost everything."

Let's address the Russia thing. So, did we all already forget that Secretary Clinton was in Russia in March, concluding a major diplomatic tour where she met with just about every key leader in Europe and Asia, where her star power and international reputation at least at that time greatly exceeded the President's. Now, the President has made his trip to Russia to work out the details, and it is reported that the US-Russian commission that was agreed to this week will be overseen and conducted by... drum roll, please... none other than Secretary of State Clinton. Let's also not forget that if Secretary Clinton had to cancel her trip to Russia with the President this week, obviously it was planned for her to go. I don't see where it would be appropriate for Clinton to be in Russia making major policy agreements; that is still the president's job, right? And Russia is certainly important enough in the scheme of things to get Obama in person.

On Iraq. Nothing new is taking place in Iraq. We are concluding a policy-driven withdrawal that was negotiated by the former administration. Secretary Clinton was in Iraq on April 25th, following suicide bombings in Baghdad, and coinciding with the arrival of US ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, and was there to assess the situation, and the readiness of US troops to conduct their scheduled pull-out. Iraq, for all its politicization, is a military operation, and primarily needs to be conducted through military channels, with the advisement of the State Department, not the other way around. Giving Vice President Biden the lead on Iraq is a natural choice, as vice-Commander-In-Chief, and a foreign policy expert. Biden was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 4 years after all, and on the committee for more than 20. And, this portfolio pass off between Biden and Clinton is becoming par for the course, as well. It's a sign of trust and cooperation in the administration, not of "rifts." Giving the Iraq portfolio to anyone less than the VP would be an insult to Secretary Gates, who in reality should likely be the point person for Iraq policy. Gates and Clinton have also shown a much greater cooperation and mutual respect for one another than has been seen between the Pentagon and the State Department in recent memory, and Gates has handed back a good deal of the responsibilities that should rightfully belong to the State Department, and it seems he did so with a sign of relief.

Today, VP Biden and Secretary Clinton had a private meeting just prior to Biden's swearing in of Al Franken. Secretary Clinton then took off for Foggybottom to prepare for her meeting with ousted Hounduran President Zelaya. Not to mention she has been on the phone and at the press podium for days talking about China, and slowly mounting international pressure on continued human rights abuses that broke out again this week in Urumqi. Not to mention working in concert with the UK to put as much pressure on Iran as possible to release detained UK Embassy staff and to respect democracy without undermining our desire to engage with them directly. (Note also this is a direct departure from her stance in the 2008 presidential campaign, and a complete adoption of Obama's point of view.) Oh yeah, and working the diplomatic grape vine to ensure India as a partner in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, working overtime to mend fences with Muslim interests in the Middle East, without marginalizing Israel. And pretty much single-handedly ironing out the peace process in Norther Ireland. Arguably, the bureaucracy at State is at least as large and complex as the bureaucracy in the White House, yet when the Secretary of State flushes it out with well-empowered and experienced envoys, she gets criticized, but when the president does it, it's expected.

As I have said, and will continue to say most likely, the Obama-Biden-Clinton global triumvirate is going just fine.

Palin Does Nixon

2009-07-05T15:37:00.004-04:00

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, commenting on Gov. Palin's resignation announcement, said two things in an interview on Fox News Sunday, which I think are quite telling.

First, he claimed that Gov. Palin's press conference to announce her resignation "created more questions" than it answered, and said that you "don't do that." I say, why not? In fact, if you are attempting to raise your political capital, why wouldn't you do just that. I'm also not convinced she created more questions. I believe she confirmed many theories about her own ambitions, but the press conference itself was quite to the point, if lacking any "what next" statements; for the time being, Palin is keeping those close to the vest. To Mike Huckabee I would say, go Google Sarah Palin and you tell me just how effective a little bait and switch can be. 6, 740,000 hits in .46 seconds is a lot of questions answered.

Second, Huckabee tried to compare himself to Palin. He seems convinced that Palin has resigned the governorship in Alaska because the ethics complaints against her are too overwhelming, and literally said, "been there, done that," and was a little condescending about how well he handled it and how poorly it reflects on her. Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, also on the interview panel, was quick to jump to Palin's defense, citing over $2 Million in staffing costs alone to handle the ethics complaints against Palin, and drawing the discussion back to Gov. Palin's point that this is simply wasteful time, money and effort that she would rather spare the state. While this may be only partly true, it is not the interesting part. What is interesting is Huckabee trying to claim he has been through the same thing as Sarah Palin. He also claimed that dealing with a hostile state Congress constantly lodging complaints against him was "harder than running for President," and that he persevered anyway. OK, Mike, first of all, you didn't end up running for President because the GOP electorate liked John McCain better. And second, the only thing anyone knows about Arkansas is that Bill Clinton was governor. The personal and political evisceration that was visited on Sarah Palin and her family in the 2008 election cycle is unlike anything Mike Huckabee has ever experienced. What is telling here is that he is trying to draw comparisons. In a more traditional time, Huckabee, as the runner up for the GOP nomination in 2008, would be the natural successor to the nomination in 2012, yet instead, we see him trying to co-opt Palin's experience as something he's "been there" and "done." He hasn't.

Karl Rove, on the same panel, seemed to think Palin has made a mistake as well. He claims that now that she will no longer be governor in Alaska, she has cleared her calendar so to speak, and this will be a detriment. Rove believes that the GOP in the lower 48 will be clamoring for her time and she won't have the excuse of being needed at home to keep her in demand. Scarcity breeds popularity, etc. Rove claims that she has lost control of her trajectory by doing this, which is entirely contrary to what others are saying. I'm not sure what to make of that part, as Karl Rove can be credited nearly in total for George W. Bush's successful presidential bid. However, Rove may also be (now) the voice of a vanquished convention. Palin was certainly not shy or unclear that she believes "business as usual" is not good enough and called her decision the right one although it may be "unconventional and not so comfortable."

There are no answers as of this time what Sarah Palin intends to do now, or what the deep reasons for her resignation are. She clearly made the decision to resign as governor partly to protect her family. She said it here. Vice President Biden implies here that it is the #1 reason any politician does anything. And Joe Scarborough said it here.

The interesting part is that no one thinks we've seen the last of Palin, and many voices are calling it the first parlay in the 2012 presidential run. The main question most people are asking is, can Palin maintain her visibility and her credibility for 3 years without being in elected office. Clearly she intends to campaign for Republicans in the lower 48 who share her political views, and she intends to use SarahPAC as that platform. She is also freed of conflict of interest between the governor's office and her PAC. I would watch closely which campaigns and what politicians she gets involved with over the next year. Freed of the governor's responsibilities, she's got a lot of time to rack up favors, which could easily turn into endorsements a year later. One of the panelist on Fox News Tonight claimed that Palin has ruined her presidential aspirations by ensuring she will have "less than 2 years on the national stage." It surprises me anyone still thinks this. No one knew who Barack Obama was until his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, no one took him as a serious presidential candidate until late in 2007, and he rose to the presidency with "less than 2 years on the national stage." Sarah Palin was the surprise in 2008, and she's still keeping us guessing now. I would not write her off. You'll still have Sarah Palin to kick around.

Sarah Quits Her Day Job

2009-07-04T09:13:00.003-04:00

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has announced she will resign her governorship at the end of this month, elevating Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell to the post.

I haven't had time to read the media explosion it caused. But there will be more on this from me, as I am chronically fascinated by Sarah Palin.

Needless to say opinions are ranging from, "Palin has ruined her political career," to "the true 2012 frontrunner has emerged."

What to watch: SarahPAC should have some clues.

Finally, Someone Agrees With Me

2009-07-03T08:58:00.002-04:00

Finally, someone else agrees with me that the US is on the wrong side of the situation in Honduras. HERE

Palin. No, Romney. OK, Palin

2009-07-03T08:48:00.003-04:00

Interesting round table where the guests try as hard as they can to make it appear they think Mitt Romeny is the GOP frontrunner for 2012, but still can't stop talking about Sarah Palin.

My prediction is still on track.

Micheletti Talks Tough In Honduras

2009-07-01T12:53:00.006-04:00

Newly sworn in Honduran President Micheletti, refusing to bow to international pressure to restore ousted President Zelaya, has made his position clear:

"[Zelaya] has already committed crimes against the constitution and the law. He can no longer return to the presidency of the republic unless a president from another Latin American country comes and imposes him using guns. No one can make me resign if I do not violate the laws of the country. If there is any invasion against our country, 7.5 million Hondurans will be ready to defend our territory and our laws and our homeland and our government."

Micheletti has also reiterated his promise to fulfill the current presidential term, support popular elections in November, and has said he will not run for office. Although media outlets are claiming that the United States has called for Zelaya's return, I don't see that as true. In a press conference on Monday, Secretary Clinton said that the US concern is the return of "constitutional order" in Honduras, not specifically the reinstatement of Zelaya. She further pointed out that she does not believe a coup took place in Honduras, but that it has developed into one, whatever that means.

President Micheletti's foreign minster Enrique Ortez has also announced that the presidents of Argentina and Ecuador, and the heads of the OAS and the U.N. General Assembly who have agreed to accompany Zelaya back to Honduras will be barred from entering the country is they attempt to restore Zelaya to office, rather than turn him over to Honduran custody. Micheletti has again insisted that Zelaya will be arrested if he returns, citing multiple legal infringements by the former president, including failure to submit a budget to Congress last year, and a last minute alteration to a ballot question which would have allowed him to seek re-election. Zelaya has since promised he would not seek to extend his term of office, but has been rebuffed and will not be offered reconciliation.

Micheletti has been sworn in by the Honduran Congress. He is president. Any coup that takes place at this point will be orchestrated by outside governments. And if that happens, we will surely see a "return to the past" that Hugo Chavez warns of. It seems to me that although using the military to arrest and remove the president is a bit regressive, there was ample evidence that Zelaya had in fact violated Constitutional law in Honduras and fully intended to continue doing so, and his removal was technically carried out by the letter of the law. I don't see where "constitutional order" in Honduras has failed, and Micheletti's interim government does seem to be fully above board. Also, the assignation of the term "military coup" is alarmist and inaccurate -- as I have said, in order for it to be a military coup, a military leader would have to have been set in Zelaya's place. The military was used to remove Zelaya from office, and his constitutionally mandated successor was sworn in.

White People Get Punished For Being Smart?? Almost.

2009-06-30T13:08:00.003-04:00

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that Caucasian firefighters in New Haven Connecticut were the victims of race discrimination. Why? Because required promotional exam results were thrown out by the city when they noticed racial disparity in the results -- the white firefighters did well, and people of other races did not. Fearing discrimination lawsuits, the city trashed the test results, and guess what they brought on themselves: discrimination lawsuits. Imagine that. You don't have to be African-American or Latino to get discriminated against because of your race. Affirmative action finally bit us in the ass. I say congratulations to the Supreme Court for not bowing to pressure from misguided activist groups who claim that this ruling will "destroy" or "undermine" civil rights. Justice Ginsburg, in a dissenting opinion read from the bench said, “Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form. The damage today’s decision does to that objective is untold.” While I normally agree with Ginsburg, is she kidding?? What equal opportunity is she referring to? The opportunity to get a promotion based on my performance in a required test by the city? Or the opportunity to sit back and let someone who under-performed get promoted over me just because s/he might sue the city for discrimination otherwise? Please. The Supreme Court made the right decision; white firefighters in New Have were discriminated against by the city, and civil rights have been upheld by the nation's highest court, not "damaged."

Obama Asks For Time On Gay Issues, But One At Least Is Pressing: Dan Choi

2009-06-30T12:33:00.005-04:00

President Obama, addressing a gathering of GLBT supporters at the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, made the following statement:

“I know that many in this room don’t believe progress has come fast enough, and I understand that,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s not for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half-century ago. We’ve been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.” --NY Times

Today, one day later, Lt. Dan Choi will appear before a military court where more than likely he will be discharged from the Armed Services for being gay. There is a time for patience, and there is a time for action. President Obama can stop Choi's dismissal. And while preventing the dismissal of one person versus the thousands who have been dismissed since Obama took office, under the provisions for Don't Ask Don't Tell is a small thing, it really would be a very big thing. Dan Choi is quickly becoming the poster boy for the plight of gay and lesbian service members, and it would behoove the President to pay attention and act accordingly.

But then, why should he? In spite of massive outcry, and widespread boycotts of a DNC fundraiser last week which hosted high-ticket gay activists, the fundraiser was a massive cash cow. As long as we (gay people) keep writing the checks, there's no urgency. I do have to agree with Huffington Post (mark that one on the calendar) who claim it's time for the GLBT community to get over its "battered wife syndrome," and stop supporting politicians who slap us across the face then ask us to butter their bread.

By this time tomorrow we will see what, if anything, President Obama has to say -- or better, do -- about Dan Choi. Over 150,000 people signed a petition letter to President Obama asking him to intervene on Choi's behalf. If that's not enough to get his attention, I'm not sure what is.

Mr. President, I'm willing to give you time, if you take some of your own today, right now, and help Dan Choi. And I don't want to hear any BS arguments about the "laws of the land" and "durable solutions." Dan Choi is about to lose his job, his future pension, his benefits, his security and his honor as a member of the American Armed Forces. I'm willing to give you time to play the whole game, but you've got to step up to the plate first.

US Meddles Elsewhere, Gets Praised

2009-06-30T11:36:00.004-04:00

Here's what I don't understand: in Iran, we ("we" being the US government) support a popular uprising against a totalitarian regime which is clearly trying to suppress democracy. In Honduras, we are calling for the immediate return of a president who was ousted by his own government for attempting to circumvent due process and illegally extend his term of office.

President Manuel Zelaya has been removed from office in Honduras, by what is being called a "military coup." First let me ask you, if you were going to arrest the president, would you send the quilting circle? In order for it to be a "military coup," a military leader would have to have been set in Zelaya's place. Instead, his legitimate Constitutional successor, Roberto Micheletti, Speaker of the Honduran Congress was sworn in, and has vowed solely to serve out the remainder of Zelaya's term and to support the upcoming November presidential elections. Zelaya was removed from office because he persisted in trying to get a referendum to extend his non-renewable four-year term of office in spite of legal barriers legitimately placed in front of him by the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court and ultimately the military who carried out his removal. What were they supposed to do? Sit by and let him ignore the laws of the land and stay in office?

Comparisons to Iran already abound, spurred by an outbreak of protests in Honduras. I still say there is little comparison. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has called the coup a "return to the past," and says, "We will not permit it." What we? You and President Obama? Since when is the US taking counsel from Hugo Chavez? And a return to what past? You mean Chavez' own failed coup attempt in 1992 that landed him in jail for 2 years? Of course Hugo Chavez wants one of his fellow dictators returned to power. The only comparison in Honduras to Iran is that there are protests going on. Zelaya was legitimately removed from power with the backing of both the legislative and judicial branches of the Honduran government, for abuses of power and for violating provisions of their Constitution. Even if he does return to Honduras, it has been made clear he will be arrested and placed on trial for crimes against the country. Moreover, the new president, Mr, Micheletti has the full support of the Honduran Congress and has already sworn in a new cabinet. Zelaya will not be returning to power in Honduras. There is no such uniformity of opinion in the Iranian government, and the situation in Honduras is opposite what is happening in Iran; the Honduran government used legal precedent to get rid of someone who was trampling all over their laws, placing his own ambitions ahead of due process -- and they replaced him with his Constitutional successor. In Iran, the regime has suppressed democracy, staged a sham election, and refused to follow fair reconciliation processes. I don't see that happening in Honduras.

OK, now I've spelled it out for myself, I get it. We can't "meddle" in Iran because they might nuke us down the road, or maybe worse, take the choke chain off Hezbollah. But we can meddle in Latin America because they are really just an adjunct to America anyway. If they get too pushy, we'll just slap them back into the corner.

8 British Embassy Staff Arrested in Tehran

2009-06-28T13:20:00.003-04:00

Telegraph UK is reporting that 8 staff members at the British Embassy in Tehran, Iran have been arrested on charges of supporting the rebellion.

Hillary Lite: Michelle Taste Great, Less Filling, Part 2

2009-06-28T12:58:00.004-04:00

Oh-oh. Now First Lady Michelle Obama is getting involved in the Health Care debate. And flexing her political muscle inside the White House, including such gems as telling David Axelrod that he needs to answer her calls "right away." Told you so. Here and here.

The bottom line here is that the First Lady is not an elected official, and has no business getting involved in policy crafting. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton made a huge bungle in allowing Hillary to get involved too early and too deeply in his Presidency and it undermined him, his administration, her own political career, and derailed health care reform for a decade. The days of Eleanor Roosevelt are long gone, and even Eleanor had the sense to make it appear that everything she did originated from the will of the president. She did get involved in the civil rights movement in a very heavy handed and political way, but at that time, in the society of the day, it was considered appropriate for affluent women to give their time to charities. And civil rights were solidly grouped with charity then. And still, Eleanor Roosevelt drew a good deal of animosity on herself and on FDR from southern politicians who deplored her for supporting African-American equality. I don't hate Michelle Obama, and I don't think she has any nefarious agenda or ambitions, I just think she is more of a liability than a help, solely because of who she is, and who has come before her.

They'll never learn.

Ayatollah Calls For Executions

2009-06-28T12:48:00.003-04:00

Ayatollah Kahmenei has called for the leaders of the protests in Iran to be executed. While I don't actually wish for any death or bloodshed, I kind of hope it happens. If the regime starts creating martyrs in an effort to quell the rebellion, it's on like Donkey Kong. I say, bring it. Do your worst. Viva la revolution!

Why I Think The GOP Will Flip on Gay Rights

2009-06-28T10:23:00.003-04:00

My friend Maxomai and I have a friendly debate going on over my assertion that the GOP is going to flip in favor of gay rights. He recently claimed: "I am convinced that the GOP is going to remain bitterly hostile towards gay and lesbian rights for at least another generation. The Christian Nationalist Right is too deeply entrenched in the GOP, and the GOP is too heavily reliant on the Christian Nationalist Right, for it to be any other way. But, if I am wrong, the GOP decides to leapfrog Democrats on gay and lesbian rights, then the youth vote will be wide open."

Here's the rub: I have more faith in Conservatives than him, and Maxomai has more faith in Liberals than me. Another friend of mine put it quite bluntly, saying, "If the GOP quits viewing the fundies as their base and instead sheds them like the albatross they are, I would agree with you." I would only add that I believe the Democrats need to shed the ultra-Left just as badly.

Well, the LA Times thinks that the religious right is going to do the dirty work for the GOP, and shove off on their own. They are advancing the idea that the rash of sex, drug, and dishonesty scandals over the last few years throughout the Republican party have left a bad taste in the mouth of Evangelicals and that they will retreat from politics again; they assert that the wave of religious-right involvement in government spurred by the final decadences of the 1970's has run its course, and they will now withdraw again, to keep their own noses clean. I can see a lot of sense in this. You can only support a group or organization who professes your beliefs but regularly abandons them, and remains unrepentant, for so long. Actions do speak louder than words. Just ask the gay constituency, who are responding with lightening speed to President Obama's tepid efforts to support gay rights. They yanked the rug out from under Democrats with no hesitation whatsoever. Or, more accurately, they closed their checkbooks.

Let me ask you this: What if Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) ran for President in 2012? With the exception of one vote in 1996, when she she was a freshman Senator, and under extreme pressure from the freshly-minted GOP majority in Congress, Snowe has consistently voted in favor of gay rights. Human Rights Campaign gives her a lifetime rating of 78% in favor of gay rights, which is ahead of even many Democrats. Anyone who thinks Snowe is "too liberal" to get the GOP nomination, should think again. Her seniority in the Senate (36th overall, and 12th in the Republican caucus, ranking member of the Small Business Committee) gives her clout, and her moderate record gives her a bipartisan appeal. She would draw women, independents, and business interests. The state of Maine, which is a dependably Democratic state, has consistently re-elected her in the 70%+ range her entire 35-year career. She's the Hillary Clinton of Maine; she was elected Senator while she was still First Lady of the Pine Tree State. (Although she had already been in elected office 20 years at that point, and the governor was her 2nd marriage.)

Now, I'm not saying if Olympia Snowe runs for president the GOP will go pro-gay. The point I am getting at is this: moderate Republicans like Snowe are gaining a lot more attention, respect, and political sway than they have enjoyed in quite some time. Larger, more exciting news washed Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic party out of the media loop, however, the importance of it should not be overlooked. Specter was a veteran Republican, who got pushed out of the GOP by the ultra-Right, and instead of crying, "good riddance," the GOP freaked. They quickly regained their composure and started bad-mouthing Specter, but the initial panic over the loss should tell us all we need to know: the GOP has lost its center, and unless they find a new message, and a new messenger, and fast, they are in trouble. Dick Cheney recently spoke out in favor of gay marriage. Dick Cheney. Likely because he has a gay daughter, Cheney has fairly consistently spoken and voted in favor of GLBT rights. My point is, if a hardliner, ultra-Conservative neocon like Cheney can support gay rights, any Republican can.

There is an opening for the GOP right now. The gay community is not happy with President Obama, and why should they be? We have a Democrat in the Oval Office, Democrats have control of Congress, and popular support for gay equality is at an all-time high nationwide, and yet the current administration persists in back-burnering pro-gay legislation, even goes so far as to defend anti-gay legislation already on the books, that the self-same president vowed on the campaign trail to repeal. Since 2004, the Log Cabin Republican, the GOP gay caucus, have been forging an increasingly stronger partnership with moderate congressional organizations like the Republican Main Street Partnership, which has a strong presence in the House of Representatives, and has attracted big name Senators such as Snowe and John McCain, and whose 8-member Board of Directors contains 6 members from states that currently have or are actively debating pro-gay rights legislation. In 2008, in spite of Obama's landslide win, the closest spread between Obama and McCain was Independents.

Minority voters tipped the balance in Obama's favor, and while we tend to think of "minorities" as racial minorities, at least 5 million self-identified gay and lesbian individuals voted in the 2008 presidential election. And 1.3 million of them voted for John McCain, or 27%, which is up 20% from 2004. If there is no repeal of DOMA, DADT, or any further regressive behavior from Democrats toward the GLBT constituency (even perceived regressiveness) those other 3.7 million voters just might look another direction in 2012. And, if the religious right stays home on election day, like the LA Times seems to think, Republicans will have even greater leisure to expand their base. 5 million votes, or more, is a pretty attractive lure. And, if statistics are right, there are somewhere between 35-50 million gay people in the United States, which means it is a huge untapped voter base, who just might come out on election day if the right political party said the right thing. And at this point, I don't hear Democrats saying it.

Another Waffle From Kahmenei

2009-06-24T11:20:00.005-04:00

Alsumaria Iraqi Satellite TV Network is reporting that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Kahmenei has extended the deadline for investigating complaints of election fraud by five days. This directly on the heels of his pronouncement that Iran would not "yield at any cost" to the opposition protests.

I'm telling you. Kahmenei has Ahmadinejad sitting on one shoulder, whispering about the status quo and Rafsanjani on the other shoulder whispering about change. And they're both threatening to castrate him if he doesn't listen. I'm not ready to make any predictions, but something is brewing inside the upper echelons of Iran's religious elite, and Kahmenei, who is likely shut out of most ecclesiastic deliberations, is flailing, looking for an anchor. No doubt Ahmadinejad sees himself as the next Supreme Leader, while Kahmenei is clearly attempting to establish a dynasty by appointing his son as his successor. I also think that the ayatollahs do not want Ahmadinejad as Supreme Leader because he is not a mullah or ayatollah, and they don't want another "political ayatollah" like Kahmenei in power. I also think Rafsanjani may well see himself as the next Supreme Leader, and in fact, if the rumors are true, we might see him declared such in Qom any day now. Rafsanjani certainly has the gravitas to rise to that highest post. Again, I'm not ready to make any all-out predictions, but this "rebellion" in Iran is far from over, and it is not only taking place in the streets.

Obama Smokes - Big F***in' Deal

2009-06-24T10:49:00.003-04:00

So it's official. He admitted it in a press conference. The president smokes.

Yes, I criticized him for supporting anti-smoking legislature, calling it hypocrisy. Regardless of that -- so what?? The media is now calling it a "broken campaign promise." Give me a freakin break! It was a promise he made to his wife, not to the American people. And it's a promise every smoker makes to non-smoking loved ones.

I'll say it again: Good for you, Barack! I hope before you decide what to do about Kim Jong Il, you sit down and smoke one all the way to the filter. I also wish you would come out in favor of personal choice, and against the hypocritical war on some drugs.

Let me also say, I loved his flippant comment to a reporter who tried to press him for details about his smoking: "You just think it's neat to ask me about my smoking, as opposed to it being relevant to my new law." [Read: none of your damn business.]

I also have to agree with the LA Times who say that having a smoking habit might be good for his image, as he is seen often as "too perfect." So if he wants to talk about his "struggle to quit," all the better -- makes him more human. I'd still bet you a dollar it's more a struggle to find time, opportunity, and privacy to smoke.

As a smoker, who has quit before, I'll tell you: the last thing any smoker wants or needs -- even if they are trying to quit -- is to be constantly hounded by non-smokers, or worse, reformed smokers. It makes you want to light up right there and blow the smoke right in their face. Quitting smoking, quitting any addictive behavior, is a personal choice and requires support, not mocking admonitions and condescending reminders of how bad it is for you. The last time I quit smoking, and the most successful by a long shot (6 weeks) I didn't tell anyone. I just stopped, slapped on the patch, and if anyone noticed I wasn't smoking, I just said, "Yeah, I'm not smoking any more." No big deal, no big announcement that makes my friends hyper-conscious of it, no added attention. It worked better than 15 years of incessant harping by my grandmother, let me assure you. If people really wanted the president to quit smoking, they should just leave him alone.

Moreover, if Barack Obama wants to smoke, let him smoke. Who freakin cares? It's not a national crisis. Geez.

Democracy vs. Theocracy

2009-06-22T11:20:00.003-04:00

The more I read about the political situation in Iran, the more it seems to me there are serious ecclesiastic politics going on. The ayatollahs are either moving to supplant Kahmenei, or they are all turning against each other, scrambling to hold the regime together. I can't tell which, but it is fairly clear that the post-election rioting and protests in Iran pulled back the veil on much deeper political strife than may be apparent already.

It takes a little explaining to understand. Before I continue, I'd like to offer the primer I made for myself when I was trying to diagram the situation in Iran.

"The" Ayatollah

"The Ayatollah," as we know it informally refers to the Supreme Leader of Iran, currently Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ayatollah is a religious title granted to Shi'ah clerics (priests) when they complete intense training, and achieve a level of enlightenment where they are considered divinely inspired, and able to issue their own religious edicts. There is no direct Western correlation, but the ayatollahs can be compared to Bishops or the Catholic Pope in terms of their ability to speak for God. It is the highest honor in the Shi'ah faith, save Grand Ayatollah, also known as a Marja, which is granted to ayatollahs who achieve a level of enlightenment wherein their writings (published as a "Juristic book,") are considered to be on par with the Qur'an. There are and have been always a few women who are considered to be of the rank of ayatollah, and are referred to as Lady Mujtahideh. There are at least 40 ayatollahs currently in Iran, many more worldwide, and three of the current twenty grand ayatollahs worldwide live in Iran. The concentration of highly venerated religious leaders in Iran makes the country one of "motherlands" of Shi'a Muslims.

Of note: there is some dispute over whether or not Kahmenei is an ayatollah or not. His title of Grand Ayatollah was required by the Iranian constitution in order for him to be appointed Supreme Leader, and it appears he found a political means by which to be granted both the title of ayatollah and grand ayatollah. He has been loudly denounced by some Muslim scholars.

How The Iranian Government Works

In descending order.
[Definitions courtesy of Wikipedia]

Supreme Leader of Iran: The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, which is also in charge of overseeing the Supreme Leader, and also has the power to dismiss him. As the name indicates, the Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of the Iranian political and governmental establishment, above that of Iran's president. According to the constitution, he has the last say in internal and foreign policies, control of all of the armed forces, and control of state broadcast and others. The head of the Judicial branch is also directly appointed by him.

President of Iran: The President of Iran is the highest popularly elected official in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but is subordinate to the Supreme Leader. According to the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran the president is responsible for the "functions of the executive", such as signing treaties, agreements etc. with other countries and international organizations; the national planning and budget and state employment affairs; appointing ministers, governors, and ambassadors subject to the approval of the parliament.

The Assembly of Experts: According to the Iranian Constitution, the assembly is in charge of supervising, dismissing and electing the Supreme Leader. In the event of his death, resignation or dismissal, the Experts shall take steps within the shortest possible time to appoint a new Leader. "Whenever the Leader becomes incapable of fulfilling his constitutional duties, or loses one of the qualifications mentioned in the Constitution, or it becomes known that he did not possess some of the qualifications initially, he will be dismissed." The assembly has never dismissed a sitting Supreme Leader, and as all of their meetings and notes are strictly confidential, the assembly has never been known to challenge or otherwise publicly oversee any of the Supreme Leader's decisions.

Expediency Discernment Council: The Expediency Discernment Council of the System is an administrative assembly appointed by the Supreme Leader and was created upon the revision to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran on 6 February 1988. It was originally set up to resolve differences or conflicts between the Majlis and the Council of Guardians, but "its true power lies more in its advisory role to the Supreme Leader." According to Hooman Majd, the Leader "delegated some of his own authority to the council — granting it supervisory powers over all branches of the government" — following President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election in 2005.

The Guardian Council: The Iranian constitution calls for the council to be composed of six Islamic jurists, "conscious of the present needs and the issues of the day" to be selected by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and six jurists, "specializing in different areas of law, to be elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial Power," (who, in turn, is also appointed by the supreme leader). It is charged with interpreting the Constitution of Iran, supervising elections of, and approving of candidates to, the Assembly of Experts, the President and the Majlis, and "ensuring ... the compatibility of the legislation passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly... with the criteria of Islam and the Constitution", i.e. veto laws passed by the parliament as the watchdog of the constitution.

Majlis of Iran: Currently, the Majlis' 290 members, five of whom represent non-Muslim religious minorities, are popularly elected for four-year terms. The Majlis can force the dismissal of cabinet ministers by no-confidence votes and can impeach the president for misconduct in office. Although the executive proposes most new laws, individual deputies of the Majlis also may introduce legislation. Deputies also may propose amendments to bills being debated. The Majlis also drafts legislation, ratifies international treaties, and approves the national budget.

What does it all mean?

First and foremost, it means the Supreme Leader has almost total control of Iran. He (or potentially she) appoints the Guardian Council, who approve all elected candidates in all branches of government, including the Assembly of Experts, who in theory have the ability to remove the Supreme Leader from office. Second, it means the only governing body in Iran that has any real influence over the Supreme Leader is the Assembly of Experts, who are all ayatollahs. This would point to extreme solidarity except for the fact that Kahmenei is not really considered an ayatollah. He is the Supreme Leader, but his religious credibility and gravitas with the ayatollahs is shaky.

The President and the Parliament (the Majlis) are democratically elected. Although their candidacies are approved by the Guardian Council, all of whom are appointed by the Supreme Leader, this does not mean they cannot act on their own once they are in office. President Ahmadinejad has certainly done so, and much to the chargin of the Supreme Leader, who has spent a good deal of Ahmadinejad's presidency either apologizing for his actions or battling him for legislative control of the government. This would make it seem that a reformer like Mousavi would be a welcome opponent, that Kahmenei would be in full support of him. However, what we see instead is the Ayatollah retreating inside the regime, supporting Ahmadinejad, and turning to the other ayatollahs to speak against rebellion.

However, not all the ayatollahs seem to agree with Kahmenei, or Ahmadinejad. In particular Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, considered the second most powerful person in Iranian politics, seems to have caused some dissent. His daughter and other relatives were arrested on Saturday at a pro-Mousavi demonstration. New sources are now saying they have been released, but even the arrest is shocking. Rafsanjani is a former president of Iran, and currently the Chairman of the Assembly of Experts, in theory the person who could begin proceedings to dismiss Kahmenei. Rafsanjani has been and continues to be an important supporter of Mousavi, the defeated presidential candidate who has now become the figurehead in an increasingly hostile rebellion.

It is also known that there is no love lost between Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad, and it is reported that after Kahmenei confirmed the results of the presidential election, Rafsanjani called a meeting of the Assembly of Experts. Ayatollah Rafsanjani has made no secret that be believes Mousavi won the election, and tensions between Rafsanjani and Kahmenei have become impossible to conceal. It is even rumored that Rafsanjani may be considering appointing a new religious body to supplant the Supreme Leader. Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Majlis (or, equivalent to our Speaker of the House) has joined Rafsanjani, alleging that the Guardian Council intentionally falsified the election results in order to keep Ahmadinejad in office. The Guardian Council thus far, and likely under extreme pressure from Rafsanjani and his allies, have admitted that in as many as 50 cities, the vote tally exceeds voter registration. They have come up with multiple justifications for such an error, and it is doubtful any meaningful result will come of it, without further prodding.

What is important is that the opposition cause in Iran, headed by Mousavi, is gaining validity and credibility. Rafsanjani speaking in their favor is a big deal, and may be one of the hands staying further military action against the protest. With the head of the Iranian Parliament, Larijani also supporting the claims of election fraud, there is pressure from the top and the bottom -- the ayatollahs and the elected legislators squeezing from both directions. Rafsanjani has retreated to the holy city of Qom, where he is reported to be gathering his power base, a group of moderate and left-leaning ayatollahs, in a place considered to be the "papacy" of Iran. Asia Times reports:

Rafsanjani wants an emergency session of the 86 clerics-strong, no women, Council of Experts. Another crucial point: Qom as a whole is also not very fond of Khamenei. Khamenei was and remains an ultra-minor scholar; he was a mere hojjatoleslam when, through a white coup, he was installed as the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's successor. He's not a revered marja (senior spiritual leader) or a source of imitation.

Iranian Opposition Politician Ebrahim Yazdi also told Asharq Alawsat, a leading Arabic daily paper:

In Qom, Grand Ayatollah Saanei issued a fatwa prohibiting working with the Ahmadinejad government based on the consideration that it is an illegitimate government. He considers this “religiously prohibited.” Therefore, amongst grand Ayatollahs and members of the Assembly of Experts questions are being raised about the “validity of the Supreme Leader.” So the Assembly of Experts’ priority now is to be sure about the Supreme Leader and if they find that he is not valid then it has the right to dismiss him from his position. That is what the constitution says.

Yazdi was Iranian foreign minister in 1979, but was sidelined as religious hardliners came into power and shoved him out. He is currently head of Iran’s banned Freedom Movement. The movement is considered weak, and with little hope for success, however, if Yazdi sides with Rafsanjani, more legitimacy will be given to both his group, and the Mousavi-centered rebellion.

In closing, I will reiterate my original point: The more I read about the political situation in Iran, the more it seems to me there are serious ecclesiastic politics going on. The ayatollahs are either moving to supplant Kahmenei, or they are all turning against each other, scrambling to hold the regime together. I can't tell which, but it is fairly clear that the post-election rioting and protests in Iran pulled back the veil on much deeper political strife than may be apparent already. What I see is the ayatollahs struggling to come up with a way to preserve their cultural regime, and cooperate with democratic forces at work. Ayatollah Kahmenei seems to have played his entire hand on the establishment, but the establishment itself seems to be turning against him. Increasingly it appears to me that the protests in Iran are a symptom of what is happening inside the theocracy of Iran.

The Ayatollah Throws Down The Gauntlet

2009-06-21T10:29:00.004-04:00

"Better the devil you know than the angel you don't." --Hama Tuma

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has an interesting choice (or had) in front of him. On the one hand, he has Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a leftist reformer, and former Prime Minister, of whom I'm sure Khamenei is thinking, I thought I got rid of you in 1989. On the other he has President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an extreme conservative with extensive political capital, who is slowly but steadily marginalizing the Ayatollah's power, and of whom I am sure Khamenei is thinking, I would love to get rid of you.

But to who? Mousavi, who stated clearly in his presidential campaign that he intended to greatly compromise the Supreme Leader's power through legislative power transfers? So which is worse? Being a puppet to Ahmadinejad, or being forced to share power with Mousavi, whose ideology you disagree with? The Ayatollah is more moderate than Ahmadinejad, and has wrestled with him more than once over Ahmadinejad's confrontational policies. Mousavi is far to the left of the Ayatollah, and the two have a history of clear animosity over social and cultural leadership. Both have a history with Kahmenei, and I would guess neither is particularly palatable to him.

In the space of a day, Khamenei went from ordering recounts in the Iranian presidential election, even using the word, fraud, to threatening "bloodshed" if the protests didn't stop. There is no way to know what is really going on in Tehran, but the Ayotallah's flip on the protests seem to me very sudden and inorganic.

It seems to me that Ahmadinejad was quick to regroup his power base and put pressure of the Ayatollah to side with him. At the same time as the existing regime was unifying against the protests, its leader, Mousavi began calling for further protests, in spite of new reports that violence is already breaking out. Iranian police and military forces have moved to quell the thousands of protesters with batons, tear gas and guns. Yet, still, the Ayatollah has allowed the Guardian Council (Iran's version of the Supreme Court) to continue their recount, and still sponsored a meeting today with the presidential candidates to discuss the election results. As I am writing this, a news brief has come out indicating that neither Mousavi nor Ahmadinejad attended the mediation, a clear line in the sand.

What happens now is anyone's guess. I personally think if the Ayatollah had thrown his full political weight behind the recount, the rebellion would be going on in the capitol instead of in the streets. It's a hard choice for any leader, and while I think he made the wrong one, it is very possible he had little real choice. Khamenei is flip-flopping, trying to evaluate his own place in the scheme of events. The gauntlet has clearly fallen in front of Mousavi and the Iranian people. The fact that there has now been confirmed bloodshed, and the first strike was made by the government, is a game changer. It means true revolt could be at hand, and the opposition will have self-defense as a shield. In the US, President Obama has stepped up his rhetoric, in spite of accusations from Iran of meddling, urging Iranian authorities to halt "all violent and unjust actions against its own people." He said the United States "stands by all who seek to exercise" the universal rights to assembly and free speech.

Back in March I wrote an article titled, Opening The Door To Iran, wherein I praised President Obama not so much for opening the diplomatic door to Iran, but for humanizing the Iranian people to the American people. I believe these protests, and the international attention they are getting in Iran, are doing that better than any video message could. News outlets are saying there are parallels in Iran right now to the 1979 revolution there. What I think Americans are seeing are parallels to our own presidential election in 2000. Election fraud perpetrated by conservative extremists, dueling law suits to curtail vote recounts, protests, threats of violence, and we all watched as Al Gore, the person who was universally seen as the victim, presided over the official confirmation of the usurper as President. Did Al Gore believe George W. Bush was the rightful winner? No, but he said he did, he put his signature on the electoral college documents, and he conceded. How do we know the Ayatollah isn't in Al Gore's position right now? Albeit by a different means, and within a different framework. I believe this is why the outrage, why the American interest in a country that three months ago was a "Muslim extremist nation," and a "state sponsor of terror." Now we see Iranian people, dressed in Western clothes, getting gassed by the police and "robbed" of "democracy."

Put bluntly, Ahmadinejad is a bad guy. He has regularly spoken for the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state, and although he denies it, he is also a holocaust revisionist, claiming it never happened. He has been quoted saying Israel should be "wiped off the map." Even Greta Van Susteren seems to have made a Freudian slip and compared him to other fascist dictators, in this quote: "That doesn't sound like a good -- can I just tell you that doesn't sound like a good choice. We have either Ahmadinejad, who wants to destroy Italy -- Israel, rather -- Italy!."

Ahmadinejad supports the use of torture, regularly has dissidents detained without trial, and in 2006 he had multiple university professors dismissed who he believed to be speaking against him. In addition, Ahmadinejad's economic leadership of Iran has been generally deplorable, a point of great contention between himself and Mousavi in the presidential campaigns. Mousavi is credited with deft stewardship of Iran's coffers as Prime Minister, and the country enjoyed growth and prosperity as a result of his policies.

President Ahmadinejad is also a stalwart defender and advocate of Iran's nuclear program, which is most of what we knew about him before 2008, when Ahmadinejad and Iran were a persistent source of debate in the American presidential election. Ahmadinejad consistently claims that the Iranian nuclear program is for energy generation only, and persists in ordering uranium enrichment programs to continue, in spite of an United Nations Security Council resolution calling for them to halt. Mousavi on the other hand has called for an abolishment of the "moral police" in Iran, would pass laws protecting women, curtail government spending, open negotiations with the US, and claims that he would cease all hostilities toward Israel. Mousavi has indicated he would continue Iran's nuclear policies, however, claiming it is Iran's right (and maybe it is.) Interesting however, how we (Americans) don't care about that, probably didn't even know it; we care that Iranian citizens -- every day people like you and me-- are getting beat up by police and denied the right to free speech. We see our cultural values getting trampled, and understand that they are someone else's, too.

I've always believed that culture informs politics in a circular pattern, and that popular culture informs deeper, inherited culture. For the first time in contemporary history, Americans are seeing Iranians as people. We feel for them. We feel anger at the pictures coming out of Tehran and other cities. We see corruption that we can comprehend coming from the Ayatollah and President Ahmadinejad. Instead of veiled women and bearded clerics, we see Calvin Klein jeans and Twitter updates. In order for the United States to truly engage with Iran, regardless of the outcome of their situation today, popular sentiment needs to approve. And we've got plenty of that right now. I've already said that I believe President Obama could achieve successes with Iran on a scale with Richard Nixon's accomplishments with China. And, I believe the current uprising in Iran is the vehicle for that public support. If Ahmadinejad stays in office, it doesn't mean game-over. Not for anyone. Iran has been undergoing a social and political revolution for 100 years, and whether or not this is a flare-up or a full scale rebellion happening today, we now have proof in American eyes that Iranian people desire a freer society. And I hope they get one.

Don't Disappoint Me, Maine

2009-06-19T09:02:00.004-04:00

The PR firm that organized the Prop 8 drive in California has been hired in the state of Maine to help overturn the gay marriage law that will go into effect in September. GLBT activists in the state have responded by hiring Jesse Connolly, chief of staff to House Speaker Hannah Pingree, who will take a leave of absence from the State house to resume his activist work. Connolly led the successful 2005 effort, "Maine Won't Discriminate," which protected the state's existing gay rights.

The state of Maine has consistently rejected anti-gay legislation, as early as 1991. I have cause to hope they will reject the new challenges coming their way now. Don't disappoint me, Maine.

Let the Situation Play Out In Iran

2009-06-18T10:55:00.003-04:00

This is why I didn't vote for John McCain:

“The reaction of the Iranian people shows their discontent with this regime,” McCain said during an interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.”

“It’s really a sham that they've pulled off and I hope that we will act,” he said.

“I think they should be condemned, and it's obvious that this was a rigged election and depriving the people of their democratic
rights,” the Arizona senator said. “We are for human rights all over the world.” [SOURCE]

As I have already cited my reason previously, I will restate it: the war mongering.

If John McCain had his way, there would be "peace keeping" forces on the ground in Iran right now, and they would use the occasion to snoop around Iranian military facilities while they were at it. And we would cheer and wave the American flag and say it was in the name of security and "human rights." Mission accomplished!

Sen. John Kerry has an article in the New York Times today defending President Obama's "wait and see" method, and his clear belief that it is not our place to be "meddling in Iranian elections." (That's Jimmy Carter and The Elder's job...) Sen. Kerry also rightfully points out that the Iranian government has already accused us of it, calling the American outcry in response to the recent elections, "interventionist." Geez, who would ever think America would meddle in another country's business? For anything less than totally philanthropic ends?

Anyone who has been reading this column (I know I say that a lot) knows that I think foreign policy is going very well on President Obama's watch. It would be easy to assume this is solely because Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. But it's not, and it's certainly not when it comes to Iran. During the 2008 presidential campaigns, Hillary was holding the bomb over Iran, while Obama was preaching engagement. At this point, even Secretary Clinton has admitted Obama was right, saying, "He beat me in a primary where he presented a different view."

I have to say, my gut tells me Sen. McCain is right: the Iranian elections were a sham and the Iranian people have had the rug pulled out from under them, and democracy is being threatened by an extremist regime seeking to expand its power base across the entire Middle East. However, that does not mean we automatically take the role of cowboy and ride into Iran guns blazing. It doesn't mean we even have the right to do such a thing.

Imagine for a moment that, say, the New Mexico militia had come and intervened in the Texas Democratic primary / caucus "two-step" last spring claiming the Hillary Clinton was the rightful winner of all Texas delegates because the caucus system was "rigged" and a "sham." (Which is is.) Just let that scenario play out in your mind for a minute or two... now, tell me what you think about the United States putting any pressure on Iran to "correct" their democratic process. I'll quote Sen. McCain again: “It is a matter of trying to help the Iranian people achieve what is a basic fundamental human right, and that is a right to choose their own leaders and choose their own government.” It seems to me that is exactly what they are doing, and they haven't asked for our help (in fact they have directly denied it), they don't want our help, and they likely don't need it. The protests in Iran, the media coverage, the opposition rallies, all of it is being blamed on America and the West, which is so counterproductive, that even if the most extreme case of election fraud is true, it won't matter. If we get blamed for it, it's over. If we back off, let the dust clear, and continue to offer open engagement and cooperation, regardless of the result, we just might get somewhere.

America saw one of its own elections blatantly stolen in 2000. And in spite of all the evidence, mountains of condemning acts and edicts, and ample opportunity to do something about it, we still let the usurper sit on the Oval Office for 8 years. But we have the balls to call out another country over fair election practices? I am extremely skeptical of Barack Obama, however, his experience as a "community organizer" is definitely paying off; he is using those principles to implement a global foreign policy drive that is focussed on inclusion and cooperation for mutual gain, not on subjugating the rest of the world to the will of America. We've seen plenty of that already, and it's what got us into this mess in the first place. Maybe, just maybe, it is time to give someone else, and some fresh ideas, a try. Now, if these protests turn out to be Iran's Tiananmen Square, we'll all eat crow, but I don't think it will. Bravo to President Obama for his kid glove handling of the situation in Iran.

Michelle Does Hillary, Circa 1993

2009-06-17T12:42:00.002-04:00

Travelgate and Hillary.
AmeriCorps and Michelle.

Told you so.

Money DOES Talk

2009-06-17T12:20:00.002-04:00

One day. Just one day after prominent GLBT figures withdrew from a $1000-a-plate Democratic fundraiser in protest of President Obama's lack of movement on his campaign promises to the gay community, the White House is announcing that the president will extend benefits to same-sex partners who are federal employees. It is seen as "throwing a bone" to the gay constituency. News sources are saying these benefits will not include health benefits, so it's a bone with no marrow. As good as this could be in the long run, I'm still leaving my Obama pom-poms under the bed. As I've said several times now, the time for compromises are over; I expect full citizenship, now, no conditions, no partial benefits, no appeasement. But, one thing is certain, and obvious from this situation: money does talk.

Tuesday Bits & Pieces - June 16th, 2009

2009-06-16T11:58:00.005-04:00

Transparency -- not so much

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government...Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public." Barack Obama

So, is that why the Obama administration is continuing a Bush administration policy of refusing to publish visitor logs at the White House? In spite of multiple rulings by US federal judges stating that such records are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Full story.

I'd say this goes on the same list as the President's near-total failure to keep his "five days sunlight before signing" promise (that laws passed by Congress would appear on the White House website for 5 days before they were signed into law). Only 8 out of 21 so far have even been posted, let alone sat there for 5 days. People might find this kind of nit-picking to be minor, but you can't just say this stuff then not do it. Tally here.

California Goes Broke, Washington In Denial

The state of California, 8th largest economy in the world, is looking at a $24 Billion dollar budget shortfall this July 1st, a deficit that would effectively close the state government down. Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Democratic state leadership have already threatened to cut state welfare programs, which would leave over 1.3 million of California's poorest residents without support or resources. Thus far, calls for federal aid have fallen on dead ears. (I suppose if it was Silicon Valley or Hollywood that was falling apart, we'd be all over it, but you can't buy the state of California with a brokered bankruptcy agreement...) Full story.

Cure For Most Common Form of Leukemia Found

Scientists affiliated with the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, one of the nation's leading genetic and cancer research institutes, have announced that they believe they have found a cure for chronic themyeloid leukemia. Full story.

Middle East 'Peace Process' Gets Muddy

This article seems to both praise and challenge President Obama on his Middle East foreign policy drives. As I have said many times, I think foreign policy is one of things the Obama administration is doing right. And I believe it is in large part due to the rock solid partnership between the President and Secretary Clinton. At the moment, with potentially corrupt elections, riots and international outcry in Iran, the President is facing a credibility challenge -- the credibility of his continued drive to reopen diplomatic relations with Tehran. What I find ironic about this whole situation is that these protests in Iran are the very grassroots building blocks of representative democracy, and yet somehow, the media is spinning it to look like the US failed in some way. When in reality, I've seen little change in US policy toward Iran. President Obama continues to speak for the diplomatic process, backed by strong words from the State department, and continued pressure on Israel not to complicate the situation further. The idea that is out-moded is that we need to choose between Israel and Iran, something that President Obama obviously is not willing to do. I believe that Iran, if it is not already, will become a nuclear state, which means we need further engagement with them, not to shun them just because we don't like the outcome of their elections. We've bungled things with Iran before, and the comparison (to Jimmy Carter) is not one the president can afford. We need to press on, no matter what happens in Iran. As strong a critic of Obama as I am, in this, I have to say: a little patience, please.

Washington D.C. Upholds Pro-Gay Law

Last month the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or municipalities. This week they denied a referendum challenge to this rule, stating that the referendum would "authorize discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is prohibited under D.C.'s Human Rights Act." Full story.

In related news, prominent gay activists are saying, "No thanks," to the DNC.

David Mixner made the following statement concerning his withdrawal from a Democratic fundraiser hosted by Vice President Biden for the DNC:

"I will not attend a fundraiser for the National Democratic Party in Washington next week when the current administration is responsible for these kind of actions," Mixner wrote of a motion to dismiss a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act that drew a parallel between same-sex marriage to incestuous marriage. "How will they ever take us seriously if we keep forking out money while they harm us. For now on, my money is going to battles within the community such as the fight in Maine or the March on Washington! I am so tired of being told by Democratic operatives to 'suck it up' because so many other profound issues are at stake." Full story.

Amen, brother! How will they ever take us seriously if we keep forking out money while they harm us. According to an extensive study by UCLA, consumer buying power of the GLBT population will reach at least $712 Billion this year. (Equivalent to 91% of the TARP funds authorized by Congress in 2008, designed to rescue the American economy.) Yes, gay people have a voice, and it may well be heard through their checkbooks.

If I'm right, and I believe I am, the Republicans are going to flip in favor of same-sex marriage, Obama and Democrats are in danger of getting their base stolen.

GOP Over The Rainbow

2009-06-15T11:26:00.003-04:00

I'm not the only one who thinks the GOP is going to co-opt the gay marriage debate, favorably. BkB over at DailyKOS thinks so, too. READ HERE.

See, I'm not crazy.

Issue Performance Falling Apart

2009-06-13T09:07:00.001-04:00

"Obama is about to find out that you cannot rely on image to bolster your presidency when the underlying issues are crumbling...." Full story here

Obama Defends DOMA

2009-06-13T09:01:00.004-04:00

Read this article and tell me if you still think Barack Obama intends to deliver on his promises to the gay community. I personally have heard quite enough of this, "for the time being it is the law of the land," BS, and other such crap like, "Stand with me and I'll stand with you." Say whatever you have to in order to get elected...

The Clinton Machine Rolls On

2009-06-11T12:47:00.003-04:00

So, with Terry McAuliffe out of politics for the time being (and hopefully forever) the news feeds are abuzz with rag lines like, 'the end of the Clinton machine.'

I find these predictions very questionable. Maybe the end of the Bill Clinton machine, who is no longer the Democratic presidential poster boy. Hillary on the other hand is just getting started. She has been on the fringe of American politics for 17 years or more. Now, after 8 years as a Senator, which gave her ample time to build her own relationships and networks, she is a quickly rising star all over the world. She's become the example for powerful and successful women. She gets high marks all around for her performance at State. And even Joe Biden has come out and said, "I think (the president) listens to her as much or more than anybody. She's the main player ... the one he looks to give the last wind-up pitch about what should be done."

The "Clinton Machine" is certainly not destroyed by Terry McAuliffe's defeat in a gubernatorial primary in Virginia. I would venture to say it is as big, of not bigger, as it ever was -- and rolling forward with greater ease and more success than when Bill was president. As I have said many times now, Hillary has become The Clinton, and the Clinton legacy is far from its final chapter.

Jeremiah Wright Grabs A Few More Headlines

2009-06-11T12:19:00.002-04:00

OK, this is a big steamy pile:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is at it again. Referring to senior White House staff who are Jewish, he said: "Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office."

Um, Rev. Wright... at this rate, he's not going to talk to you. Period.

Spidey Sense

2009-06-11T01:56:00.003-04:00

Mark my words. Republicans will co-opt the same-sex marriage debate, as its champions. How they do it remains to be seen, but -- as I have already said, mark my words -- they will. I can't wait to hear Sarah Palin say, "Homaseckshuls! You betcha!"

Halleluia! Terry McAuliffe Is Out of The Race In Virginia

2009-06-10T10:51:00.004-04:00

State Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (D-VA) won the Virginia Democratic gubernatorial primary! The expected winner, Terry McAuliffe, came in a distant second, ending his bid for governor of Virginia. Halleluia! Terry McAuliffe is a complete jackoff. He completely bungled his job as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he was a voice of total insanity in Bill Clinton's presidency, and a disorganized, conceited, autocratic blowhard as chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. Thank every power there is that Virginia Democrats said, "No thank you." If Hillary Clinton had said, "no thanks," to McAuliffe two years ago, I might be much happier with who is president right now... is there any chance we've seen the last of this jerk?

Yes, Sarah....

2009-06-09T14:04:00.001-04:00

Wherein Sarah Palin reminds us she will be running for President soon. And for a change, sounds pretty polished.

We Will Make Them Famous -- British MP's, That Is...

2009-06-09T11:57:00.003-04:00

So, is anyone paying attention to what is happening in the UK, and inside the European Parliament?

Sparked by the scandalous revelations that British MP's (Members of Parliament) were writing off "phantom" mortgages and charging the government for cleaning their moats, Labor, Gordon Brown and left-leaning politicians have suffered staggering losses both at home and in the European Parliament. In response, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has "reshuffled" his Cabinet, amidst a slew of resignations. Not satisfied, a chorus of voices is calling for Brown himself to resign, or at the very least, hold a fresh general election. Conservatives are making a sweeping comeback in the UK, elbowing Labor out of the way for the first time in over 30 years.

This was the kind of Congressional / governmental shakedown Sen. John McCain was talking about in his 2008 presidential campaign when he said, "We will make them famous." It's a difficult and unfortunate time for the Labor Party in the UK; it makes me wonder what it would be like if something on this scale really did happen in America. The US media was up in arms over Kathleen Sebelius failing to itemize a couple thousand in charitable contributions, and $150,000 worth of clothes the RNC bought for Sarah Palin (which, by the way, the FEC has ruled to be entirely above board. Talk about invented controversy. Ug.) Sure, we've got poster boys for corruption this past year like Bernie Madoff and Rod Blagojevich (whose scandal is deepening by the day, but the media is keeping it off the front pages because it could impact both Roland Buris and President Obama, both of whom are critical to the Democratic majority in Congress.) But, do we have these examples inside the government? And are we naive enough to think they don't happen? I'm curious to see how long the British MP shakedown will take to cross the pond and start lapping the shores of Washington.

Gay Penguins Raise A Family

2009-06-08T12:23:00.002-04:00

Apparently, two male penguins in a German zoo, identified by zoologists as a "mated pair" have adopted an abandoned chick and are raising it together. This is not, by far, the first proven example that homosexuality occurs naturally in the animal kingdom. However, it is an adorable one. BBC News reports that, "Since the chick arrived, they have been behaving just as you would expect a heterosexual couple to do. The two happy fathers spend their days attentively protecting, caring for and feeding their adopted offspring." Full story here

Photo courtesy of BBC News.

Gay Governor In Minnesota?

2009-06-08T12:09:00.004-04:00

Minnesota stands a chance of electing a gay governor. And, he's a Republican.

Rhode Island Gay Lawmakers Speak Out, Opponets Too

2009-06-08T11:38:00.003-04:00

Rhode Island State Congressman, Frank Ferri (D-Warwick), who married his partner, Tony Carparco, in Canada three years ago, speaks out on the gay marriage debate in his state, the last in New England to resist legalizing gay marriage:

Ferri, along with House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox (D-Providence) and Rep. Deb Ruggiero (D-Jamestown) is one of three openly gay legislators in Rhode Island. Regardless, the battle will be an uphill one, as statehouse leadership, including Republican Governor Don Carcieri, who is also a member of the National Organization For Marriage, opposes it. 2010 will see a gubernatorial election with no incumbent, as Carcieri has reached his term limit. Democrats are very hopeful to get back into the governor's office, as Republicans have occupied the state's highest office since 1995, in spite of the state's heavy Democratic leanings on the national and legislative levels. At this time the race is seen as a toss-up. No doubt, the same sex marriage debate will be a factor in the election.

Gay Marriage & The Language of Civil Rights

2009-06-08T11:19:00.004-04:00

Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach (D-17th District) published an excellent article in The Patriot News yesterday, Sunday, June 7th, 2009 announcing his plan to introduce same-sex marriage legislation in Pennsylvania. I am reprinting the entire article here because I believe it is one of the more concise, practical and comprehensive views on gay marriage as a civil rights issue rather than simply a gay issue. And from a straight man. Harvey Milk would be proud:

Pennsylvania Marriage: Gays deserve equality

by Daylin Leach
I recently drafted and am shortly introducing legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. I do so now for several reasons.

First, because many other states are moving to consider this issue, including Maine, Vermont and Washington, D.C., which have recently passed legislation. New York, New Hampshire and New Jersey soon will.

Further, a bill banning same-sex marriage was recently introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate, and it is important to provide the Legislature with a timely pro-civil rights, pro-family alternative.

But mostly, each day in which gay Pennsylvanians are denied their fundamental human rights is a profound injustice.

The case for same-sex or gay marriage is simple. The state and federal government confer hundreds of benefits upon married couples that are unavailable to single people. This is done to facilitate and encourage marriage, which benefits our entire society.

We should be doing with gay couples what we do with straight couples; encouraging them to enter permanent, monogamous, stable and legally recognized unions. The arguments against gay marriage are much more complicated.

First, we are told that we need to protect traditional marriage. But from what? What bad thing has happened to straight couples in states where gay couples can marry? Studies show straight-marriage rates remain the same in those states. So do divorce rates, birth rates and rates of domestic violence. There is no change whatsoever in the status, behavior or happiness of married heterosexual couples when a married gay couple moves in down the street.

We hear that some organizations that disapprove of gay marriage might act out if such marriages are allowed. For example, in Massachusetts a Catholic adoption agency didn't want to adopt to gay couples and closed down. This argument is akin to the "Heckler's Veto" concept.

In First Amendment law, some have tried to ban certain speech by saying it would upset the listener who would then heckle or otherwise cause a disturbance. For example, if civil rights workers were allowed to march in the South, that would upset local racists and they might throw rocks.

The courts have consistently rejected the argument that threats based on disapproval were a justification to ban speech. Similarly, there is not a justification to stop people from marrying the person they love.

We also hear the frankly strange argument that if we legalize gay marriage we will somehow have no choice but to legalize polygamy, incest and inter-species marriage. Not so. We draw reasonable lines all the time in all areas of the law. You can drive 65, but not 95. You can keep a gun, but not a truck bomb. Similarly, you can marry one partner, but not an aardvark.

Any law involves line drawing. It seems reasonable that the line should be drawn where it allows each person the opportunity to have a life partner.

The fact is that there is no reasonable alternative to recognized same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples exist and always will. Many of them are raising children.

Many opponents of gay marriage preach that children should not be raised out of wedlock, but the one sure way to raise the number of children being raised out of wedlock is to deny their parents the chance to marry. They also urge young people to delay sexual relationships until marriage. But if gay people can't marry, what would they tell a gay teen about when it is appropriate for them to have a sexual relationship?

Gay couples are denied many of the basic rights and services straight couples take for granted. This includes everything from Social Security survivor benefits to mandatory leave to care for a sick partner. Further, they and their children are forced to live under a legal framework that treats their families as somehow not legitimate. There are literally thousands of such unjust burdens placed upon people who want nothing more than to start a family. Simple decency demands an end to this.

I am under no illusions that this bill will become law in the short term. However, I also have no doubt that 15 years from now same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states, and people will be as ashamed that we ever banned it as they are now that we ever banned inter-racial marriage. My hope is that by introducing this bill now, we will start the discussion we need to have and bring the day of equality a little closer.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2009/06/pennsylvania_marriage_gays_des.html

Blame Bush While You Can

2009-06-08T10:53:00.004-04:00

Apparently, running against George Bush still works. Democratic incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, in the New Jersey Governor's race thinks so at least, saying about his Republican challenger, former U.S. attorney Chris Christie, a Bush appointee, "I'm not about to put my trust in the same people who gave us George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or John Ashcroft."

Soak every last drop out of that anti-Bush stuff, boys. By this time next year President Obama and Democrats will have their heads on the chopping block, unless the massive spending orgy the administration and the 111th Congress have gleefully applied their signatures to puts some money in American's pockets and takes some pressure off debt and health care costs. While I personally approve of most of this spending for various reasons, you can't tell a starving person they'll get to eat in 10 years.

Dick Cheney Supports Gay Marriage??

2009-06-04T12:28:00.005-04:00

I never in a million years dreamed I would be saying I agreed with Dick Cheney on anything. I think I disagree with him on principle. However, according to Seattlepi.com: "In a National Press Club appearance, Cheney declared: 'I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish.'" There just might be hope for Conservatives yet.

Gay Marriage Fight Begins In Pennsylvania

2009-06-04T12:23:00.001-04:00

Wednesday, June 3rd: competing Senators in the PA state Senate introduced two bills, one which would legalize gay marriage in the Keystone State, and one that would ban it. Let the games begin!

Smart Power Smarting From A Slap

2009-06-04T11:57:00.003-04:00

Back in February, while in China, Secretary Clinton got slammed pretty much unilaterally for not coming to Beijing swinging the hammer of human rights:

Amnesty International is "shocked and extremely disappointed," that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not arrive in China rattling the saber of human rights. The Times Online is claiming that Hillary Clinton is "pandering" to the Chinese while dissenters are being silenced. And Human Rights Watch has an equally nasty condemnation of Clinton, claiming she is, "segregating human rights issues into a deadend dialogue of the deaf." --TBN, Feb. 22, 2009

At the time, I said, "Clinton's seemingly off-hand remark, 'But we pretty much know what they are going to say,' also pretty much sums it up: If we come in guns blazing over human rights, we're going to get turned away." And, that is exactly what happened yesterday. Secretary Clinton made the following statement concerning the upcoming anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989.

"A China that has made enormous progress economically and is emerging to take its rightful place in global leadership should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal," Clinton said in a statement released here late Wednesday.

She also called on China to release prisoners still detained for taking part in the peaceful pro-democracy protests and end harassment of the Tiananmen Mothers, which is pressing to know more about missing loved ones.

"China can honor the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally recognized human rights and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform," she said. --[SOURCE]

The Chinese government, predictably, responded in a hostile and regressive manner:

A China foreign ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, said at a press conference: "The statement from the United States ignores the facts and makes groundless accusations against the Chinese government.

"We express our strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition. We urge the United States to forsake its prejudices, correct its erroneous ways and avoid obstructing and damaging China-US relations."

The Communist party describes the events of 4 June 1989 as "a counter-revolutionary riot" and has never released the names of those who died. --[SOURCE]

Well, there you go, Amnesty International. Hillary Clinton did what you wanted, and "meaningfully [stood] up to China on human rights issues." And what did we get for it? Slapped in the face. Not that I believe we should now just give up, but Secretary Clinton was certainly correct: we pretty much know what they are going to say.

Domestic Partnerships Legal In Nevada

2009-06-01T11:29:00.002-04:00

Did I say this was going to be a big fight? Not so much. Saturday, May 30th, only 8 days after the original bill was passed, the Nevada state Congress mustered a 2/3 majority, knocking out the possibility of a gubernatorial veto. Domestic partnerships are now legal in Nevada.

'American Idol' Finale Scandal

2009-05-30T11:57:00.003-04:00

There is a mini-scandal surrounding the results of Season 8 of American Idol. Conflicting reports indicate that AT&T, one of the show's major sponsors, may have intentionally influenced the outcome of the final, causing what is generally seen as an "upset win" for Kris Allen over the expected favorite, Adam Lambert. Yahoo! News reports that some AT&T employees took demo phones to several finale parties in Kris Allen's home state of Arkansas, where they allegedly instructed attendees how to "power text," i.e., send multiple texts to the same number at one time. It is reported that this was done in order to influence the outcome of the finale in Kris Allen's favor. An Arkansas newspaper Fox's KLRT-TV affiliate in Little Rock, reported that 38 million votes came out of Arkansas that night, a stunning 13 times the population of the entire state. Hard to believe, yes. Impossible, not in the least. Particularly if AT&T insiders were involved. The station has since retracted the report, and AT&T of course, denies all allegations, claiming that the results of the finale are "fair and verified."

Really? Is that why the employees who took the demo phones to finale parties were chastised by AT&T? Or, maybe that's why American Idol producers are refusing to release the actual vote tally? Or why AT&T is reporting that customer-base voting in this season's show are 70% higher than last season? I would dismiss it all as in invented scandal except for the scramble to cover up and dismiss. Could it be, just maybe, that Fox, the producer of AI, is just a little bit homophobic? Just ask Clay Aiken, who now admits that he knew he was gay when he was on Idol, but "for personal reasons" chose not to disclose his sexuality. And now we see Adam Lambert going through the same thing -- admitting that he didn't want the sensation of his sexuality overshadowing the contest. I'm sure Kris Allen did win. But, I'd bet you anything it was with a little help from the sponsors.

Sen. John Cornyn Chastizes Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich

2009-05-30T11:18:00.003-04:00

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), on Thursday, spoke out in defense of President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Hon. Sonia Sotomayer, saying that the accusations of racism leveled at her by Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are "inappropriate" and that he "does not endorse" such tactics or language. He said, "This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.” Video here

Cornyn is the Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and has grabbed headlines recently for his endorsement of Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who is running for US Senate; and for his brief upset with Hillary Clinton in January.

Tsvangirai Takes It To The Public

2009-05-30T10:34:00.003-04:00

Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, still struggling to gain any real power in the coalition government he entered with President Mugabe in February, this week made his battle public. At a two-day convention of the Movement For Democratic Change, Tsvangirai made the following statements:

"We have not yet succeeded in restoring the rule of law ... our people do not live free from fear, hunger and poverty," he said.

The official state media remained biased and there was only limited freedom of movement and expression, he said.

"Our members continue to be the victims of political persecution," Tsvangirai said. "That society for which we are striving bears little resemblance to the reality in which all of us live today," he said.[SOURCE]

Currently, Prime Minister Tsvangirai and President Mugabe are locked in a power struggle over the appointment of the head of Zimbabwe's central bank, a post that would have much power, and the ability to influence the head of state and government decisions. The current Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono, appointed by Mugabe, believes that Tsvangirai and his party, the MDC have a personal vendetta against him, while the Prime Minister claims this is not true, saying that the international financial community dislikes and distrusts Gono, and thus his position harms Zimbabwe and their recovery efforts. Tsvangirai has gone so far as to propose a new law that would supersede Gono's authority and replace him with a non-executive director.

Meanwhile, 85-year-old President Mugabe's succession is in question. Mugabe has stated that he will not step down until he is sure his departure would not lead the destruction of his party, the Zanu PF, which has held power since Zimbabwe's independence. An open election could be held as early as December, although no challengers have presented themselves. Current Prime Minister Tsvangirai defeated Mugabe in last year's presidential elections, but withdrew from a run-off election because he believed political violence would prevent free and fair proceedings. And, having already won, he already had sufficient political capital to get a toehold into government; it was the ball that began rolling toward today's unity government. Although the European Union has given their blessing to the "new government" in Zimbabwe, they are a long way from truly unified.

Obama Makes Light of Prop 8 Protesters

2009-05-30T10:07:00.004-04:00

At a California Democratic fundraiser, Wednesday, May 27th, with hundreds of Prop 8 protesters outside, President Obama openly dismissed them by making a joke about not knowing "what promise" they were talking about. See the video here. He later backpedaled a little bit and spun out some generic rhetoric about "standing with him." How about you stand with me, Mr. President?

Someone pointed out to me the other day that Obama's tepid stance on GLBT issues may in fact be supported by the idea: What are you going to do, vote for Palin in 2012? Tell you what, I just might. I came within a moment's hesitation of voting for John McCain this time. And if I have another president who doesn't care about my civil right, why should it matter if I vote for a different one who doesn't care? In fact, having a president who openly despises me just might inflame the community enough to get a unified movement going, instead of this half-baked "wait and see" and "stand with me" crap that just keeps people hanging on a thread.

I just can't get over the hypocrisy of it. The first black man to be President of the United States won't come within striking distance of the last legally sanctioned discrimination in America. And, while he was in California-- California for God sake -- with Prop 8 protesters outside, he has the chops to make a dismissive comment like that. As I've said before, and likely will say again, one of the reasons people hate Conservatives is because they're not ashamed of what they believe. So called "liberals" need to dodge and spew out empty crowd-pleaser rhetoric and make off the cuff offensive jokes that they can later deny. So, come 2012, unless there has been substantive progress on guaranteeing full civil rights for gay Americans from the White House.... You betcha! I just might vote for someone else.

Ted Kennedy On Health Care Reform

2009-05-28T08:54:00.002-04:00

Sen. Ted Kennedy has an article in the Boston Globe today outlining his vision for health care reform in the US. Full story.

The Problem In N. Korea: Kim Jong Il Doesn't Care

2009-05-27T12:27:00.004-04:00

In the space of a week, North Korea has launched a second nuclear missile, continued to fire smaller rockets, and this morning announced that they would no longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. The international community is engaged now, if they weren't before. North Korea, in response, has openly threatened South Korea.

Diplomacy is not going to work. The problem in North Korea is that Kim Jong Il doesn't care what anyone thinks. He is an autocrat isolationist, and likely suffers from delusions of grandeur bordering on personality dysphasia. When you reach the point in your political career where you have people arrested for speaking anything but praise for you, and daily conduct parades and festivals in your own honor, you have checked out of reality. Kim Jong Il believes himself to be divinely invested with power, and without flaw. And he knows he's been backed into a corner, which is why he is spitting bombs. He will push the envelope until open conflict is inevitable.

Here, President Obama, here's that test Joe Biden predicted.

Prop 8 Upheld By California Supreme Court

2009-05-26T13:49:00.004-04:00

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California in Nov., 2008. The court ruled unanimously that Prop 8 will not be retroactive, and all same-sex couples who were legally married in California prior to the passage of Prop 8 will remain legally married. Full Story. Regardless of this small concession, it is sad and discouraging day for the gay civil rights movement.

Sotomayor Nominated to SCOTUS

2009-05-26T11:09:00.004-04:00

President Obama has announced his nominee for the Supreme Court: Hon. Sonia Sotomayer. Sotomayer is currently a Circuit Judge for the US Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit, a post she has been in since she was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1998. Full story here. I have to say, Sotomayor is a commendable pick: a single, Hispanic woman raised in the projects of the Bronx, with a (to quote the President) "sterling" record as a trial judge. (I suppose it would be too much to ask that she also be a lesbian...)

More Backpedaling on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

2009-05-23T10:37:00.002-04:00

President Obama is reported to be having "active conversations" on changing or repealing the military policy, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which forces gay service members to stay in the closet, or risk being discharged from the armed forces. So far, on the "Do List" (as opposed to the "Talk About It List") the President has done nothing and called it doing something, i.e., not challenging a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed a lesbian Air Force officer to stay in the service. Do I need to point out the obvious here? That doing nothing is still doing nothing? That not doing something George Bush wanted done really doesn't count, since he's not president any more?

The Star Tribune also points out that President Obama could intervene in discrimination-based discharges of gay service members by issuing stop-loss orders. And of course the Defense Department wants more time before DADT is repealed, because the process will be so "polarizing." Um... news flash: these people already serve in the armed forces, you probably know who they are, albeit unofficially -- believe me, gay people are experts at letting their sexuality be known without ever saying it; we've been practicing since the first time we got beat up or laughed at on the playground. Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell isn't the precursor to a wave of homosexuals rushing to the recruitment office. And probably no more gay sex than was already happening will happen -- because, again, as we know, it's not so much gay people as gay sex that has the homophobes all in a tizzy.

Meanwhile, in spite of President Obama's (so far false) rhetoric in favor of repealing DADT, people are still being discharged from the military at alarming rates. Apparently dozens of gay graduates at West Point military academy came out recently in protest, trying to force the President's hand. I've got a recommendation for the President: It's called an Executive Order, Mr. President. White House sources say the president is resistant to an executive order because he wants Congress to deal with it, to ensure "fundamental change." Sounds more to me like the president is running scared from a hot button issue.

Domestic Partner Bill In Nevada Will Be A Big Fight

2009-05-22T10:22:00.004-04:00

The Nevada state legislature on Thursday passed a bill granting domestic partnership rights to same sex (and heterosexual) couples. The state governor, Republican Jim Gibbons, has promised to veto. State senator, David Parks, a gay Democrat from Las Vegas, claims he has the votes to overturn a veto. So, the pissing contest has begun. The voting contest can't be far behind.

Hillary Goes To Bat For Gay Diplomats

2009-05-22T10:07:00.003-04:00

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that she will provide equal benefits for partners of gay U.S. Diplomats stationed in foreign countries. Because of the current regulations under DOMA and other federal laws, these benefits cannot be offered inside the US, yet. In this instance, hopefully where Hillary leads, President Obama, whose follow-through on campaign promises to the GLBT community has been tepid at best, will follow. Secretary Clinton was quick to embrace the gay community in her 2008 presidential campaign, causing a fluster of copy-catting from the Obama campaign; maybe that same urgency will carry over to the Oval Office, as well.

Help Pakistani Refugees With a Text Message

2009-05-20T12:08:00.004-04:00

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is asking Americans to help over 1 million refugees, concentrated mostly in the Swat Valley in Pakistan by texting the word "swat" to 20222 to make a $5 donation that will provide medicine, tents, food, and clothing through the United Nations Refugee program. Secretary Clinton asked for donations at the same time as announcing that the US will give $110 million in aid to Pakistan, which has nearly 2 million internationally displaced refugees since last August.

According to Spiegel today:

There are few witnesses to the battle currently raging in the Swat Valley. The Taliban threatens to kill all journalists who do not report in their favor. Newspapers and television stations depend on the statements issued by an army spokesman. The Pakistani military has also disabled all cellular phone networks in the combat zones.

The valley at the base of the Hindu Kush mountains, a place of peach groves and clear brooks, is abandoned after a week of the offensive. Last Friday, tens of thousands of people took advantage of an eight-hour lifting of the curfew in Mingora to flee, filling the streets with an endless flow of pedestrians, donkey carts, overloaded small buses, trucks and mopeds. The city of 350,000 had been bombed for days, and water and electricity had been shut off for more than a week. [SOURCE]

Pick up your phones, y'all!

Did Joe Jonas Out Himself?

2009-05-20T10:50:00.004-04:00

In the new issue of InStyle magazine, middle Jonas brother, Joe listed steamy hot 007 actor Daniel Craig as his "Celebrity Crush." Can't really blame him; Daniel Craig is a regulation hottie. So, you decide for yourself. Do we have a Code Pink Alert: A Jonas Out of the Closet, or is it a "celebrity crush" the same way Katy Perry kissed a girl last year, without really doing it? (Or apparently, without really liking it, according to what she told Chelsea Handler.) Regardless if it is a romance or a bromance, the soaking wet, bedroom eyed pics in InStyle this week are a far cry from the wholesome image the Jonas Brothers have made millions on. But, I suppose it happens to all Disney creations eventually... just ask Britney, Christina, Justin, and Miley. "The mouse made me do it, I swear!" If you ask me, Joe is the hottest Jonas, too (and 19 now, so I can say that...) I'd love to see one of them come out of the closet, and really own it. The rumors that there is a gay Jonas are rampant, of course. I'd imagine most of them are simply fueled by the sexual fantasies of gay men all over the Internet, but at least one of them is pretty specific that it is either Kevin or Joe, and that whichever one it is, he is (or was) involved with an older man from their hometown of Wyckoff, New Jersey. Hm.... older man.... Joe has a crush on Daniel Craig... who is 22 years old than him. No, I do not think the "older man" is Daniel Craig, but I do think of you put 2 and 2 together, it should be obvious that Joe Jonas likes him some silver fox.

Usually I don't lower myself to this kind of scandal reporting. But I think it's important for gay celebrities to come out. I'm also not a fan of outing anyone, but saying you have a crush on Daniel Craig in InStyle magazine while making come-to-papa eyes for the camera pretty much takes care of that little detail. Either that, or the Jonas Brothers know who their most loyal fan base is (gay men with a boner for barely legal boys) and want to capitalize. But, I think it's more than that or I wouldn't be wasting my time writing about it. I don't even like the Jonas Brothers -- save admitting that I do think Joe and Nick are both pretty hot. But, we've had enough of the Ryan Seacrests, whose sexuality is the worst-kept secret in Hollywood, and the Anderson Coopers, who will neither confirm nor deny their sexualities (in spite of being on the cover of the Advocate, and named one of the "Most Powerful" queers in entertainment by Out magazine.) In fairness to Anderson Cooper, who actually seems perfectly OK with his sexuality, there is a fairly well substantiated rumor that it was CNN who informed him it could "harm his ratings" if he was "too out."

In conclusion, let me say: Joe Jonas, if you are gay, please be gay. If you're not, don't be. But if you are, don't mess with what is already an uphill battle for the GLBT community by staying in the closet, or by being "maybe gay." Sad but true, one outspoken Gay Jonas is worth a hundred everyday activists.

Bill Clinton To Be UN Envoy to Haiti

2009-05-19T12:10:00.005-04:00

BBC and the Miami Herald are reporting that former US President Bill Clinton will assume the role of UN Envoy to Haiti, assisting the country in rebuilding after tropical storms in 2008 killed 800 people and caused over a billion dollars in infrastructure damage. Because of his marriage to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, state department lawyers will have to review and approve his new role. This work, in my opinion, is a) very appropriate for an ex-President, and b) exactly the kind of work President Clinton already does through the William Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, and his co-founded projects with former President George H. W. Bush, the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund and Bush-Clinton Tsunami Fund, for which they were awarded the 2006 Philadelphia Liberty Medal. President Clinton is also head of the United Nations earthquake and tsunami relief and reconstruction effort, since 2005.

Defense of Marriage Act repealed?

2009-05-19T11:39:00.006-04:00

US Rep. John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee told the Michigan Messenger that he "has the votes" to repeal DOMA, which if repealed, would require same-sex marriages to be recognized in all US states. Conyers was less certain that such a repeal would pass the entire Congress, saying, “Well in my committee, yes, but in the House and Senate, that’s a different question." [FULL STORY HERE]

Wisconsin & Maryland May Allow Gay Marriage

2009-05-19T11:24:00.006-04:00

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has indicated that they will review a 2006 ballot initiative that banned same sex marriage this fall, when their new term begins. If overturned, gay and lesbian couples would be able to marry in the state. There is little early indication on how the state Supreme Court will rule. However, it appears that Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle has written provisions into the new state budget that would allow same-sex partners to register with the state for "part of the legal benefits now given to married couples." [FULL STORY HERE]

Also, in the state of Maryland, state Senator Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery County) has announced a plan to co-sponsor legislation allowing same sex marriage with Senator Richard Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), early next year. [FULL STORY HERE]

Joe Biden, Bigmouth Strikes Again

2009-05-18T12:40:00.004-04:00

Check this out: Vice President Joe Biden revealed the location of the secret bunker used to protect the vice president in emergency situations. This isn't just a "gaffe." It's a national security crisis. Good job, Joe.

Maureen Dowd, Plagiarist

2009-05-18T12:27:00.002-04:00

Ha! Maureen Dowd got busted today for plagiarizing a TPM blogger, Josh Marshall. Anyone who reads this column knows my opinion of Maureen Dowd is less than stellar. B***ch! Not that she'll get in any huge trouble over it, but regardless it makes me happy in a small-minded, mean little way. Anything that damages her credibility is just fine with me, and even more fine since she brought it entirely upon herself. Go crawl back under your rock, Maureen.

OK, I Give Up: Let Pelosi's Head Roll

2009-05-18T11:45:00.005-04:00

Do the ends justify the means? It certainly looks like the defeat of Nancy Pelosi will be the end of the "torture gate" scandal, whose means I find very questionable.

This morning, the Washington Post is indirectly pointing the finger at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and President Obama for allowing CIA chief Leon Panetta to bluntly accuse Pelosi of lying. They say such a blatantly (un?)political attack on a fellow Democrat could only have come from the top down, particularly considering Panetta's D. C. savvy. They say it is the same thing the Bush White House did to Trent Lott. At the same time, Politico is publishing an article called, "Conditions for a coup in Congress," implying Pelosi may be challenged, and shut out, as Speaker this year. They posit that Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) would be more palatable to the White House as Speaker. They also claim it is the same thing the Clinton White House did to Newt Gingrich.

Up to this point I have defended Speaker Pelosi in this "torture gate" mess. I maintain still that she had little to do with it and that she has been scapegoated by the GOP and the former Administration. However, someone reminded me the other day that it was Pelosi who said impeachment (of Bush) was "off the table" at a time when there was considerable Congressional and popular support for such a move, and time to accomplish it. Perhaps she had little power to stop waterboarding in 2002, but she had ample power to stop George Bush in 2006, and hold the entire Administration accountable for the whole ball of wax. Instead, she opted for personal gain (using her political capitol to get elected Speaker) and refused to allow impeachment proceedings to even reach an exploratory committee. She could have stopped them. Who knows? If she had been successful, even moderately, she could have been President by now. (And people accused Hillary Clinton of being complicit with the Bush administration because of one vote...)

Again, do the ends justify the means? Possibly. When you look at the whole ball of wax, just maybe. This could all blow over, too. But it looks to me that it is steadily blowing up. Maybe my wish will come true. But what monster's head will grow back in Pelosi's place? She was such a good, loyal lap dog to President Obama when he was campaigning, up to and including making snide comments to the press about his primary challengers (and fellow Democrats.) But once she realized he would not return the favor in kind, she turned on him a little. Congress has not offered the rubber stamp they could, that's certain. And although they talk tall about how that is not the goal, and not what anyone wants... yeah, right. Every President wishes Congress would just do their will. Maybe Steny Hoyer already made some promises... or maybe Congress, and the White House are finally just sick of her.