"He was so persuasive that I made sure to side against black people for a quarter century."
Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first black member of the Supreme Court, ended his 24 years there bitter and frustrated. He had been unable, he said, to persuade his colleagues in many cases concerning racial equality, the cause to which he had devoted his life.
“What do they know about Negroes?” Justice Marshall asked an interviewer. “You can’t name one member of this court who knows anything about Negroes before he came to this court.”
But the other justices did get to know Justice Marshall, and even the more conservative ones acknowledged that his very presence exerted a gravitational pull more powerful than his single vote.
“Marshall could be a persuasive force just by sitting there,” Justice Antonin Scalia told Juan Williams in an interview for a biography of Justice Marshall, recalling the justices’ private conferences about cases. “He wouldn’t have to open his mouth to affect the nature of the conference and how seriously the conference would take matters of race.”
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Date night
It's so easy to forget that historians a century from now will meditate on the deeper meanings of passages like this over and over again.
President Barack Obama made good on a campaign promise to his most important supporter Saturday night - his wife, Michelle.
The president and first lady jetted to a date in New York late Saturday afternoon, aides and media in tow.
"I am taking my wife to New York City because I promised her during the campaign that I would take her to a Broadway show after it was all finished," the president said in a statement an aide read to the press.
After dining a little more than two hours at Blue Hill, a West Village restaurant touted by New York magazine as a "seminal Greenmarket haven" that features food grown by chef and owner Dan Barber on his upstate farm, the president and first lady headed to the Belasco Theater to make curtain call for "Joe Turner's Come and Gone."
The play by August Wilson is about black America in the early 1900s, with residents of a boardinghouse recalling their migration from the sharecropping farms of the South to the industrialized North.
As the motorcade left the West Village and drove up Sixth Avenue to the theater, crowds of people, at times about eight deep, gathered on the sidewalks of the blockaded streets to wave as the Obamas passed. Some cheered. Cab drivers opened their doors and stood on the frames of their taxis to glimpse the president and first lady. [...]
While on a trip to New York last week, Michelle Obama was reminded about the couple's first date.
"You know, after 20-some-odd years of knowing a guy, you forget that your first date was at a museum," she said. "But it was, and it was obviously wonderful. It worked."
President Barack Obama made good on a campaign promise to his most important supporter Saturday night - his wife, Michelle.
The president and first lady jetted to a date in New York late Saturday afternoon, aides and media in tow.
"I am taking my wife to New York City because I promised her during the campaign that I would take her to a Broadway show after it was all finished," the president said in a statement an aide read to the press.
After dining a little more than two hours at Blue Hill, a West Village restaurant touted by New York magazine as a "seminal Greenmarket haven" that features food grown by chef and owner Dan Barber on his upstate farm, the president and first lady headed to the Belasco Theater to make curtain call for "Joe Turner's Come and Gone."
The play by August Wilson is about black America in the early 1900s, with residents of a boardinghouse recalling their migration from the sharecropping farms of the South to the industrialized North.
As the motorcade left the West Village and drove up Sixth Avenue to the theater, crowds of people, at times about eight deep, gathered on the sidewalks of the blockaded streets to wave as the Obamas passed. Some cheered. Cab drivers opened their doors and stood on the frames of their taxis to glimpse the president and first lady. [...]
While on a trip to New York last week, Michelle Obama was reminded about the couple's first date.
"You know, after 20-some-odd years of knowing a guy, you forget that your first date was at a museum," she said. "But it was, and it was obviously wonderful. It worked."
How lucky are we, Part 2
Latinos are a critical voting block, but what most non-Hispanics in the media don't get is just how fragmented they are around national origin. So while Judge Sotomayor's potential elevation is a source of great satisfaction, it is unquestionably a far more so for stateside Puerto Ricans than, say, Cuban-Americans or Mexican-Americans.
Puerto Ricans are an important electoral block not because of their huge numbers in the Northeast but because there are enough of them in Florida to make a difference. This week, in two must reads, Andrew Gelman and Nate Silver of Columbia make persuasive (and opposite) cases regarding the electoral relevance of further GOP slides among Hispanics, and, more specifically, Mexican-Americans.
So what's remarkable about the latest GOP talking points is that they have chosen to attack Sonia Sotomayor over her membership not in some Puerto Rican organization but La Raza, a political organization primarily known for its Mexican-American roots. They have therefore managed to force media attention onto her ties to a separate subethnic group. In doing so, they have succeeded in making the nomination battle personal to Mexican-Americans, who now alone count for 9% of the country's population.
And even better, by calling La Raza the equivalent of the KKK, they have personally insulted the entire Hispanic community.
Every ethnic voter Democrats don't have to woo and mobilize means more cash and time for the rest of the electorate .
Puerto Ricans are an important electoral block not because of their huge numbers in the Northeast but because there are enough of them in Florida to make a difference. This week, in two must reads, Andrew Gelman and Nate Silver of Columbia make persuasive (and opposite) cases regarding the electoral relevance of further GOP slides among Hispanics, and, more specifically, Mexican-Americans.
So what's remarkable about the latest GOP talking points is that they have chosen to attack Sonia Sotomayor over her membership not in some Puerto Rican organization but La Raza, a political organization primarily known for its Mexican-American roots. They have therefore managed to force media attention onto her ties to a separate subethnic group. In doing so, they have succeeded in making the nomination battle personal to Mexican-Americans, who now alone count for 9% of the country's population.
And even better, by calling La Raza the equivalent of the KKK, they have personally insulted the entire Hispanic community.
Every ethnic voter Democrats don't have to woo and mobilize means more cash and time for the rest of the electorate .
Establishment Republicans' fear of alienating Hispanics conflicts with their base's absolute hatred of them. That is why it is in Obama's interest to continue naming high profile Hispanics to key posts. Every attempt by Republicans to reject even lesser known appointments, will receive outsized attention in Latino media markets. That is the best kind of political advertising: it's free, and it's only noticed by the audience that needs to become outraged.
So let us thank Rush Limbaugh and Tom Tancredo and all the other wingnuts out there for making our future battles a tad easier. And let us thank the Pope for those high birthrates that will, in time, make this country a haven for equality of opportunity, choice and gay marriage.
Amen.
More like Nassna!
“One thing we had never seen before was a cleric’s naked butt,” reads one online comment. “Thanks to the Internet, that is no longer impossible!”
Friday, May 29, 2009
Way to get the women's vote
Thank you, convicted Republican felon G. Gordon Liddy!
G. Gordon Liddy... took to the radio yesterday with this sentiment, "Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when [Sotomayor]'s menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."
He also said she--a American born New Yorker whose parents came from the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico--"is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, 'the race.'"
Are they not going to stop at insulting Latinos? This is like winning a public relations lottery every single day!
G. Gordon Liddy... took to the radio yesterday with this sentiment, "Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when [Sotomayor]'s menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."
He also said she--a American born New Yorker whose parents came from the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico--"is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, 'the race.'"
Are they not going to stop at insulting Latinos? This is like winning a public relations lottery every single day!
Well this almost makes me like Terry McAuliffe
Almost.
Nader claimed in an interview with The Washington Post on Thursday that McAuliffe offered him money for his 2004 presidential campaign if he would stay out of the 19 battleground states McAuliffe believed Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) needed to compete with President George W. Bush.
“Terry McAuliffe is slipperier than an eel in olive oil,” Nader told the Post.
Nader reiterated his charges in an interview Friday with ABC 7/WJLA-TV.
McAuliffe “basically said that if I stay out of 19 states which are close between Kerry and Bush, he would provide resources to me in the remaining 31 states,” Nader said.
“He threatens, he promises, he cajoles, he jokes, he charms, he intimidates,” Nader told WJLA.. “He really is not someone who should be governor and in possession of the public’s trust.”
McAuliffe campaign senior strategist Mo Elleithee told the blog Blue Virginia that in McAuliffe’s role as Democratic National Committee chairman in 2004, he “engaged in a conversation with Nader to try to convince him not to run, or at the very least to not compete in the targeted battleground states.”
But, Elleithee said, McAuliffe “never offered [Nader] any money” to drop out of the race.
Elleithee sharply criticized Nader, claiming that “most Democrats would agree that our country would be better off had Nader not run in 2000 or 2004.”
Ain't that the truth.
Nader claimed in an interview with The Washington Post on Thursday that McAuliffe offered him money for his 2004 presidential campaign if he would stay out of the 19 battleground states McAuliffe believed Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) needed to compete with President George W. Bush.
“Terry McAuliffe is slipperier than an eel in olive oil,” Nader told the Post.
Nader reiterated his charges in an interview Friday with ABC 7/WJLA-TV.
McAuliffe “basically said that if I stay out of 19 states which are close between Kerry and Bush, he would provide resources to me in the remaining 31 states,” Nader said.
“He threatens, he promises, he cajoles, he jokes, he charms, he intimidates,” Nader told WJLA.. “He really is not someone who should be governor and in possession of the public’s trust.”
McAuliffe campaign senior strategist Mo Elleithee told the blog Blue Virginia that in McAuliffe’s role as Democratic National Committee chairman in 2004, he “engaged in a conversation with Nader to try to convince him not to run, or at the very least to not compete in the targeted battleground states.”
But, Elleithee said, McAuliffe “never offered [Nader] any money” to drop out of the race.
Elleithee sharply criticized Nader, claiming that “most Democrats would agree that our country would be better off had Nader not run in 2000 or 2004.”
Ain't that the truth.
Michael Steele: Stop "slammin' and rammin' Sonia Sotomayor"
Or people might think you're sexist or something.
Is Sonia gay-friendly?
Who knows. Hopeful gay activists point to this 1976 letter, but it's hardly promising:
No matter how much one may disagree with the Gay Alliance or the policies they are advocating, no matter how repugnant one may find homosexuality, the manner of expressing this opposition should be intellectual. At this university we are dedicated to persuasion by reason, not by brute force.
As E.J. Dionne pointed out in what really seems to be the must read for progressives regarding the nomination:
Republicans would be foolish to fight the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court because she is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made.
And even though they should support her confirmation, liberals would be foolish to embrace Sotomayor as one of their own because her record is clearly that of a moderate. It is highly unlikely that she will push the court to the left. Indeed, on many issues of concern to business, she is likely to make the Chamber of Commerce perfectly happy. [...]
Liberals should not take the bait of the right-wingers by allowing the debate over Sotomayor to be premised on the idea that she is a bold ideological choice. She's not. But if conservatives succeed in painting this moderate as a radical, they will skew future arguments over the court. In fact, liberals should press Sotomayor on her more conservative decisions on business issues, an area in which the current court already tilts too far right.
As for Republican senators, they have to ask if it's worth alienating Latino voters to wage a fierce battle against a woman who is, from their point of view, the best nominee Obama was likely to give them.
No matter how much one may disagree with the Gay Alliance or the policies they are advocating, no matter how repugnant one may find homosexuality, the manner of expressing this opposition should be intellectual. At this university we are dedicated to persuasion by reason, not by brute force.
As E.J. Dionne pointed out in what really seems to be the must read for progressives regarding the nomination:
Republicans would be foolish to fight the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court because she is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made.
And even though they should support her confirmation, liberals would be foolish to embrace Sotomayor as one of their own because her record is clearly that of a moderate. It is highly unlikely that she will push the court to the left. Indeed, on many issues of concern to business, she is likely to make the Chamber of Commerce perfectly happy. [...]
Liberals should not take the bait of the right-wingers by allowing the debate over Sotomayor to be premised on the idea that she is a bold ideological choice. She's not. But if conservatives succeed in painting this moderate as a radical, they will skew future arguments over the court. In fact, liberals should press Sotomayor on her more conservative decisions on business issues, an area in which the current court already tilts too far right.
As for Republican senators, they have to ask if it's worth alienating Latino voters to wage a fierce battle against a woman who is, from their point of view, the best nominee Obama was likely to give them.
Adam Lambert: "Keep speculating."
Still more evidence of our collective social loss at his not having been the victor:
His theatrical style and fondness for eye makeup and fingernail polish have left fans speculating on his sexuality, but "American Idol" runner-up Adam Lambert is making no apologies.
"Conforming is not cool," he says. "Embracing who you are and what makes you different is actually what's really cool."
Lambert, 27, hopes his comfort with himself is an example to other kids and young adults to be proud of who they are, reports People.com.
"The kids that are different and out there and expressive and are bold with those choices, those are the people that grow up to be people we all want to hang out with, that become celebrities or become really successful in what they do because they believe in who they are."
To those speculating about his sexuality, Lambert says to "Calm down," and "keep speculating."
His theatrical style and fondness for eye makeup and fingernail polish have left fans speculating on his sexuality, but "American Idol" runner-up Adam Lambert is making no apologies.
"Conforming is not cool," he says. "Embracing who you are and what makes you different is actually what's really cool."
Lambert, 27, hopes his comfort with himself is an example to other kids and young adults to be proud of who they are, reports People.com.
"The kids that are different and out there and expressive and are bold with those choices, those are the people that grow up to be people we all want to hang out with, that become celebrities or become really successful in what they do because they believe in who they are."
To those speculating about his sexuality, Lambert says to "Calm down," and "keep speculating."
A year too late
The idiots who fouled up the No on 8 campaign finally realize that they could have preserved gay marriage by going after the Mormons.
Better late than never.
With the battle moving east, some advocates are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality.
"The Mormons are coming! The Mormons are coming!" warned ads placed on newspaper Web sites in three Eastern states last month. The ad was rejected by sites in three other states, including Maine, where the Kennebec Journal informed Californians Against Hate that the copy "borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion."
"I'm not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people," said Fred Karger, a former Republican campaign consultant who established Californians Against Hate. "My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims."
The strategy carries risks for a movement grounded in the concept of tolerance. But the demographics tempt proponents of same-sex marriage: Mormons account for just 2 percent of the U.S. population, and they are scarce outside the West. Nearly eight in 10 Americans personally know or work with a gay person, according to a recent Newsweek survey. Only 48 percent, meanwhile, know a Mormon, according to a Pew Research Center poll.
Many Mormons also acknowledge a problematic public profile that could make it difficult for them to lead the fight against same-sex marriage. A 2008 poll by Gary C. Lawrence, author of "How Americans View Mormonism: Seven Steps to Improve Our Image," found that for every American who expresses a strong liking for Mormons, four express a strong dislike. Among the traits widely ascribed to Mormons in the poll were "narrow-minded" and "controlling."
"We're upside down on our image," said Lawrence, who organized Mormon volunteers in California, where on a typical Saturday 25,000 turned out to knock on doors. "People have misperceptions of us because of ignorance, because of the history of polygamy, and because we organize quickly, which scares some people." [...]
The church has a top-down hierarchy that answers to the First Presidency, who also holds the status of prophet. Last June, congregations were read his letter urging that "you do all you can" to pass the California initiative, known as Proposition 8. Lawrence, who like Karger worked as a Republican political consultant, professed no concern about the effort to shift the focus away from the definition of marriage.
"He is demonizing the opposition. It's Political Consulting 101," Lawrence said of Karger. "The average guy does not know the extent to which the Mormon Church was involved on Prop. 8."
Better late than never.
With the battle moving east, some advocates are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality.
"The Mormons are coming! The Mormons are coming!" warned ads placed on newspaper Web sites in three Eastern states last month. The ad was rejected by sites in three other states, including Maine, where the Kennebec Journal informed Californians Against Hate that the copy "borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion."
"I'm not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people," said Fred Karger, a former Republican campaign consultant who established Californians Against Hate. "My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims."
The strategy carries risks for a movement grounded in the concept of tolerance. But the demographics tempt proponents of same-sex marriage: Mormons account for just 2 percent of the U.S. population, and they are scarce outside the West. Nearly eight in 10 Americans personally know or work with a gay person, according to a recent Newsweek survey. Only 48 percent, meanwhile, know a Mormon, according to a Pew Research Center poll.
Many Mormons also acknowledge a problematic public profile that could make it difficult for them to lead the fight against same-sex marriage. A 2008 poll by Gary C. Lawrence, author of "How Americans View Mormonism: Seven Steps to Improve Our Image," found that for every American who expresses a strong liking for Mormons, four express a strong dislike. Among the traits widely ascribed to Mormons in the poll were "narrow-minded" and "controlling."
"We're upside down on our image," said Lawrence, who organized Mormon volunteers in California, where on a typical Saturday 25,000 turned out to knock on doors. "People have misperceptions of us because of ignorance, because of the history of polygamy, and because we organize quickly, which scares some people." [...]
The church has a top-down hierarchy that answers to the First Presidency, who also holds the status of prophet. Last June, congregations were read his letter urging that "you do all you can" to pass the California initiative, known as Proposition 8. Lawrence, who like Karger worked as a Republican political consultant, professed no concern about the effort to shift the focus away from the definition of marriage.
"He is demonizing the opposition. It's Political Consulting 101," Lawrence said of Karger. "The average guy does not know the extent to which the Mormon Church was involved on Prop. 8."
For everyone obsessing over gay marriage
Don't forget, it's still perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay in many jurisdictions in this country. Not just in Korea.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Calling all 2008 soldiers
Get your walking shoes on. The President will be calling on all his campaign volunteers to mobilize for the healthcare battle.
Thought
If Republicans are so worried about taking on Hispanic nominees, maybe Obama's most progressive picks should be Hispanic so as to insulate their nominations from filibusters. Republicans will have to take the bait eventually.
Scalito=Sotomayor
They agree that their backgrounds influence their judging. From his confirmation hearings:
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."
When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.
The only difference, of course, is that he was lying.
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."
When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.
The only difference, of course, is that he was lying.
Hooray for Jennifer Hudson and Earth Wind and Fire
And the A-list crowd that turned out to see the President... and raise some hard cash for the DNC.
Is Sotomayor pro-life?
I rather doubt it. But a 5-4 decision that would convert abortion into a states-rights issue.
Right now, the vast majority of single issue voters on abortion are on the pro-life side. Abortion's return to the political arena will be the death knell for the Republican Party. It would radicalize millions of women from battleground states, bringing them into the political process to oppose the GOP. That matters a whole lot in states like Florida, Virginia, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado... and maybe even Ohio, Missouri and Indiana. And we don't have a shot at the rest of the South (save North Carolina) anyway.
Right now, the vast majority of single issue voters on abortion are on the pro-life side. Abortion's return to the political arena will be the death knell for the Republican Party. It would radicalize millions of women from battleground states, bringing them into the political process to oppose the GOP. That matters a whole lot in states like Florida, Virginia, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado... and maybe even Ohio, Missouri and Indiana. And we don't have a shot at the rest of the South (save North Carolina) anyway.
Ambassadors named
And excepting the ones for Brazil and (maybe) the Vatican, most of the nominees for major posts are a sorry bunch indeed.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sotomayor's stats
However impressive her qualifications may be, she has no record of being an influential or particularly productive judge. Let's hope that was a strategy.
Telling
A pre-results Survey USA poll on American Idol tells us a couple of things:
1. The show's viewership is not disproportionately female.
2. The show's viewership is primarily middle aged: a full 40% are between ages 35 and 54, and still another 28% are older than 55.
3. Black people are more likely than any other ethnic group to watch the show. 53% claimed to watch the show, as opposed to 35% of whites and 29% of Hispanics.
4. The South accounts for 35% of the show's viewership.
5. Blacks favored Kris Allen 68-29. Whites favored him 49-43. And Hispanics favored Adam Lambert 69-27. That matches interestingly with Nate Silver's recent finding regarding homophobia: that Hispanics are no more opposed to gay marriage than whites--while blacks are overwhelmingly against.
6. The South, predictably, basked Kris Allen 59-34. Other regions marginally backed Kris. The West, however, backed Adam Lambert 60-36.
7. Everyone thought Adam would win.
8. The 55+ group, God bless it, was the only one to back the Glambert.
1. The show's viewership is not disproportionately female.
2. The show's viewership is primarily middle aged: a full 40% are between ages 35 and 54, and still another 28% are older than 55.
3. Black people are more likely than any other ethnic group to watch the show. 53% claimed to watch the show, as opposed to 35% of whites and 29% of Hispanics.
4. The South accounts for 35% of the show's viewership.
5. Blacks favored Kris Allen 68-29. Whites favored him 49-43. And Hispanics favored Adam Lambert 69-27. That matches interestingly with Nate Silver's recent finding regarding homophobia: that Hispanics are no more opposed to gay marriage than whites--while blacks are overwhelmingly against.
6. The South, predictably, basked Kris Allen 59-34. Other regions marginally backed Kris. The West, however, backed Adam Lambert 60-36.
7. Everyone thought Adam would win.
8. The 55+ group, God bless it, was the only one to back the Glambert.
More comparisons
Nice:
A few weeks after Obama’s inauguration, Clinton joined Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to talk about climate change at the Center for American Progress, the liberal research organization founded by his former White House chief of staff John Podesta. Moderating was Timothy Wirth, the former Colorado senator who served as an under secretary of state in Clinton’s administration. Wirth noted the recent momentum on climate change, then turned to his former president.
“Why did this take so long?” Wirth asked Clinton pointedly. Clinton looked a little peeved. “We didn’t have the votes before,” he explained.
Later in the program, Podesta returned to the subject. “I want to come back to the question you posed to President Clinton, which is what’s different than the last 35 years,” said Podesta, who most recently served as Obama’s transition chief. “And I’d say after this beginning, it’s that we have new leadership to move the issue forward.”
If the implicit comparison bothered Clinton, he did not say so. But the moment raised questions: What does Obama’s ascension mean for Clinton’s legacy? Is it the validation of the Clinton presidency or the repudiation of it? Is Obama building on the base Clinton established or tearing it down? Will Obama be the president many Democrats wished Clinton had been? Or will he be doomed to relearn the lessons Clinton did about ambitious agendas giving way to more incremental change?
In the past 140 years, only two other Democratic presidents, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter, lived long enough to see another Democrat in the White House — and Carter’s relations with Clinton were difficult, to say the least. Clinton chooses to look at Obama as the next stage in a political movement he led. But it’s not at all clear that Obama sees it that way. During the campaign, Obama dismissed Clinton as a historical placeholder. “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not,” Obama said then.
Of course, Obama was running against Clinton’s wife. Since winning, Obama has found more to like about the Clinton administration, particularly its personnel. His chief of staff, national economics adviser, climate czar, White House counsel, Treasury secretary, attorney general, United Nations ambassador and homeland-security secretary — not to mention his secretary of state — all served with Clinton. As of April, 42 percent of Obama’s appointees to Senate-confirmed positions were Clinton veterans.
Some of those returnees to power seem to view the Obama administration as a do-over, a chance to get right what went wrong in the 1990s. When they talk about what it is like to work for Obama, Clinton does not fare well in the comparison. That may be a function of the natural tendency to talk up the current boss, but in their praise of Obama comes the obvious contrast. They marvel at Obama’s discipline and roll their eyes as they remember Clinton’s agonizing before making decisions. They admire Obama’s cool as they recall Clinton’s “purple rages” at his staff behind closed doors. “Obama respects the process,” said an aide to both men. “Clinton always had to do the math himself.”
Rahm Emanuel, who was a senior adviser to Clinton and now is chief of staff for Obama, recently described the current White House as a far more cohesive operation than his last one. “We don’t, rather, have the kind of New Democrats versus traditionalist split that existed in that White House,” he said on CNBC. “We don’t have in this White House the president-versus-vice-president staff divisions that have been in other White Houses.” Emanuel credited “the tone and tenor that the president of the United States has set in expectations.” The next day on ABC, he suggested Obama would rank among the best American leaders, comparing him with “successful presidents and transformative presidents” like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan. Emanuel made no mention of Clinton.
A few weeks after Obama’s inauguration, Clinton joined Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to talk about climate change at the Center for American Progress, the liberal research organization founded by his former White House chief of staff John Podesta. Moderating was Timothy Wirth, the former Colorado senator who served as an under secretary of state in Clinton’s administration. Wirth noted the recent momentum on climate change, then turned to his former president.
“Why did this take so long?” Wirth asked Clinton pointedly. Clinton looked a little peeved. “We didn’t have the votes before,” he explained.
Later in the program, Podesta returned to the subject. “I want to come back to the question you posed to President Clinton, which is what’s different than the last 35 years,” said Podesta, who most recently served as Obama’s transition chief. “And I’d say after this beginning, it’s that we have new leadership to move the issue forward.”
If the implicit comparison bothered Clinton, he did not say so. But the moment raised questions: What does Obama’s ascension mean for Clinton’s legacy? Is it the validation of the Clinton presidency or the repudiation of it? Is Obama building on the base Clinton established or tearing it down? Will Obama be the president many Democrats wished Clinton had been? Or will he be doomed to relearn the lessons Clinton did about ambitious agendas giving way to more incremental change?
In the past 140 years, only two other Democratic presidents, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter, lived long enough to see another Democrat in the White House — and Carter’s relations with Clinton were difficult, to say the least. Clinton chooses to look at Obama as the next stage in a political movement he led. But it’s not at all clear that Obama sees it that way. During the campaign, Obama dismissed Clinton as a historical placeholder. “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not,” Obama said then.
Of course, Obama was running against Clinton’s wife. Since winning, Obama has found more to like about the Clinton administration, particularly its personnel. His chief of staff, national economics adviser, climate czar, White House counsel, Treasury secretary, attorney general, United Nations ambassador and homeland-security secretary — not to mention his secretary of state — all served with Clinton. As of April, 42 percent of Obama’s appointees to Senate-confirmed positions were Clinton veterans.
Some of those returnees to power seem to view the Obama administration as a do-over, a chance to get right what went wrong in the 1990s. When they talk about what it is like to work for Obama, Clinton does not fare well in the comparison. That may be a function of the natural tendency to talk up the current boss, but in their praise of Obama comes the obvious contrast. They marvel at Obama’s discipline and roll their eyes as they remember Clinton’s agonizing before making decisions. They admire Obama’s cool as they recall Clinton’s “purple rages” at his staff behind closed doors. “Obama respects the process,” said an aide to both men. “Clinton always had to do the math himself.”
Rahm Emanuel, who was a senior adviser to Clinton and now is chief of staff for Obama, recently described the current White House as a far more cohesive operation than his last one. “We don’t, rather, have the kind of New Democrats versus traditionalist split that existed in that White House,” he said on CNBC. “We don’t have in this White House the president-versus-vice-president staff divisions that have been in other White Houses.” Emanuel credited “the tone and tenor that the president of the United States has set in expectations.” The next day on ABC, he suggested Obama would rank among the best American leaders, comparing him with “successful presidents and transformative presidents” like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan. Emanuel made no mention of Clinton.
Clinton wasn't that bad
So says a key conservative in next Sunday's terrific Times magazine profile:
Yet if Clinton has a powerful memory for slights, he also has a remarkable capacity for reconciliation. He is likelier to find peace with people who hate him the most than with friends who betray him. He focuses his considerable charms on seducing the person in the room he finds most resistant. Among those he has been friendly with lately is Christopher Ruddy, a conservative journalist who was a chief proponent of cover-up theories involving the Clintons during the 1990s. In his book, “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster,” Ruddy rejected official findings that Foster, a deputy White House counsel, killed himself in a Virginia park and suggested the possibility of “a cover-up conducted by people who have, with the help of the press, placed themselves above the law.” Ruddy also advanced the notion that Ron Brown, the Clinton commerce secretary who died in an airplane crash in Croatia in 1996, was actually shot in the head.
Ruddy today is the founder and chief executive of Newsmax, a conservative news-magazine. He told me he came around on Clinton after Ed Koch, the former New York mayor, introduced them. That led to lunches and more contacts, and now Ruddy says he was wrong about Clinton. “I do consider Bill Clinton a friend, and I think he would consider me a friend,” Ruddy said. “And to think of all the wars we went through in the ’90s, it seems almost surreal.”
With the passage of time, Ruddy said he came to believe that Clinton was much less liberal than his enemies thought. After all, Clinton overhauled welfare, tamed the deficit and promoted free trade. While still a proud “Reagan conservative,” Ruddy said he now thinks the attacks on Clinton in the 1990s went too far. “Did we like and enjoy all the salacious reporting and all the stuff going on in the ’90s?” he asked. “I guess we thought, This is just politics. But looking back at my role, I was probably over the top. And if I knew then what I know today, I wouldn’t have pursued some of that stuff as aggressively as I did. I did an honest reporter’s job. But I have a different take on it now.”
Yet if Clinton has a powerful memory for slights, he also has a remarkable capacity for reconciliation. He is likelier to find peace with people who hate him the most than with friends who betray him. He focuses his considerable charms on seducing the person in the room he finds most resistant. Among those he has been friendly with lately is Christopher Ruddy, a conservative journalist who was a chief proponent of cover-up theories involving the Clintons during the 1990s. In his book, “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster,” Ruddy rejected official findings that Foster, a deputy White House counsel, killed himself in a Virginia park and suggested the possibility of “a cover-up conducted by people who have, with the help of the press, placed themselves above the law.” Ruddy also advanced the notion that Ron Brown, the Clinton commerce secretary who died in an airplane crash in Croatia in 1996, was actually shot in the head.
Ruddy today is the founder and chief executive of Newsmax, a conservative news-magazine. He told me he came around on Clinton after Ed Koch, the former New York mayor, introduced them. That led to lunches and more contacts, and now Ruddy says he was wrong about Clinton. “I do consider Bill Clinton a friend, and I think he would consider me a friend,” Ruddy said. “And to think of all the wars we went through in the ’90s, it seems almost surreal.”
With the passage of time, Ruddy said he came to believe that Clinton was much less liberal than his enemies thought. After all, Clinton overhauled welfare, tamed the deficit and promoted free trade. While still a proud “Reagan conservative,” Ruddy said he now thinks the attacks on Clinton in the 1990s went too far. “Did we like and enjoy all the salacious reporting and all the stuff going on in the ’90s?” he asked. “I guess we thought, This is just politics. But looking back at my role, I was probably over the top. And if I knew then what I know today, I wouldn’t have pursued some of that stuff as aggressively as I did. I did an honest reporter’s job. But I have a different take on it now.”
AT&T vote fraud
Reader L. points us to a shocking American Idol outrage. Somehow I doubt it was sufficient to change the results. But with Fox silent, will we ever find out?
"Republicans displeased with Sonia Sotomayor"
Headline at univision.com.
Sonia Sotomayor, nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, is too progressive for many republicans, who seem to have found in her words ammunition for attacks.
While Hispanic leaders rejoice in the nomination, Republicans have requested "time" to analyze the details of the Puerto Rican judges career...
A comment below:
I want to tell everyone that when you vote at any level, from federal to local, please vote against those damned Republican racists. Because of then this country is f***d. Wars, foreclosures, the economic crisis and as always against Hispanics and Latinos as we are now seeing. No more Republicans, plesae!
Amen.
Sonia Sotomayor, nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, is too progressive for many republicans, who seem to have found in her words ammunition for attacks.
While Hispanic leaders rejoice in the nomination, Republicans have requested "time" to analyze the details of the Puerto Rican judges career...
A comment below:
I want to tell everyone that when you vote at any level, from federal to local, please vote against those damned Republican racists. Because of then this country is f***d. Wars, foreclosures, the economic crisis and as always against Hispanics and Latinos as we are now seeing. No more Republicans, plesae!
Amen.
Carlos Moreno
His courage takes him out of the running for the next Supreme Court vacancy.
The court also unanimously held that the decision cannot be applied retroactively, thereby preserving the thousands of same-sex marriages that took place between June and November.
Justice Carlos R. Moreno filed a dissenting opinion in the case, concluding that Proposition 8 is invalid because it is not a lawful amendment of the constitution, in effect altering the equal protection clause to deny same-sex couples equal treatment.
"Requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution," Moreno wrote. The ruling, he argued, "not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized . . . it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."
The court also unanimously held that the decision cannot be applied retroactively, thereby preserving the thousands of same-sex marriages that took place between June and November.
Justice Carlos R. Moreno filed a dissenting opinion in the case, concluding that Proposition 8 is invalid because it is not a lawful amendment of the constitution, in effect altering the equal protection clause to deny same-sex couples equal treatment.
"Requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution," Moreno wrote. The ruling, he argued, "not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized . . . it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Oh my
A few quotes from Sotomayor:
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....
"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....
"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]
Here's another reason
For Republicans to hold their fire on Sotomayor. It isn't just that she (probably) won't be a major figure in the Court's internal politics. She might not be on the Court as long as Republicans fear:
Judge Sotomayor married before she graduated from college and divorced a few years later. Her diabetes, for which she takes insulin daily, has not proved to be a problem, but some have speculated as to whether her illness could or should be an issue in terms of her projected longevity on the court, because of the potential for complications.
UPDATE: The diabetes meme is questioned.
Judge Sotomayor married before she graduated from college and divorced a few years later. Her diabetes, for which she takes insulin daily, has not proved to be a problem, but some have speculated as to whether her illness could or should be an issue in terms of her projected longevity on the court, because of the potential for complications.
UPDATE: The diabetes meme is questioned.
Puerto Ricans lionize the new justice
You know, the one island residents would have otherwise marginalized for being from the Bronx.
Now isn't that interesting
Voting for Sonia Sotomayor in 1998: the following GOP Senators:
Bennett, Collins, Gregg, Hatch, Helms, Lugar, Snowe, Specter.
21 of the 29 votes against her came from GOP senators in southern or mountain states.
Bennett, Collins, Gregg, Hatch, Helms, Lugar, Snowe, Specter.
21 of the 29 votes against her came from GOP senators in southern or mountain states.
Latina on the court!
Barring a scandal, and I don't think there will be one, it will be very hard to derail this nomination. The first Hispanic on the court and only the third woman, her qualifications are not particularly assailable. And the press conference was extraordinarily stirring.
Her physical features are identifiably Hispanic. If the Republicans try to slow her down or attack her personally, Democrats win regardless. Because the Republican base is so fired up about Hispanic immigration, senators from core Republican states may feel the need to attack her anyway. Because the GOP won't have the votes to filibuster the appointment, this is a double win for Democrats. They'll get her on the Court, but Republicans will still manage to anger Hispanics by victimizing her.
And the Hispanic vote is further locked into the Democratic Party. And because Obama's reelection will depend on Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona (and Florida), this is smart.
None of which is proof that she'll be a particular friend to progressive causes on the Court. Or that she'll have the heft to persuade Anthony Kennedy to side with her. On the other hand, I have a feeling she could probably beat him up if he didn't.
UPDATE: An excellent piece on the nominee and her prospects from SCOTUSblog.
UPDATE 2: Six Catholics on the Court. But now two of them may be pro-choice and pro gay rights. And only one, perhaps, will have a faith that isn't mediated by the Republican Party (prior to the Mediatrix).
Her physical features are identifiably Hispanic. If the Republicans try to slow her down or attack her personally, Democrats win regardless. Because the Republican base is so fired up about Hispanic immigration, senators from core Republican states may feel the need to attack her anyway. Because the GOP won't have the votes to filibuster the appointment, this is a double win for Democrats. They'll get her on the Court, but Republicans will still manage to anger Hispanics by victimizing her.
And the Hispanic vote is further locked into the Democratic Party. And because Obama's reelection will depend on Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona (and Florida), this is smart.
None of which is proof that she'll be a particular friend to progressive causes on the Court. Or that she'll have the heft to persuade Anthony Kennedy to side with her. On the other hand, I have a feeling she could probably beat him up if he didn't.
UPDATE: An excellent piece on the nominee and her prospects from SCOTUSblog.
UPDATE 2: Six Catholics on the Court. But now two of them may be pro-choice and pro gay rights. And only one, perhaps, will have a faith that isn't mediated by the Republican Party (prior to the Mediatrix).
Sunday, May 24, 2009
As powerful a picture of our President
As you'll ever see. Download the full resolution picture here. This is one for the history books.
A truly remarkable document of the culture wars
And it's not even a joke. Heads up: Kos diarist LaFeminista. I don't want to ruin your fun, but here's a very brief excerpt:
The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. [...]
Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage--much less three, as I have done--were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.
The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. [...]
Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage--much less three, as I have done--were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
A presidential responsibility you never consider
Honoring Confederate war dead. Will Obama actually do this in the name of comity?!
Newt Gingrich admits it
It was politics that made him become a JP II/Benedict Catholic:
Callista, who is Catholic and who was key to Gingrich's conversion, added that it was "10 years in the making," starting around the time Gingrich left the House in 1999. I asked Gingrich if his conversion had changed some fundamental political beliefs for him. He said it was the other way around—that political developments had made him more overtly Christian.
Callista, who is Catholic and who was key to Gingrich's conversion, added that it was "10 years in the making," starting around the time Gingrich left the House in 1999. I asked Gingrich if his conversion had changed some fundamental political beliefs for him. He said it was the other way around—that political developments had made him more overtly Christian.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Amazing
Secessionist governor Rick Perry of Texas, who cried so much about the stimulus package, is using $21 million of it to repair the Governor's Mansion. What an embarrassment.
Oklahoma
One nutty state:
PPP also asked respondents whether they thought President Obama or talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has a better vision for America. 56% said Limbaugh while just 44% picked the President.
“This question is a pretty good gauge of a state’s conservatism,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “There are not a lot of places that would say they agree more with where Rush Limbaugh thinks the nation should be headed than the President.”
Despite the fact that they prefer his vision, only 39% of Oklahomans have a favorable opinion of Limbaugh.
The President's approval rate nationwide is in the 60's. In Oklahoma? 38%.
PPP also asked respondents whether they thought President Obama or talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has a better vision for America. 56% said Limbaugh while just 44% picked the President.
“This question is a pretty good gauge of a state’s conservatism,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “There are not a lot of places that would say they agree more with where Rush Limbaugh thinks the nation should be headed than the President.”
Despite the fact that they prefer his vision, only 39% of Oklahomans have a favorable opinion of Limbaugh.
The President's approval rate nationwide is in the 60's. In Oklahoma? 38%.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
New York residents
Explain Kris Allen's victory:
Kris Allen was better than Adam Lambert and deserved to win (1268 responses)
16.9%
Adam Lambert wasn't as likeable as Kris Allen (1505 responses)
20.0%
Homophobia (2912 responses)
38.8%
People just lost their minds (1824 responses)
24.3%
Kris Allen was better than Adam Lambert and deserved to win (1268 responses)
16.9%
Adam Lambert wasn't as likeable as Kris Allen (1505 responses)
20.0%
Homophobia (2912 responses)
38.8%
People just lost their minds (1824 responses)
24.3%
What Kris Allen's victory made us miss out on
But never forget, it could have been Danny Gokey. Ann Powers in the Los Angeles Times:
I know Adam Lambert will be fine. And, of course, I'm excited to see what he does with the stardom he's attained through diligence, heart and showbiz smarts. If I mourn anything today, it's the chance that "Idol's" very mainstream audience had to make a huge symbolic gesture and embrace that unusual presence, that figure who's usually tolerated as a novelty or an outlier, and put him right in the center of our cultural milieu.
Lambert himself said it best in an interview he gave during his San Diego hometown visit: "This is to all the kids out there who think that they're weird, people make fun of them and they feel that they're different and they're outcast. ... You can do something with your life."
Pop music has always been the place where marginal voices break through and find ways to be heard. Lambert already has accomplished that. But the premise of "Idol" -- that winning it represents being embraced by a unified public bigger than any one music subculture -- offers a different kind of imprimatur. As the pop world grows every more fragmented, "Idol" keeps alive the old idea that a singing star can have a universal effect. [...]
The one moment during which "Idol" viewers agree to pretend that we all love the same music/personality/cultural baggage is that moment when the winner is announced. That's why I wanted Lambert to win. Not for him but for those many people who see themselves in him and, even with all the progress we've made as a nation, still don't often see themselves within the looking glass of "ordinary" America.
Some of them could be gay or bisexual. Others might just be, as Lambert said, "weird." Proudly weird -- weird by choice -- but still defined, and sometimes trapped, by their outsiderness, especially when they're young.
People find ways to live with being different. Some retreat into themselves, hiding their desires and spontaneous selves. Others flaunt their strangeness in gestures that can seem arrogant but are often learned as defense mechanisms. Many seek out their own communities and create happy lives within them.
I appreciate Adam Lambert for his great vocal talent and also for his ability to calmly and assuredly be himself, as if it were a totally fine way to be, which it is. I thank his parents for openly loving him. I thank rock and roll and theater for giving him legacies and communities to tap into. I thank the Southland for giving him a place to grow up. And I thank the massive "Idol" viewership for letting him almost be their hero -- just for one day.
I know Adam Lambert will be fine. And, of course, I'm excited to see what he does with the stardom he's attained through diligence, heart and showbiz smarts. If I mourn anything today, it's the chance that "Idol's" very mainstream audience had to make a huge symbolic gesture and embrace that unusual presence, that figure who's usually tolerated as a novelty or an outlier, and put him right in the center of our cultural milieu.
Lambert himself said it best in an interview he gave during his San Diego hometown visit: "This is to all the kids out there who think that they're weird, people make fun of them and they feel that they're different and they're outcast. ... You can do something with your life."
Pop music has always been the place where marginal voices break through and find ways to be heard. Lambert already has accomplished that. But the premise of "Idol" -- that winning it represents being embraced by a unified public bigger than any one music subculture -- offers a different kind of imprimatur. As the pop world grows every more fragmented, "Idol" keeps alive the old idea that a singing star can have a universal effect. [...]
The one moment during which "Idol" viewers agree to pretend that we all love the same music/personality/cultural baggage is that moment when the winner is announced. That's why I wanted Lambert to win. Not for him but for those many people who see themselves in him and, even with all the progress we've made as a nation, still don't often see themselves within the looking glass of "ordinary" America.
Some of them could be gay or bisexual. Others might just be, as Lambert said, "weird." Proudly weird -- weird by choice -- but still defined, and sometimes trapped, by their outsiderness, especially when they're young.
People find ways to live with being different. Some retreat into themselves, hiding their desires and spontaneous selves. Others flaunt their strangeness in gestures that can seem arrogant but are often learned as defense mechanisms. Many seek out their own communities and create happy lives within them.
I appreciate Adam Lambert for his great vocal talent and also for his ability to calmly and assuredly be himself, as if it were a totally fine way to be, which it is. I thank his parents for openly loving him. I thank rock and roll and theater for giving him legacies and communities to tap into. I thank the Southland for giving him a place to grow up. And I thank the massive "Idol" viewership for letting him almost be their hero -- just for one day.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Liveblogging the finale
9:00 pm Nothing, nothing worth watching in the first hour. Kris Allen was watchable in his duet with Keith Urban, and the freak was kind of funny, now that he's admitted his act was comedy. But now the big guns are out. Allison plus Cyndi Lauper = class and sweetness. You know they voted for the Glambert.
9:04 Even the parents like both kids.
9:05 Oh no. Danny Gokey is singing a Lionel Richie song. That means Lionel is coming out. Where's the blind chick?
9:06 LIONEL! A truly underrated figure.
9:07 What a weird song. "I want to prepare your meals?" It is catchy, though.
9:08 The inveitable "All Night Long." And not far from the 1984 Olympic stadium. It would be all downhill from there.
9:09 Ruben's in the house.
9:13 So what does it mean that there's been no solo performance by Adam yet? Are they giving him his big performance in the second half because he didn't win or because he did?
9:17. "BETH!" That's nuts! And for those of you looking for gay subtext, Kiss frontman Gene Simmons dated Diana Ross. It's a great statement by Adam. Metal, after all, is the one place in rock music where musical theater is married to overwrought singing.
9:26 Carlos Santana?! Ah, the Clive Davis connection... you know, back from when he mattered, forty years ago.
9:31 Oh no. Steve Martin with Michael Sarver and the tattooed Mormon divorcée. This looks very ill-conceived.
9:32 Yet somehow Megan's freakishness makes it hard to look away.
9:39 "Do You Think I'm Sexy." So Rod Stewart is coming? Matt seems to have the right voice for this.
9:40 Ah, you can never go wrong with Rod's mandolin phase. Or "Maggie May." Has the median viewing age of this show gone from 40 to 55?
9:44 These horrid awards need to be in the first hour. Oh no.... It's Tatiana. Well, she was in a class by herself. And poor Ruben, who didn't realize the whole thing was staged. A bit more show-biz savvy might have rescued his stillborn musical career.
9:54 Ugh, Queen. They sucked even when Freddie Mercury was alive.
9:56 Final thoughts: Kris is by far the more musical of the two singers. Homophobia and red state intolerance may be the reason for his victory, but he's a nice guy, evidently gay friendly (at least in his rival's case). Adam will be a big star anyway. And let's face it, we're not going to buy any of these people's records anyway.
9:58 Where's Fantasia? I thought all the idols were supposed to perform this season.
9:59 Any estimates for when the show ends? I say quarter past: just enough to wreck another hour for the major networks during sweeps.
10:03 As expected, it's Kris. And lest we forget, it could have been Danny Gokey.
10:04 Awww, look at Allison and Adam. That's the future.
10:06 That's a first, the spouse appearing on stage.
10:18 Isn't it amazing how Danny Gokey just feels like an afterthought now? And that, surely, is Kris Allen's greatest contribution to the culture. Plus, musician that he is, he found the hook buried deep in the bowels of Kara's crappy song, something Adam couldn't do.
UPDATE: The Times' entertaining liveblog.
UPDATE #2: And Entertainment Weekly's.
9:04 Even the parents like both kids.
9:05 Oh no. Danny Gokey is singing a Lionel Richie song. That means Lionel is coming out. Where's the blind chick?
9:06 LIONEL! A truly underrated figure.
9:07 What a weird song. "I want to prepare your meals?" It is catchy, though.
9:08 The inveitable "All Night Long." And not far from the 1984 Olympic stadium. It would be all downhill from there.
9:09 Ruben's in the house.
9:13 So what does it mean that there's been no solo performance by Adam yet? Are they giving him his big performance in the second half because he didn't win or because he did?
9:17. "BETH!" That's nuts! And for those of you looking for gay subtext, Kiss frontman Gene Simmons dated Diana Ross. It's a great statement by Adam. Metal, after all, is the one place in rock music where musical theater is married to overwrought singing.
9:26 Carlos Santana?! Ah, the Clive Davis connection... you know, back from when he mattered, forty years ago.
9:31 Oh no. Steve Martin with Michael Sarver and the tattooed Mormon divorcée. This looks very ill-conceived.
9:32 Yet somehow Megan's freakishness makes it hard to look away.
9:39 "Do You Think I'm Sexy." So Rod Stewart is coming? Matt seems to have the right voice for this.
9:40 Ah, you can never go wrong with Rod's mandolin phase. Or "Maggie May." Has the median viewing age of this show gone from 40 to 55?
9:44 These horrid awards need to be in the first hour. Oh no.... It's Tatiana. Well, she was in a class by herself. And poor Ruben, who didn't realize the whole thing was staged. A bit more show-biz savvy might have rescued his stillborn musical career.
9:54 Ugh, Queen. They sucked even when Freddie Mercury was alive.
9:56 Final thoughts: Kris is by far the more musical of the two singers. Homophobia and red state intolerance may be the reason for his victory, but he's a nice guy, evidently gay friendly (at least in his rival's case). Adam will be a big star anyway. And let's face it, we're not going to buy any of these people's records anyway.
9:58 Where's Fantasia? I thought all the idols were supposed to perform this season.
9:59 Any estimates for when the show ends? I say quarter past: just enough to wreck another hour for the major networks during sweeps.
10:03 As expected, it's Kris. And lest we forget, it could have been Danny Gokey.
10:04 Awww, look at Allison and Adam. That's the future.
10:06 That's a first, the spouse appearing on stage.
10:18 Isn't it amazing how Danny Gokey just feels like an afterthought now? And that, surely, is Kris Allen's greatest contribution to the culture. Plus, musician that he is, he found the hook buried deep in the bowels of Kara's crappy song, something Adam couldn't do.
UPDATE: The Times' entertaining liveblog.
UPDATE #2: And Entertainment Weekly's.
Thank you, Mr. President
New CNN poll:
As the Republican Party gets ready to condemn what they call the Democrats 'march to socialism', a new national poll indicates that most Americans believe President Barack Obama's policies would move the country in the right direction.
Sixty-three percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday say they think the policies being proposed by the President would push the nation in the right direction, with 35 percent saying those policies would send the country in the wrong direction.
But the poll suggests that Americans don't feel the same way about the Republicans. Thirty-nine percent of those questioned say that the policies of GOP Congressional leaders would move the country in the right direction, with a slight majority, 53 percent, saying Republican proposals would move the nation in the wrong direction.
"The poll indicates that some of Obama's popularity is rubbing off on congressional Democrats," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Even though Nancy Pelosi has a low approval rating and Harry Reid is facing some low numbers in polls taken in his home state, 57 percent think that the policies of the Democratic leaders in Congress would move the country in the right direction. That's not good news for the GOP."
Four months into Obama's presidency, the country remains in a recession, but the poll indicates that Americans aren't blaming the new president or his party for the country's economic problems so far. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed say the Republicans are to blame, with only one in five saying the Democrats are more responsible for the country's economic conditions.
As the Republican Party gets ready to condemn what they call the Democrats 'march to socialism', a new national poll indicates that most Americans believe President Barack Obama's policies would move the country in the right direction.
Sixty-three percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday say they think the policies being proposed by the President would push the nation in the right direction, with 35 percent saying those policies would send the country in the wrong direction.
But the poll suggests that Americans don't feel the same way about the Republicans. Thirty-nine percent of those questioned say that the policies of GOP Congressional leaders would move the country in the right direction, with a slight majority, 53 percent, saying Republican proposals would move the nation in the wrong direction.
"The poll indicates that some of Obama's popularity is rubbing off on congressional Democrats," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Even though Nancy Pelosi has a low approval rating and Harry Reid is facing some low numbers in polls taken in his home state, 57 percent think that the policies of the Democratic leaders in Congress would move the country in the right direction. That's not good news for the GOP."
Four months into Obama's presidency, the country remains in a recession, but the poll indicates that Americans aren't blaming the new president or his party for the country's economic problems so far. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed say the Republicans are to blame, with only one in five saying the Democrats are more responsible for the country's economic conditions.
Colin Powell in Boston
Takes on Rush:
"Rush Limbaugh says, 'Get out of the Republican Party.' Dick Cheney says, 'He's already out.' I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there's another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again," Powell told the crowd.
And Rush replies... on his radio show today:
"The version of the party that he's waiting to emerge is not the Reagan wing of the party. Does Powell have the pulse of the Republican Party, folks? He's for more spending. He's for higher taxes. He's against raising the social issues. He's for affirmative action. He's for amnesty for illegals. He endorsed Obama.
"And now there's an agenda -- an emerging agenda -- that he's waiting for for the Republican Party? The only thing emerging here is Colin Powell's ego. Colin Powell represents the stale, the old, the worn-out GOP that never won anything. The party of Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, Bill Scranton, Arnold Schwarzenegger and those types of people. Has anybody heard Colin Powell say a single word against Obama's radicalism -- or Pelosi or Reid, for that matter? Maybe he has but his fawning media sure hasn't reported if he has said it."
Let's hope Colin hasn't spoken against Rush for the last time. A battle for the soul of the Republican Party waged between a four star general and a ugly, drug addled ex-con is exactly the image needed to keep wavering independents out of the GOP's clutches.
"Rush Limbaugh says, 'Get out of the Republican Party.' Dick Cheney says, 'He's already out.' I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there's another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again," Powell told the crowd.
And Rush replies... on his radio show today:
"The version of the party that he's waiting to emerge is not the Reagan wing of the party. Does Powell have the pulse of the Republican Party, folks? He's for more spending. He's for higher taxes. He's against raising the social issues. He's for affirmative action. He's for amnesty for illegals. He endorsed Obama.
"And now there's an agenda -- an emerging agenda -- that he's waiting for for the Republican Party? The only thing emerging here is Colin Powell's ego. Colin Powell represents the stale, the old, the worn-out GOP that never won anything. The party of Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, Bill Scranton, Arnold Schwarzenegger and those types of people. Has anybody heard Colin Powell say a single word against Obama's radicalism -- or Pelosi or Reid, for that matter? Maybe he has but his fawning media sure hasn't reported if he has said it."
Let's hope Colin hasn't spoken against Rush for the last time. A battle for the soul of the Republican Party waged between a four star general and a ugly, drug addled ex-con is exactly the image needed to keep wavering independents out of the GOP's clutches.
You've got to hand it to Tom Coburn
What a coup for the gun lobby. Now if you have a handgun, you can feel free to carry it around Yellowstone.
Down to the wire
Dialidol.com has the American Idol race tied. In the end the votes spurred by homophobia and Southern regionalism, added to those of genuine fans, should put Kris Allen over the top. But the interpretation that will be given to his victory makes it impossible for me to vote for him.
The case for the non-upset upset is made at MTV.com:
There seems to be some sort of assumption out there that Allen is the underdog, and that if we were to derail the juggernaut that is Adam Lambert somehow, then it would go down in history as perhaps the greatest upset in "Idol" history. Again, I'm not really sure why this is. Last time I checked, isn't Allen the clean-cut kid with the voice tailor-made for Top 40 radio? Isn't he the everyman, the nice guy with the pretty wife and the good teeth? The kid who reminds most people in America of someone they know, someone they can relate to — someone whose lifestyle and appearance don't make large portions of this country squirm just a little bit?
That doesn't sound like an underdog to me. It sounds like the front-runner.
Which is why, when (not if) Allen is crowned the "Idol" champ on Wednesday night, it won't be some monumental shocker. It will be par for the course. Democracy in action. David over Goliath (or Giants over Patriots) this ain't.
Like I said last week, I don't necessarily want Allen to win, I just think he's going to. And the reasons I have for thinking that — Allen's likability, relatability and accessibility — are the same reasons I think he's anything but the underdog. The strange thing is how many people just don't seem to realize this, assuming instead that Lambert, who is certainly likable but whiffs on the next two, is going to win "Idol."
Glamberts ("Idol"-speak for "Lambert Fans") like to harp on his online popularity, his Google stats and the media obsession with his personal life. These things are all certainly valid indicators, but I think they only get you halfway. There are plenty of "Idol" viewers (I assume the majority) who don't populate message boards or read Entertainment Weekly, and who probably find something about Lambert off-putting and will gladly throw their support behind Allen (I'm trying real hard to not make a Red State crack here). And, again, I'm just going to assume that these people make up a larger portion of this country than the Glamberts do.
And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this. Simon Cowell does too, which is why he campaigned so hard for Lambert on last week's show, urging fans to "take nothing for granted" and vote for him. And so do many "Idol" obsessives, like blogger Rickey Yaneza, who runs fan site Rickey.org. When I interviewed him about Cowell's remarks, he read the same thing into them that I did: There are two distinct groups of "Idol" viewers, and while one may be firmly in Lambert's camp, the other group (the larger one) might not be.
And surely an Adam Lambert victory would be worth it for this headline alone. Then again, the opposite headline would be just as funny.
The case for the non-upset upset is made at MTV.com:
There seems to be some sort of assumption out there that Allen is the underdog, and that if we were to derail the juggernaut that is Adam Lambert somehow, then it would go down in history as perhaps the greatest upset in "Idol" history. Again, I'm not really sure why this is. Last time I checked, isn't Allen the clean-cut kid with the voice tailor-made for Top 40 radio? Isn't he the everyman, the nice guy with the pretty wife and the good teeth? The kid who reminds most people in America of someone they know, someone they can relate to — someone whose lifestyle and appearance don't make large portions of this country squirm just a little bit?
That doesn't sound like an underdog to me. It sounds like the front-runner.
Which is why, when (not if) Allen is crowned the "Idol" champ on Wednesday night, it won't be some monumental shocker. It will be par for the course. Democracy in action. David over Goliath (or Giants over Patriots) this ain't.
Like I said last week, I don't necessarily want Allen to win, I just think he's going to. And the reasons I have for thinking that — Allen's likability, relatability and accessibility — are the same reasons I think he's anything but the underdog. The strange thing is how many people just don't seem to realize this, assuming instead that Lambert, who is certainly likable but whiffs on the next two, is going to win "Idol."
Glamberts ("Idol"-speak for "Lambert Fans") like to harp on his online popularity, his Google stats and the media obsession with his personal life. These things are all certainly valid indicators, but I think they only get you halfway. There are plenty of "Idol" viewers (I assume the majority) who don't populate message boards or read Entertainment Weekly, and who probably find something about Lambert off-putting and will gladly throw their support behind Allen (I'm trying real hard to not make a Red State crack here). And, again, I'm just going to assume that these people make up a larger portion of this country than the Glamberts do.
And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this. Simon Cowell does too, which is why he campaigned so hard for Lambert on last week's show, urging fans to "take nothing for granted" and vote for him. And so do many "Idol" obsessives, like blogger Rickey Yaneza, who runs fan site Rickey.org. When I interviewed him about Cowell's remarks, he read the same thing into them that I did: There are two distinct groups of "Idol" viewers, and while one may be firmly in Lambert's camp, the other group (the larger one) might not be.
And surely an Adam Lambert victory would be worth it for this headline alone. Then again, the opposite headline would be just as funny.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
"Be yourself and move forward"
Two of the three best contestants, on the show this season (and the two greatest risktakers) face off tonight. Adam and Kris. This time, anything could happen. Kris has the more organic musical talent, and Adam has the theatrics and charisma. Both are likeable; Adam, of course, is intrinsically more left-friendly. By rights, Kris should win... and, I suspect, will.
Things I missed
Until I read Times of India.
Former US president Bill Clinton met Fran Drescher at the Life Ball charity event in Vienna over the past weekend. And he was caught on camera
groping the actress. It seems that he likes to keep his fingers on the pulse of the important issues.
Former president Bill Clinton met Fran Drescher at the Life Ball charity event in Vienna over the past weekend. What happened was an embarrassing brush between the two. The jury is still out on whether giving a hand in this way can happen accidentally.
Drescher is an Emmy Award and Golden Globe nominated American film and television actress, comedian, and activist. She especially endeared herself to her audiences in the television series ‘The Nanny’.
Clinton has been named UN special envoy on Haiti on Tuesday, so it’s perhaps a good time for him to learn to be politically correct.
Former US president Bill Clinton met Fran Drescher at the Life Ball charity event in Vienna over the past weekend. And he was caught on camera
groping the actress. It seems that he likes to keep his fingers on the pulse of the important issues.
Former president Bill Clinton met Fran Drescher at the Life Ball charity event in Vienna over the past weekend. What happened was an embarrassing brush between the two. The jury is still out on whether giving a hand in this way can happen accidentally.
Drescher is an Emmy Award and Golden Globe nominated American film and television actress, comedian, and activist. She especially endeared herself to her audiences in the television series ‘The Nanny’.
Clinton has been named UN special envoy on Haiti on Tuesday, so it’s perhaps a good time for him to learn to be politically correct.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Attacks on McAuliffe begin
This is fun:
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe’s longtime ties to the Clinton family are being used against him by Democratic primary opponent Brian Moran in the Virginia governor’s race.
In a radio ad that began airing over the weekend, Moran is highlighting McAuliffe’s support of Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
“Terry McAuliffe may have a lot of big money for his campaign, but don’t let that hide the truth. The truth is, Terry McAuliffe led the campaign that ran the ‘3 a.m.’ attack ad against Barack Obama,” the ad states. “McAuliffe worked to put up the ads that questioned Obama’s ability to be president. The fact is, if Terry McAuliffe had his way, Barack Obama wouldn’t be our president today.” [...]
The ad is airing on urban radio stations in Richmond and Hampton Roads, suggesting Moran’s campaign is seeking to remind the region’s African-American voters—who could play a critical role in the outcome of the June 9 primary —of McAuliffe’s early allegiance to Clinton.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe’s longtime ties to the Clinton family are being used against him by Democratic primary opponent Brian Moran in the Virginia governor’s race.
In a radio ad that began airing over the weekend, Moran is highlighting McAuliffe’s support of Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
“Terry McAuliffe may have a lot of big money for his campaign, but don’t let that hide the truth. The truth is, Terry McAuliffe led the campaign that ran the ‘3 a.m.’ attack ad against Barack Obama,” the ad states. “McAuliffe worked to put up the ads that questioned Obama’s ability to be president. The fact is, if Terry McAuliffe had his way, Barack Obama wouldn’t be our president today.” [...]
The ad is airing on urban radio stations in Richmond and Hampton Roads, suggesting Moran’s campaign is seeking to remind the region’s African-American voters—who could play a critical role in the outcome of the June 9 primary —of McAuliffe’s early allegiance to Clinton.
Maybe it's Granholm after all?
She would be a fantastic pick. And now comes news that she has been invited to the White House for "an event unrelated to the Supreme Court. "
Friday, May 15, 2009
Wow
Obama picks Utah governor John Hunstman to be ambasador to China! And to think he was the GOP's best new face for 2012, and the candidate David Plouffe allegedly feared most.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Cheney
Let's hope he stays in the news, at least through 2010.
"This isn't about partisan politics, it's about what's right for the country," said Liz Cheney, the former vice president's daughter and a former State Department official. "Every American, whether you're a Republican, Democrat or independent, would agree that before critical decisions are made about national security of the nation, we ought to have a full and fair debate."
Cheney's daughter was among those who pointed to yesterday's White House reversal on the detainee photos as evidence that a vocal, public debate over the new administration's policies can make a difference.
Another GOP strategist, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, pointed out the conundrum for Republicans over the former vice president's current role. "Even if he's right, he's absolutely the wrong messenger," this strategist said. His main worry, he added, is that Cheney keeps the public focused on the past, rather than the future. "We want Bush to be a very distant memory in the next election. The more Cheney is on the front burner, the more difficult it's going to be."
"This isn't about partisan politics, it's about what's right for the country," said Liz Cheney, the former vice president's daughter and a former State Department official. "Every American, whether you're a Republican, Democrat or independent, would agree that before critical decisions are made about national security of the nation, we ought to have a full and fair debate."
Cheney's daughter was among those who pointed to yesterday's White House reversal on the detainee photos as evidence that a vocal, public debate over the new administration's policies can make a difference.
Another GOP strategist, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, pointed out the conundrum for Republicans over the former vice president's current role. "Even if he's right, he's absolutely the wrong messenger," this strategist said. His main worry, he added, is that Cheney keeps the public focused on the past, rather than the future. "We want Bush to be a very distant memory in the next election. The more Cheney is on the front burner, the more difficult it's going to be."
Zhao Ziyang
His secret memoirs have been released. He is not a figure in need of rehabilitation, since he's the only hero to come out of the Communist Party during the Tiananmen Square tragedy. The surprise, however, is the claim that he, not Deng, was the architect of the Chinese government's economic reforms. Harvard's Roderick MacFarquhar backs the claim, which, if true, makes Zhao one of this century's most consequential political figures.
More on this in the coming months
But Obama's Hispanic strategy, is absolutely key to re-election. With a number of his states losing electoral votes after the next census, he will need to carry Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada to hold the presidency if he loses the states he won by 3 or 4 points in 2008 (FL, VA, OH, NC, IN). And guess who the margin of victory is in all three states?
Obama at ASU
Played perfectly:
Obama began his remarks by saying he wanted to “clear the air” about a “controversy.”
“Now, before I begin, I’d just like to clear the air about that little controversy everyone was talking about a few weeks back,” he said. “I have to tell you, I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson.
"I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. It won’t happen again."
And, Obama added with a smile and turn back to those on stage, “President Crow and Board of Regents will soon learn about being audited by the IRS.”
He said that he didn’t dispute that he hadn’t yet achieved enough in life, noting that his wife reminds him of the same thing.
Turning serious, he said he wanted “to affirm that one’s title, even a title like president of the United States, says very little about how well one’s life has been led –that no matter how much you’ve done, or how successful you’ve been, there’s always more to do, always more to learn, and always more to achieve.”
Later, whether meaning to get in another reference to the controversy or not, Obama said “the one thing I know about a body of work is that it’s never finished.”
Obama began his remarks by saying he wanted to “clear the air” about a “controversy.”
“Now, before I begin, I’d just like to clear the air about that little controversy everyone was talking about a few weeks back,” he said. “I have to tell you, I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson.
"I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. It won’t happen again."
And, Obama added with a smile and turn back to those on stage, “President Crow and Board of Regents will soon learn about being audited by the IRS.”
He said that he didn’t dispute that he hadn’t yet achieved enough in life, noting that his wife reminds him of the same thing.
Turning serious, he said he wanted “to affirm that one’s title, even a title like president of the United States, says very little about how well one’s life has been led –that no matter how much you’ve done, or how successful you’ve been, there’s always more to do, always more to learn, and always more to achieve.”
Later, whether meaning to get in another reference to the controversy or not, Obama said “the one thing I know about a body of work is that it’s never finished.”
Don't miss
A simply fantastic Bob Dylan interview by historian Douglas Brinkley in the current issue of Rolling Stone.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The very picture of judicial activism
Scalia, Scalito, Roberts and Uncle Clarence on the Voting Rights Act.
So what is the problem? The Voting Rights Act has run smack into the “federalism” crusade of the court’s conservative bloc. For more than a decade, it has been ruling in an array of areas that Congress’s power to pass laws is far more limited than it has long been thought to be. Judge John T. Noonan Jr., who was appointed to a federal appeals court by former President Ronald Reagan, has lamented that as a result, the Supreme Court has begun “monitoring Congress the way appellate courts monitor administrative agencies.”
At the oral argument in the Voting Rights Act case last month, the conservative justices were full of their own ideas about what would be good voting rights policy. Chief Justice John Roberts seemed unhappy that the act applies to more states in the South than the North. Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to think that Virginia should not be covered by the act since it was “the first state in the union to elect a black governor.”
Justice Scalia even asked, “Do you ever seriously expect Congress to vote against a re-extension of the Voting Rights Act?” Apparently, the fact that there is such overwhelming support for the act is an argument for why the Supreme Court should strike it down.
There is a lot of talk in conservative circles about judicial modesty and deferring to the political branches. That view of judging often overlooks the important role that courts have in protecting people’s rights. But if there was ever a time to defer, it is when Congress is protecting voting rights in the exact way the Constitution directs it to.
So what is the problem? The Voting Rights Act has run smack into the “federalism” crusade of the court’s conservative bloc. For more than a decade, it has been ruling in an array of areas that Congress’s power to pass laws is far more limited than it has long been thought to be. Judge John T. Noonan Jr., who was appointed to a federal appeals court by former President Ronald Reagan, has lamented that as a result, the Supreme Court has begun “monitoring Congress the way appellate courts monitor administrative agencies.”
At the oral argument in the Voting Rights Act case last month, the conservative justices were full of their own ideas about what would be good voting rights policy. Chief Justice John Roberts seemed unhappy that the act applies to more states in the South than the North. Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to think that Virginia should not be covered by the act since it was “the first state in the union to elect a black governor.”
Justice Scalia even asked, “Do you ever seriously expect Congress to vote against a re-extension of the Voting Rights Act?” Apparently, the fact that there is such overwhelming support for the act is an argument for why the Supreme Court should strike it down.
There is a lot of talk in conservative circles about judicial modesty and deferring to the political branches. That view of judging often overlooks the important role that courts have in protecting people’s rights. But if there was ever a time to defer, it is when Congress is protecting voting rights in the exact way the Constitution directs it to.
Court short list
USA Today's attempt:
Among those under consideration are California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood.
Moreno is not only male but too old. Ambinder has a great ten question checklist to consult for those who wish to venture guesses. Rick Hasen makes an excellent argument for Wood having the inside track.
Obama may want to get an easily confirmable nominee the first time around. He may get up to four nominations in his first term if we're lucky, so maybe he figures he can push the envelope next time. My guess is that the nominee will be a straight white woman, most likely a judge, not a governor. That indeed points to exactly one person on the list, Diane Wood.
His second appointment may be a Hispanic, and his third, if he gets one, may be a politician like Granholm or Napolitano... or Hillary.
Among those under consideration are California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood.
Moreno is not only male but too old. Ambinder has a great ten question checklist to consult for those who wish to venture guesses. Rick Hasen makes an excellent argument for Wood having the inside track.
Obama may want to get an easily confirmable nominee the first time around. He may get up to four nominations in his first term if we're lucky, so maybe he figures he can push the envelope next time. My guess is that the nominee will be a straight white woman, most likely a judge, not a governor. That indeed points to exactly one person on the list, Diane Wood.
His second appointment may be a Hispanic, and his third, if he gets one, may be a politician like Granholm or Napolitano... or Hillary.
The biggest fair and free elections in the world
Hooray for India. The United States has something to learn.
Slashing bankers' salaries permanently
A fine initiative from the Obama Administration. It's only by restructuring incentives that we can start getting our best minds back into professions that actually produce positive effects on society.
"I don't even think there's a comparison"
A Colin Powell deputy strikes back at Dick Cheney. The last fifteen seconds are the best.
Pulling out all the stops
And wouldn't you, if Michelle were coming to your Commencement?
For residents in this recession-battered city of 76,000 people in the heart of the Central Valley in California, Saturday is also being treated as a local holiday, with a daylong, downtown block party featuring its own Jumbotron for viewing Mrs. Obama’s speech and activities ranging from “human bowling” to sumo wrestling.
“It’s great for the city,” said R. C. Essig, a co-owner of the Partisan, a Main Street bar that is bringing in a disc jockey from Los Angeles. “I mean any community event here is a big event, but this is even bigger.”
Indeed, local old-timers say the only event that measures up — political celebrity-wise — was a whistle-stop tour by one of the Kennedy brothers in the 1960s. (Which one is up for debate.) Still, some are hoping that Mrs. Obama’s trip will be more than a simple speaking engagement.
“I think she came here on a relief expedition,” said George Alonso, 57, a bankruptcy lawyer who said he had been far too busy lately. “I’m hoping she’s here to check out the situation.” [...]
But while the university’s enrollment has improved, its nightlife apparently has not.
“Unless you like cow tipping, there’s not much reason to go out there,” said Rick Stokes, who works at the Gottschalk Music Center, the local guitar shop.
Nor have students always found much reason to head into a city that bored local teenagers derisively call “Mer-dead.”
For residents in this recession-battered city of 76,000 people in the heart of the Central Valley in California, Saturday is also being treated as a local holiday, with a daylong, downtown block party featuring its own Jumbotron for viewing Mrs. Obama’s speech and activities ranging from “human bowling” to sumo wrestling.
“It’s great for the city,” said R. C. Essig, a co-owner of the Partisan, a Main Street bar that is bringing in a disc jockey from Los Angeles. “I mean any community event here is a big event, but this is even bigger.”
Indeed, local old-timers say the only event that measures up — political celebrity-wise — was a whistle-stop tour by one of the Kennedy brothers in the 1960s. (Which one is up for debate.) Still, some are hoping that Mrs. Obama’s trip will be more than a simple speaking engagement.
“I think she came here on a relief expedition,” said George Alonso, 57, a bankruptcy lawyer who said he had been far too busy lately. “I’m hoping she’s here to check out the situation.” [...]
But while the university’s enrollment has improved, its nightlife apparently has not.
“Unless you like cow tipping, there’s not much reason to go out there,” said Rick Stokes, who works at the Gottschalk Music Center, the local guitar shop.
Nor have students always found much reason to head into a city that bored local teenagers derisively call “Mer-dead.”
It pays to control the agenda
Even Republicans aren't being kind to credit card companies right now. Which is good news for the country, and, we trust, for some of our debt-burdened readership. Now, if only they could roll back the bankruptcy bill that so many usurer-bankrolled Democrats backed just a few years ago.
I must be in living in Bizarroworld
Coolest. White House. Ever.
Poets and playwrights, actors and musicians packed the ornate East Room, delivering cool jazz and glorious spoken-word poetry, sprinkling a bit of hip-hop and a bit of the heroic couplet. And through it all, the president and the first lady watched -- and applauded.
"We're here to celebrate the power of words," President Obama said. Words "help us appreciate beauty and also understand pain. They inspire us to action." He introduced the first lady as his poet.
Michelle Obama told the gathering that the event was a way to open up the White House and invite in diverse voices. "I have wanted to do this from day one," Mrs. Obama said. "The notion of standing in this room and hearing some poetry." [...]
James Earl Jones, in that voice that could make a phone-book reading sound like Shakespeare, performed from the tragedy "Othello," towering over the lectern, raising his arms, casting his eyes on the audience as he evoked Othello the Moor of Venice and his torment. Obama sat at a center table next to his mother-in-law, Marian Robinson. Director Spike Lee watched from a table up front. The room was still. [...]
Two jazz musicians, acoustic bassist Esperanza Spalding and pianist Eric Lewis (a.k.a. ELEW), opened the show with a funky arrangement by Lewis titled "Love Letters." Filling the room with a lovely melody, they played as if the White House were a blues joint. Later, Spalding performed "Tell Him," delivering lush vocals as she plucked her bass. [...]
Spalding and Lewis provided what they called the musical transitions between the spoken-word performances.
Spalding was first invited to the White House in February by Stevie Wonder, when he received the Gershwin Prize for Lifetime Achievement from the Library of Congress. "As they were making the lineup for this poetry event, they realized they wanted some people to represent the music," Spalding said in an interview prior to the event. "They called and said, 'Can you come?' I said: 'Don't finish talking. The answer is yes!' " [...]
Lewis has received critical praise for his improvisation of jazz, which he calls "rock jazz." But he has also received heated criticism from some camps. He said an invitation to perform at the White House was like a validation for his music.
"I just met the first lady and I gave her a purse, a red clutch," Lewis said in an interview prior to the performance. "She loved it. She said she saw some videos of me where I reached inside the piano and played the strings. She wanted to make sure I do that on [this] performance. It was nice to receive her okay. She told me to rock the house and do my thing on the piano.
"I can't tell you how special it is that Michelle Obama asked me to go inside the piano," said Lewis, who performed "Mr. Brightside." "For her to be that cool and open-minded to request it shows me some people get it, and some people don't.
"The one that got it happens to be the first lady."
Poets and playwrights, actors and musicians packed the ornate East Room, delivering cool jazz and glorious spoken-word poetry, sprinkling a bit of hip-hop and a bit of the heroic couplet. And through it all, the president and the first lady watched -- and applauded.
"We're here to celebrate the power of words," President Obama said. Words "help us appreciate beauty and also understand pain. They inspire us to action." He introduced the first lady as his poet.
Michelle Obama told the gathering that the event was a way to open up the White House and invite in diverse voices. "I have wanted to do this from day one," Mrs. Obama said. "The notion of standing in this room and hearing some poetry." [...]
James Earl Jones, in that voice that could make a phone-book reading sound like Shakespeare, performed from the tragedy "Othello," towering over the lectern, raising his arms, casting his eyes on the audience as he evoked Othello the Moor of Venice and his torment. Obama sat at a center table next to his mother-in-law, Marian Robinson. Director Spike Lee watched from a table up front. The room was still. [...]
Two jazz musicians, acoustic bassist Esperanza Spalding and pianist Eric Lewis (a.k.a. ELEW), opened the show with a funky arrangement by Lewis titled "Love Letters." Filling the room with a lovely melody, they played as if the White House were a blues joint. Later, Spalding performed "Tell Him," delivering lush vocals as she plucked her bass. [...]
Spalding and Lewis provided what they called the musical transitions between the spoken-word performances.
Spalding was first invited to the White House in February by Stevie Wonder, when he received the Gershwin Prize for Lifetime Achievement from the Library of Congress. "As they were making the lineup for this poetry event, they realized they wanted some people to represent the music," Spalding said in an interview prior to the event. "They called and said, 'Can you come?' I said: 'Don't finish talking. The answer is yes!' " [...]
Lewis has received critical praise for his improvisation of jazz, which he calls "rock jazz." But he has also received heated criticism from some camps. He said an invitation to perform at the White House was like a validation for his music.
"I just met the first lady and I gave her a purse, a red clutch," Lewis said in an interview prior to the performance. "She loved it. She said she saw some videos of me where I reached inside the piano and played the strings. She wanted to make sure I do that on [this] performance. It was nice to receive her okay. She told me to rock the house and do my thing on the piano.
"I can't tell you how special it is that Michelle Obama asked me to go inside the piano," said Lewis, who performed "Mr. Brightside." "For her to be that cool and open-minded to request it shows me some people get it, and some people don't.
"The one that got it happens to be the first lady."
Richard Posner: Conservatism is dead
The circuit court judge's devastating reflections. An excerpt follows. Note, incidentally, the celebration of the Clinton presidency as a triumph of conservatism:
The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surge of prosperity worldwide that marked the global triumph of capitalism, the essentially conservative policies, especially in economics, of the Clinton administration, and finally the election and early years of the Bush Administration, marked the apogee of the conservative movement. But there were signs that it had not only already peaked, but was beginning to decline. Leading conservative intellectual figures grew old and died (Friedman, Hayek, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Buckley, etc.) and others as they aged became silent or less active (such as Robert Bork, Irving Kristol, and Gertrude Himmelfarb), and their successors lacked equivalent public prominence, as conservatism grew strident and populist.
By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.
My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.
By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.
UPDATE: Nate Silver with further reflections.
The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surge of prosperity worldwide that marked the global triumph of capitalism, the essentially conservative policies, especially in economics, of the Clinton administration, and finally the election and early years of the Bush Administration, marked the apogee of the conservative movement. But there were signs that it had not only already peaked, but was beginning to decline. Leading conservative intellectual figures grew old and died (Friedman, Hayek, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Buckley, etc.) and others as they aged became silent or less active (such as Robert Bork, Irving Kristol, and Gertrude Himmelfarb), and their successors lacked equivalent public prominence, as conservatism grew strident and populist.
By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.
My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.
By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.
UPDATE: Nate Silver with further reflections.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Onion tackles gay marriage
Funny, although watching Iowans engage their prospective leaders every four years has always left me with the warm and fuzzies for their state.
A carless suburb
It couldn't happen in America, but if I had to pick a high GNP country in which such an experiment could begin, it would surely be Germany. But what about the disabled?
This is how it's done
Kudos to Daniel "Rosie's brother" O'Donnell. If gay marriage gets a big up vote in the New York State Assembly, he will have been a major factor.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Brother Michael Steele goes after Romney
Wassup, Michael?
Steele, guest-hosting on Bill Bennett's radio show Friday, cast doubt on Romney's conservative bona fides and blamed the Republican base for rejecting Romney last year because "it had issues with Mormonism" and was unsure of Romney's commitment to opposing to abortion rights. Those comments aren't sitting too well with Romney's political team. [...]
The RNC chairman made the comments when responding to a caller who claimed that Romney, if he was the nominee, would have been a stronger candidate against Obama than John McCain. The caller argued that Romney never got a chance to be the nominee because "liberals" and the media pushed hard for McCain to win the Republican nomination.
But Steele disagreed.
"Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life," Steele told the caller. "It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitt because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you're talking about."
"So, I mean, I hear what you're saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn't, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost," Steele concluded.
Steele, guest-hosting on Bill Bennett's radio show Friday, cast doubt on Romney's conservative bona fides and blamed the Republican base for rejecting Romney last year because "it had issues with Mormonism" and was unsure of Romney's commitment to opposing to abortion rights. Those comments aren't sitting too well with Romney's political team. [...]
The RNC chairman made the comments when responding to a caller who claimed that Romney, if he was the nominee, would have been a stronger candidate against Obama than John McCain. The caller argued that Romney never got a chance to be the nominee because "liberals" and the media pushed hard for McCain to win the Republican nomination.
But Steele disagreed.
"Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life," Steele told the caller. "It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitt because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you're talking about."
"So, I mean, I hear what you're saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn't, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost," Steele concluded.
Maps!
There's a lot to unpack here. So let's start with an easier takeaway: poor white folks in Mississippi and Alabama are pretty damned crazy.
"Who ever said diversity isn’t a conservative principle?"
The National Review's list of fifty rock songs, every last one by a white artist. Robert Christgau, dean of American rock critics, would disagree:
I should emphasize that my completeness warranty applies only to "rock," which in my usage (and it's an outrage that I should even have to explain this) encompasses all black pop since r&b.
Humorless musician Mark Howard has at the list and provides a neo-Marxist take on American Idol, too.
I should emphasize that my completeness warranty applies only to "rock," which in my usage (and it's an outrage that I should even have to explain this) encompasses all black pop since r&b.
Humorless musician Mark Howard has at the list and provides a neo-Marxist take on American Idol, too.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Devastating
One of the highlights of the President's stellar speech at the correspondents' dinner was this bit on Michael Steele.
If you haven't already, don't miss the entire speech here.
If you haven't already, don't miss the entire speech here.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Friday, May 08, 2009
Geek-in-Chief
He strikes again:
President Obama has drawn not-infrequent comparisons to the Spock character. Do you see any similarities there?
I’ve met him twice. The first time was a couple years ago, very early on when he had just announced his candidacy. He was in Los Angeles, speaking at a luncheon we were invited to. There was a very small crowd — minuscule compared to the crowd that he gathered later — at a private home in Los Angeles. And we were standing on the back patio, waiting for him. And he came through the house, saw me and immediately put his hand up in the Vulcan gesture. He said, “They told me you were here.” We had a wonderful brief conversation and I said, “It would be logical if you would become president.”
President Obama has drawn not-infrequent comparisons to the Spock character. Do you see any similarities there?
I’ve met him twice. The first time was a couple years ago, very early on when he had just announced his candidacy. He was in Los Angeles, speaking at a luncheon we were invited to. There was a very small crowd — minuscule compared to the crowd that he gathered later — at a private home in Los Angeles. And we were standing on the back patio, waiting for him. And he came through the house, saw me and immediately put his hand up in the Vulcan gesture. He said, “They told me you were here.” We had a wonderful brief conversation and I said, “It would be logical if you would become president.”
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Gail Collins
On Bristol and Levi:
“I just want to go out there and promote abstinence and say this is the safest choice,” she said on “Good Morning America.”
“It’s not going to work,” said her ex-boyfriend, Levi Johnston, in a dueling early-morning interview.
If you have ever watched Levi Johnston on TV for two minutes you will appreciate how terrifying it is when he has the most reasonable analysis of a social issue.
“I just want to go out there and promote abstinence and say this is the safest choice,” she said on “Good Morning America.”
“It’s not going to work,” said her ex-boyfriend, Levi Johnston, in a dueling early-morning interview.
If you have ever watched Levi Johnston on TV for two minutes you will appreciate how terrifying it is when he has the most reasonable analysis of a social issue.
Say hello
To the GOP's ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. You know, the party's point man on Obama's Supreme Court appointees:
Wildman writes in particular that the testimonies of two witnesses--a Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, and a black Sessions subordinate named Thomas Figures--helped to doom Sessions, then a U.S. Attorney, at his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings. According to Wildman, Hebert testified reluctantly "that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." And Figures--then an assistant U.S. Attorney--told the committee that "during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he 'used to think they [the Klan] were OK' until he found out some of them were 'pot smokers.'" [...]
Figures recalled one occasion in which the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division sent them instructions to investigate a case that Sessions had tried to close: "We had a very spirited discussion regarding how the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions threw the file on a table, and remarked, 'I wish I could decline on all of them.'"
All of them, according to Figures, meant civil rights cases generally. As he explained at one point: "[T]he statement, the manner in which it was delivered, the impression on his face, the manner in which his face blushed, I believe it represented a hostility to investigating and pursuing those types of matters."
Figures said that Sessions had called him "boy" on a number of occasions, and had cautioned him to be careful what he said to "white folks. "Mr. Sessions admonished me to 'be careful what you say to white folks,'" Figures testified. "Had Mr. Sessions merely urged me to be careful what I said to 'folks,' that admonition would have been quite reasonable. But that was not the language that he used."
Wildman writes in particular that the testimonies of two witnesses--a Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, and a black Sessions subordinate named Thomas Figures--helped to doom Sessions, then a U.S. Attorney, at his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings. According to Wildman, Hebert testified reluctantly "that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." And Figures--then an assistant U.S. Attorney--told the committee that "during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he 'used to think they [the Klan] were OK' until he found out some of them were 'pot smokers.'" [...]
Figures recalled one occasion in which the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division sent them instructions to investigate a case that Sessions had tried to close: "We had a very spirited discussion regarding how the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions threw the file on a table, and remarked, 'I wish I could decline on all of them.'"
All of them, according to Figures, meant civil rights cases generally. As he explained at one point: "[T]he statement, the manner in which it was delivered, the impression on his face, the manner in which his face blushed, I believe it represented a hostility to investigating and pursuing those types of matters."
Figures said that Sessions had called him "boy" on a number of occasions, and had cautioned him to be careful what he said to "white folks. "Mr. Sessions admonished me to 'be careful what you say to white folks,'" Figures testified. "Had Mr. Sessions merely urged me to be careful what I said to 'folks,' that admonition would have been quite reasonable. But that was not the language that he used."
E.J. Dionne
On US reactionary Catholics' angry reaction to the L'Osservatore Romano's comments on the President. As usual with these folks, they are Republicans first, then Americans, and Catholics only to the extent that the Church agrees with Rush. Hat tip to reader M.
GOP head to Colin Powell: Leave us
Thank you, Rush!
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh Wednesday that if former Secretary of State Colin Powell is going to keep criticizing the GOP, he may as well leave the party and become a Democrat—adding that Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama was “purely and solely based on race.” [...]
Speaking Sunday to CNN host Fareed Zakaria asked Powell if Republicans can “continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?"
“Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?" Powell replied.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh Wednesday that if former Secretary of State Colin Powell is going to keep criticizing the GOP, he may as well leave the party and become a Democrat—adding that Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama was “purely and solely based on race.” [...]
Speaking Sunday to CNN host Fareed Zakaria asked Powell if Republicans can “continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?"
“Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?" Powell replied.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
A lesbian justice?
The case is made:
[N]ominating a lesbian to the court would put conservatives in a politically awkward position. As the gay rights battle has come to center more and more on the specific question of marriage, conservatives have frequently insisted that they are not anti-gay, just opposed to gays getting married. Conservatives are attached to this distinction because they know that, without it, they end up looking like bigots. But if they decide to make an issue of a Supreme Court nominee's sexual orientation, they would effectively be conceding that this distinction was a lie. (After all, could there be any more baldly anti-gay political maneuver than bashing a Supreme Court nominee because of her sexual orientation?) Given that most Americans are no longer comfortable with transparent homophobia (while conservatives still have the majority on same-sex marriage, liberals enjoy majorities on various other gay-rights questions, such as workplace discrimination), it would be a risky move for conservatives to toss aside their cherished distinction between anti-gay sentiment and anti-gay-marriage sentiment. So maybe they would think twice about raising sexual orientation during a confirmation battle. And if they decided to do it anyway, it could become one of those defining moments where the American political center gets a glimpse at the fundamental ugliness undergirding a particular crusade--and turns decisively in the other direction.
Of course, conservatives could try to have it both ways, and argue that they oppose a gay nominee because of gay marriage--that is, because it would bias the justice's vote should gay marriage ever come before the court. But this is a patently absurd argument--equivalent to maintaining that no women should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on abortion, or that no blacks should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on civil rights--and I think voters would be quick to dismiss it as thinly veiled bigotry.
[N]ominating a lesbian to the court would put conservatives in a politically awkward position. As the gay rights battle has come to center more and more on the specific question of marriage, conservatives have frequently insisted that they are not anti-gay, just opposed to gays getting married. Conservatives are attached to this distinction because they know that, without it, they end up looking like bigots. But if they decide to make an issue of a Supreme Court nominee's sexual orientation, they would effectively be conceding that this distinction was a lie. (After all, could there be any more baldly anti-gay political maneuver than bashing a Supreme Court nominee because of her sexual orientation?) Given that most Americans are no longer comfortable with transparent homophobia (while conservatives still have the majority on same-sex marriage, liberals enjoy majorities on various other gay-rights questions, such as workplace discrimination), it would be a risky move for conservatives to toss aside their cherished distinction between anti-gay sentiment and anti-gay-marriage sentiment. So maybe they would think twice about raising sexual orientation during a confirmation battle. And if they decided to do it anyway, it could become one of those defining moments where the American political center gets a glimpse at the fundamental ugliness undergirding a particular crusade--and turns decisively in the other direction.
Of course, conservatives could try to have it both ways, and argue that they oppose a gay nominee because of gay marriage--that is, because it would bias the justice's vote should gay marriage ever come before the court. But this is a patently absurd argument--equivalent to maintaining that no women should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on abortion, or that no blacks should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on civil rights--and I think voters would be quick to dismiss it as thinly veiled bigotry.
The cherry on top
STORMY! You may want to read this one, but I'll start with her anti-Vitter campaign slogans:
► Stormy Daniels: Screwing People Honestly
► Stormy Daniels: Whipping the Economy into Shape
► Stormy Daniels: The Best Stimulus Package
► Stormy Daniels: At Least I don’t wear a Diaper
► Stormy Daniels: Screwing People Honestly
► Stormy Daniels: Whipping the Economy into Shape
► Stormy Daniels: The Best Stimulus Package
► Stormy Daniels: At Least I don’t wear a Diaper
Let us savor these past five months
Because we rarely get this many wins in a row.
Now comes news that homophobic beauty queen Carrie Prejean "breached her contract" with Miss USA by posing for semi-nude photographs "when she was 17 and aspiring to be a Victoria's Secret model!"
Hints about getting your own personal copy within the link.
Carrie claims the release of the photos is religious persecution. If she'd like to be a Christian martyr, I have a great exemplar for her.
Our condolences to a real Christian, Sister Helen Prejean for having to share a last name with this vacuous waste of space.
Now comes news that homophobic beauty queen Carrie Prejean "breached her contract" with Miss USA by posing for semi-nude photographs "when she was 17 and aspiring to be a Victoria's Secret model!"
Hints about getting your own personal copy within the link.
Carrie claims the release of the photos is religious persecution. If she'd like to be a Christian martyr, I have a great exemplar for her.
Our condolences to a real Christian, Sister Helen Prejean for having to share a last name with this vacuous waste of space.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Saturday, May 02, 2009
How about Janet?
The Secretary of Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona is young, smart, and qualified.
And she was Anita Hill's attorney.
And she was Anita Hill's attorney.
Hooray!
Not content with attacking our nation's first African American president for accepting an honorary degree at Notre Dame, America's Republican Catholic hierarchy may soon have a new target: America's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.
That is good news. America's Hispanic population already comprise 28 percent of US Catholics. The more they come to separate their political behavior from their white and largely Republican hierarchy's preferences, the better off the country will be as their numbers rise.
Will Mexican American Ninth Circuit judge Kim Wardlaw have to give back her honorary doctorate of humane letters to Mount St. Mary College? Stay tuned!
That is good news. America's Hispanic population already comprise 28 percent of US Catholics. The more they come to separate their political behavior from their white and largely Republican hierarchy's preferences, the better off the country will be as their numbers rise.
Will Mexican American Ninth Circuit judge Kim Wardlaw have to give back her honorary doctorate of humane letters to Mount St. Mary College? Stay tuned!
Friday, May 01, 2009
Hillary
One of the best slapdowns of a Republican congressman I have ever seen. Hat tip: JJ Politics and TPM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
