Was taking time to see whether the insanity was dying down. Congress finally fled Washington,D.C. The Question is whether we're going to see any August like the last with death panels and socialized medicine rallies. The Senate was miffed because they had to be called back to vote in the House's adjustment to their bill to allocate $300 million to that "danged" border fence in Arizona. The House did save the teachers and other state employees jobs, despite the Tan Man calling them "sepcial interests". In a stealth move, Republican Governors have been signing up for stimulus money, despite pledges not to receive federal funds.
A poll released on Wednesday by CNN put approval of the state aid bill at 60% to 38% opposed. The question did not suggest that the bill was paid for. Republicans claimed it would add to the deficit--it would not. 57% of Independents supported it, 78% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans opposed it.
CNN also produced the first national poll this week which showed a majority of Americans supported same-sex majority. Yes, it was within the margin of error but it still was the majority, which had never been recorded before.
You have five days left to appeal Vaughn Walker's ruling on Prop 8. But it's not clear that the defendents who lost the case actually have standing to mount the appeal. It was sort of disgraceful for NPR to broadcast "concerns" of the Prop 8 supporters about questions about communal property if gay marriages continued after the ruling before the appeal. Why should they care?
Oh yes, the majority of American people, according to nother CNN poll, are against repealing the 14th Amendment. Phew!
The Hart/McInturff group conducted a poll for the Wall Street Journal , which showed that 58% of Americans say Obama has performed as they thought he would, with 12% saying he exceeded their expectations. The poll also showed a list of people and places asking for approval. Michelle Obama tops the list at 50% and very low negatives, President Obama is number two at 47% approval; The Democratic Party at 33%; the Tea Party at 30%; the Republican Party at 24% and Pakistan trails everyone at 4%.
Markos Malitos, the founder of Daily Kos, has his new book out The American Taliban: How War,Sex,Sin and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right.(Polipoint Press, paperback.) If you want to recap the last 18 months of insanity on the right, Markos does a splendid job of summing it up. Even I had forgotten some of the highlights. The best chapters are on sex and women. On the latter, Markos reminds us of the new war against women being waged by the Right around the country. On sex, he treats us to the great scandals of the "family values" crowd and also probes into some of the practices in right-leaning states--the high incidence of porn subscribers,divorce and out of marriage wedlock. One little factoid that is worth repeating: 95% of Americans practice pre-marital sex today; 90% of Americans practiced pre-marital sex in 1940. As Chuck Colson would say, this is a cultural armaggeddon. It's an entertaining read and would be funny if these people weren't players in our political system.
Someone did a notable thing by breaking down the generic congressional poll question in terms of region. This indicated that Republicans are almost exclusively a southern party or dominant in districts that resemble the south. Republicans have a high 20% edge in the South. The Democrats have a significant edge in the Northeast and Midwest. But, worrisome for Democrats is their only 1% lead in the West. The usefulness of this breakdown is it allows us to get some sense of the ping-pong moves in generic congressional questions during this election year. Gallup has the Democrat lead by 1%, which means with likely voters the edge goes to the Republicans.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Saturday Rants
Not to miss a trick or a buck, Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch fame has started his move to "impeach Elena Kagan". He posted his call to wage war against Elena Kagan on World Nut Daily.
Meanwhile in Mexico City, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled in favor of their gay marriage law. Not a great time for the homophobes. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule later on whether gays can adopt children.
Meanwhile in the United States, the Washington Post asks,"Will the Prop 8 ruling hurt Democrats?" I have yet to hear from the howling conservative mobs that all three judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage so far have been Republicans. Meanwhile, the campaign against Vaughn Walker is that ,of course, he ruled for gays because he is gay and living in a stable relationship. So he wants to get married. This brings me to the importance of Ted Olson's big regret --that the trial was not televised. If we had seen the trial, it would have been a powerful educational moment. Anti-gay forces blocked televising the hearings precisely so they could wage nonsense attacks afterwards. Now the unChristian Right is advocating "intimidating the Supreme Court" so it will not ratify the decision. I think we've seen these tactics before on the healthcare debate where voracious mobs were thought to represent the will of the people.
Speaking of August mayhem, Democrats are vowing this year will not be the August of last year. The Democratic Party has handed out talking points to all members of Congress and candidates to shut down any townhall tantrums. I've been impressed with the quiet coordination of various Democratic party organizations and like-minded organizations for the mid-terms. Democrats have a cash advantage now, despite the various splintered corporate and conservative efforts on the Republican side. The question will be whether organization and a basic message is enough to curtail inevitable losses.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Howard Dean came up with the same math on the Senate I did the other day. Dean had started at a five seat loss for the Democrats, which is where I started months ago. But he's saying that Democrats could cut the loss to 1. The lunacy of the national Republican Party is a big help in eroding their chances.
Has anyone noticed that, with the exception of Meg Whitman and a few other outliers, Republicans are choosing normal GOP candidates for governor races, while letting the fruitcakes win for congress. The Republicans will pick up a number of state houses. I guess the voters felt they couldn't risk real government with a wingnut.
Yes, Dr. Rachel Maddow, Sharon Angle is really a Christian Reconstructionist and it's worth a segment explaining what this retrograde political philosophy is. One of the real charming aspects of Christian Reconstructionists is their notion that there really are first and second class citizens. President Barack Obama is not a legitimate President, not because he was born in Nairobi or on the Moon, but because he's black. You see "real Americans" are like--me--people who are descended from white people prior to the 14th Amendment. We have full rights. Blacks, Hispanics,and White Women are given their rights from government. Historically, the 14th Amendment doe not apply to American Indians, which I'm not sure Christian Reconstructionists know--yet. God gave me my rights, which are superior in quality to those who received them from the 14th Amendment. And, of course, we are a Christian nation but, depending on what faction you belong, Jews are either grandfathered in or left out. Since Jews were also here before the 14th Amendment, this gets complicated. Added to Ms. Angle's funky Christian politics is her John Birch credentials.
Authors Leonard Zeskind and David Niewert are good sources for the sick interplay between Christian Reconstructionists and the White Nationalists.
The leaching of the extreme into mainstream Republicanism has given us the bizarre phenomenon of "popular constitutionalism" or "conservative constitutionalism", which has at its heart the repeal or elimination of those parts of the constitution which are incovenient. Republicans are arguing against the "commerce clause" and congress's ability to pass a national budget in their wars against healthcare reform and deficit spending. Likewise, they are calling into question the government's ability to tax. But what's even more interesting are the assertions about the First Amendment. Glenn Beck, David Barton and even Newt Gingrich are raising questions about the separation of church and state and in Tennessee questions are being raised whether Muslims should be "granted" freedom of religion because they are a "cult". A side issue here are the assertions by the unChristian Right that our laws are based on biblical edicts, despite the very pre-Christian Germanic basis for things like perjury, self-incrimination and all the little details we like in court trials. The minute President Obama was elected,the Tenthers went into a full court press, arguing states could nullify a federal law they disagree with. This movement has spread from its natural home among neo-confederates in the South through parts of the West and Midwest. The most curious event was when Oklahoma tried to meld the Tenthers with the Second Amendment by debating the creation of their own seperate state militia, forgetting that the President is the commander-in-chief of all state militias.
This past week, we've seen the spectacle of three sitting Republican senators argue for holding hearings on the 14th Amendment itself because of the issue of birthright citizenship. Historically, this is fascinating because in the waves of nativism that struck the United States before and other eras of anti-immigration sentiment this never was an issue raised at a national level. Perhaps because other immigrants were considered at least symbolically white. When the 14th Amendment was debated, congress did, however,raise the issue of Chinese children born during the flood of immigrants in the West. And in that debate, Congress decided it applied to them. But now with the issue being Hispanic immigrants, apparently the race card has been raised again. But it is ironic that the focus of debate would be the amendment that freed black Americans and normalized their legal status as citizens.
Did anyone see John McCain's tantrum over DADT and Hate Crime Laws? McCain is threatening to filibuster the defense appropriations bill because the Committee put into the bill the repeal of DADT, pending the survey by the armed services and the President's finding. Apparently, that provisional text wasn't good enough for McCain, who has been campaigning against the repeal of DADT with his letter signed by dead military officers. The emotion in his floor speech suggests there is more going on here. Maybe it was because Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and his wife and daughter have been vocal advocates for same sex marriage, while McCain made sure his Arizonan voters knew he was opposed. But the whole episode was bizarre.
The Cat Food or Debt Commission has been meeting in secret but we've got some inkling about their proposals. Alan Simpson says that the Commission will be going after ways to cut military pensions and benefits. Senator Tom Coburn raised the issue of going after obsolete military systems and corruption in defense contractors. But he was over-ruled. It seems only live human beings will pay for the national debt and not those things which really add to it.
After reading Andrew Bacevich's Washington Rules, I've concluded that there is very little anyone can do to restrain the Empire from waging war willy-nilly when and wherever it wants. Our service people are no longer responsible to elected officials, even the President. And the President really only ratifies the decisions made by the separate government. As millions who marched against the war in Iraq demonstrated, there is nothing much popular opinion can really do in terms of starting or terminating a war.
But there is one thing--making the taxpayers actually pay for conflict as it is on-going. Basically, the last two wars were unpaid for and no sacrifice was asked from the citizens. Instead, Americans were told to "keep shopping". As I've suggested in posts written months ago, I suggested a VAT tax to pay for our social welfare net. But as recent studies show, there is really not a need for this. But a War Tax on everything we buy until a war is concluded would not only fund it but also remind everyone what we are doing overseas. It would channel public opinion in a politically effective manner, if politicians had to hear citizens protest about that tax in particular. This would have the added charm of putting pressure on politicians who protect themselves by giving the military/ terrorism complex everything it wants. No longer could you protect yourself from being accused of being weak on defense if you were forced to justify its immediate financial costs to the electorate.
Meanwhile in Mexico City, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled in favor of their gay marriage law. Not a great time for the homophobes. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule later on whether gays can adopt children.
Meanwhile in the United States, the Washington Post asks,"Will the Prop 8 ruling hurt Democrats?" I have yet to hear from the howling conservative mobs that all three judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage so far have been Republicans. Meanwhile, the campaign against Vaughn Walker is that ,of course, he ruled for gays because he is gay and living in a stable relationship. So he wants to get married. This brings me to the importance of Ted Olson's big regret --that the trial was not televised. If we had seen the trial, it would have been a powerful educational moment. Anti-gay forces blocked televising the hearings precisely so they could wage nonsense attacks afterwards. Now the unChristian Right is advocating "intimidating the Supreme Court" so it will not ratify the decision. I think we've seen these tactics before on the healthcare debate where voracious mobs were thought to represent the will of the people.
Speaking of August mayhem, Democrats are vowing this year will not be the August of last year. The Democratic Party has handed out talking points to all members of Congress and candidates to shut down any townhall tantrums. I've been impressed with the quiet coordination of various Democratic party organizations and like-minded organizations for the mid-terms. Democrats have a cash advantage now, despite the various splintered corporate and conservative efforts on the Republican side. The question will be whether organization and a basic message is enough to curtail inevitable losses.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Howard Dean came up with the same math on the Senate I did the other day. Dean had started at a five seat loss for the Democrats, which is where I started months ago. But he's saying that Democrats could cut the loss to 1. The lunacy of the national Republican Party is a big help in eroding their chances.
Has anyone noticed that, with the exception of Meg Whitman and a few other outliers, Republicans are choosing normal GOP candidates for governor races, while letting the fruitcakes win for congress. The Republicans will pick up a number of state houses. I guess the voters felt they couldn't risk real government with a wingnut.
Yes, Dr. Rachel Maddow, Sharon Angle is really a Christian Reconstructionist and it's worth a segment explaining what this retrograde political philosophy is. One of the real charming aspects of Christian Reconstructionists is their notion that there really are first and second class citizens. President Barack Obama is not a legitimate President, not because he was born in Nairobi or on the Moon, but because he's black. You see "real Americans" are like--me--people who are descended from white people prior to the 14th Amendment. We have full rights. Blacks, Hispanics,and White Women are given their rights from government. Historically, the 14th Amendment doe not apply to American Indians, which I'm not sure Christian Reconstructionists know--yet. God gave me my rights, which are superior in quality to those who received them from the 14th Amendment. And, of course, we are a Christian nation but, depending on what faction you belong, Jews are either grandfathered in or left out. Since Jews were also here before the 14th Amendment, this gets complicated. Added to Ms. Angle's funky Christian politics is her John Birch credentials.
Authors Leonard Zeskind and David Niewert are good sources for the sick interplay between Christian Reconstructionists and the White Nationalists.
The leaching of the extreme into mainstream Republicanism has given us the bizarre phenomenon of "popular constitutionalism" or "conservative constitutionalism", which has at its heart the repeal or elimination of those parts of the constitution which are incovenient. Republicans are arguing against the "commerce clause" and congress's ability to pass a national budget in their wars against healthcare reform and deficit spending. Likewise, they are calling into question the government's ability to tax. But what's even more interesting are the assertions about the First Amendment. Glenn Beck, David Barton and even Newt Gingrich are raising questions about the separation of church and state and in Tennessee questions are being raised whether Muslims should be "granted" freedom of religion because they are a "cult". A side issue here are the assertions by the unChristian Right that our laws are based on biblical edicts, despite the very pre-Christian Germanic basis for things like perjury, self-incrimination and all the little details we like in court trials. The minute President Obama was elected,the Tenthers went into a full court press, arguing states could nullify a federal law they disagree with. This movement has spread from its natural home among neo-confederates in the South through parts of the West and Midwest. The most curious event was when Oklahoma tried to meld the Tenthers with the Second Amendment by debating the creation of their own seperate state militia, forgetting that the President is the commander-in-chief of all state militias.
This past week, we've seen the spectacle of three sitting Republican senators argue for holding hearings on the 14th Amendment itself because of the issue of birthright citizenship. Historically, this is fascinating because in the waves of nativism that struck the United States before and other eras of anti-immigration sentiment this never was an issue raised at a national level. Perhaps because other immigrants were considered at least symbolically white. When the 14th Amendment was debated, congress did, however,raise the issue of Chinese children born during the flood of immigrants in the West. And in that debate, Congress decided it applied to them. But now with the issue being Hispanic immigrants, apparently the race card has been raised again. But it is ironic that the focus of debate would be the amendment that freed black Americans and normalized their legal status as citizens.
Did anyone see John McCain's tantrum over DADT and Hate Crime Laws? McCain is threatening to filibuster the defense appropriations bill because the Committee put into the bill the repeal of DADT, pending the survey by the armed services and the President's finding. Apparently, that provisional text wasn't good enough for McCain, who has been campaigning against the repeal of DADT with his letter signed by dead military officers. The emotion in his floor speech suggests there is more going on here. Maybe it was because Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and his wife and daughter have been vocal advocates for same sex marriage, while McCain made sure his Arizonan voters knew he was opposed. But the whole episode was bizarre.
The Cat Food or Debt Commission has been meeting in secret but we've got some inkling about their proposals. Alan Simpson says that the Commission will be going after ways to cut military pensions and benefits. Senator Tom Coburn raised the issue of going after obsolete military systems and corruption in defense contractors. But he was over-ruled. It seems only live human beings will pay for the national debt and not those things which really add to it.
After reading Andrew Bacevich's Washington Rules, I've concluded that there is very little anyone can do to restrain the Empire from waging war willy-nilly when and wherever it wants. Our service people are no longer responsible to elected officials, even the President. And the President really only ratifies the decisions made by the separate government. As millions who marched against the war in Iraq demonstrated, there is nothing much popular opinion can really do in terms of starting or terminating a war.
But there is one thing--making the taxpayers actually pay for conflict as it is on-going. Basically, the last two wars were unpaid for and no sacrifice was asked from the citizens. Instead, Americans were told to "keep shopping". As I've suggested in posts written months ago, I suggested a VAT tax to pay for our social welfare net. But as recent studies show, there is really not a need for this. But a War Tax on everything we buy until a war is concluded would not only fund it but also remind everyone what we are doing overseas. It would channel public opinion in a politically effective manner, if politicians had to hear citizens protest about that tax in particular. This would have the added charm of putting pressure on politicians who protect themselves by giving the military/ terrorism complex everything it wants. No longer could you protect yourself from being accused of being weak on defense if you were forced to justify its immediate financial costs to the electorate.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Parkersburg, West Virginia
Yes, Virginia, there really, truly is a Social Security Trust Fund. It exists in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, West Virginia and consists of bonds backed by the government's "full faith and credit." Frankly, I never believed such a thing actually existed.
So with all the national debt scare and threats by Tan Man Boehner to raise the retirement age to 70, where does Social Security really stand? With no changes, the trust fund will be exhausted by 2037. More than 53 million people receive Social Security. Retirement benefits average $1,100 a month and disabled workers get about $1,065. So what happens if it runs out, well, then social security would only pay 75% of current benefit levels. All this courtesy of the trustees' report for Social Security and Medicare.
The bottom-line: Don't believe a word about Social Security contributing to the national debt and about any need to radically revise it. Just a little tinkering around the edges and it's good to last. Will it totally pay for your retirement? No, but it gives you some social security.
Medicare eating into our nation's future. More B.S. With the recent Healthcare Bill, Medicare funds will now be exhausted in 2029. The Healthcare Bill extends its life another 12 years. Medicare now covers 46 million retirees and disabled.
The bottom-line here is crackdown on waste, streamline costs,and develop better preventive health measures.
So, the last item--the real Third Rail of Politics--the Military/ Terrorist complex. We spend twice what all of Planet Earth combined spends on national security. This is $1.2 trillion a year without any tax revenues. Almost all our significant national debt is from the national security sector. It's not from the social welfare net.
So eliminate the tax cuts for the rich and bingo--problem well on the way to solution.
Caveat Emptor. Don't buy the scaremongering. The only reason people are discussing Social Security and Medicare is for the ideological reason of eliminating them. Don't let them get away with it!
So with all the national debt scare and threats by Tan Man Boehner to raise the retirement age to 70, where does Social Security really stand? With no changes, the trust fund will be exhausted by 2037. More than 53 million people receive Social Security. Retirement benefits average $1,100 a month and disabled workers get about $1,065. So what happens if it runs out, well, then social security would only pay 75% of current benefit levels. All this courtesy of the trustees' report for Social Security and Medicare.
The bottom-line: Don't believe a word about Social Security contributing to the national debt and about any need to radically revise it. Just a little tinkering around the edges and it's good to last. Will it totally pay for your retirement? No, but it gives you some social security.
Medicare eating into our nation's future. More B.S. With the recent Healthcare Bill, Medicare funds will now be exhausted in 2029. The Healthcare Bill extends its life another 12 years. Medicare now covers 46 million retirees and disabled.
The bottom-line here is crackdown on waste, streamline costs,and develop better preventive health measures.
So, the last item--the real Third Rail of Politics--the Military/ Terrorist complex. We spend twice what all of Planet Earth combined spends on national security. This is $1.2 trillion a year without any tax revenues. Almost all our significant national debt is from the national security sector. It's not from the social welfare net.
So eliminate the tax cuts for the rich and bingo--problem well on the way to solution.
Caveat Emptor. Don't buy the scaremongering. The only reason people are discussing Social Security and Medicare is for the ideological reason of eliminating them. Don't let them get away with it!
Prop 8 Follow-up and Other Random Acts of Sanity
The hard right's heads exploded with the decision ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional. One Free Republic post decried how our culture has become a sewer. Others moaned why vote anymore.
And Pat Buchanan said gay marriage was unnatural. And Newt said that the decision ignored the wishes of millions of people.
In the last few days, we've been treated to some nice reminders about our better angels. Judge Susan Bolton striking down the most egregious portions of the Arizona immigration law. Mayor Bloomberg speaking at Governor's Island with a full array of religious leaders giving us a little history lesson on religious tolerance in Manhattan. In defending the construction of the alleged mosque near the site of the Twin Towers, he reminded the audience that the early leaders of New Amsterdam denied Jews permission to build a synagogue and that early Quakers were forced to leave the area after they were denied the right to worship. Aside from the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish community backed the decision to allow the construction of the cultural center in large numbers so much so that the Muslim community has been spending the last days thanking individual Jewish leaders.
Before we hear that Obama is allowing The Gay to infiltrate our government and banning the worship of Cheezits, it's useful to point out who the three judges who have ruled for gay marriage have been. The Boston judge who ruled that DOMA, the federal ban against gay marriage, was unconstitutional is Judge Joseph Tauro,a Nixon appointee. The Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court who penned the opinion upholding gay marriage in that state was Judge Mark Cady, a Republican appointed by Governor Branstad. And last night's hero, Judge Vaughn Walker was first appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and elevated by George H.W. Bush. And, of course, the lead lawyer in the courtroom was America's most famous conservative attorney, Ted Olson, former Solicitor General of the Reagan Administration and the man who made George W. Bush president at the Supreme Court.
Apparently these remnants of the old Republican Party appreciate that the GOP's greatest achievement and legacy to the nation was the 14th Amendment. This has been so woven into the tapestry of our culture that we need to be reminded from time to time that you can not vote away someone's fundamental human rights. That's why it is stunning to see three sitting Republican Senators ask for hearings on the 14th Amendment as it applies to birthright citizenship. Even Alan Keyes, who has for years ventured off into our political fringes, appeared as the voice of reason yesterday objecting to any re-examination of the 14th Amendment.
Rights by plebiscite can lead to dangerous things like a vote on torture, which would have passed in the George W. Bush Administration, or on depriving illegal immigrants due process, which would pass in the most Republican areas of the country today. As Vaughn Walker wrote yesterday,you can not deprive people of their rights because of dislike, prejudice, or religious superstition.
It's now a race to the Supreme Court between the Massachusetts DOMA case and the California Prop 8 case. I would urge everyone to read Judge Vaughn Walker's Findings of Fact in the final opinion. He presided over a trial and during that trial the anti-gay side had ample opportunity to raise all their objections and evidence to the harm gay marriage would do to the institution of marriage, to the state, to the culture. Evaluating all the witnesses and their expertise, Vaughn Walker wrote out 80 Findings of Fact, which cumulatively demolished the anti-gay position in very measured, cool prose. His analysis of the quality of the anti-gay witnesses was more unrestrained and contemptuous.
The Findings of Fact provide a little guide to how to argue this issue to the layperson. But for the future appeals, it provides a bedrock of the case, which will be extremely difficult to overturn. The 9th Circuit Court--the next stop--will have to pay Walker due deference on the Findings of Fact and will only be able to adjust the Findings of Law. Legal experts believe that the 9th Circuit will fast track a decision, thereby setting the stage for the Supreme Court. For this, Judge Vaughn Walker already has peppered his decision with references to cases decided by Judge Kennedy.
The early bet is that a Supreme Court decision would be 5-4 in favor of gay marriage as the case has been argued so far. The deciding vote would be Kennedy, who has already penned decisions affirming rights of gays. But since this is the Roberts court, anything can happen. They could bring back slavery after the Citizens United fiasco, where foreign corporations gained more rights than average American citizens.
Public Policy Polling today came out with a poll that even surprised them. In the 27 Senate races they are monitoring for the 2010 midterms,24 of these races show moderates abandoning Republicans in greater numbers than they did McCain in 2008. Perhaps, the strategy of obstructionism is being perceived for what it is--an attempt to stop anything that might benefit average Americans.
Tan Man Boehner railed against the Jobs Bill because it favored those special interests groups-- those policemen and teachers. I'm sure he's just annoyed Nancy Pelosi called the House back next week to vote on the bill. He wants to relax and catch up on his golf. But House Republicans came out with their new jobs bill of their own--cut the corporate tax rate in half. At the same time, they have strenuously opposed cutting taxes for small businesses. Doesn't anyone feel some real "special interests" are at work here.
Ezra Klein appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show the other night to say that the Republicans have shrewdly backed the Democrats into a corner on the tax issue. I disagree. The Democrats are going to push forward in September their plan to raise the taxes on the top 1% and enshrine tax cuts for the rest of America. Republicans will have to publically defend the tax cuts for the upper brackets rather than get away with the scare tactics of massive tax increases across the board. If Republicans filibuster, then they would seal a tax increase for the entire country. Something I'm sure Democrats will point out everyday. And if Democrats cave, then they can say they sacrificed for the middle class and the Republicans will still be saddled with backing the very rich.
For the mid-terms, the Democrats would be well-advised to adopt a simple slogan such as "Who is working for you?" Make the choice plain and dramatic. Democrats this year are inheriting an atmosphere of total distrust of government. People forget that one other legacy of the Bush-Cheney years was the total collapse both here and abroad in faith in our federal government. Despite all the achievements of the Obama Administration and the House this past year,there is enough disinformation out there that arguing precise policy positions seems reactive. This is what the Republicans are banking on. But instead, every day the American public is treated to the negative behavior of Republicans in Congress. Whose on your side? That question is easier to answer than the pros and cons of a new Consumer Agency.
Senator Debbie Stabenow has introduced bill S3706 in the Senate to rectify the situation with the 99ers. This admits it will be almost impossible to pass. But it can serve as an organizing point for the unemployed, who are beginning to become more active.
It is rumored that Elena Kagan will be confirmed today. We've had another week of smears by some Republican Senators. So the radical, pacifist, sharia law-loving, homophile will get to take her seat in the fall session. She's probably receive in my view approximately the same vote total she got when she was confirmed as Solicitor General.
And, yeah, A-Rod hit his 600th. Next up he'll surpass Sammy Sosa this year.
And Pat Buchanan said gay marriage was unnatural. And Newt said that the decision ignored the wishes of millions of people.
In the last few days, we've been treated to some nice reminders about our better angels. Judge Susan Bolton striking down the most egregious portions of the Arizona immigration law. Mayor Bloomberg speaking at Governor's Island with a full array of religious leaders giving us a little history lesson on religious tolerance in Manhattan. In defending the construction of the alleged mosque near the site of the Twin Towers, he reminded the audience that the early leaders of New Amsterdam denied Jews permission to build a synagogue and that early Quakers were forced to leave the area after they were denied the right to worship. Aside from the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish community backed the decision to allow the construction of the cultural center in large numbers so much so that the Muslim community has been spending the last days thanking individual Jewish leaders.
Before we hear that Obama is allowing The Gay to infiltrate our government and banning the worship of Cheezits, it's useful to point out who the three judges who have ruled for gay marriage have been. The Boston judge who ruled that DOMA, the federal ban against gay marriage, was unconstitutional is Judge Joseph Tauro,a Nixon appointee. The Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court who penned the opinion upholding gay marriage in that state was Judge Mark Cady, a Republican appointed by Governor Branstad. And last night's hero, Judge Vaughn Walker was first appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and elevated by George H.W. Bush. And, of course, the lead lawyer in the courtroom was America's most famous conservative attorney, Ted Olson, former Solicitor General of the Reagan Administration and the man who made George W. Bush president at the Supreme Court.
Apparently these remnants of the old Republican Party appreciate that the GOP's greatest achievement and legacy to the nation was the 14th Amendment. This has been so woven into the tapestry of our culture that we need to be reminded from time to time that you can not vote away someone's fundamental human rights. That's why it is stunning to see three sitting Republican Senators ask for hearings on the 14th Amendment as it applies to birthright citizenship. Even Alan Keyes, who has for years ventured off into our political fringes, appeared as the voice of reason yesterday objecting to any re-examination of the 14th Amendment.
Rights by plebiscite can lead to dangerous things like a vote on torture, which would have passed in the George W. Bush Administration, or on depriving illegal immigrants due process, which would pass in the most Republican areas of the country today. As Vaughn Walker wrote yesterday,you can not deprive people of their rights because of dislike, prejudice, or religious superstition.
It's now a race to the Supreme Court between the Massachusetts DOMA case and the California Prop 8 case. I would urge everyone to read Judge Vaughn Walker's Findings of Fact in the final opinion. He presided over a trial and during that trial the anti-gay side had ample opportunity to raise all their objections and evidence to the harm gay marriage would do to the institution of marriage, to the state, to the culture. Evaluating all the witnesses and their expertise, Vaughn Walker wrote out 80 Findings of Fact, which cumulatively demolished the anti-gay position in very measured, cool prose. His analysis of the quality of the anti-gay witnesses was more unrestrained and contemptuous.
The Findings of Fact provide a little guide to how to argue this issue to the layperson. But for the future appeals, it provides a bedrock of the case, which will be extremely difficult to overturn. The 9th Circuit Court--the next stop--will have to pay Walker due deference on the Findings of Fact and will only be able to adjust the Findings of Law. Legal experts believe that the 9th Circuit will fast track a decision, thereby setting the stage for the Supreme Court. For this, Judge Vaughn Walker already has peppered his decision with references to cases decided by Judge Kennedy.
The early bet is that a Supreme Court decision would be 5-4 in favor of gay marriage as the case has been argued so far. The deciding vote would be Kennedy, who has already penned decisions affirming rights of gays. But since this is the Roberts court, anything can happen. They could bring back slavery after the Citizens United fiasco, where foreign corporations gained more rights than average American citizens.
Public Policy Polling today came out with a poll that even surprised them. In the 27 Senate races they are monitoring for the 2010 midterms,24 of these races show moderates abandoning Republicans in greater numbers than they did McCain in 2008. Perhaps, the strategy of obstructionism is being perceived for what it is--an attempt to stop anything that might benefit average Americans.
Tan Man Boehner railed against the Jobs Bill because it favored those special interests groups-- those policemen and teachers. I'm sure he's just annoyed Nancy Pelosi called the House back next week to vote on the bill. He wants to relax and catch up on his golf. But House Republicans came out with their new jobs bill of their own--cut the corporate tax rate in half. At the same time, they have strenuously opposed cutting taxes for small businesses. Doesn't anyone feel some real "special interests" are at work here.
Ezra Klein appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show the other night to say that the Republicans have shrewdly backed the Democrats into a corner on the tax issue. I disagree. The Democrats are going to push forward in September their plan to raise the taxes on the top 1% and enshrine tax cuts for the rest of America. Republicans will have to publically defend the tax cuts for the upper brackets rather than get away with the scare tactics of massive tax increases across the board. If Republicans filibuster, then they would seal a tax increase for the entire country. Something I'm sure Democrats will point out everyday. And if Democrats cave, then they can say they sacrificed for the middle class and the Republicans will still be saddled with backing the very rich.
For the mid-terms, the Democrats would be well-advised to adopt a simple slogan such as "Who is working for you?" Make the choice plain and dramatic. Democrats this year are inheriting an atmosphere of total distrust of government. People forget that one other legacy of the Bush-Cheney years was the total collapse both here and abroad in faith in our federal government. Despite all the achievements of the Obama Administration and the House this past year,there is enough disinformation out there that arguing precise policy positions seems reactive. This is what the Republicans are banking on. But instead, every day the American public is treated to the negative behavior of Republicans in Congress. Whose on your side? That question is easier to answer than the pros and cons of a new Consumer Agency.
Senator Debbie Stabenow has introduced bill S3706 in the Senate to rectify the situation with the 99ers. This admits it will be almost impossible to pass. But it can serve as an organizing point for the unemployed, who are beginning to become more active.
It is rumored that Elena Kagan will be confirmed today. We've had another week of smears by some Republican Senators. So the radical, pacifist, sharia law-loving, homophile will get to take her seat in the fall session. She's probably receive in my view approximately the same vote total she got when she was confirmed as Solicitor General.
And, yeah, A-Rod hit his 600th. Next up he'll surpass Sammy Sosa this year.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Judge Walker Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional
That ole'14th Amendment gets in the way. Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled Prop 8 on both Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. The decision is likely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The over-100 page opinion can be accessed at www.Prop8Trialtracker.com . Walker clearly has argued his opinion with the appeals process in mind. Kudos to Ted Olson and David Boies for a magnificent job in arguing the case for same sex marriage. Judge Walker, a George H.W. Bush appointee, played an active and aggressive role in challenging both legal teams to back up their arguments. In the summary stage of the trial, he was a real star.
Here's the conclusion from the decision.
Conclusion
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
Remedies
"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendents from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendents that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors..
Conclusions of Law
"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."
Yesterday, sensing defeat, the lawyers for Proposition 8 requested Judge Walker to withhold the ruling until the appeals process has begun. They argued--it would be unfair to other gays?! This from the side who tried to portray gay males as pedophiles and child sex abusers. The religious unChristian Right is already up in arms. The ruling was just and well-argued.
Now on to DADT. DADT already has been repealed by the House by 40 votes. It needs to wait for the report from the armed forces and ratification by the Senate.
I'm sure today's decision will become a great fund-raiser for conservative and religious groups. The so-called conservative constitutionalists will probably go into high gear to eradicate the 14th amendment--now we have Mexicans and gays involved--it's a winner. Aside from the sacred Second Amendment, I'm not sure there are many amendments left that conservatives approve of.
The trial itself should be made into a televised play. It had drama, humor and sparkling legal talent on display. Sort of the Snopes trial of the 21st century.
And if you're still against gay marriage, then don't marry one. It's simple and saves the taxpayer alot of money in court fees.
Here's the conclusion from the decision.
Conclusion
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
Remedies
"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendents from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendents that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors..
Conclusions of Law
"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."
Yesterday, sensing defeat, the lawyers for Proposition 8 requested Judge Walker to withhold the ruling until the appeals process has begun. They argued--it would be unfair to other gays?! This from the side who tried to portray gay males as pedophiles and child sex abusers. The religious unChristian Right is already up in arms. The ruling was just and well-argued.
Now on to DADT. DADT already has been repealed by the House by 40 votes. It needs to wait for the report from the armed forces and ratification by the Senate.
I'm sure today's decision will become a great fund-raiser for conservative and religious groups. The so-called conservative constitutionalists will probably go into high gear to eradicate the 14th amendment--now we have Mexicans and gays involved--it's a winner. Aside from the sacred Second Amendment, I'm not sure there are many amendments left that conservatives approve of.
The trial itself should be made into a televised play. It had drama, humor and sparkling legal talent on display. Sort of the Snopes trial of the 21st century.
And if you're still against gay marriage, then don't marry one. It's simple and saves the taxpayer alot of money in court fees.
Happy 49th Birthday to the Big O
President Obama may get a birthday present today as the pared-down jobs bill actually won a cloture vote and will be voted on. Harry Reid also threatened a cloture vote on the Elena Kagan nomination because Republicans were trying to round out the clock and postpone the vote until after the recess so that she would be unprepared for her first session at the Supreme Court in early fall. Stay classy.
So what has the Big O done in the last 18 months. Let's just keep it simple: the stimulus package; the total reform of the nation's healthcare system, something that has eluded every President since Theodore Roosevelt; the largest reform of our financial system since the Geeat Depression; picked two Supreme Court judges;ended the war in Iraq and reformulated the strategy in Afghanistan; negotiated a new START treaty; embarked on a global initiative to restrict nuclear materials;passed the Hate Crime Law and the Equal Pay for Equal Work; reformed the college loan program; and,oh I forgot, saved the entire American auto industry. And you can fill in the rest of the blanks. The list is truly astonishing. As Rachel Maddow said," He's accomplished more than anyone since the days when alcohol was illegal."
By December, we will hear from the Deficit Commission and will probably face a rancorous debate over immigration reform. But many of the real achievements are stealth. The stimulus contained the largest outlay for scientific research and development in American history and provided seed investment for alternative energy sources. From new solar technology to wind farms, these are small and inadequate investments into a future President Obama envisions but will meet enormous resistance. No one ever mentions that these investments are matched by 75% from private sources, a public-private partnership that may actually contribute to the common good.
But President Obama's singular failure so far is the lack of a comprehensive energy policy. Chris Hayes in the Nation writes his failure is the mortgage program. Others insist it's Afghanistan. Every President starting with Richard Nixon has warned of our addiction to oil and all have alerted the American public that we could not continue to consume so much oil and remain prosperous. The arguments have ranged from funding countries, who are anti-American, to negatively impacting the climate. President Obama made a promise at Copenhagen to cut gas house emissions significantly over a short period of time. Mandating the EPA regulate these emissions has been a significant act, but the situation has become a rapidly developing emergency.
The BP Gulf operation was Obama's compromise to bring more Republicans to support a comprehensive energy policy, which would channel more resources to a range of alternative, clean energy sources. Only a month prior to the explosion,there were miners' deaths in West Virginia and a slew of government investigations that determined that coal mines now were dangerously unsafe. This was also one of Obama's compromise--to support clean coal. The BP Gulf disaster was seen by some as an opportunity to address the nation and unveil a major energy initiative. From a political perspective, Obama had temporarily lost two of his playing cards to garner widespread support.
The sad fact of the matter is that climate change is a fait accompli, which we will have to live with. We are at the point of no return and the drone of propaganda from deniers has actually eroded the public's once large support for the notion climate change was man-made and dangerous to the environment. But simply from an energy supply issue,catastrophic disaster awaits us fairly soon. Mexico will import oil in 2015. Saudi Arabia has stopped developing new fields to save them for a future generation. And the Saudis have chronically lied about the size of their reserves for over a decade. The Iranian fields have been frozen because of antiquated drilling techniques that make them now impenetrable. BP was one of the first operations in the far energy frontier, where the last reserves exist. Even with success in exploring these reserves, the estimated oil represents only one year of our total consumption. The notion of peak oil in 2008 turns out to be right. And we can't avoid such environmentally hazardous areas if we are to continue our ruinous ways. But also they can only serve as the bridge to another future.
Remember health reform took place with the background of millions of Americans declaring bankruptcy because of medical bills and insurance rate hikes at 25-35% a year, throwing millions more off the insurance rolls. There was an urgency then, which we now forget. But there is an urgency now to make the transition to the full array of alternative energy sources. My fear is that the political situation is now so polarized and will remain so for the next two years that we will have to act in crisis and without the time needed to make such a transition smoothly--if we make it at all.
President Obama's economic policies will stabilize America's situation and I will bet he will also deal with the debt in a more rational manner than the Republicans. But to have a future where the standard of living isn't constantly eroding, America has to make its energy transition now, not latter.
So what has the Big O done in the last 18 months. Let's just keep it simple: the stimulus package; the total reform of the nation's healthcare system, something that has eluded every President since Theodore Roosevelt; the largest reform of our financial system since the Geeat Depression; picked two Supreme Court judges;ended the war in Iraq and reformulated the strategy in Afghanistan; negotiated a new START treaty; embarked on a global initiative to restrict nuclear materials;passed the Hate Crime Law and the Equal Pay for Equal Work; reformed the college loan program; and,oh I forgot, saved the entire American auto industry. And you can fill in the rest of the blanks. The list is truly astonishing. As Rachel Maddow said," He's accomplished more than anyone since the days when alcohol was illegal."
By December, we will hear from the Deficit Commission and will probably face a rancorous debate over immigration reform. But many of the real achievements are stealth. The stimulus contained the largest outlay for scientific research and development in American history and provided seed investment for alternative energy sources. From new solar technology to wind farms, these are small and inadequate investments into a future President Obama envisions but will meet enormous resistance. No one ever mentions that these investments are matched by 75% from private sources, a public-private partnership that may actually contribute to the common good.
But President Obama's singular failure so far is the lack of a comprehensive energy policy. Chris Hayes in the Nation writes his failure is the mortgage program. Others insist it's Afghanistan. Every President starting with Richard Nixon has warned of our addiction to oil and all have alerted the American public that we could not continue to consume so much oil and remain prosperous. The arguments have ranged from funding countries, who are anti-American, to negatively impacting the climate. President Obama made a promise at Copenhagen to cut gas house emissions significantly over a short period of time. Mandating the EPA regulate these emissions has been a significant act, but the situation has become a rapidly developing emergency.
The BP Gulf operation was Obama's compromise to bring more Republicans to support a comprehensive energy policy, which would channel more resources to a range of alternative, clean energy sources. Only a month prior to the explosion,there were miners' deaths in West Virginia and a slew of government investigations that determined that coal mines now were dangerously unsafe. This was also one of Obama's compromise--to support clean coal. The BP Gulf disaster was seen by some as an opportunity to address the nation and unveil a major energy initiative. From a political perspective, Obama had temporarily lost two of his playing cards to garner widespread support.
The sad fact of the matter is that climate change is a fait accompli, which we will have to live with. We are at the point of no return and the drone of propaganda from deniers has actually eroded the public's once large support for the notion climate change was man-made and dangerous to the environment. But simply from an energy supply issue,catastrophic disaster awaits us fairly soon. Mexico will import oil in 2015. Saudi Arabia has stopped developing new fields to save them for a future generation. And the Saudis have chronically lied about the size of their reserves for over a decade. The Iranian fields have been frozen because of antiquated drilling techniques that make them now impenetrable. BP was one of the first operations in the far energy frontier, where the last reserves exist. Even with success in exploring these reserves, the estimated oil represents only one year of our total consumption. The notion of peak oil in 2008 turns out to be right. And we can't avoid such environmentally hazardous areas if we are to continue our ruinous ways. But also they can only serve as the bridge to another future.
Remember health reform took place with the background of millions of Americans declaring bankruptcy because of medical bills and insurance rate hikes at 25-35% a year, throwing millions more off the insurance rolls. There was an urgency then, which we now forget. But there is an urgency now to make the transition to the full array of alternative energy sources. My fear is that the political situation is now so polarized and will remain so for the next two years that we will have to act in crisis and without the time needed to make such a transition smoothly--if we make it at all.
President Obama's economic policies will stabilize America's situation and I will bet he will also deal with the debt in a more rational manner than the Republicans. But to have a future where the standard of living isn't constantly eroding, America has to make its energy transition now, not latter.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Coffee at the Pink Flamingo
I forgot and you probably did too. The Iraq war is over for us this month. How did the WMDs work out for you? It's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED--sort of.
Well, it didn't take long for the Republicans to adopt my strategy on the tax cuts for the rich. They finally admitted it would deepen the deficit but tax cuts for the rich are really for job creation. Fox News was helpful in pointing out that the elimination of these tax cuts would be Obama declaring class war in the United States and threatening what made America great--the rich? Karl Rove has pivoted and says that the tax cuts for the rich are really aimed at small businesses. Ironic in that the Republicans have fought against every tax break for small businesses since Obama took office. But also, it doesn't really apply because only about 1% of small businesses make a profit of $250,000 a year. The Tax is not on gross receipts. As for the stimulus effect of these tax cuts, the bad news is that reputable think tanks like the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute have shown that job creation after the Bush tax cuts was weaker than any other recovery in our history. But why fool around with facts?
Still bitter after all these years, Senator John McCain and his new sidekick Senator Coburn issued a report that found problems with 100 stimulus projects of the thousands. What's worse for McCain is the new Pew Poll that shows that a vast majority of every party prefers their representative to bring government projects to their home district. McCain hasn't brought any and has campaigned against pork barrel spending his whole life. It seems Americans respectfully disagree.
Someone at the Dailykos decided to post the horoscopes of the Republican and Democratic leaders as well as the heads of the congressional campaign committees to ascertain the results of the November elections. Great idea and fun. The Republicans all come out as frustrated, while House Democrats go through tough times but emerge more powerful. Hmmm.
The horoscope may be the best answer yet. Yesterday's Gallup poll had Republicans regaining the generic poll by five--which is a direct reversal of the previous two weeks.
Republican staffers have been informed not to give out their bosses' home district schedules for the recess. Rumor has it that they fear 99ers showing up at townhall meetings. I would love to see a reverse Tea Party on the Republicans.
Richard Trumpka of the AFL-CIO has committed $53 million to the mid-terms to create a firewall against Republican in-roads. He called this year's choice "the cleaning crew versus the wrecking crew".
No one has mentioned this but while Republicans will pick up a number of state houses this fall, Obama may come out the biggest winner. If Democrats (and they have a real shot) win California, New York (done deal), Florida, Ohio and Texas (which I believe), that's 167 electoral votes and Obama is 103 away from re-election.
Meg Whitman officially has spent $99 million so far to buy the state of California. Governor Moonbeam has spent $450,000.
Let's play Senate elections for our summer amusement. Nate Silver has automatic Republican pick-ups in North Dakota, Arkansas, Delaware, and Indiana. Observers point to tight races in Wisconsin with Russ Feingold up for re-election and Washington State with Patty Murray. I think both incumbents will be OK. I think Patty Murray will beat Dino Rossi convincingly. I'm willing to call Florida now for Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio. I also believe that the Democratic nominee in Colorado will inch past the Republican,who will be crazy no matter who wins the nod. While I like Rodney Glassman in Arizona as a candidate--someone to watch, McCain will win again.
So the Democrats are minus 3 at this stage. I believe Democrats can pick up Ohio with Lee Fisher over John Kasich, North Carolina with Elaine Marshall over Burr, Kentucky with Conway over Rand Paul, Louisiana with Charlie Melancon over Diaper Dave Vitter and New Hampshire with David Hodes over one of the teabaggers. That would put Democrats up 2.
Right now Missouri, Pennsylvania and Illinois are too close to call. I can't see Mark Kirk regaining momentum in Illinois with his serial fabrication. In Pennsylvania, the Republicans look certain to take the state house but Pat Toomey seems too extreme for a state that has benefited enormously from the stimlus projects. And Missouri has evolved into one of the craziest political states in recent years that it's anyone's guess. Let's just say out of the three, Democrats lose 1.
Democrats have a lock on West Virginia with Gov Manchin. I like Roxanne Conlin as the Democratic candidate in Iowa. Iowa will elect former Governor Bradstad to the state house. Will this be enough to bring Grassley over the line? His approval rating has slipped to below 50% for the first time in his career.
Right now, Democrats could gain 1 in the Senate. CW would put loses at 4.
The question that hasn't been asked is whether Republicans will change their leadership in both chambers of Congress if they fail to win the majority. Do you want to stick with the policy of "No" through the presidential elections in 2012?
My rule of thumb at this stage of the elections is that Republicans must be polling at least 10 pts ahead to conclude they will win. It's like a reverse generic ballot, where Democrats polling 5 pt leads are actually tied.
Gallup released yesterday a 50 state poll ranking states as political conservative, moderate or liberal. This type of poll has always been circulated by right-wing friends of my as indicating that the country is conservative. But as we saw with David Stockman's blast at Republican eceonomics in the New York Times that traditional "Republican" values, those we associate with "conservative", are not radical and the hard right of today's party. That's why on the other end of the spectrum The Young Turks can claim most Americans are progressive, according to issues. in the future, Gallup should actually dig deeper to establish what values lie beneath "conservative" and "liberal". It would also be interesting to see how "libertarian" turns out.
The most conservative states are Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah, South Dakota, Alabama, North Dakota, Idaho, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Louisiana. So it breaks down to Western libertarianism, Mormonism, southern neo-confederate, Christian wingnuttery, and actually three normal conservative states Nebraska, and the Dakotas.
The top liberal states are D.C.,Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Colorado,New York, Oregon, Washington, and New Jersey. So that's African-American, the Yankees, Pacific Northwest, and the cosmopolitan mid-Atlantic states.
Well, how are our family value states doing? Law professors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone have published a new book "Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture", which examines the family patterns of socially conservative, "pro-family" people and their blue family counterparts. What I found interesting is that their findings mirror what evangelical sociologists have found about their flock. Red states have higher divorce rates and higher teen birth rates,slightly lower abortion rates, and higher out of wedlock births. One interesting fact is that 90% of women in all states use contraception. In fact, about 46% of women who procured abortions hasd not used some form of contraception the previous month so that the authors believe you could half this number with better education and the availability of contraception. Alot of their findings reflect not only differences in attitudes toward families but also a direct relationship to economic well-being and education. Ironically, those who live a more traditional family lifestyle are in blue states and the states with the lowest divorce rates are those ,which allow gay marriage. The evangelical studies go farther into meth addiction, porn use and domestic abuse, which show evangelicals are more dysfunctional than other sectors of society.
Well, it didn't take long for the Republicans to adopt my strategy on the tax cuts for the rich. They finally admitted it would deepen the deficit but tax cuts for the rich are really for job creation. Fox News was helpful in pointing out that the elimination of these tax cuts would be Obama declaring class war in the United States and threatening what made America great--the rich? Karl Rove has pivoted and says that the tax cuts for the rich are really aimed at small businesses. Ironic in that the Republicans have fought against every tax break for small businesses since Obama took office. But also, it doesn't really apply because only about 1% of small businesses make a profit of $250,000 a year. The Tax is not on gross receipts. As for the stimulus effect of these tax cuts, the bad news is that reputable think tanks like the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute have shown that job creation after the Bush tax cuts was weaker than any other recovery in our history. But why fool around with facts?
Still bitter after all these years, Senator John McCain and his new sidekick Senator Coburn issued a report that found problems with 100 stimulus projects of the thousands. What's worse for McCain is the new Pew Poll that shows that a vast majority of every party prefers their representative to bring government projects to their home district. McCain hasn't brought any and has campaigned against pork barrel spending his whole life. It seems Americans respectfully disagree.
Someone at the Dailykos decided to post the horoscopes of the Republican and Democratic leaders as well as the heads of the congressional campaign committees to ascertain the results of the November elections. Great idea and fun. The Republicans all come out as frustrated, while House Democrats go through tough times but emerge more powerful. Hmmm.
The horoscope may be the best answer yet. Yesterday's Gallup poll had Republicans regaining the generic poll by five--which is a direct reversal of the previous two weeks.
Republican staffers have been informed not to give out their bosses' home district schedules for the recess. Rumor has it that they fear 99ers showing up at townhall meetings. I would love to see a reverse Tea Party on the Republicans.
Richard Trumpka of the AFL-CIO has committed $53 million to the mid-terms to create a firewall against Republican in-roads. He called this year's choice "the cleaning crew versus the wrecking crew".
No one has mentioned this but while Republicans will pick up a number of state houses this fall, Obama may come out the biggest winner. If Democrats (and they have a real shot) win California, New York (done deal), Florida, Ohio and Texas (which I believe), that's 167 electoral votes and Obama is 103 away from re-election.
Meg Whitman officially has spent $99 million so far to buy the state of California. Governor Moonbeam has spent $450,000.
Let's play Senate elections for our summer amusement. Nate Silver has automatic Republican pick-ups in North Dakota, Arkansas, Delaware, and Indiana. Observers point to tight races in Wisconsin with Russ Feingold up for re-election and Washington State with Patty Murray. I think both incumbents will be OK. I think Patty Murray will beat Dino Rossi convincingly. I'm willing to call Florida now for Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio. I also believe that the Democratic nominee in Colorado will inch past the Republican,who will be crazy no matter who wins the nod. While I like Rodney Glassman in Arizona as a candidate--someone to watch, McCain will win again.
So the Democrats are minus 3 at this stage. I believe Democrats can pick up Ohio with Lee Fisher over John Kasich, North Carolina with Elaine Marshall over Burr, Kentucky with Conway over Rand Paul, Louisiana with Charlie Melancon over Diaper Dave Vitter and New Hampshire with David Hodes over one of the teabaggers. That would put Democrats up 2.
Right now Missouri, Pennsylvania and Illinois are too close to call. I can't see Mark Kirk regaining momentum in Illinois with his serial fabrication. In Pennsylvania, the Republicans look certain to take the state house but Pat Toomey seems too extreme for a state that has benefited enormously from the stimlus projects. And Missouri has evolved into one of the craziest political states in recent years that it's anyone's guess. Let's just say out of the three, Democrats lose 1.
Democrats have a lock on West Virginia with Gov Manchin. I like Roxanne Conlin as the Democratic candidate in Iowa. Iowa will elect former Governor Bradstad to the state house. Will this be enough to bring Grassley over the line? His approval rating has slipped to below 50% for the first time in his career.
Right now, Democrats could gain 1 in the Senate. CW would put loses at 4.
The question that hasn't been asked is whether Republicans will change their leadership in both chambers of Congress if they fail to win the majority. Do you want to stick with the policy of "No" through the presidential elections in 2012?
My rule of thumb at this stage of the elections is that Republicans must be polling at least 10 pts ahead to conclude they will win. It's like a reverse generic ballot, where Democrats polling 5 pt leads are actually tied.
Gallup released yesterday a 50 state poll ranking states as political conservative, moderate or liberal. This type of poll has always been circulated by right-wing friends of my as indicating that the country is conservative. But as we saw with David Stockman's blast at Republican eceonomics in the New York Times that traditional "Republican" values, those we associate with "conservative", are not radical and the hard right of today's party. That's why on the other end of the spectrum The Young Turks can claim most Americans are progressive, according to issues. in the future, Gallup should actually dig deeper to establish what values lie beneath "conservative" and "liberal". It would also be interesting to see how "libertarian" turns out.
The most conservative states are Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah, South Dakota, Alabama, North Dakota, Idaho, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Louisiana. So it breaks down to Western libertarianism, Mormonism, southern neo-confederate, Christian wingnuttery, and actually three normal conservative states Nebraska, and the Dakotas.
The top liberal states are D.C.,Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Colorado,New York, Oregon, Washington, and New Jersey. So that's African-American, the Yankees, Pacific Northwest, and the cosmopolitan mid-Atlantic states.
Well, how are our family value states doing? Law professors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone have published a new book "Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture", which examines the family patterns of socially conservative, "pro-family" people and their blue family counterparts. What I found interesting is that their findings mirror what evangelical sociologists have found about their flock. Red states have higher divorce rates and higher teen birth rates,slightly lower abortion rates, and higher out of wedlock births. One interesting fact is that 90% of women in all states use contraception. In fact, about 46% of women who procured abortions hasd not used some form of contraception the previous month so that the authors believe you could half this number with better education and the availability of contraception. Alot of their findings reflect not only differences in attitudes toward families but also a direct relationship to economic well-being and education. Ironically, those who live a more traditional family lifestyle are in blue states and the states with the lowest divorce rates are those ,which allow gay marriage. The evangelical studies go farther into meth addiction, porn use and domestic abuse, which show evangelicals are more dysfunctional than other sectors of society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)