My web silence was an exercise in self-control. Otherwise I would be screaming and have to be put away in a rubber room. The flap over Park 51 is absolutely one of the most disgusting displays of bigotry in a year filled with them. I was waiting when the Republicans could come up with some patriotic kitsch to accuse Democrats of being un-patriotic. Karl Rove this morning went on television saying that President Obama hurt America's image abroad by endorsing the Muslim community center. I think sanctioning torture may have a more negative effect on our image than our President defending the Constitution of the United States and freedom of religion.
The reader would do well to read the New York Times coverage of the original project and the overwhelming response in Manhattan when it was proposed in December and the enthusiasm for the center's imam, who is a sufi. Yesterday, Fox news' radical Muslim cleric, the new Jeremiah Wright, was exposed by Huffington Post as an adviser to the FBI on counter-terrorism. But it doesn't matter. Senator Cornyn sent out a stream of e-mails from the National Republican Senate Committee asking voters to demand the position of the mosque from each Democratic candidate in the toss-up Senate races. Officially,the so-called mosque is now an wedge issue. Rep. King of New York had previously said immigration would be the wedge issue. But it looks like they have found one with more emotive punch. And it doesn't matter if you rationally dissect the whole argument.
It's important to see the logic of this episode for what it reveals about what we have come from during the Bush era. The "un-patriotic" position is to defend the constitution and the right of freedom to worship, the patriotic position is to ignore and violate the constitution for the nation's good. We barely lived through eight years of that nonsense but the "mosque" episode shows how in-grained this mentality is among conservatives. If we are to be "sensitive" to the feelings of the 9-11 families, could we at least recognize that 400 of the 3,300+ who died that day were Muslims.
Taking that logic further, Greta Van Cistern suggested that Glenn Beck should change the venue of "Restore His Honor" rally from the Lincoln Memorial where Dr. King gave his "Dream" speech to somewhere else because it offends "some people"--like me. And what about all those confederate memorials, when my family lost half its males in the Civil War. On the John Stewart Show, they came up with another logical consequence of this attitude. Catholic Churches have the right to build churches near grammar schools but should they, given recent scandals?
Hitler fan, Pat Buchanan actually acted as a voice of reason by saying that Newt Gingrich had gone too far about likening the community center to Nazis putting up signs near the Holocaust Museum or the Japanese putting up a Shinto temple near Pearl Harbor. Pat explained this as Newt having to ramp up the rhetoric because he is aiming at the same base as Sarah Palin in 2012. Mike Barnacle called Newt a political arsonist. Former Bush appointees and Republican Muslim-Americans appeared to express horror at the whole firestorm and say that there were no adults left in the Republican Party. Many of the orginal critics started pulling back saying they were for the right of Muslims to worship but they don't have to exercise that right. And now it really are the Democrats who have the problem because they are wishy-washy compared to the strong "real Americans".
Meanwhile in Texas, the courts ruled that a Sikh Temple, which had just been built, had to be destroyed because it offended wealthy suburbanites who worried their property values would be depressed. You might recall shortly after 9-11 Texans took to killing Sikhs because they thought they were Muslims. The Sikhs had to take to the airwaves to explain their religion and how they were not "them". I can't wait what will happen when the revised Texas school books go into effect.
The Queen of the Birthers, Orly Taitz lost her Supreme Court case. She had appealed her fine for wasting the court's time. First she tried teabag friendly Clarence "Chuckles" Thomas who turned her down. She then sought to authenticate his signature. Then she sought Judge Alito, who referred her request to the whole Supreme Court. Its ruling means that she can't pester them again.
In positive news, Rod the Blago was only convicted on one count in his corruption case. I know he's a scoundrel but he's entertaining in his ineptitude. The one count is something that has bugged me about federal cases for some time. Rod was convicted of "lying to the FBI". If you listened to his press statement, he said that he told the FBI agent he wanted a court stenographer to record the interview and the FBI refused. I am sure some lawyer will tell me why lying to the FBI when you are not under oath or charged with anything is a crime. But what about the law against self-incrimination?
The judge ruled a mistrial on the remaining charges. Now that Rod is broke, Illinois taxpayers will have to foot his defense bill. The prosecutors argued that just because Rod was inept and could not pull his pay-to-play off still is a crime. I can understand why a juror might have a tough time finding guilt if a crime wasn't pulled off. Rod was lucky he got a jury trial because they represent only 1% of all federal trials. Former Supreme Court Justice Reinhquist warned the American legal profession that this trend was seriously threatening the right in America of a trial by jury. The primary reason for this is that defendents can not afford a defense and often the feds use Rico Laws to seize one's assets before any guilty pleas. In this case, the prosecution wanted to seize Rod's house.
The Ninth Circuit Court granted a stay on the Prop 8 ruling until the appeal is heard. The first and most important thing is that they granted a stay but did not discuss at all the reasons for it. The Prop 8 proponents argued that the gay couples, who brought the constitutional challenge, would not be harmed by a stay because they didn't plan to get married that week anyway. The good news is that the Ninth Circuit wants the case resolved quickly and adjusted their calender from December to September to begin hearings. Lastly, they requested Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Judge Vaughn Walker has already argued that they would not have standing in this case. A law professor wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the anti-gay crowd may be hoisted by the conservative petard because courts have severely restricted who has standing in various cases from environmental policy through other general interest cases. In this case, the Ninth Circuit has assigned a Merits Committee to rule on standing by December 6.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history, has endorsed the McColm Social Security plan of ending the cap on the FICA tax. Sanders wrote an op-ed calling out all those claiming Social Security is going bankrupt and pointing out what everyone has been saying that it can pay out every dime to people through 2039 and then it could only pay out 78% of the benefits owed. With the end of the cap on the tax, it would last an additional 75 years into the 22nd century.
Poor Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist, has to do battle with the Social Security crowd. His op-ed in the New York Times barely contained his annoyance with the stupidity of those arguing for a cut in benefits and an extension in age. This time Bernie Sanders sounded more professorial. Krugman does make the point that demographics may mean that the 2039 date for the trust fund may never come. It's just a hypothetical that economists believe may not be real.
Whoops. The Roper poll paid by AARP showed that 85% of adults oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit and 72% "strongly oppose". Two-Thirds say their family would be hit hard if Social Security were cut. 80% say that Social Security alleviates the financial burden of taking care of parents. What's interesting is that the poll found that only 21% knew that if the Trust Fund were exhausted that Social Security would still pay only slightly reduced benefits.
The Roper Poll found that half of all non-retired adults would be willing to pay higher payroll taxes and 57% of those under 50 would be willing to pay such a tax so that Social Security would be there for them.
I awoke this morning to see a Christian television network broadcast a presentation by a white male in his 30s about why Democracy as an experiment was doomed to fail. This character explained that everyone could vote--that was the problem. The informed and the ill-informed. The informed ,according to him, were those who understood "the authentic common good", who had the long term interests of the civilization in mind. These people voted pro-life, anti-gay marriage and for God's laws. The uniformed voted for abortion on demand so they could have endless sex without consequences and the self-gratification of same sex relations. These uninformed were all narcissistic, showing the fallen nature of mankind. By voting in this manner, they were destroying civilization.
The only solution for this white male was a "benevolent dictatorship", which would enforce Christian values and prevent human beings from falling into self-destructive behavior. America was a good experiment but it was doomed to fail because of its sinfulness. This new form of government would preserve civilization from the "barbarians" like the Christian kingdoms of Europe in the Middle Ages. The only citizens with rights would be God's people. I wonder who makes that decision. It reminds me more Salazar in Portugal than Franco in Spain. This new ideal. I want to create a theocracy under the rule of the spaghetti monster. Frankly, I have never heard such alarming nonsense said in a matter-of-fact way even on the most extreme websites.
To lighten the mood, I have been listening to Brian Wilson's "Re-imaging Gershwin". Some cuts are great and others tend to spoil the Gershwin with Beach Boy production values.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Another Poll--Hurray! Gallup on Morals
Steve Colbert did a segment spoofing the recent Gallup poll on "morally acceptable" or "morally wrong" behavior. They asked a random group of over 1,000 Americans to judge 16 acts. They broke the findings down according to sex and then later according to Democrat, Independent, or Republican.
What I found peculiar was that there were no economic questions. For instance,"Do you feel it is morally acceptable to trade derivatives?" "Do you feel it is morally accceptable for health insurance companies to raise rates when a family has no medical expenses in a year?" "Do you feel it is morally responsible for a bank to foreclose on a couple if they are three months behind on their mortgage? " "Do you feel its is morally responsible for a CEO of a company to take a multi-million bonus but lay off thousands of workers?" The only question remotely concerned about money is gambling and 61% of Americans find it morally acceptable. I would have liked to see more questions raised about the morality of the economy.
So, let's start with those things which are really, horribly morally wrong. 92% felt that a married man and woman having an affair is morally wrong. 90% felt that polygamy was wrong. Although I noticed 10% of men felt it was morally acceptable. 88% felt that cloning humans was wrong. 77% said that suicide was morally wrong. And 63% said that cloning animals was wrong.
Abortion was thought by 50% to be morally wrong. Here the split was political. 51% of Democrats believed it was morally acceptable. 39% of Independents thought it was acceptable. Only 26% of Republicans thought abortion was acceptable. By gender, 41% of men and 36% of women found it acceptable.
Pre-marital sex had 59% moral acceptability. 67% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 47% of Republicans. Men: 63%; Women: 56%.
Having a child out of marriage has a 54% approval rate: 61% of Democrats, 59% of Independents,and only 41% of Republicans. Men: 52% ; Women:55%
Gay and Lesbian relations received 52% morally acceptable rating. This is dramatically different according to politics. 61% of both Democrats and Independents said gay and lesbian relations were morally acceptable. Only 35% of Republicans. Men: 53%; Women:51%.
Doctor-assisted suicides were tied at 46% acceptable and 46% unacceptable. Democrats: 52%; Independents: 46%; and Republican: 40%. Men: 49%; Women: 42%.
And the Death Penalty has 65% morally acceptable versus 23% morally wrong. Democrats: only 52%, Independents 66%, and Republicans 76%.
Embryonic stem cell research receives 59% morally acceptable to only 32% morally wrong. 68% Democrats, 62% Independent; and 47% Republicans.
And now Divorce. 69% of Americans believe it's morally acceptable and only 23% do not. 73% Democrats, 74% Independents and 61% Republican. 71% of men; 67% women.
The buying and wearing fur throwaway question. 60% find it morally acceptable, while 35% do not. Men:73% and Women: 48%. This is the biggest gender gap of the whole survey. The next two were the questions about cloning animals and medical testing. And the final two were gambling and the death penalty. On wearing furs, only 54% of Democrats believed it was acceptable, while 67% of Republicans did so.
The biggest positive change in recent memory, for me, is the acceptance of gay and lesbian relations. And the biggest downward change is the moral acceptance of abortion. And basically,Americans overwhelmingly realize you are going to have premarital sex and you are going to get a divorce. The last number--accepting divorce--is a fatal recognition that 50% of present-day marriages end in divorce.
In terms of present political struggles, the moral acceptance of such a high divorce rate really calls into question the whole alleged rationale against same-sex marriages. If the family values crowd maintains marriage is necessary to create the family unit and to nurture children, then why are they not as ferocious against heterosexual divorce as against same-sex marriage? Never mind, we all know the reasons.
What I found peculiar was that there were no economic questions. For instance,"Do you feel it is morally acceptable to trade derivatives?" "Do you feel it is morally accceptable for health insurance companies to raise rates when a family has no medical expenses in a year?" "Do you feel it is morally responsible for a bank to foreclose on a couple if they are three months behind on their mortgage? " "Do you feel its is morally responsible for a CEO of a company to take a multi-million bonus but lay off thousands of workers?" The only question remotely concerned about money is gambling and 61% of Americans find it morally acceptable. I would have liked to see more questions raised about the morality of the economy.
So, let's start with those things which are really, horribly morally wrong. 92% felt that a married man and woman having an affair is morally wrong. 90% felt that polygamy was wrong. Although I noticed 10% of men felt it was morally acceptable. 88% felt that cloning humans was wrong. 77% said that suicide was morally wrong. And 63% said that cloning animals was wrong.
Abortion was thought by 50% to be morally wrong. Here the split was political. 51% of Democrats believed it was morally acceptable. 39% of Independents thought it was acceptable. Only 26% of Republicans thought abortion was acceptable. By gender, 41% of men and 36% of women found it acceptable.
Pre-marital sex had 59% moral acceptability. 67% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 47% of Republicans. Men: 63%; Women: 56%.
Having a child out of marriage has a 54% approval rate: 61% of Democrats, 59% of Independents,and only 41% of Republicans. Men: 52% ; Women:55%
Gay and Lesbian relations received 52% morally acceptable rating. This is dramatically different according to politics. 61% of both Democrats and Independents said gay and lesbian relations were morally acceptable. Only 35% of Republicans. Men: 53%; Women:51%.
Doctor-assisted suicides were tied at 46% acceptable and 46% unacceptable. Democrats: 52%; Independents: 46%; and Republican: 40%. Men: 49%; Women: 42%.
And the Death Penalty has 65% morally acceptable versus 23% morally wrong. Democrats: only 52%, Independents 66%, and Republicans 76%.
Embryonic stem cell research receives 59% morally acceptable to only 32% morally wrong. 68% Democrats, 62% Independent; and 47% Republicans.
And now Divorce. 69% of Americans believe it's morally acceptable and only 23% do not. 73% Democrats, 74% Independents and 61% Republican. 71% of men; 67% women.
The buying and wearing fur throwaway question. 60% find it morally acceptable, while 35% do not. Men:73% and Women: 48%. This is the biggest gender gap of the whole survey. The next two were the questions about cloning animals and medical testing. And the final two were gambling and the death penalty. On wearing furs, only 54% of Democrats believed it was acceptable, while 67% of Republicans did so.
The biggest positive change in recent memory, for me, is the acceptance of gay and lesbian relations. And the biggest downward change is the moral acceptance of abortion. And basically,Americans overwhelmingly realize you are going to have premarital sex and you are going to get a divorce. The last number--accepting divorce--is a fatal recognition that 50% of present-day marriages end in divorce.
In terms of present political struggles, the moral acceptance of such a high divorce rate really calls into question the whole alleged rationale against same-sex marriages. If the family values crowd maintains marriage is necessary to create the family unit and to nurture children, then why are they not as ferocious against heterosexual divorce as against same-sex marriage? Never mind, we all know the reasons.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Saturday at the Pink Flamingo
In last night's defense of freedom of religion, President Obama mentioned that the first Ramadan meal at the White House was held by Thomas Jefferson. While Sarah Palin tweeted," Will the President express our lingering pain over 9/11?", it's clear like almost every conservative she doesn't listen to a word the man says. President Obama went at great length to discuss 9/11 and the pain felt by families who lost loved ones and about the loss by firefighters and first responders. He also mentioned how many innocent Muslims lost their lives in 9/11 and how next week three who died fighting for the U.S. would be buried at Arlington Cemetary. And then for a zinger, he mentioned that there would be a Ramadan dinner at the Pentagon. But it will heat up over the controversy of Muslims praying in a former Burlington Coat Factory located in lower Manhattan.
HAPPY 75th BIRTHDAY TO SOCIAL SECURITY. When FDR signed social security 75 years ago today, the bill also included provisions for unemployment insurance. Some argue that social security might be the most successful social program in the world. Certainly,it has prevented millions of Americans from spending their old age in poverty. Rachel Maddow last night quoted a letter from Dwight David Eisenhower arguing that any party, which advocated its elimination, would soon disappear from the American scene. He went on to say that these people are "marginal and nuts". Well, surprise, a key platform for the Republican Party is now the elimination of social security or its privatization and the same fate for Medicare. We saw how in polls mentioned in yesterday's post Amercan reject such ideas.
This morning President Obama in his Saturday address to the nation blasted the Republicans for making these points central to their platform this year. President Obama gave a fierce defense of Social Security and how the healthreform bill extended the life of Medicare for more years than at any time before. President Obama's speech had been preceded by a strong ad by Democrats attacking Republicans on Social Security.
For years, I've followed how this issue gets played out in our political arena. For decades, Democrats were the ones fear-mongering about social security when the threat by Republicans didn't really exist. President Reagan even saved social security to fund the Baby-Boomers. Although it has to be admitted, his successors used the funds for unpaid wars. But now,the ideological purity of today's Republican Party demands the dismantling of the entire social welfare net in an hour of great need. Democrats this time are quite right in making this a centerpiece of the Fall campaign. The doubling down on free-market positions that have now a proven track record of failure still astonishes me.
Hats off to Rachel Maddow for continuing to expose how the whole immigration debate really is about the financial interests of Republicans in the private prison industry. She ought to shift her sights to the state of Virginia and the creation of immigration detention centers here. Since immigration is an issue to 7% of our population, according to Gallup, maybe it's best we just follow the money. Everytime fear is used to sell an issue, there are a set of people ready to profit from it. Look at our military/terrorist complex. Over $500 billion goes to private contractors. So why can't we do that with all our prisons and internment camps for immigrants? We're already doing that with our public school system. That's a large issue for another day.
For maniacs for polls--like me--there is a Clarus Poll of Republican voters to test the 2012 nomination strength of potential presidential candidates. They surveyed the popularity of 12 nominees. Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck's co-religionist, dropped 4 points since last August but still leads the pack at 26%. Some argue that the new ad campaign by the Church of Latter day Saints to sell us on how normal Mormons are is linked to the Romney campaign. Observers note that the campaign is being shown in primary states he needs to win. Mike Huckabee is a close second at 21% but Huckabee himself has complained about his inability to raise funds because the corporate wing of the party do not think he is economically conservative enough. In third place is Newt Gingrich at 14%, about the same he has been for a year. Newt's history of marital problems has become the renewed focus of journalists as his ex-wife finally has spoken out. Dramatically lower is the Grifter-in-Chief Sarah Palin, who has fallen 6 points in six months to 12%. Tim Pawlenty appears for the first time at 3% but people note that he can commute to Iowa from Minnesota for that caucus. Believe it or not, old neoconservative favorite Lamar Alexander has emerged at 3 percent. Haley Barbour at 2%. And both Mitch Daniels and John Thune are at 1 %.
Not included in this month's poll were Bobby Jindal, who once pulled down 4%, and Jeb Bush, who had finished fifth in March at 8%. Jeb has said he would not run for President.
The poll concludes that Newt now has edged Palin, even though she receives the lionshare of the media's attenton. Newt has recently upped the ante by attacking President Obama on everything from not going to war against North Korea and Iran to the Muslim Center at Ground Zero. Also in the past year Newt has been travelling the religious Right circuit with David Barton, Christian revisionist pseudo-historian, indicating Newt is serious this time. I still believe that if the Republicans fail to win the House, Newt will not run.
As for the pollster, they conclude that the race is wide open. See anyone you like?
HAPPY 75th BIRTHDAY TO SOCIAL SECURITY. When FDR signed social security 75 years ago today, the bill also included provisions for unemployment insurance. Some argue that social security might be the most successful social program in the world. Certainly,it has prevented millions of Americans from spending their old age in poverty. Rachel Maddow last night quoted a letter from Dwight David Eisenhower arguing that any party, which advocated its elimination, would soon disappear from the American scene. He went on to say that these people are "marginal and nuts". Well, surprise, a key platform for the Republican Party is now the elimination of social security or its privatization and the same fate for Medicare. We saw how in polls mentioned in yesterday's post Amercan reject such ideas.
This morning President Obama in his Saturday address to the nation blasted the Republicans for making these points central to their platform this year. President Obama gave a fierce defense of Social Security and how the healthreform bill extended the life of Medicare for more years than at any time before. President Obama's speech had been preceded by a strong ad by Democrats attacking Republicans on Social Security.
For years, I've followed how this issue gets played out in our political arena. For decades, Democrats were the ones fear-mongering about social security when the threat by Republicans didn't really exist. President Reagan even saved social security to fund the Baby-Boomers. Although it has to be admitted, his successors used the funds for unpaid wars. But now,the ideological purity of today's Republican Party demands the dismantling of the entire social welfare net in an hour of great need. Democrats this time are quite right in making this a centerpiece of the Fall campaign. The doubling down on free-market positions that have now a proven track record of failure still astonishes me.
Hats off to Rachel Maddow for continuing to expose how the whole immigration debate really is about the financial interests of Republicans in the private prison industry. She ought to shift her sights to the state of Virginia and the creation of immigration detention centers here. Since immigration is an issue to 7% of our population, according to Gallup, maybe it's best we just follow the money. Everytime fear is used to sell an issue, there are a set of people ready to profit from it. Look at our military/terrorist complex. Over $500 billion goes to private contractors. So why can't we do that with all our prisons and internment camps for immigrants? We're already doing that with our public school system. That's a large issue for another day.
For maniacs for polls--like me--there is a Clarus Poll of Republican voters to test the 2012 nomination strength of potential presidential candidates. They surveyed the popularity of 12 nominees. Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck's co-religionist, dropped 4 points since last August but still leads the pack at 26%. Some argue that the new ad campaign by the Church of Latter day Saints to sell us on how normal Mormons are is linked to the Romney campaign. Observers note that the campaign is being shown in primary states he needs to win. Mike Huckabee is a close second at 21% but Huckabee himself has complained about his inability to raise funds because the corporate wing of the party do not think he is economically conservative enough. In third place is Newt Gingrich at 14%, about the same he has been for a year. Newt's history of marital problems has become the renewed focus of journalists as his ex-wife finally has spoken out. Dramatically lower is the Grifter-in-Chief Sarah Palin, who has fallen 6 points in six months to 12%. Tim Pawlenty appears for the first time at 3% but people note that he can commute to Iowa from Minnesota for that caucus. Believe it or not, old neoconservative favorite Lamar Alexander has emerged at 3 percent. Haley Barbour at 2%. And both Mitch Daniels and John Thune are at 1 %.
Not included in this month's poll were Bobby Jindal, who once pulled down 4%, and Jeb Bush, who had finished fifth in March at 8%. Jeb has said he would not run for President.
The poll concludes that Newt now has edged Palin, even though she receives the lionshare of the media's attenton. Newt has recently upped the ante by attacking President Obama on everything from not going to war against North Korea and Iran to the Muslim Center at Ground Zero. Also in the past year Newt has been travelling the religious Right circuit with David Barton, Christian revisionist pseudo-historian, indicating Newt is serious this time. I still believe that if the Republicans fail to win the House, Newt will not run.
As for the pollster, they conclude that the race is wide open. See anyone you like?
Playing in the Sandbox
Jerry Brown filed papers with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking them to immediately allow same-sex marriages after Vaughn Walker's decision. But on the other side of the fence supporters of Prop 8 filed an emergency appeal asking for a permanent hold on last week's "egregiously selective and one-sided" ruling, contending it flouted the law and ignored evidence. Who knew?
In the 73-page appeal, Protect Marriage accused Judge Walker of ignoring "virtually everything--judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive documentary and historical evidence and even common sense--opposed to its conclusions". Is this for public consumption or really meant seriously? ProtectMarriage could only produce two witnesses to support their view because others dropped out because in discovery they were forced to admit that same-sex marriage had no harmful effects on heteros, children and the state. The two witnesses that actually made it to court made several damaging concessions during the cross-examination that basically nullified their anti-gay assumptions. In his ruling, Judge Walker complained about the dearth of evidence from ProtectMarriage.
ProtectMarriage claims that Judge Walker's decision "defames more than 7 million California voters as homophobic."
ProtectMarriage contends that Judge Walker erred when he said homosexuality deserves the heightened constitutional protection given to race and gender. Walker had concluded that "no credible evidence" shows that individuals consciously choose their sexual orientation. ProtectMarriage argued that homosexuality, unlike race and gender, is not immutable. This was demonstrated in court when they argued that women often change sexual orientation through life. It was one of the most bizarre moments in the whole enterprise. ProtectMarriage and the religious Right have a vested interest in trying to say that gays can be cured.
When Judge Walker refused to block gay marriages in his stay order, he said that no one had authority to appeal his decision except Governor Arnold Schwarsenegger and Attorny General Jerry Brown, the defendents in the case. Both decided not to defend the the measure and have actually come out in favor of the Judge's ruling. ProtectMarriage argued that California law gives initiative sponsors special rights--(which they of course deny to others like gays)--and allow proponents to intervene to defend initiatives they have sponsored.
The 9th Circuit Court, which is composed of three judges, two chosen by Democrats, one Republican,have ordered all arguments to be filed by Monday. If the court permits gay marriages to resume on Wednesday, then attorneys for Proposition 8 will seek a permanent hold from the Supreme Court justice assigned to the West--Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy is seen as the vital swing vote on gay issues. He could then assign the whole matter to the Supreme Court.
In a previous post, I mentioned how vital the "Findings of Fact" were to the case. Judge Walker made 80 such findings of fact, which cover the waterfront in terms of the lack of gay marriages' negative affects on straight marriage, the positive effects of gays' adopting children, the lack of evidence of pedophilia,etc. in gay marriages and findings on all the rest of the propaganda. When the 9th Circuit rules, they must pay inordinate respect to Walker's Findings of Fact. It is almost unheard of for the 9th Circuit to challenge this. The primary reason being is that both parties had ample opportunity to bring all relevant facts to the court. This was, after all, a trial. Judge Walker's ruling was not grounded in his own opinion but a judgement on the merits of the case as delivered by both teams of lawyers. It's too late to say" hey, we forgot to mention this or that new evidence."
So the question becomes whether Anthony Kennedy will actually refer the case to the full Supreme Court. I would love to hear what happens if he doesn't. Or conversely, before the Supreme Court, do the anti-gay lawyers get to re-field their bogus authorities and pseudo-scholars or can they dig up new ones? And how do previous Supreme Court rulings over-turning sodomy laws limit the range of permissible arguments?
In the 73-page appeal, Protect Marriage accused Judge Walker of ignoring "virtually everything--judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive documentary and historical evidence and even common sense--opposed to its conclusions". Is this for public consumption or really meant seriously? ProtectMarriage could only produce two witnesses to support their view because others dropped out because in discovery they were forced to admit that same-sex marriage had no harmful effects on heteros, children and the state. The two witnesses that actually made it to court made several damaging concessions during the cross-examination that basically nullified their anti-gay assumptions. In his ruling, Judge Walker complained about the dearth of evidence from ProtectMarriage.
ProtectMarriage claims that Judge Walker's decision "defames more than 7 million California voters as homophobic."
ProtectMarriage contends that Judge Walker erred when he said homosexuality deserves the heightened constitutional protection given to race and gender. Walker had concluded that "no credible evidence" shows that individuals consciously choose their sexual orientation. ProtectMarriage argued that homosexuality, unlike race and gender, is not immutable. This was demonstrated in court when they argued that women often change sexual orientation through life. It was one of the most bizarre moments in the whole enterprise. ProtectMarriage and the religious Right have a vested interest in trying to say that gays can be cured.
When Judge Walker refused to block gay marriages in his stay order, he said that no one had authority to appeal his decision except Governor Arnold Schwarsenegger and Attorny General Jerry Brown, the defendents in the case. Both decided not to defend the the measure and have actually come out in favor of the Judge's ruling. ProtectMarriage argued that California law gives initiative sponsors special rights--(which they of course deny to others like gays)--and allow proponents to intervene to defend initiatives they have sponsored.
The 9th Circuit Court, which is composed of three judges, two chosen by Democrats, one Republican,have ordered all arguments to be filed by Monday. If the court permits gay marriages to resume on Wednesday, then attorneys for Proposition 8 will seek a permanent hold from the Supreme Court justice assigned to the West--Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy is seen as the vital swing vote on gay issues. He could then assign the whole matter to the Supreme Court.
In a previous post, I mentioned how vital the "Findings of Fact" were to the case. Judge Walker made 80 such findings of fact, which cover the waterfront in terms of the lack of gay marriages' negative affects on straight marriage, the positive effects of gays' adopting children, the lack of evidence of pedophilia,etc. in gay marriages and findings on all the rest of the propaganda. When the 9th Circuit rules, they must pay inordinate respect to Walker's Findings of Fact. It is almost unheard of for the 9th Circuit to challenge this. The primary reason being is that both parties had ample opportunity to bring all relevant facts to the court. This was, after all, a trial. Judge Walker's ruling was not grounded in his own opinion but a judgement on the merits of the case as delivered by both teams of lawyers. It's too late to say" hey, we forgot to mention this or that new evidence."
So the question becomes whether Anthony Kennedy will actually refer the case to the full Supreme Court. I would love to hear what happens if he doesn't. Or conversely, before the Supreme Court, do the anti-gay lawyers get to re-field their bogus authorities and pseudo-scholars or can they dig up new ones? And how do previous Supreme Court rulings over-turning sodomy laws limit the range of permissible arguments?
Friday, August 13, 2010
Friday Night Politics at the Last Manatee
Well, President Obama did it now. Tonight he hosted an iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan, something President Bush did also but this will be forgotten. And he came out in full support of religious freedom, even citing the real Thomas Jefferson as opposed to David Barton's mythical creature, and supported the building of the Islamic Center near--sort of near--Ground Zero. As to be expected, it was an eloquent statement. So let the hysteria continue. Some 100 religious leaders a few days ago came out slamming the Islamophobia surrounding the Ground Zero project. But over 70% of Americans oppose the project, according to a CNN poll. Will this be the attacking rabbit of the Carter years?
Today I listened to the roundtable on the Diane Riehm show where all the news commentators basically said that the situation was dire for Democrats. One reporter was asked by Diane why after all the accomplishments of Barack Obama were journalists so hard on him. The answer was that they simply reflect the public opinion polls. An odd thing for a journalist to confess. The rest of the panelists chimed in that there was a sense in the Spring that the economy was poised to begin a robust recovery and when that didn't happen everyone's mood darkened. One other journalist said that this all comes at a bad time for the Democrats because now is when the opinion of the electorate solidifies. They likened the situation to the mid-term in Reagan's first term when unemployment reached 11.5% and he had cut taxes. Even though people felt money in their pocket, the Republicans lost 28 seats in the House. The commentators said that people have not felt the benefits of Obama's policies yet.
They went on to cite the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll about how Democrats have lost their competitive edge on major issues and that the Democratic Party approval rating is 33%, the lowest since July 2006. What they didn't comment on is that the GOP approval rating was 24%, the lowest ever recorded by pollsters Hart and McInturff. Don't you have to beat something with something? If the Republican Party still existed as a party,I think the panelists would be right. But it doesn't. And that should give some hope to Democrats. In the same poll, the GOP had a huge generic ballot edge in the South--52 to 31% but didn't lead anywhere else in the country. This was an area, the pollsters concluded, was "where you have whiter and older voters". The Republicans, according to this poll, are clearly a Southern Party, no longer a national party, which doesn't bode well for their future.
Now referring to an older post of mine, I wrote that the 2008 election showed that Republican congressional districts had become more Republican and Democratic districts more Democratic. My concern at the time was that we had become a more polarized society politically than ever before. That means the Republican side becomes even more right-wing, as the last 18 months have shown. But does that polarization simply work against Republicans actually gaining significant victories in both the congressional and senator races?
Add to this the other issue of organization. The Republican Party organization is in utter disarray. Witness how the chosen candidates in Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado and even Utah lost to Teabaggers. While the Obama campaign was decentralized, you can't say the Republicans have adopted the same strategy by their competing organizations and money sources. You have internal fighting between the Karl Rove parallel RNC and groups such as the Club of Growth, which Mike Huckabee tags the Club of Greed. The other disadvantage Republicans have is they are at a disadvantage in terms of money. Every time someone like the Chamber of Commerce annouces it will spend some $75 million to elect Republicans, the number is matched within a day by the Democrats.
Whatever happens in the mid-terms, this notion that Obama's popularity is sinking continues to be the most annoying meme in the media. At his first mid-term, Reagan had sunk to a 35% approval rating. President Obama has continued to maintain approximately the same approval rating all year. In the same NBC/Wall Street poll, they were other questions asked about President Obama's likeability, etc, soft questions. But they reflect for me the degree to which he maintains considerable political reserves. When Democrats attacked George W. Bush and pointed to then mediocre approval ratings, he retained enormous percentages in terms of likeability, which held him up until he fell to his low approval ratings in the last two years of his Presidency.
PPP just came out with its periodic 2012 Presidential survey. At this stage, they have Obama at a 47 approval--48 disapproval rating. Sounds bad except when you compare it to all the leading Republican presidential contenders--none of whom reached 40% approval and all had substantial disapproval ratings, some fatally so. In head-to-head contests, President Obama bests every one of them now. So it's really how you compare things. Obama has roughly a 20pt lead in approval rating over any Republican congressional leaders.
Even Hapless Harry Reid in the NBC/Wall Street poll has only a 10% approval rating. He has a slight edge on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet, Reid today in Nevada is polling at 47.5% and has a four point edge over Sharron Angle. If he ran against someone normal, he would be toast.
In Colorado, it looked like Republicans this year would easily pick up the state house and a Senate seat. The Democratic candidate looks like he's going to win a landslide because of the lunatic Republicans selected and the renegade candidacy of Tom Tancredo. After a bruising democratic primary, Michael Bennet woke up and found himself against Ken Buck, a loony tune character, on the Republican side.
Yet the West will be tough this year for Democrats. They only have a one point generic lead on the Republicans in congressional races. In Washington state, Patty Murray will again face a well-financed Dino Rossi in a nail-biter. Republican hopeful Chris Dudley running for Oregon Governor seemed competitive but his tax issues and other problems seem to be sabotaging his effort.
Democrats seem to be forfeiting a real chance to take out Senator Burr in North Carolina. The problem Elaine Marshall has is the lack of cash to define Burr. She is a capable candidate with state-wide name recognition. But so far Burr can come home after the Senate break and actually tell voters he is for extending benefits to the uemployed while he filibustered against every attempt in the Senate and voted against extending benefits at every opportunity. It seems to be a Republican trait this year to return to the homes district and tell voters the opposite of what you really did.
Republicans are banking on California as a sign of their success this year. Right now Carly Fiorina, the disgraced CEO of Hewlett-Packard, has opened a 5 point lead against Barbara Boxer. Meg Whitman is a point ahead of Jerry Brown, who still hasn't begun to campaign yet. AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumpka arrived today in California to blast both Republican candidatesas two "clueless CEOs".
Trumpka went on to say," So in the elections for governor and senator, who do Republicans throw at the problem? Two clueless CEOs: Meg Whitman, who was too shady even for Goldman Sachs; and Carly Fiorina, who laid off 30,000 Hewlett-Packard employees, shipped jobs overseas, got fired--with a $20-plus million golden parachute--and was labeled one of the worst CEOs of all time." "How about Carly Fiorina--who calls offshoring jobs "right shoring"? She actually said that."
President Obama is scheduled to make several campaign stops during the August break to shore up Democratic candidates, including stops in Washington and California.
And what about the anti-incumbent fever? We have had more primaries and the number 90% of incumbents re-elected still holds. Yet even during today's Diane Riehm show, the panelists all talked about the anti-incumbent fever sweeping the country.
The White House has distributed a memo done by President Obama's pollster Joel Benenson, which claims the negative public opinion of the Republicans would forestall a "wave" election, which the GOP would need to win back both the House and the Senate. Basically, both parties have the same disapproval rate but the Republican approval rate is the lowest in history. The Republican approval rate has worsened since the last mid-term election in 2006. Benenson argues that Democrats today look about the same as they did in the summers of 1998 and 2002, neither of which were "wave" elections.
One interesting little thing has emerged as people contemplate Tan Man Boehner as Speaker of the House is that even Republicans are circulating the gossip that he tends to cry in his speeches late in the day, which they suggest is caused by his drinking. This is beginning to make the rounds on the internet.
A secret weapon that Democrats still have is the whole tax issue, something they haven't played well yet. In 2008 Obama took the tax issue away from the Republicans and they didn't even know it. When I asked republican strategists about this, they didn't even know what I was talking about. Obama promised tax cuts to everyone earning under $250,000 and he has delivered. But the Democrats seem to step on this message. But now in front of the nation, we have the issue of the Bush tax cuts. Ezra Klein produced a graph for the Washington Post comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans. Everything looked very similar until you reach the graphic about people earning over $1 million a year. The comparison then ends with the Republicans giving these high flyers over $106,000 in tax breaks, a dramatic huge circle distorting the whole graphic. The Democrats should just show this as often as they can.
The CBO also has done a list of all the things one can do to stimulate the economy. The least effective thing on their long list is to give tax breaks to rich people. Since every Republican has gotten this talking point about the Bush tax cuts and appeared on national television arguing it, the Democrats should just wrap it around their necks along with every jobs bill they either opposed or killed.
Then we reach the situation where the Republican Party has come out now as explicitly the party of white, older men. Even the white women campaign against women's rights. have we come to the point where we can coin the term "self-hating woman"? But in the mid-term the White position can be strong. Older white tend to vote more often and they now seem to be the only demographic Republicans actually have a lead. There is a perverse logic of Republicans running in the mid-terms against President Obama, despite the fact he is far and away more popular than any Republican in the land. He only won 43% of the white vote in 2008 and Democrats have not won a majority of white votes since LBJ. Republicans are banking that the Obama voters can not be mobilized to come out in any significant number so that the election really comes down to a fight between white voters. That's why they feel they can play the immigration card even though only 7% believe it is an issue--this is their wedge issue and can move enough voters in a low turnout election in their direction.
The risk of them doing this is considerable in Florida, Texas, Nevada, California and Colorado. The overt anti-Hispanic sentiment of the GOP has galvanized the Latino community,who will likely vote in greater number this year than normal. Even people like Karl Rove and Jeb Bush know that for the long-term prospects of the party this is suicidal.
The other self-destructive tendency of the GOP this year is their frontal assault on Social Security and Medicare. Because people like Pat Ryan are advocating massive restructuring of entitlement programs, older Americans are correct to be anxious about their security in a time of deep uncertainty. Social Security today prevents some 19 million people from slipping into poverty. This year the usual reassurance from Republicans not to touch these programs doesn't feel or seem credible. And this will erode their advantage among older Americans.
The unknown know will be the political efforts of the 99ers, people who have been unemployed beyond the time of their benefits. They are organizing in the thousands and on the internet they are nearing about 1 million. Today they held a rally on Wall Street. Many of these people were reliable Republican voters, who have become disgusted by the party's attack on them as some sort of "welfare queens".
Today I listened to the roundtable on the Diane Riehm show where all the news commentators basically said that the situation was dire for Democrats. One reporter was asked by Diane why after all the accomplishments of Barack Obama were journalists so hard on him. The answer was that they simply reflect the public opinion polls. An odd thing for a journalist to confess. The rest of the panelists chimed in that there was a sense in the Spring that the economy was poised to begin a robust recovery and when that didn't happen everyone's mood darkened. One other journalist said that this all comes at a bad time for the Democrats because now is when the opinion of the electorate solidifies. They likened the situation to the mid-term in Reagan's first term when unemployment reached 11.5% and he had cut taxes. Even though people felt money in their pocket, the Republicans lost 28 seats in the House. The commentators said that people have not felt the benefits of Obama's policies yet.
They went on to cite the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll about how Democrats have lost their competitive edge on major issues and that the Democratic Party approval rating is 33%, the lowest since July 2006. What they didn't comment on is that the GOP approval rating was 24%, the lowest ever recorded by pollsters Hart and McInturff. Don't you have to beat something with something? If the Republican Party still existed as a party,I think the panelists would be right. But it doesn't. And that should give some hope to Democrats. In the same poll, the GOP had a huge generic ballot edge in the South--52 to 31% but didn't lead anywhere else in the country. This was an area, the pollsters concluded, was "where you have whiter and older voters". The Republicans, according to this poll, are clearly a Southern Party, no longer a national party, which doesn't bode well for their future.
Now referring to an older post of mine, I wrote that the 2008 election showed that Republican congressional districts had become more Republican and Democratic districts more Democratic. My concern at the time was that we had become a more polarized society politically than ever before. That means the Republican side becomes even more right-wing, as the last 18 months have shown. But does that polarization simply work against Republicans actually gaining significant victories in both the congressional and senator races?
Add to this the other issue of organization. The Republican Party organization is in utter disarray. Witness how the chosen candidates in Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado and even Utah lost to Teabaggers. While the Obama campaign was decentralized, you can't say the Republicans have adopted the same strategy by their competing organizations and money sources. You have internal fighting between the Karl Rove parallel RNC and groups such as the Club of Growth, which Mike Huckabee tags the Club of Greed. The other disadvantage Republicans have is they are at a disadvantage in terms of money. Every time someone like the Chamber of Commerce annouces it will spend some $75 million to elect Republicans, the number is matched within a day by the Democrats.
Whatever happens in the mid-terms, this notion that Obama's popularity is sinking continues to be the most annoying meme in the media. At his first mid-term, Reagan had sunk to a 35% approval rating. President Obama has continued to maintain approximately the same approval rating all year. In the same NBC/Wall Street poll, they were other questions asked about President Obama's likeability, etc, soft questions. But they reflect for me the degree to which he maintains considerable political reserves. When Democrats attacked George W. Bush and pointed to then mediocre approval ratings, he retained enormous percentages in terms of likeability, which held him up until he fell to his low approval ratings in the last two years of his Presidency.
PPP just came out with its periodic 2012 Presidential survey. At this stage, they have Obama at a 47 approval--48 disapproval rating. Sounds bad except when you compare it to all the leading Republican presidential contenders--none of whom reached 40% approval and all had substantial disapproval ratings, some fatally so. In head-to-head contests, President Obama bests every one of them now. So it's really how you compare things. Obama has roughly a 20pt lead in approval rating over any Republican congressional leaders.
Even Hapless Harry Reid in the NBC/Wall Street poll has only a 10% approval rating. He has a slight edge on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet, Reid today in Nevada is polling at 47.5% and has a four point edge over Sharron Angle. If he ran against someone normal, he would be toast.
In Colorado, it looked like Republicans this year would easily pick up the state house and a Senate seat. The Democratic candidate looks like he's going to win a landslide because of the lunatic Republicans selected and the renegade candidacy of Tom Tancredo. After a bruising democratic primary, Michael Bennet woke up and found himself against Ken Buck, a loony tune character, on the Republican side.
Yet the West will be tough this year for Democrats. They only have a one point generic lead on the Republicans in congressional races. In Washington state, Patty Murray will again face a well-financed Dino Rossi in a nail-biter. Republican hopeful Chris Dudley running for Oregon Governor seemed competitive but his tax issues and other problems seem to be sabotaging his effort.
Democrats seem to be forfeiting a real chance to take out Senator Burr in North Carolina. The problem Elaine Marshall has is the lack of cash to define Burr. She is a capable candidate with state-wide name recognition. But so far Burr can come home after the Senate break and actually tell voters he is for extending benefits to the uemployed while he filibustered against every attempt in the Senate and voted against extending benefits at every opportunity. It seems to be a Republican trait this year to return to the homes district and tell voters the opposite of what you really did.
Republicans are banking on California as a sign of their success this year. Right now Carly Fiorina, the disgraced CEO of Hewlett-Packard, has opened a 5 point lead against Barbara Boxer. Meg Whitman is a point ahead of Jerry Brown, who still hasn't begun to campaign yet. AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumpka arrived today in California to blast both Republican candidatesas two "clueless CEOs".
Trumpka went on to say," So in the elections for governor and senator, who do Republicans throw at the problem? Two clueless CEOs: Meg Whitman, who was too shady even for Goldman Sachs; and Carly Fiorina, who laid off 30,000 Hewlett-Packard employees, shipped jobs overseas, got fired--with a $20-plus million golden parachute--and was labeled one of the worst CEOs of all time." "How about Carly Fiorina--who calls offshoring jobs "right shoring"? She actually said that."
President Obama is scheduled to make several campaign stops during the August break to shore up Democratic candidates, including stops in Washington and California.
And what about the anti-incumbent fever? We have had more primaries and the number 90% of incumbents re-elected still holds. Yet even during today's Diane Riehm show, the panelists all talked about the anti-incumbent fever sweeping the country.
The White House has distributed a memo done by President Obama's pollster Joel Benenson, which claims the negative public opinion of the Republicans would forestall a "wave" election, which the GOP would need to win back both the House and the Senate. Basically, both parties have the same disapproval rate but the Republican approval rate is the lowest in history. The Republican approval rate has worsened since the last mid-term election in 2006. Benenson argues that Democrats today look about the same as they did in the summers of 1998 and 2002, neither of which were "wave" elections.
One interesting little thing has emerged as people contemplate Tan Man Boehner as Speaker of the House is that even Republicans are circulating the gossip that he tends to cry in his speeches late in the day, which they suggest is caused by his drinking. This is beginning to make the rounds on the internet.
A secret weapon that Democrats still have is the whole tax issue, something they haven't played well yet. In 2008 Obama took the tax issue away from the Republicans and they didn't even know it. When I asked republican strategists about this, they didn't even know what I was talking about. Obama promised tax cuts to everyone earning under $250,000 and he has delivered. But the Democrats seem to step on this message. But now in front of the nation, we have the issue of the Bush tax cuts. Ezra Klein produced a graph for the Washington Post comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans. Everything looked very similar until you reach the graphic about people earning over $1 million a year. The comparison then ends with the Republicans giving these high flyers over $106,000 in tax breaks, a dramatic huge circle distorting the whole graphic. The Democrats should just show this as often as they can.
The CBO also has done a list of all the things one can do to stimulate the economy. The least effective thing on their long list is to give tax breaks to rich people. Since every Republican has gotten this talking point about the Bush tax cuts and appeared on national television arguing it, the Democrats should just wrap it around their necks along with every jobs bill they either opposed or killed.
Then we reach the situation where the Republican Party has come out now as explicitly the party of white, older men. Even the white women campaign against women's rights. have we come to the point where we can coin the term "self-hating woman"? But in the mid-term the White position can be strong. Older white tend to vote more often and they now seem to be the only demographic Republicans actually have a lead. There is a perverse logic of Republicans running in the mid-terms against President Obama, despite the fact he is far and away more popular than any Republican in the land. He only won 43% of the white vote in 2008 and Democrats have not won a majority of white votes since LBJ. Republicans are banking that the Obama voters can not be mobilized to come out in any significant number so that the election really comes down to a fight between white voters. That's why they feel they can play the immigration card even though only 7% believe it is an issue--this is their wedge issue and can move enough voters in a low turnout election in their direction.
The risk of them doing this is considerable in Florida, Texas, Nevada, California and Colorado. The overt anti-Hispanic sentiment of the GOP has galvanized the Latino community,who will likely vote in greater number this year than normal. Even people like Karl Rove and Jeb Bush know that for the long-term prospects of the party this is suicidal.
The other self-destructive tendency of the GOP this year is their frontal assault on Social Security and Medicare. Because people like Pat Ryan are advocating massive restructuring of entitlement programs, older Americans are correct to be anxious about their security in a time of deep uncertainty. Social Security today prevents some 19 million people from slipping into poverty. This year the usual reassurance from Republicans not to touch these programs doesn't feel or seem credible. And this will erode their advantage among older Americans.
The unknown know will be the political efforts of the 99ers, people who have been unemployed beyond the time of their benefits. They are organizing in the thousands and on the internet they are nearing about 1 million. Today they held a rally on Wall Street. Many of these people were reliable Republican voters, who have become disgusted by the party's attack on them as some sort of "welfare queens".
America The Sane
Sometimes it's useful to check polls on more general subjects to take the temperature of the general population and see whether the insanity of the political debate has taken hold.
The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index classifies Americans as either "thriving","struggling" or "suffering",according to how they rate their current and futures lives. Fewer Americans rated their lives postively in July than in any other month of the year so far. Americans want no deficits and they want 4% unemployment and 5% GDP growth even though they know these things are mutually exclusive. Americans polled know that the government has no ready solutions and are acutely aware that their goals may be years or even a generation away.
30% of Americans now see the economy as the number 1 issue. 28% view unemployment and jobs are the issue. 12% view dissatisfaction with government/ Congress/ politicians as the issue.
Only 7% view the deficit or the national debt as a major issue. The same percent applies to immigration or illegal aliens. Only 4% fear war. And only 5% believe our nation faces an ethical, moral or religious decline.
One party in particular is amplifying the deficit and debt, illegal aliens and moral decline. And these concerns are far outside the mainstream.
The Democracy Corps and Greenberg Research conducted a poll for the Campaign for America's Future and SEIU. The poll wanted to assess voter attitudes toward deficit reduction, Social Security and Medicare as well as future policy options for job creation,
* 68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28% would. Those opposed included 61% of Republicans and 56% of independents.
*63% back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000. (The McColm solution.) 64% would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62% would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.
*65% oppose raising the Social Security age to 70; 65% oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62% oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax (which I support); 60% oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.
*52% support a message that embraces the need for both investments in our future and reduce the deficit over time; than a message that only stresses cuts in spending (42%). An equal percentage were favorable toward "a plan to invest in new industries and rebuild the country over the next five years (60%) and "a plan to dramatically reduce the deficit over five years" (61%).
62% support more federal aid to states once they understand this comes in the context of states laying off teachers, first responders and other essential workers due to recession. This includes 55% of independents and 48% of Republicans. The poll I quoted in an earlier post had 60% of Americans supporting the recent bill of aid to states--even though they were not told it was paid for.
60% responded favorably to an economic message that said that "we have a budget deficit but .. we also have a massive public investment deficit" that requires us to "rebuild the infrastructure that is vital to our economy" and to the economic growth that "will generate revenues to help pay down the budget deficit". This message tested better than any other progressive or conservative messages on spending cuts.
Another poll was conducted on how border towns perceived their safety in light of immigration. I will write more about this later. But the bottom line is border towns had a higher perception of safety than in other urban areas in America. I guess they accept all the beheadings.
The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index classifies Americans as either "thriving","struggling" or "suffering",according to how they rate their current and futures lives. Fewer Americans rated their lives postively in July than in any other month of the year so far. Americans want no deficits and they want 4% unemployment and 5% GDP growth even though they know these things are mutually exclusive. Americans polled know that the government has no ready solutions and are acutely aware that their goals may be years or even a generation away.
30% of Americans now see the economy as the number 1 issue. 28% view unemployment and jobs are the issue. 12% view dissatisfaction with government/ Congress/ politicians as the issue.
Only 7% view the deficit or the national debt as a major issue. The same percent applies to immigration or illegal aliens. Only 4% fear war. And only 5% believe our nation faces an ethical, moral or religious decline.
One party in particular is amplifying the deficit and debt, illegal aliens and moral decline. And these concerns are far outside the mainstream.
The Democracy Corps and Greenberg Research conducted a poll for the Campaign for America's Future and SEIU. The poll wanted to assess voter attitudes toward deficit reduction, Social Security and Medicare as well as future policy options for job creation,
* 68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28% would. Those opposed included 61% of Republicans and 56% of independents.
*63% back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000. (The McColm solution.) 64% would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62% would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.
*65% oppose raising the Social Security age to 70; 65% oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62% oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax (which I support); 60% oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67.
*52% support a message that embraces the need for both investments in our future and reduce the deficit over time; than a message that only stresses cuts in spending (42%). An equal percentage were favorable toward "a plan to invest in new industries and rebuild the country over the next five years (60%) and "a plan to dramatically reduce the deficit over five years" (61%).
62% support more federal aid to states once they understand this comes in the context of states laying off teachers, first responders and other essential workers due to recession. This includes 55% of independents and 48% of Republicans. The poll I quoted in an earlier post had 60% of Americans supporting the recent bill of aid to states--even though they were not told it was paid for.
60% responded favorably to an economic message that said that "we have a budget deficit but .. we also have a massive public investment deficit" that requires us to "rebuild the infrastructure that is vital to our economy" and to the economic growth that "will generate revenues to help pay down the budget deficit". This message tested better than any other progressive or conservative messages on spending cuts.
Another poll was conducted on how border towns perceived their safety in light of immigration. I will write more about this later. But the bottom line is border towns had a higher perception of safety than in other urban areas in America. I guess they accept all the beheadings.
The Constitutional Conservatives
We've seen that conservatives want to repeal the 14th amendment, the 17th amendment,amend the 2nd Amendment so states can create their own militias,adjust the 1st Amendment so that Muslims are not protected under freedom of religion and the separation of church and state be ended, and elevate the 10th amendment as a way to nullify federal laws, which the states dislike. The 4th amendment went the way of the dodo with the Patriot Act.
But there are some more little amendments that conservatives favor and that are generally favored by mainstream Republicans.
1. The Flag Desecration Amendment
2. Balanced Budget Amendment
3. Supermajority to raise taxes
4. The "Parental Rights" amendment introduced by Jim DeMint and Peter Hoekstra. This suggests that parents have the right to raise children "as they see fit".
5. The Human Life Amendment, banning abortion.
6. The Federal Marriage Amendment, banning same-sex marriage
7. An amendment giving Washington,D.C. a single voting representative. In practice this was killed this year by the GOP loading the bill down with pro-gun amendments.
8. Senator Jim DeMint introduced a term limits amendment (3 terms in the House, 2 in the Senate.)
From Jonathan Chait in the August 3,2010 The New Republic
But there are some more little amendments that conservatives favor and that are generally favored by mainstream Republicans.
1. The Flag Desecration Amendment
2. Balanced Budget Amendment
3. Supermajority to raise taxes
4. The "Parental Rights" amendment introduced by Jim DeMint and Peter Hoekstra. This suggests that parents have the right to raise children "as they see fit".
5. The Human Life Amendment, banning abortion.
6. The Federal Marriage Amendment, banning same-sex marriage
7. An amendment giving Washington,D.C. a single voting representative. In practice this was killed this year by the GOP loading the bill down with pro-gun amendments.
8. Senator Jim DeMint introduced a term limits amendment (3 terms in the House, 2 in the Senate.)
From Jonathan Chait in the August 3,2010 The New Republic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)