Various reports on Obama's speech to HRC last night. Louise has posted videos of the speech at Pam's House Blend. (Which I've decided to post here as well):
See if you can spot anything that anyone else has missed.
Pam Spaulding is trying hard to be even-handed, but winds up pretty much where I am:
There are two realities, the Beltway reality, a myopic view that is so disconnected from the lives of everyday LGBTs (particularly Ts) that has us setting such low expectations. The reality outside the Beltway doesn't exist, the focus is on cultivating the relationships with power brokers with the secondary focus on obtaining "what's possible" politically, which of course is pretty subjective and dependent on whether there is professional peril in rocking any boats.
The reality outside the Beltway is often too impatient about the logistics of moving legislation in many respects, but the impatience is borne of the peril of losing a job, losing custody of children, or myriad other problems that will not be solved in their Red state any time soon. To see such inaction and promises and action delayed or deferred is disheartening -- and very personal. For activists in this sphere, a speech like this is a reality check of its own -- beautiful, empty prose telling us we are on our own for who knows how long. (Emphasis in original.)
It's a good post, one of her best -- read it.
As for realities on the ground, get this exchange from the comments to that post (edited for cleanup only):
# Thank you for posting this.
I was outside picketing. My signs and those around me called for real action and for Obama to keep his promises. Just before his motorcade came by, the Secret Service had the MPD force us back from where we had our premit. It seems that our fierce advocate can't stand the heat.
by: TrumpetDC @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 21:24:21 PM CDT
# P. S.
I did two on camera interviews. Pam, I don't know how you do it. I felt like I was going to hurl.
by: TrumpetDC @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 21:25:38 PM CDT
#
How far back did they move you?
What was the excuse?
Or didn't they bother to offer one?
"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant." The Colbert Report
by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 03:55:19 AM CDT
#
They tried to move us two blocks away to the other side of the convention center. That way we would have been out of site from the motorcade.
We moved about 30 feet (1/4 down the block) and then sat down. We had filled out all the propper paperwork for a permit, so we used that motivate us and them.
by: TrumpetDC @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:22:16 AM CDT
# As to why...
One police officer pulled one of our organizers aside and appologized. He said that they were being pressured to do it by Obama's Secret Service detail.
by: TrumpetDC @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:23:23 AM CDT
Somehow, sadly, I have to say that I'm not surprised -- it seems to have become the norm to insulate the president from anything that might cause him to actually notice people's reactions to what he says and does.
John Aravosis was very funny:
Barack Obama just promised us that if he becomes president, he's going to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, and get ENDA passed. It was a bit surreal. I'm sitting at a fundraiser for the No on 1 effort in Maine (that Obama didn't even bother to mention), and we were all just speechless (actually, hardly speechless - and I thought yelling at the TV was long since over). Obama repeated his campaign promises. That was it.
Joe Sudbay wasn't quite so amused:
This speech offered less than the cocktail party speech for the A-listers back in June.
The expectations were very high. The president spoke for approximately 25 minutes. And, tonight, he did not deliver anything new or exciting. He did not assuage our concerns.
I'm sure HRC is happy. This was a big night for the institution. But, I'm not sure what it did for the movement -- or HRC's actual mission of full equality.
Dan Savage:
Imagine all the wonderful things this guy is going to accomplish if he ever actually gets elected president.
Andrew Sullivan, from his live blog:
8.56 pm. More campaign boilerplate. This speech could have been made - and was made - a year ago.
8.53 pm. His major achievement - the one thing he has actually done - is invite gay families to the Easter egg-roll. (Ed. note: So did Dubyah. Does that make George W. Bush a "fierce advocate" for gay civil rights?)
8.51 pm. Again, more of a campaign speech. I've called on Congress to repeal DOMA. Does he think we're fools? He has done nothing to advance this.
8.50 pm. Now we get the campaign speech on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Does he not realize he is now in office? "I'm working to end this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Solmonese has given us the timeline: 2017. This is bullshit. .
Jim Burroway:
When he becomes President, he’s going to sign the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, he’ll sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act if it ever sees the light of day, and sometime during his presidency he’s going to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Oh, and he’s gonna appoint a gay ambassador or two, and we’re all invite to the big Easter Egg roll.
Jeremy Hooper, noting Obama's stance on marriage:
Dear HRC dinner attendees:
The president does not deserve a standing ovation on anything involving our relationship recognition unless and until he comes out for FULL marriage equality. He did not do that. On this issue, let's not rise to our feet (in a supportive way) until he does.
A polite applause? Sure. Even a standing O when he vows to repeal DOMA? Okay, fine. But when the official position is still "one man, one woman = marriage," his support for our bonds really has no other way to fall but short.
I think you get the idea -- there is, after all, a recurring theme in these responses -- and I'm sorry, once again, that Obama has fully met my minimal expectations. What's left to say? Has he made any real progress on gay civil rights? No, he hasn't. I'm afraid I'm of the camp that says extending benefits that were already available to gay government employees is no big deal. Neither is appointing a gay ambassador. When there are substantive issues, embodied in actual pieces of legislation, that have widespread public and institutional support, across party lines, and he can't be bothered to push for them, why should I listen to a rehash of his campaign speeches? Yes, I am talking about DADT. I am talking about the HIV ban on overseas visitors. These are no-brainers. Look, everyone has their favorite bit of "most important" on gay civil rights, and some are going to be easier to get done than others. Certainly DADT is one of those. As I believe Pam Spaulding put it, the face of opposition to DADT reform is Elaine Donnelley, for crying out loud! And you will remember that her last testimony before a Congressional committee hearing on this issue sparked outright laughter.
And yet, what reaction are we getting to questions on DADT repeal? Somehow, that timeline keeps getting longer and longer. Not good enough.
(Stray thought: If, as seems to be the rationale, gay issues are too likely to bring fire from the right [and the thinking there, if you can call it that, just floors me], it would appear that the administration is really not cynical enough to use them to draw fire away from the stimulus and health-care reform. Bunch of tyros.)
Showing posts with label Election 08. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 08. Show all posts
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Just Doin' Their Jobs
This one has popped up a couple of places today:
Apparently the SCOTUS is set to discuss whether it will hear the case of Donofrio v. Wells, which challenges Barack Obama’s citizenship.
More background here:
The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.
Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard--and not all of those ultimately were successful.
It's instructive that Thomas is the one who passed it on -- the quieter ideologue on the right, if you'll remember.
It's really sort of astonishing, scrolling through the comments at The Swamp, to see how many people actually take this as a legitimate issue. I mean, it's obviously an attempt to discredti Obama's presidency before it even starts, and I'm not at all hesitant with suggesting that Thomas brought it to the Court for just that reason -- he is, as I noted, the quiet ideologue, but he's still a party hack. Even though one of the original suits was filed by Phil Berg, a Democrat (and it would be interesting to know who he supported in the primaries), it's tailor-made for the Republicans, who have already said they're gong to do everything they can to stop Obama's legislative agenda.
And it's also now a matter of the Constitution, which in wing-nut land only applies when you can use it against someone you don't like.
Apparently the SCOTUS is set to discuss whether it will hear the case of Donofrio v. Wells, which challenges Barack Obama’s citizenship.
More background here:
The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.
Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard--and not all of those ultimately were successful.
It's instructive that Thomas is the one who passed it on -- the quieter ideologue on the right, if you'll remember.
It's really sort of astonishing, scrolling through the comments at The Swamp, to see how many people actually take this as a legitimate issue. I mean, it's obviously an attempt to discredti Obama's presidency before it even starts, and I'm not at all hesitant with suggesting that Thomas brought it to the Court for just that reason -- he is, as I noted, the quiet ideologue, but he's still a party hack. Even though one of the original suits was filed by Phil Berg, a Democrat (and it would be interesting to know who he supported in the primaries), it's tailor-made for the Republicans, who have already said they're gong to do everything they can to stop Obama's legislative agenda.
And it's also now a matter of the Constitution, which in wing-nut land only applies when you can use it against someone you don't like.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
More "Backlash" Fun
Gah! I just lost a major post on race and Prop 8, which I am not gong to reconstruct now. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe never.
However, I did find a couple of other things that look interesting. First, Scott Lemieux does a nice dissection of Jeffrey Rosen's "backlash" argument. It's the same ridiculous argument, just different details. Take a look. (Why are these silly tropes always advanced by people who claim to be "sympathetic"? That's almost as good as David Blankenhorn claiming to be a liberal Democrat.)
Lemieux also does a number on Megan McArdle. McArdle's core argument echoes Rosen's, which echoes all the "sympathetic" right-wingers who think we should wait for Daddy to give us a present.
Using the courts to establish a right to gay marriage made opponents feel threatened, and railroaded. If socially conservative voters hadn't felt they needed to protect themselves from activist judges, we wouldn't be seeing these provisions written into state constitutions. Few of them would probably have bothered to vote out legislators who voted for gay marriage five years from now. But with it on the ballot, in front of them, and worries that judges would make the decision unless they did, they shot it down even in California.
What Lemieux doesn't call these two on is one simple fact: Going into this campaign, a majority of Californians supported the Court's decision. Why don't we deal with some reality here, because otherwise an event like this gets translated in the right-wing mind as a widespread backlash, and, lo and behold, it's all our fault because we stood up for our rights (which is an attitude that has infected the gay left to an appalling degree). Crap. It was the result of a deliberate, well-funded campaign of lies and scare tactics by groups who want to impose their religious beliefs on the country at large. Frankly, the results of this election seem to me much more to signal the death of the right-wing culture warrriors. In eight years, the anti-gay cartel lost nearly 10% of the vote.
McArdle makes another statement that Lemieux doesn't call her on, and he should have:
In general, courts are the wrong place to press these sorts of claims. The courts were appropriate for civil rights because blacks were literally denied the right to participate in the legislative democratic process.
Point one: This is a civil rights issue. The participation in the legislative democratic process is an iffy point: yeah, we can vote, but we're a minority. (I get really tired of having to point out basic civics lessons to the right-wing "intelligentsia." Constitutional guarantees of civil rights are not subject to the whim of the people. That's why the Dobson Gang is so hot to amend constitutions. And that's why in any state with brains, constitutions are hard to amend. Duh.) And as we can see from the recent results of the "legislative democratic process" on this very issue in California and New York, that process can be stymied quite easily by one person. (Let me also point out that it took 30 years to pass a gay-inclusive civil rights bill in Illinois because the Republican Senate leadership kept it bottled up in committee. For thirty years. Talk to me about the "legislative democratic process," Megan.)
What we're seeing from McArdle is a minor variation on the "wait for the old white straight men to give it to you." She and Rosen (and how many others on the right) are advocating a strategy that seems more than anything else to be designed to yield no results at all. But then, conservatives are not about change.
What's worrisome about this is the degree to which the rabid right's "activist judges" mantra has worked its way into the dialogue, to the extent that even the left wing now assumes that a judicial decision such as this has "imposed" something on someone. I suppose there's not much help for it, except to object to it loudly whenever you see it, because people tend to be sloppy about their use of language, which plays into the culture warriors' hands -- witness their sliding definitions of "theory" when discussing evolution -- or for that matter, their shifting "definitions" of marriage. The outcry is always about "creating new rights," when in fact, it is the opponents of change who are creating new rights. (I discussed this, I believe, in my deconstruction of Rod Dreher's essay a day or two ago -- they're absolutely correct, there is no "right to gay marriage" except as they've created it as a straw man. The right is "marriage." It is being withheld from a class of citizens without adequate reason. I still insist that is the only valid framing.)
Well, that's today's profound little post. McArdle is such an easy target.
However, I did find a couple of other things that look interesting. First, Scott Lemieux does a nice dissection of Jeffrey Rosen's "backlash" argument. It's the same ridiculous argument, just different details. Take a look. (Why are these silly tropes always advanced by people who claim to be "sympathetic"? That's almost as good as David Blankenhorn claiming to be a liberal Democrat.)
Lemieux also does a number on Megan McArdle. McArdle's core argument echoes Rosen's, which echoes all the "sympathetic" right-wingers who think we should wait for Daddy to give us a present.
Using the courts to establish a right to gay marriage made opponents feel threatened, and railroaded. If socially conservative voters hadn't felt they needed to protect themselves from activist judges, we wouldn't be seeing these provisions written into state constitutions. Few of them would probably have bothered to vote out legislators who voted for gay marriage five years from now. But with it on the ballot, in front of them, and worries that judges would make the decision unless they did, they shot it down even in California.
What Lemieux doesn't call these two on is one simple fact: Going into this campaign, a majority of Californians supported the Court's decision. Why don't we deal with some reality here, because otherwise an event like this gets translated in the right-wing mind as a widespread backlash, and, lo and behold, it's all our fault because we stood up for our rights (which is an attitude that has infected the gay left to an appalling degree). Crap. It was the result of a deliberate, well-funded campaign of lies and scare tactics by groups who want to impose their religious beliefs on the country at large. Frankly, the results of this election seem to me much more to signal the death of the right-wing culture warrriors. In eight years, the anti-gay cartel lost nearly 10% of the vote.
McArdle makes another statement that Lemieux doesn't call her on, and he should have:
In general, courts are the wrong place to press these sorts of claims. The courts were appropriate for civil rights because blacks were literally denied the right to participate in the legislative democratic process.
Point one: This is a civil rights issue. The participation in the legislative democratic process is an iffy point: yeah, we can vote, but we're a minority. (I get really tired of having to point out basic civics lessons to the right-wing "intelligentsia." Constitutional guarantees of civil rights are not subject to the whim of the people. That's why the Dobson Gang is so hot to amend constitutions. And that's why in any state with brains, constitutions are hard to amend. Duh.) And as we can see from the recent results of the "legislative democratic process" on this very issue in California and New York, that process can be stymied quite easily by one person. (Let me also point out that it took 30 years to pass a gay-inclusive civil rights bill in Illinois because the Republican Senate leadership kept it bottled up in committee. For thirty years. Talk to me about the "legislative democratic process," Megan.)
What we're seeing from McArdle is a minor variation on the "wait for the old white straight men to give it to you." She and Rosen (and how many others on the right) are advocating a strategy that seems more than anything else to be designed to yield no results at all. But then, conservatives are not about change.
What's worrisome about this is the degree to which the rabid right's "activist judges" mantra has worked its way into the dialogue, to the extent that even the left wing now assumes that a judicial decision such as this has "imposed" something on someone. I suppose there's not much help for it, except to object to it loudly whenever you see it, because people tend to be sloppy about their use of language, which plays into the culture warriors' hands -- witness their sliding definitions of "theory" when discussing evolution -- or for that matter, their shifting "definitions" of marriage. The outcry is always about "creating new rights," when in fact, it is the opponents of change who are creating new rights. (I discussed this, I believe, in my deconstruction of Rod Dreher's essay a day or two ago -- they're absolutely correct, there is no "right to gay marriage" except as they've created it as a straw man. The right is "marriage." It is being withheld from a class of citizens without adequate reason. I still insist that is the only valid framing.)
Well, that's today's profound little post. McArdle is such an easy target.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Down
OK -- Obama won,but somehow I'm not feeling it today. I may post after the final results on Prop 8 are in. I didn't realize I had that much invested in one ballot measure in another state, but I guess I did. I'm not happy right now. It doesn't look good.
This is America: lies and money will win.
Update: In light of the comment by reader PietB, I'll offer this:
Yes, I am angry, too. Very angry. I'm going to make comments here that will probably land me on someone's list of intemperate name-calling liberals. So be it.
Point one: I find it barely credible that individuals and organizations who claim to represent "values" and "morality" would resort so readily, as Piet pointed out, to dishonest and dishonorable means. They lied. That's it, and I'm not going to waste time and energy being circumspect and soft-spoken about it. They lied. And again, they lied. I find it completely unbelievable that they have been rewarded for those lies by the voters of Florida, Arizona, and California.
Second: I'm told that the fundamental tenet of Christianity is "Caritas." I think it's fortunate for supporters of Proposition 8 (and Proposition 102 and Amendment 2, as well) that Jesus is a god of forgiveness. They might do well to reflect on the fact that so many young people see Christianity, and especially born-again, fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity, as a negative force in society, and to think about their part in that perception.
And then look at themselves in the mirror.
This is America: lies and money will win.
Update: In light of the comment by reader PietB, I'll offer this:
Yes, I am angry, too. Very angry. I'm going to make comments here that will probably land me on someone's list of intemperate name-calling liberals. So be it.
Point one: I find it barely credible that individuals and organizations who claim to represent "values" and "morality" would resort so readily, as Piet pointed out, to dishonest and dishonorable means. They lied. That's it, and I'm not going to waste time and energy being circumspect and soft-spoken about it. They lied. And again, they lied. I find it completely unbelievable that they have been rewarded for those lies by the voters of Florida, Arizona, and California.
Second: I'm told that the fundamental tenet of Christianity is "Caritas." I think it's fortunate for supporters of Proposition 8 (and Proposition 102 and Amendment 2, as well) that Jesus is a god of forgiveness. They might do well to reflect on the fact that so many young people see Christianity, and especially born-again, fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity, as a negative force in society, and to think about their part in that perception.
And then look at themselves in the mirror.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Election Day
Go vote, if you haven't already. You know how to vote, or at least you should have made your mind up by now. There is a clear choice, this time, just like there was last time. Let's make the right decision this go-'round.
Oh, and about all those constitutional amendments: isn't it time for the gay rights organizations to start petition drives to repeal all those nasty ones that were passed in 2004?
Update:
On the way to work this morning I passed three polling places, a church, a bank, and a private school. The church and the bank had lines out the door and up the block, the school has a large entry lobby which was full. This was before 7:30 am.
This is Chicago. You don't see lines like this except on election day after work, if the weather's nice.
Considering the numbers of people who voted early, I'm suspecting there's going to be record turn-out for this one.
Good.
Oh, and about all those constitutional amendments: isn't it time for the gay rights organizations to start petition drives to repeal all those nasty ones that were passed in 2004?
Update:
On the way to work this morning I passed three polling places, a church, a bank, and a private school. The church and the bank had lines out the door and up the block, the school has a large entry lobby which was full. This was before 7:30 am.
This is Chicago. You don't see lines like this except on election day after work, if the weather's nice.
Considering the numbers of people who voted early, I'm suspecting there's going to be record turn-out for this one.
Good.
Monday, November 03, 2008
This Is Sort of Pathetic
The Republicans are scrambling to maintain some sort of presence in Congress, and this is how one put it (From NYT):
Most of the House Republican money was spent on behalf of incumbents or in districts where a Republican is retiring, emphasizing how much the party was playing defense. By contrast, House Democrats spent most of their money in the last month going after Republican seats in Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, West Virginia and elsewhere. On Sunday, Democrats prepared one last radio advertisement to begin running Monday in an effort to claim the seat of Thomas M. Reynolds, a Republican retiring from his upstate New York district near Buffalo.
“That kind of says it all,” said Representative Thomas M. Davis III, a retiring Virginia Republican whose own suburban seat is likely to go Democratic on Tuesday. Mr. Davis said Republicans simply faced too many disadvantages heading into Election Day, including a higher number of retirements in the House and Senate, an unpopular president and an economic collapse.
“You like to see a fair fight,” said Mr. Davis, a former chairman of the Republican Congressional campaign committee, “but basically we are playing basketball in our street shoes and long pants, and the Democrats have on their uniforms and Chuck Taylors.”
"Fair fight"? Excuse me? Can we talk about the fact that the Republicans have, over the past eight years, fallen flat on their faces on every issue that matters, and even the ones that don't? You want a fair fight? Try playing the right game.
I thought this was funny:
“We agree with Chuck Schumer that this is a tectonic election,” said Rebecca Fisher, spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “And if Democrats get their way, this country will shift so far left it will take generations to get back on track.”
I think that's all to the good. Most of the country thinks we're completely on the wrong track right nowm (85%, according to the latest polls), so how is fixing it a bad thing? (Oh, wait -- that 85% has to be the far-left fringe, right?)
Most of the House Republican money was spent on behalf of incumbents or in districts where a Republican is retiring, emphasizing how much the party was playing defense. By contrast, House Democrats spent most of their money in the last month going after Republican seats in Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, West Virginia and elsewhere. On Sunday, Democrats prepared one last radio advertisement to begin running Monday in an effort to claim the seat of Thomas M. Reynolds, a Republican retiring from his upstate New York district near Buffalo.
“That kind of says it all,” said Representative Thomas M. Davis III, a retiring Virginia Republican whose own suburban seat is likely to go Democratic on Tuesday. Mr. Davis said Republicans simply faced too many disadvantages heading into Election Day, including a higher number of retirements in the House and Senate, an unpopular president and an economic collapse.
“You like to see a fair fight,” said Mr. Davis, a former chairman of the Republican Congressional campaign committee, “but basically we are playing basketball in our street shoes and long pants, and the Democrats have on their uniforms and Chuck Taylors.”
"Fair fight"? Excuse me? Can we talk about the fact that the Republicans have, over the past eight years, fallen flat on their faces on every issue that matters, and even the ones that don't? You want a fair fight? Try playing the right game.
I thought this was funny:
“We agree with Chuck Schumer that this is a tectonic election,” said Rebecca Fisher, spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “And if Democrats get their way, this country will shift so far left it will take generations to get back on track.”
I think that's all to the good. Most of the country thinks we're completely on the wrong track right nowm (85%, according to the latest polls), so how is fixing it a bad thing? (Oh, wait -- that 85% has to be the far-left fringe, right?)
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Marriage Note:
Tuesday's the day. Here's a terrific piece by David Jefferson of Newsweek that should be required reading for everyone in California -- and anywhere else.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Ignorance Is Bliss
Or something like that. Sullivan is a goldmine this morning. This, from ABC News, is simply unbelievable:
In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
WTF?
You just knew Glenn Greenwald would weigh in:
The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said.
If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.
Get that, Governor? (I can't believe this woman's a governor. And I thought mine was bad news.) The First Amendment does not control the press. In fact, is stipulates that the government cannot control the press. Duh.
In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
WTF?
You just knew Glenn Greenwald would weigh in:
The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said.
If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.
Get that, Governor? (I can't believe this woman's a governor. And I thought mine was bad news.) The First Amendment does not control the press. In fact, is stipulates that the government cannot control the press. Duh.
What's At Stake
Andrew Sullivan has a powerful post on just what this election is really about. Here's the video he posted:
He also quotes Esquire's endorsement. Read it there. In another post, he quotes Gary Wills on the same subject.
This is what that means. Here's a story from Wired, via C & L:
The CIA can hide statements from imprisoned suspected terrorists that the agency tortured them in its set of secret prisons, a federal judge ruled Wednesday,
Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the Washington D.C. Circuit Court declined to review the government's assertions that the allegations of torture from men held in the CIA's black site prisons -- whether truthful or not -- would put the nation at risk of grave danger if allowed to be made public.
"The Court, giving deference to the agency’s detailed, good-faith declaration, is disinclined to second-guess the agency in its area of expertise through in camera review," Lamberth wrote (.pdf), referring to a procedure where a judge looks at evidence in his chamber without showing it to the opposing side.
Lamberth himself is not such a prize as all that:
Lamberth on Saturday told a packed room at the American Library Association's national conference that he'd "seen no evidence of government wrongdoing" He said it a couple times. It sounded funny.
As has been well documented, the Bush administration ran a complete end-around on FISA and the court that is supposed to approve warrants for domestic surveillance (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, over which Lamberth presided from 1995 to 2002). And last week, An internal FBI audit of the NSL program that covered 10 percent of the national security investigations since 2002 turned up over 1,000 instances in which the FBI may have broken the law. In 700 of those, telecoms and ISPs gave the FBI information the bureau didn't request. Instead of destroying the information, the FBI kept it and filed more NSLs, which don't require any judicial oversight.
If that's not wrongdoing, what is? The government has generally chalked up what can only be described as profound and sustained abuse to lax oversight and confusion. Lamberth more or less concurred.
"Bungling," he called it. "They didn't cross all their 't's or dot all their 'i's."
Wonder who appointed him?
He also quotes Esquire's endorsement. Read it there. In another post, he quotes Gary Wills on the same subject.
This is what that means. Here's a story from Wired, via C & L:
The CIA can hide statements from imprisoned suspected terrorists that the agency tortured them in its set of secret prisons, a federal judge ruled Wednesday,
Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the Washington D.C. Circuit Court declined to review the government's assertions that the allegations of torture from men held in the CIA's black site prisons -- whether truthful or not -- would put the nation at risk of grave danger if allowed to be made public.
"The Court, giving deference to the agency’s detailed, good-faith declaration, is disinclined to second-guess the agency in its area of expertise through in camera review," Lamberth wrote (.pdf), referring to a procedure where a judge looks at evidence in his chamber without showing it to the opposing side.
Lamberth himself is not such a prize as all that:
Lamberth on Saturday told a packed room at the American Library Association's national conference that he'd "seen no evidence of government wrongdoing" He said it a couple times. It sounded funny.
As has been well documented, the Bush administration ran a complete end-around on FISA and the court that is supposed to approve warrants for domestic surveillance (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, over which Lamberth presided from 1995 to 2002). And last week, An internal FBI audit of the NSL program that covered 10 percent of the national security investigations since 2002 turned up over 1,000 instances in which the FBI may have broken the law. In 700 of those, telecoms and ISPs gave the FBI information the bureau didn't request. Instead of destroying the information, the FBI kept it and filed more NSLs, which don't require any judicial oversight.
If that's not wrongdoing, what is? The government has generally chalked up what can only be described as profound and sustained abuse to lax oversight and confusion. Lamberth more or less concurred.
"Bungling," he called it. "They didn't cross all their 't's or dot all their 'i's."
Wonder who appointed him?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Voting
I voted yesterday. I hadn't really thought about it until I realized that on Tuesdays I'm at work for a minimum of ten hours, and while I could have gone early -- the polls open at 6 am here -- it would most likely have been touch-and-go. So I went up to the local branch library and voted early.
After reading some of the horror stories from around the country, I have to say I'm glad I live in a Democratic stronghold. The line was long, but it only took a bit under an hour from walking in to walking out. We use touch-screen machines that make a paper record of your vote, everything is very clearly explained, the poll workers and judges were very helpful, there were chairs available in line for those who needed them, and everything was very relaxed.
It was interesting to see the crowd. Lots of young people -- students, I think, since the polling place is close to Loyola University, and people using their lunch hours to vote. Needless to say, this is the north side of Chicago, so everyone pretty much was an Obama supporter, although no one really discussed who they were voting for.
On the whole, it was a good experience -- but then, I think that's the way it's supposed to be.
After reading some of the horror stories from around the country, I have to say I'm glad I live in a Democratic stronghold. The line was long, but it only took a bit under an hour from walking in to walking out. We use touch-screen machines that make a paper record of your vote, everything is very clearly explained, the poll workers and judges were very helpful, there were chairs available in line for those who needed them, and everything was very relaxed.
It was interesting to see the crowd. Lots of young people -- students, I think, since the polling place is close to Loyola University, and people using their lunch hours to vote. Needless to say, this is the north side of Chicago, so everyone pretty much was an Obama supporter, although no one really discussed who they were voting for.
On the whole, it was a good experience -- but then, I think that's the way it's supposed to be.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Sometimes I Wonder
From Waldo Lydecker's Journal, this endorsement from the Greenville (SC) News. The bulk of the text is quite judicious and evenhanded, in fact quite complimentary to both candidates -- until you get to the last couple of paragraphs, in which the rationale for the endorsement becomes crystal clear:
A powerful argument against an Obama presidency is that it most likely would put an extraordinary degree of power in the hands of one political party. Democrats are expected to build significantly on the working majority they hold in the Senate and their edge of about 30 seats in the House. This political muscle would be far greater than the four and a half years under President Bush when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, mostly squandered their leadership position and alienated many independent voters.
Americans often have shown disdain for the governing excesses that come when one party has virtually unchecked power through holding the White House and significant majorities in both houses of Congress. The first two years of President Clinton's first term and the four years of President Carter's one term offer clues about what can happen when one party has to pay little to no attention to the other.
Would you think that someone is trying to sweep the Bush II presidency under the carpet? The statement about "political muscle" is quite nonsensical. Aside from the fact that, unlike Republicans, Democrats tend not to march in lockstep, some of the worst legislation ever in the history of this country was routinely passed by the Bush Congress, sometimes without even being debated. It is perhaps instructive that the dire warnings are centered on the Carter and Clinton presidencies, the Bush II years having been, obviously, all good.
Jeebus.
A powerful argument against an Obama presidency is that it most likely would put an extraordinary degree of power in the hands of one political party. Democrats are expected to build significantly on the working majority they hold in the Senate and their edge of about 30 seats in the House. This political muscle would be far greater than the four and a half years under President Bush when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, mostly squandered their leadership position and alienated many independent voters.
Americans often have shown disdain for the governing excesses that come when one party has virtually unchecked power through holding the White House and significant majorities in both houses of Congress. The first two years of President Clinton's first term and the four years of President Carter's one term offer clues about what can happen when one party has to pay little to no attention to the other.
Would you think that someone is trying to sweep the Bush II presidency under the carpet? The statement about "political muscle" is quite nonsensical. Aside from the fact that, unlike Republicans, Democrats tend not to march in lockstep, some of the worst legislation ever in the history of this country was routinely passed by the Bush Congress, sometimes without even being debated. It is perhaps instructive that the dire warnings are centered on the Carter and Clinton presidencies, the Bush II years having been, obviously, all good.
Jeebus.
Monday, October 27, 2008
My Kind of Candidate
Here's a snippet of Joe Biden being interviewed by a wingnut in south Florida. Those are the kjinds of reactions I think I would give:
Interviewer: "You may recognize this famous quote: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"
Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"
Interviewer: "No"
Biden: "Is that a real question?"
Interviewer: "That's a real question"
[...]
Interviewer: "Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done, and America's days as a world leading power are over?"
Biden: "Umm, no, I'm not at all. I don't know who's writing your questions."
[...]
Interviewer: "What do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?"
I can't embed the video for some reason, but watch it. It's hilarious.
Interviewer: "You may recognize this famous quote: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"
Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"
Interviewer: "No"
Biden: "Is that a real question?"
Interviewer: "That's a real question"
[...]
Interviewer: "Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done, and America's days as a world leading power are over?"
Biden: "Umm, no, I'm not at all. I don't know who's writing your questions."
[...]
Interviewer: "What do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?"
I can't embed the video for some reason, but watch it. It's hilarious.
Shorter Barbara O'Brien
In her own words:
It may be that the most devastating thing you can say to a rightie is we’re not afraid of you any more.
It may be that the most devastating thing you can say to a rightie is we’re not afraid of you any more.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
All You Need to Know About Voter Fraud
Given the widespread outcry on the right against actually registering voters who aren't, you know, white and rich, this seems like the right comment:
Also check out this article at BradBlog on some real fraud. (It's long, but worth reading.) If you're interested in keeping up with all the voting problems caused by Republicans and electronic voting machines, check out BradBlog.
And this little tidbit from the Arizona Independent. One thing about this last story:
UPDATE: Last week, Rogers told the Associated Press that the Party had hired a private investigator:
Thanks to Talking Points Memo for pointing that out, and for linking to us today!
And if there's possible identity theft involved, why is the Republican Party investigating? Isn't that a federal crime? And why is the Republican party investigating these people to start with? I hadn't realize that the GOP was now officially the federal government -- I thought it was still unofficial.
Also check out this article at BradBlog on some real fraud. (It's long, but worth reading.) If you're interested in keeping up with all the voting problems caused by Republicans and electronic voting machines, check out BradBlog.
And this little tidbit from the Arizona Independent. One thing about this last story:
UPDATE: Last week, Rogers told the Associated Press that the Party had hired a private investigator:
Rogers said a private investigator hired by the state Republican Party found Rivera and others like her have Social Security numbers on their voter registration forms that are being used by other people. They may be legitimate voters and could be victims of identity theft.
Thanks to Talking Points Memo for pointing that out, and for linking to us today!
And if there's possible identity theft involved, why is the Republican Party investigating? Isn't that a federal crime? And why is the Republican party investigating these people to start with? I hadn't realize that the GOP was now officially the federal government -- I thought it was still unofficial.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Through the Looking Glass Award
To Grover Norquist:
McCain's choice of Palin brought his polling numbers above Obama's--until McCain endorsed the Bush bailout. Palin draws large crowds and has energized Reagan Republicans, gun owners, women and people of faith. Obama knows this and has his surrogates trashing Palin with a "sack the quarterback" strategy most recently joined in by Colin Powell.
She is an asset and the most consequential VP candidate in a generation. The Ds are wise to attack her.
McCain's choice of Palin brought his polling numbers above Obama's--until McCain endorsed the Bush bailout. Palin draws large crowds and has energized Reagan Republicans, gun owners, women and people of faith. Obama knows this and has his surrogates trashing Palin with a "sack the quarterback" strategy most recently joined in by Colin Powell.
She is an asset and the most consequential VP candidate in a generation. The Ds are wise to attack her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)