Gay Marriage in the District: Danger Will (and
Steve) Robinson

Andrew Sullivan has already pointed out the cynicism inherent in Michael Goldfarb's eagerness to have the Congress take up debate on gay marriage rights in the District of Columbia, something which it might wind up doing as a result of the D.C. City Council's decision yesterday to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But is the claim Goldfarb makes even correct on its surface? Is this particular permutation of the issue necessarily an electoral winner for the Republicans? That is far from clear.

Here, for your context, is Goldfarb:

The District of Columbia's Council voted today to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, setting Republicans on the Hill up for a great opportunity to hit an issue that polls well. As the Washington Post puts it, "The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month." [...]

On [gay marriage and gun rights], Democrats in the District seem to have near religious faith in the righteousness of their cause and their prospects for victory, but Republicans should take heart: these measures are a gift. Democrats in Congress will be hard pressed to side with the District's Council on gay marriage when such measures have been soundly rejected in solid blue states like California.

Emphasis mine. What isn't clear from Goldfarb's statement is what exactly it is that polls well. The anti-gay marriage position itself polls reasonably well, but not nearly as well as it used to. Scrolling through the data at PollingReport.com: A CNN poll in December reported that 44 percent of the public supports marriage rights for gay couples versus 55 percent opposed; a Newsweek poll conducted at around the same time came up with 39 percent in favor, 55 percent opposed, and a Time poll in August actually had the gay marriage question evenly split at 47-47. For the sake of context, the roughly 40%/50%/10% undecided split is about how the pro-life position usually polls; there are now about as many people who favor legalizing gay marriage as do banning abortion.

Considering that (i) there is some opportunity cost involved to the Republicans in attempting to attack on the gay marriage issue (ii) the issue is the almost literal embodiment of the Rovian politics that the public appeared to have rejected in 2006 and 2008, and that (iii) liberals, following the passage of Proposition 8, may for the first time be at least as energized on the issue as are conservatives, it is less than obvious that a debate over gay marriage is the way back to the promised land for the GOP. The McCain campaign, of which Goldfarb was a part, performed this calculation and largely chose to pass on the issue; perhaps that was yet another in a series of poor decisions (the party base would certainly argue as much), or perhaps it was one of the few things they did right.

In fact, however, gay marriage per se is not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether the Congress, in its role as the guardian of the District of Columbia, ought to have the right to override the judgment of the District's democratic institutions on the issue. Goldfarb obscures this by citing California (and does so disingenuously by characterizing Proposition 8's narrow victory as a "[sound] rejection" of gay marriage). But electorally speaking, California (which gave Barack Obama 61 percent of its vote) is closer to Alabama (39 percent) than it is to the District (92 percent). There is little doubt that a referendum to permit gay marriage would pass in D.C.; more to the point, perhaps, its democratically-elected City Council has already begun to move toward recognizing gay marriage.

What's important for our discussion is that there appears to be a decent fraction of the public that might not want gay marriage in their states, but respects the rights of other states to decide for themselves on the issue, particularly when those decisions are reached via electoral rather than judicial means. There was notably little outcry in conservative circles, certainly, when Vermont's legislature voted yesterday to override a gubernatorial veto and permit gay marriage in the Green Mountain State.

In particular, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned gay marriage in all states, was actually somewhat unpopular. Going back again to PollingReport.com: a Newsweek poll in December had Americans opposed to such an amendment 52-43, a Time poll had them opposed to it 58-35, and Quinnipiac had them opposed 56-38, although a Gallup poll last May had the numbers closer to 50-50.

The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state. Nevertheless, I'd guess (and this is just a guess -- I can't find any polling on the issue) that most Americans regard it as being more or less like a state, and assume that it ought to have ample discretion to determine its own affairs, instead of having those decisions be overridden by Congressional fiat. Democrats should feel reasonably happy to engage on the issue, particularly if their opponents are conservatives like Goldfarb who seem to think the last four years are some sort of very bad, very gay dream.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/gay-marriage-in-distict-danger-will-and.ht
ml

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Gay Marriage in the Distict: Danger Will (and
Steve) Robinson

Andrew Sullivan has already pointed out the cynicism inherent in Michael Goldfarb's eagerness to have the Congress take up debate on gay marriage rights in the District of Columbia, something which it might wind up doing as a result of the D.C. City Council's decision yesterday to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But is the claim Goldfarb makes even correct on its surface? Is this particular permutation of the issue necessarily an electoral winner for the Republicans? That is far from clear.

Here, for your context, is Goldfarb:

The District of Columbia's Council voted today to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, setting Republicans on the Hill up for a great opportunity to hit an issue that polls well. As the Washington Post puts it, "The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month." [...]

On [gay marriage and gun rights], Democrats in the District seem to have near religious faith in the righteousness of their cause and their prospects for victory, but Republicans should take heart: these measures are a gift. Democrats in Congress will be hard pressed to side with the District's Council on gay marriage when such measures have been soundly rejected in solid blue states like California.

Emphasis mine. What isn't clear from Goldfarb's statement is what exactly it is that polls well. The anti-gay marriage position itself polls reasonably well, but not nearly as well as it used to. Scrolling through the data at PollingReport.com: A CNN poll in December reported that 44 percent of the public supports marriage rights for gay couples versus 55 percent opposed; a Newsweek poll conducted at around the same time came up with 39 percent in favor, 55 percent opposed, and a Time poll in August actually had the gay marriage question evenly split at 47-47. For the sake of context, the roughly 40%/50%/10% undecided split is about how the pro-life position usually polls; there are now about as many people who favor legalizing gay marriage as do banning abortion.

Considering that (i) there is some opportunity cost involved to the Republicans in attempting to attack on the gay marriage issue (ii) the issue is the almost literal embodiment of the Rovian politics that the public appeared to have rejected in 2006 and 2008, and that (iii) liberals, following the passage of Proposition 8, may for the first time be at least as energized on the issue as are conservatives, it is less than obvious that a debate over gay marriage is the way back to the promised land for the GOP. The McCain campaign, of which Goldfarb was a part, performed this calculation and largely chose to pass on the issue; perhaps that was yet another in a series of poor decisions (the party base would certainly argue as much), or perhaps it was one of the few things they did right.

In fact, however, gay marriage per se is not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether the Congress, in its role as the guardian of the District of Columbia, ought to have the right to override the judgment of the District's democratic institutions on the issue. Goldfarb obscures this by citing California (and does so disingenuously by characterizing Proposition 8's narrow victory as a "[sound] rejection" of gay marriage). But electorally speaking, California (which gave Barack Obama 61 percent of its vote) is closer to Alabama (39 percent) than it is to the District (92 percent). There is little doubt that a referendum to permit gay marriage would pass in D.C.; more to the point, perhaps, its democratically-elected City Council has already begun to move toward recognizing gay marriage.

What's important for our discussion is that there appears to be a decent fraction of the public that might not want gay marriage in their states, but respects the rights of other states to decide for themselves on the issue, particularly when those decisions are reached via electoral rather than judicial means. There was notably little outcry in conservative circles, certainly, when Vermont's legislature voted yesterday to override a gubernatorial veto and permit gay marriage in the Green Mountain State.

In particular, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned gay marriage in all states, was actually somewhat unpopular. Going back again to PollingReport.com: a Newsweek poll in December had Americans opposed to such an amendment 52-43, a Time poll had them opposed to it 58-35, and Quinnipiac had them opposed 56-38, although a Gallup poll last May had the numbers closer to 50-50.

The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state. Nevertheless, I'd guess (and this is just a guess -- I can't find any polling on the issue) that most Americans regard it as being more or less like a state, and assume that it ought to have ample discretion to determine its own affairs, instead of having those decisions be overridden by Congressional fiat. Democrats should feel reasonably happy to engage on the issue, particularly if their opponents are conservatives like Goldfarb who seem to think the last four years are some sort of very bad, very gay dream.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/gay-marriage-in-distict-danger-will-and.ht
ml

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Fox News' Carlson falsely claimed "Social
Security [is] already bankrupt"

During the April 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson falsely claimed that "Social Security [is] already bankrupt." In fact, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees have projected that in the absence of a change in the law, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2041, after which it will be able to cover between 78 and 75 percent of scheduled benefits through the end of the 75-year period covered by their 2008 long-range projection.As[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/oAmOzjVXzlk/200904080009

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

As their power spirals downward, the Right's
rhetoric gets nuttier and nastier

David Weigel of the Washington Independent was out at a gun show in Tennessee this last weekend. If you haven't gotten a look, you should.

It's real real familiar for me. Deja vu from 1994, when I was regularly attending militia meetings, all over again: The president-bashing. The gun fetishizing. The paranoia. The unstated old bigotry. And sometimes, all of them would come together at once.

They're ba-a-a-ack. Check out the story out of Stockton, California, where the locals plan to start up an armed citizen militia to patrol the streets, since the local police are facing such severe cutbacks:

STOCKTON - A retired truck driver and Vietnam War veteran said Monday that he is forming an armed militia - mostly men with rifles and armbands, four to a car - to patrol Stockton this summer, when at least 43 police officers are to be laid off.

Alan Pettet, 66, said he has recruited 18 men, most of whom are ex-military. He said the militia will train at a firing range and "activate" if the city lays off any officer, as it intends by July 1.

But this time, there's a difference. This time, they're not just getting whipped into a paranoid frenzy by their fellow paranoids, which was generally the case in the 1990s, with a few exceptions -- namely Rush Limbaugh. In their latest immanation, the old Patriot movement is getting stoked by a whole slew of ostensibly mainstream conservatives broadcasting daily and constantly on mainstream news media.

Here's a sampler of recent-vintage wingnuttery being broadcast on supposedly mainstream venues by people who call themselves mainstream conservatives:

Download | Play    Download | Play

Eric Boehlert has the consummate discussion of this:

Beck's sure "[d]epression and revolution" are what await America under Obama, and fears moving "towards a totalitarian state." The country today sometimes reminds Beck of "the early days of Adolf Hitler." Beck thinks that Obama, who has "surrounded himself by Marxists his whole life," is now "addicting this country to heroin -- the heroin that is government slavery."

And it's not just Beck. Appearing on Fox News, Dick Morris recently made a wildly irresponsible comment that looks even worse in light of the Pittsburgh law-enforcement slayings: "Those crazies in Montana who say, 'We're going to kill ATF agents because the UN's going to take over' -- well, they're beginning to have a case."

And it's not just Fox News. Radio nut Michael Savage recently claimed that "we have a naked Marxist for president." And high-profile conservative blogger Erick Erickson contemplated the beating of politicians: "At what point do [people] get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?"

Of course, the right-wingers at Free Republic are way ahead of Erickson as they fantasize about Obama's assassination: "And let's face it: all the speculation about Obama being the actual Antichrist will either be confirmed or denied if someone gets off a lucky shot at the SOB."

Michael Cohen at Politico has noticed there's a problem for Republicans with this kind of rhetoric -- and even Little Green Footballs is agreeing.

John Delicath at MediaMattersAction has more details:

But charges of socialism are tame compared to some of the accusations now being hurled at Obama. Kevin Hassett, a Bloomberg News columnist, wrote a March 9 column asserting that Obama is "giving us the War on Business" and "legislat[ing] like a Manchurian Candidate." The next day, Rush Limbaugh read extensively from the column on his radio show, while Beck said on Fox: "I read an article ... that said 'the Manchurian Candidate couldn't destroy us faster than Barack Obama.' "

Hannity has called Obama "a president that is far more radical than anybody ever dreamed," and a recent promo for his show asked if Obama's budget is "a way for the government to completely control our lives." Radio host Michael Savage said that the "radical left," including Obama, "dream[s]" of "Maoist revolution" complete with "death camps." Beck claims to be unable to debunk the existence of camps, allegedly being set up by the Federal Emergency Management Administration, for the mass imprisonment of Americans who disagree with Obama's policies. According to Beck, "If you have any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out. Buckle up. There is something happening in our country, and it ain't good." Limbaugh has told his listeners that Obama is "an extremist tyrannical president" who "is seeking as much chaos and depression among average Americans as he can get."

And these are just some of the most prominent, national media figures. On local and regional talk radio and the conservative blogs, the vitriol is even worse.

Catherine Macivor has rustled up some similarly defensive quotes:

The first Amendment appears to be dead under the new Obama Administration. No matter where you go or what you read, if it opposes President Obama it is instantly labeled ?racist? and right wing extremism and a whole host of other derogatory names.

This is a concerted effort by the left to silence all opposition to President Obama and his administration. Obama is pulling this country into the abyss of socialism and the Obamatrons are out in force all over the internet, attacking anyone that opposes Obama.

Of course, we've already tried explaining that no one's trying to silence anyone -- we're simply exercizing our own rights of free speech. Unless, of course, you consider "pointing out your idiocy/lunacy/amorality" is the same thing as "silencing you".

Nonetheless, this hasn't prevented such right-wing outbursts of anger, directed at liberal bloggers generally for having the audacity to suggest that right-wing rhetoric might have played a role in those shootings in Pittsburgh this weekend.

A fellow named Paco was especially outraged:

When a faction that holds the established social contract in contempt ? including the underlying provisions (both written and unwritten) touching on the shared belief in freedom of speech, intellectual good faith in argument, and the concept of a loyal opposition - acquires influence with a major party (in this case, the Democrats), and begins to demonize those who oppose its views, then debate is rendered irrelevant, and democracy devolves into a naked grab for power, with all that that portends for our hard-won freedoms, and the very concept of a viable polity.

[Chortle. Because of course, people on the right would never dream of demonizing anyone who opposes their views.]

When I say that the Kossacks and their ilk are yet to see how thoroughly irresponsible there comments are, it is in this sense: that when the citizenry can openly debate ideas in an atmosphere of genuine intellectual tolerance, the threat of political violence is low; however, when one side decides to enforce its ideology through the shouting down of opposing voices, and succeeds in doing so though an allegiance with a major political party that has sold its soul in return for power, then it should come as a surprise to no one if a substantial portion of the citizenry ultimately declines to forfeit its historical rights and freedoms - the machinery of democratic process notwithstanding. When democracy becomes a weapon in the hands of freedom?s enemies, aided and abetted by a majority of voters, either wittingly, in the case of those who share the ideology of our would-be masters, or unwittingly, in the case of those who have sunk into a bovine complacency, then the issue is no longer, ?how can we protect democracy??, but ?how can we protect our liberty??

I am neither advocating, nor even predicting, civil war; neither am I advocating civil disobedience. I am simply pointing out that if the shooting ever does start in earnest, the blame can be laid squarely on the doorstep of those leftists whose mendacity, bad faith, criminal tactics and violent rhetoric will have contributed so much to the perversion of our democratic form of government and the destruction of our individual rights.

Is that kind of like writing out the excuse for your absence to the teacher in advance?

Because it's increasingly plain to see that these people are looking for an excuse. And that bodes ill for us all.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/their-power-spirals-downward-rights-

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

GRITtv Live: The Obama Budget Fixing Foundations
or Shifting Furniture

While the Obamas were in Europe the House & Senate approved the president's $3 trillion budget. But the battle isn?t over. What will be cut and what will remain? Speaking late last month Obama said, "There are times when you can decorate your home[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.com/2009/04/08/grittv-live-at-noon-the-obama-bud
get-fixing-foundations-or-shifting-furniture/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Bristol Palin and two kinds of virginity

Lucky for Jessica, the week her book The Purity Myth comes out, the Bristol Palin/Levi Johnston circus introduced some more clowns and elephants into the ring. Levi Johnston, virgin despoiler, went on the Tyra Banks show to act exactly as you'd imagine he would, at least if you grew up in a rural community like theirs and knew redneck dudes just like him. The whole debacle really shows how the themes that Jessica teases out are playing out in real time, and to make the whole thing more interesting (and frankly hilarious), these themes are playing out against the backdrop of increasing tensions within the Republican party about defining itself going forward.

Prior to the Palin blow-up, the evangelical wing and the traditional upper crust WASP wing of the party had a pretty basic agreement about the value of pure white virgin daughters. Having a few of these hanging around on podiums made politicians look good, and preserving the myth of the pure white virgin was of the utmost importance. Everyone thought they agreed on this topic. But Bristol Palin had to go have a baby, and the difference of opinion on what to do about girls who don't live by the standards of purity became harder to deny.

Bluntly put, the traditional WASP conservative view on this was that preserving appearances mattered more than what people actually did. That's why the Bush girls could run around drinking and carousing and pretty obviously dating (with all that implies), but their status as the pure-enough daughters of the Bush clan didn't budge a bit, because they understood that you don't blow it all up by having a baby. This is true, even though Bush worked hard to restrict access to the very tools necessary to preserve the illusion---birth control and abortion. But restrictions like that are more about class than actual virginity. If the poor have to have babies when they have sex, but the rich can control their fertility regardless of the law, it reinforces the class connotations of virginity that Hanne wrote about. The daughters of the upper crust do not have babies out of wedlock, and they get to marry in white and wear the mantle of purity regardless of their actual behavior. What legal abortion and birth control does is make that privilege available to the rest of us. To bring it back to what Leora's post about how the label "slut" has no relationship to actual sexual behavior, I'd add that it's clear that the virgin-slut continuum is often as much about your family's status as anything else. Or at least, that's the tradition, one that's changing in our era of pregnant teenage daughters of Republicans and Paris Hilton.

The evangelical movement, which cuts across social classes, sees things a bit differently. They're actually interested in purity as something you do, not just a costume you wear to indicate class status. Worse, they see childbirth as not just a punishment for your sin, but a way for women to redeem themselves for the sin of sexuality. That's why there was such a disconnect between what liberals thought the right's reaction would be, and the way that the evangelical movement closed ranks around the Palins and celebrated this teenage pregnancy as if this were the plan all along. In their eyes, by having the baby, Bristol purified herself of her sin of fornication. Certainly, Sarah Palin acts like that's the case, shoving Tripp at Bristol when she went on Fox News and insisting that she go on about how he's nothing but a joy, i.e. shut your trap and stop talking about how you regret getting pregnant at 17.

Right now, everyone's confused about what purity even means or symbolizes. The hard evangelical view is that purity is all about adherence to gender roles, and class shouldn't have anything to do with it. The traditional view is that single motherhood and back alley abortions---symbols of sluttiness---are a way to distinguish the upper crust that has discreet abortion from the rest of society. Most social conservatives fall somewhere in between, which is why so many Bible-thumping evangelicals will turn around and show up in a clinic if it's their own daughter's faux virgin reputation on the line.

There's only one cure for all this confusion, and Jessica lays out what it is---if people could just give up caring so much about the myths of purity, then we wouldn't even have this problem. The question is how.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/tpmcafe-main/~3/jj-saSGfd-0/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Prepare to be Stalked

Roger Ebert takes on Bill O'Reilly.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/e0r1mmDNhkk/prepare_to_be_s
talked.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

TPM Cafe: STFU You Obama Hating Fifth Column!

Jonathan Taplin today:

The fifth column of progressive blogs is libertarians pretending they are liberals. . . . Barack is a man of good will who is as smart a President as we have had the privilege to be served by in the last half century.

(Emphasis supplied.) Andrew Sullivan in 2001:

The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.

(Emphasis supplied.) In 8 years, some of us have now been called "traitor" by adulators of a Republican President and now a Democratic President. Jersey colored issue "analysis" from both spectrums.

Speaking for me only

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/x2Pj9ZKGH_g/9615

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

KS-Gov: Democrat Herb West Files

This story, I'm sorry to say, is nearly four months old.Herbert West the III, described by the web[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://kansasjackass.blogspot.com/2009/04/ks-gov-democrat-herb-west-files.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Wall Streets New Bull Market: 7 Signs the Bear is
Dead

Believe it or not, but based on the classic Wall Street definitions, we’re in a new bull market. As of last Friday, all three major market indices recovered more than 20% from their March 9 lows.

Of course, we’ve been here before. Or as Yogi Berra liked to say, “It’s like…

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/jutiagroup/~3/bHVA-bLzB90/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!