AP-GfK Poll: Support For Afghan War Hits New Low

post from ThinkProgress on 09 May 2012 10:00:05 AM. © ThinkProgress

A new AP-GfK poll shows that support for the war in Afghanistan has reached an all time low, with only 27 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of the effort. Sixty-six percent of Americans now oppose the war, with 40 percent saying they “strongly” oppose it. Thirty-six percent of those who oppose the war say that the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is doing more harm than good in helping Afghanistan become a stable democracy and 49 percent say U.S. troops are hurting more than helping.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/05/09/480678/ap-gfk-poll-support-for-afgha
n-war-hits-new-low/

Digg this

Rendell Says Obama Should 'Man Up' On Marriage
Equality

post from Crooks and Liars on 09 May 2012 10:00:00 AM. © Crooks and Liars

I have to agree with Ed Rendell on this one: Obama's not going to lose any votes he already has if he comes out in support of marriage equality:

During an appearance on MSNBC Tuesday morning, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) ? who supported marriage equality while in office ? called on President Obama to back the cause and lead on the issue. ?I think he should do exactly what [former RNC chairman] Michael Steele said he should do. He should man up and say, this is what I believe. And I think he doesn?t lose any African-American votes,? he said.
?The people who vote solely on this issue, single issue voter, gay marriage, none of them are voting for Barack Obama now and they?re not going to vote for him whether he says he?s against it.?

Absolutely true. I'd be surprised if anyone decided not to vote for Obama on this issue ? and we live in Pennsyltucky!

As to Obama's perceived risk in offending black church members, there's a glimmer of truth ? but only a glimmer:

Since the passage of Proposition 8, much has been said about the supposed dramatic opposition to marriage equality among African Americans, fueled by National Election Pool (NEP) figures based on sampling in only a few precincts that erroneously indicated 70 percent of California?s African Americans supported Proposition 8. The study found that when religious service attendance was factored out, however, there was no significant difference between African Americans and other groups.
In other words, people of all races and ethnicities who worship at least once a week overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8, with support among white, Asian and Latino frequent churchgoers actually being greater than among African Americans.
?We clearly need to redouble our work with people of faith to overcome the notion that civil marriage for same-sex couples somehow threatens religious liberties and to convince them that protecting all families equally is the just and moral thing to do,? said the Rev. Mark Wilson, coordinator of African-American minister outreach for And Marriage for All.
Moreover, the study found that the level of support for Proposition 8 among African Americans was nowhere close to the NEP exit poll 70 percent figure. The study looked at pre- and post-election polls and conducted a sophisticated analysis of precinct-level voting data from five California counties with the highest African-American populations (Alameda (Oakland), Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco).* Based on this, it concludes that the level of African-American support for Proposition 8 was in the range of 57-59 percent. Its precinct-level analysis also found that many precincts with few black voters supported Proposition 8 at levels just as high or higher than those with many black voters.
As discussed earlier, the 57-59 percent figure ? while higher than white and Asian-American voters ? is largely explained by the higher rates of African-American religious service attendance: 57 percent of African Americans attend religious services at least once a week, compared to 42 percent of whites and 40 percent of Asian Americans.
?This study debunks the myth that African Americans overwhelmingly and disproportionately supported Proposition 8. But we clearly have work to do with, within and for African-American communities, particularly the black church,? said Andrea Shorter, director of And Marriage for All.

Besides, pulling the lever to support Prop 8 is still very, very different from pulling the lever for Republican Mitt Romney. I think Rendell's right: Obama doesn't have much to lose on this one, and he may gain some votes among those who are disaffected by his waffling on the issue.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/rendell-says-obama-should-man-marriag

Digg this

A taxing day at the polls

post from Daily Kos on 09 May 2012 09:50:05 AM. © Daily Kos

Click to enlarge.

I'm growing increasingly worried about the impact of these noxious voter ID laws. Joan McCarter wrote over the weekend about a lawsuit brewing in my home state of Pennsylvania, led by a 93 year-old woman who has voted in nearly every election for 60 years. She now finds herself unable to cast a ballot, thanks to the fact that the state lost her birth certificate. And Ohio now allows poll workers to refuse voters information about where to vote. And we dare to call ourselves a glorious beacon of freedom sauce? Warning to the rest of the world: DO NOT EMULATE.

Get a signed print of this cartoon from the cartoonist.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/IAg138rOZ1k/-A-taxing-day-at-the-p
olls

Digg this

Lugar Sounds the Alarm against GOP Extremism

post from The American Prospect on 09 May 2012 09:48:43 AM. © The American Prospect

There's been a lot of talk about how veteran Senator Dick Lugar could have salvaged his campaign. The Indiana Republican was soundly defeated by nearly 20 points yesterday in primary race against a Tea Party-backed challenger. He lost amid criticisms that he's too close to Obama and not dogmatic enough for the GOP. Many of those criticisms came from outside groups, including Grover Norquist's Club for Growth and Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, which poured money into the effort to defeat the well-liked senator. In the end, Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock won the primary?and in response, Dick Lugar sounded a call of alarm for Republicans about the fate of the party.

Lugar noted his own Republican bona fides, including that he'd voted with Reagan more than any other senator. Then he went after Mourdock, the Tea Party, and the general intractability that's taken hold of his party:

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.
This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.

Lugar's statement didn't stop there. He outlined what he saw as the necessary mindset for politics?one that "acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas." He noted that Reagan himself had worked with Democrats "and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today." Then he noted the how many subjects had become taboo amongst Republicans, like the idea that climate change may be more than a myth or that immigration is anything but a bad thing. While he gave a brief mention of Democratic partisanship as well, Lugar saved almost all his focus for his own party.

Lugar was probably one of the most respected members of the Senate in either party, and like his colleague Olympia Snowe, was a member of the shrinking group of Republican moderates. Michael Tomasky has argued, fairly I think, that when it really counted, Lugar fell in with his party's extremism rather than fighting the tide. Paul Waldman had his own critique of the senator Tuesday, explaining that such moderates "gnash their teeth some and make lots of statements about how they really hope we can come up with a bipartisan solution to the problem at hand, but in the end they'll be there for the GOP when it matters."

Lugar's hardly been a profile in courage these past few years and releasing an honest statement about the state of the party would likely have been significantly more impressive if he had done it when he was active and wielded influence, rather than after his party gave him the boot. But nonetheless, this may be one of the most forceful and direct criticisms of the GOP from someone in office. Lugar's come to the obvious conclusion: For the Republican Party to succeed, it must divorce itself from some of its more extreme elements. Lugar's note isn't a victory letter to Democrats or even a call for bipartisanship. After all, for Democrats, this is largely a win?with Lugar in the running, they had no shot at the seat, whereas now they may be able to put the state in play. Instead, Lugar's statement served as a rebuke to Republicans' mob mentality.

"Like Edmund Burke," Lugar's statement read, "I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment."

Too bad the senator waited until he lost to give those he represented for over three decades his own best judgment.

To see both statements in full, the Evansville Courier & Press has them in the same place.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/lugar-sounds-alarm-against-gop-extremism

Digg this

The Price of Prejudice

post from The American Prospect on 09 May 2012 09:36:06 AM. © The American Prospect

Another day, another damned defeat.

It wasn't much of a surprise. Despite heroic efforts by gay-rights activists, yesterday North Carolinians amended their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Amendment One passed by an overwhelming 22-percent margin. Gay marriage is already illegal in North Carolina by statute, but amending the constitution ensures that state courts can't overturn the law.

(Small consolation prize: Obama says he?s ?disappointed? that voters in North Carolina didn?t ?evolve? any faster than he has.)

For supporters of gay rights, it's another setback in a war that, overall, seems to be going the right way. But it's disappointing nonetheless, and there are a few things that are both telling and especially harmful about the gay-marriage ban in North Carolina.

Opponents of marriage equality in the state weren't just satisfied with stopping gay people from getting married. Amendment One also bans the state or any of its cities from recognizing any "domestic legal union" other than one between a man and woman. In other words: no civil unions, no domestic partnerships, no health benefits for your same-sex partner (or their children) if you're a state employee, and no hospital-visitation rights. Some opponents of marriage equality like to pretend that they're not anti-gay; they simply want to preserve the ?traditional definition of marriage.? But the broad sweep of the amendment shows that the motivation extends far beyond "protecting marriage." The law rolls back existing protections for gay people and their families in a way that can only be interpreted as mean-spirited and discriminatory.

To know as much, all you'd have to do is look at North Carolina pastor Ron Baity, the leader of pro-Amendment One group Return America. Day before last, he stressed to his congregation that homosexuality was "perverted" and said we should persecute gay people the way we did 300 years ago. Ask and ye shall receive.

North Carolina, which houses the headquarters of Bank of America and Wachovia, is supposed to be the most progressive of the former Confederate states?the social conservatism of its rural areas tempered by the pro-business interests of its major corporations and the Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill higher-ed triangle. Attempts to put a constitutional amendment to voters, which requires the approval of the legislature, had failed until Republicans retook control in the 2010 midterm elections.

But they're not the only ones to blame. As opposed to Starbucks and Microsoft in Washington state, North Carolina?s largest employers remained neutral on the state?s assault on gay rights. While a few representatives from these companies (speaking for themselves, of course) pointed out that the law would hurt recruitment efforts, the companies themselves failed to see Amendment One as a threat. Cathy Bessant, technology chief at Bank of America, said passing Amendment One would "signal that we're a backward-looking economy." My banker friends?and my former financier husband?talk about how they and their colleagues regularly passed up jobs at Bank of America and Wachovia because they were located in the South. I can't imagine the passage of Amendment One will do anything but hurt businesses trying to attract members of the professional class, who tend to be younger, socially liberal, and value residing in tolerant, cosmopolitan places.

Some opponents of the law have focused on the fact that the law was so poorly written that it threatens not just to disenfranchise gay people, but unmarried straight couples as well. Here's the thing about discrimination: It inevitably overshoots its target. As emerging research on its psychosocial effect shows, discrimination hurts those doing the oppressing, too. Anti-gay prejudice robs communities of talent. It engenders fear and distrust between different groups of people?in this case, between communities of faith and gay people, racial groups (an explicit aim of same-sex marriage opponents), and rural and urban residents. It walls off enriching experiences with people who are not like you. Whether you're gay or straight, it perverts the notion of citizenship as contingent on sexual orientation.

Some opponents of the law have suggested that voters were confused about what Amendment One would accomplish and point out that a majority of voters in the state favor some recognition for same-sex couples, though not marriage. But this just seems like a way to avoid acknowledging the fact that gay-rights supporters were soundly defeated yesterday. It's hard for me to see it as anything other than a disaster, and I think sometimes you have to look prejudice in the face.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/price-prejudice

Digg this

Dayens Roundup from May 8, 2012

post from Firedoglake on 09 May 2012 09:30:20 AM. © Firedoglake

In his continuing quest for intelligent life and hope, our intrepid reporter scans the universe for links to stories of interest, including Bank of America, David Brooks, Heartland Institute, fiscal cliff, gas prices, tax evasion, fracking regulations,[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/LUeFuOvCt9c/

Digg this

Tired of War

post from The American Prospect on 09 May 2012 09:25:59 AM. © The American Prospect

Obama campaign thinks a general election on foreign policy works toward their favor, as the past few weeks have made clear. The President is trying to stake out a middle ground between the typical hawk and dove divide, highlighting his success in killing Osama bin Laden and engagement in Libya while also recognizing the country?s war-weary sentiment by extracting the country from Iraq and signing an agreement with the Afghanistan government to remove the United States from combat operations by 2014.

For a time it looked as if Mitt Romney might not fall under the influence of the neoconservative dogma that dominated the GOP?s foreign policy vision during the last decade. Like many of the other Republican presidential candidates, he expressed hesitance toward an indefinite military force in Afghanistan, recognizing the quagmire of the decade-long war. His tone has changed since he?s dispatched his nomination opponents and has attempted to contrast his views directly with Obama. Perhaps it?s no surprise that he?s turned to the neoconservative well of thought since his foreign policy team is largely staffed with former Bushites. He?s criticized Obama for setting a definitive timetable for pulling troops out of Afghanistan, asserting the standard Republican talking point that exact exits aide the Taliban by allowing them to plan for a new offensive once the United States has left the country.

That stance puts Romney at odds with the general public. A new AP poll finds that a record high number of Americans now oppose the country?s efforts in Afghanistan. Just 27 percent continue to favor the war, with 66 percent wanting to end the war efforts, including 40 percent who are ?strongly? opposed to our involvement in Afghanistan. Approval for the war has dropped precipitously over the past several years. In 2010 the AP found 46 percent still in favor of the US?s efforts; that dropped to 37 percent last year. Romney?s message is probably well received by voters from his party?56 percent of Republicans in the poll said a continued military presence was beneficial for the stability of Afghanistan?s government. Independents don?t take that same view though; 43 percent of that group believes that having U.S. troops in Afghanistan actually hurts the country?s stability, compared to just 32 percent who thought our military forces are continuing to bolster Afghanistan?s democracy.

Obama isn?t quite in line with the view of the public either. He?s keeping troops abroad at a sustained level for several more years, and there will continue to be a large commitment of U.S. forces even after that official 2014 exit date. But his policies align far closer to general sentiment, and his rhetoric espouses the same ideals, unlike the bellicose promises of Romney.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/tired-war

Digg this

May the Most Electable Man Win

post from The American Prospect on 09 May 2012 09:25:41 AM. © The American Prospect

Up in Wisconsin, Democrats anointed a centrist to take on Republican Governor Scott Walker in next month?s recall election. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett clobbered former Dane County executive Katherine Falk, the preferred candidate of Wisconsin labor and the activists who?d campaigned against Walker?s anti-union jihad, by a resounding 24 percent. Falk had been prominent in last year?s anti-Walker resistance in Madison, and she was the logical candidate to be Walker?s Democratic challenger in next month?s recall. But she plainly wasn?t the strongest candidate?polls showed her trailing Walker by 5 to 10 points, while Barrett was running even with the governor. Labor poured millions into Falk?s campaign, but the polling probably convinced even many unionists that getting rid of Walker and restoring public-sector workers? collective bargaining rights required a vote for Barrett.

Wisconsin unions endorsed Barrett last night wholeheartedly?if they don?t dump Walker next month, it will be a huge black eye, nationally as well as locally, for a movement that already looks pretty well worked over. The run-off in June looks to be exceptionally close, and national unions will spend major bucks to counter the pro-Walker Super Pacs funded by the Koch Brothers and their ilk.

Ironically, Barrett?s campaign may focus less on labor rights, however central that issue has been to the recall, and more on the state of Wisconsin?s economy. Wisconsin has lost more jobs under Walker than any other state. Indeed, Walker seems to turned Wisconsin economy into a mild version of a Southern European mess. By cutting so many public-sector jobs?more than any other state but one on a percentage basis?he has cut into Wisconsinites? purchasing power, with the result that private-sector job growth has flat-lined as well. Barrett will paint Walker, accurately, as more concerned with ideology than job creation?a pretty fair description of today?s Republican Party as well. No wonder Dick Lugar didn?t fit in.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/may-most-electable-man-win

Digg this

The Biggest Lugar

When he was the young mayor of Indianapolis in the late Sixties and early Seventies, Richard Lugar was acclaimed by Richard Nixon as his favorite mayor. An orthodox Main Street Republican, stiff despite his years, Lugar was competent, conventional and Nixonian in a good way (studious, intellectually ambitious) without any of Big Dick?s phobias. He brought those attributes to the Senate, where in recent decades he took on the challenge of ridding the world of loose nukes. It was a task that required him to work alongside his Democratic colleagues, which was never a problem for Lugar in any case.

Yesterday, the Republican Jacobins dispatched Dick Lugar to history?s dustbin. He was a creature of the Republican past?a contemporary of Bob Dole and Howard Baker and a generation of not-excessively partisan and certainly not all that ideological Republicans who used to dominate their party. Indiana Republicans, who?d sent him to the Senate for six successive terms, now found him wanting: He lacked the hysterical insecurity that powers the Tea Party and its candidates. Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who defeated Lugar by a 60-percent-to-40-percent margin, attacked Lugar for trading with the enemy?that is, for working with Barack Obama, when he was in the Senate, on a bill to reduce the post-Soviet nuclear stockpile. Mourdock vowed to end Lugar?s practice of working across the aisle.

Lugar could have gone on TV early to demolish Mourdock, but his advisers, expecting yet another Lugar coronation, were confident that no such desperate expedients were necessary. Even when it was clear that Lugar was in for the fight of his life, he didn?t repudiate his past and move further right, which is what his veteran colleague Orrin Hatch is currently doing to save his seat in Utah. Having spent decades opposing Soviet Communism, Lugar couldn?t bring himself to say that Obama posed an equivalent existential threat to the American way of life. He refused to reinvent himself?a decision both admirable and suicidal. Rightwing organizations?including the NRA, which objected to Lugar?s votes for Obama?s Supreme Court nominees?poured in money to independent expenditure campaigns on Mourdock?s behalf.

That wasn?t the only reason Lugar lost, of course. He was a Washington lifer whose concerns reached beyond Muncie to the wider world. He was out of touch with the new-model Republican base. He was, for better and worse, senatorial. In the logic of the current Republican Party, those were sins enough.

Lugar was never purely a party man. In October of 2008, I ran into him at a Panera just outside Columbus Ohio?the key swing city in the key swing state just two weeks before the Obama-McCain election. Lugar was unaccompanied by aides, much less an entourage. His sole companion was the director of the Lugar Center at Denison College, Lugar?s alma mater; they were discussing upcoming programs at the center. He plainly had no intention of campaigning for John McCain that day. It was widely known he held McCain in low esteem. Foreign policy was not to be trusted to impulsive interventionists like McCain, but rather?ideally?to Nixonian realists. Lugar appeared quite content to sidestep the contortions attendant to campaigning that day. Nor was he willing to contort himself on his own behalf during the past two months in Indiana.

Will he now contort himself to help Mourdock hold his seat for the Republicans? After the votes were counted last night, he told supporters that he hoped his ?opponent prevails in November.? But being a good senator, Lugar continued, ?will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party.?

That?s some endorsement, no? Democratic congressman Joe Donnelly, who won the Democratic senate nomination last night (he was unopposed), may well have been the night?s big winner. Against Dick Lugar, Donnelly would have been universally written off. But if Lugar?s supporters feel about Mourdock as Lugar himself plainly does, Donnelly may have a fighting chance to pick up the seat?a victory Democrats had not counted upon until the Tea Party anointed one if its own last night.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/biggest-lugar

Digg this

Generation Gap