Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
The mainstream media, led by the intrepid White House press corps, closely followed by the inside-the-Beltway punditocracy, has declared what must happen for the oil to stop flowing into the Gulf of Mexico: President Obama needs to get angry at the oil.
I wish I were kidding, but sadly, I am not. This is the [...]
While I would immediately caution everyone not to get overly optimistic about what I'm about to say, President Obama's approval rating was looking up in April. Gains were modest, but were pretty much across the board. Although, as I said, the end of the month saw a slight reversal to this trend, likely the result of the drip, drip, drip nature (or, more properly, "gush, gush, gush") of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Memorial Day is the time to memorialize all the brave individuals who served our country throughout its history, and sometimes paid the ultimate price for doing so. But, in particular, this year I'd like to focus on all those who did their duty for their country, and fought for the American ideal of equality for all citizens -- even while they did not enjoy such rights themselves, either in the military or in American life at the time. These second-class citizens, one would think, would have even less reason than citizens accorded full rights under the law to risk death on a foreign battlefield, and therefore would not have volunteered to do so. One would be wrong in thinking this, however.
Our headline today quite obviously references the legislative progress this week on banning the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (of not allowing gay people to openly serve their country)... but we've got another asking-and-telling issue which we simply must deal with first, before we get to any of that.
President Barack Obama, as expected, was asked at today's press conference about the assertation by Representative Joe Sestak, who is running for the Senate from Pennsylvania, that the White House offered him a job in order to sideline him from the primary race against Arlen Specter (which Sestak then won). Obama's answer was to kick the can down the road a bit. This is not too surprising, since this is what his White House has been doing with the issue for three months now. Here is Obama's response to the question:
This, it should be easy to see, is a conflict of interest. If an agency's main purpose is to make money off of an industry (by the granting of oil drilling leases, for example), but also to police that industry, then there is an inherent, built-in conflict. When one part of the agency does its job better, the other part of the agency can't do its job as well. These jobs may not be mutually exclusive, but they're definitely working at cross purposes.
Optimism is growing this week that Congress will repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy of not allowing gays to serve openly in the United States military. To be more accurate, what Congress is proposing is a watered-down version of a full repeal. Which is ironic, because the purpose of their "compromise" is to fix DADT -- which itself was the original compromise on the issue that President Clinton signed.
The new media narrative, which is exactly what the White House was pushing just before the primaries happened, coincidentally (for once, Democratic framing actually worked -- the media snapped it up like a cheese puff at cocktail hour) is now: "it's an anti-incumbent year." The White House was pushing this, because it is a lot better sounding than what the media was using previously, which was: "it's an anti-Democrat year," or even: "it's an anti-Obama-agenda year." Of course, even if it is just an "anti-incumbent" year, Democrats still have more incumbencies to defend, so it's not like the party's out of the woods yet in regards to November.
A lot of conventional wisdom about the 2010 elections died an ignoble death last night, as voters once again proved that even though the inside-the-Beltway crowd loves to attempt to pigeonhole them one way or another, when the election rolls around the voters have the final say. The breadth of such conventional wisdom's demise is rather staggering in its scope, too. So today, rather than dissecting yesterday's primaries (plenty of time for that in the days to come), I'd like instead to dissect a few themes which proved to be either partially or absolutely wrong last night.
Pat Buchanan, in his usual less-than-charming manner, brought up a point last week about the religious diversity (or lack thereof) of the Supreme Court. Buchanan pointed out that, if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the highest court (as seems likely), there will be only two religions represented on the court -- Judaism and Catholicism. He further points out that the court will be one-third Jewish, when Jews account for only two percent of the American population. Now, aside from the highly amusing spectacle of right-wingers advocating some sort of quota system, I think there's a deeper point here than Buchanan's "pity the unrepresented Protestant majority" theme. Because, even though virtually no politician would ever admit it, there is indeed a widespread (but unacknowledged) religious bigotry in America.