Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
The growing intensity of the rhetoric surrounding Roland Burris, Rod Blagojevich, and Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat reached new heights (or depths, depending on your point of view) this weekend, by both Burris and his supporters. This is getting so completely out of hand that some perspective is sorely needed here.
Is Rick Warren, pastor of a California mega-church and author of The Purpose Driven Life considered unacceptable in American society at large? Was Obama's invitation to Warren to speak at his inauguration akin to, in today's world, inviting a white supremacist, an anti-Semite, or a blatant misogynist to speak? To put it another way, is Rick Warren beyond the pale?
Brian Williams, NBC's talking head extraordinaire, is probably a decent guy, a guy with whom you could sit down and have a beer. [More on the alcohol subject at the end, I promise.] But that doesn't excuse something he said last night on Jay Leno's show.
Personally, I could care less whether he says "I, Barack Hussein Obama..." or "I, Barack Obama..." or "I, Barry Obama..." or whatever else he chooses to say. The man behind the name is who people voted for, not the name itself. The man will be president, and I don't care whether he calls himself by a nickname ("Jimmy Carter") by initials ("F.D.R" or "L.B.J.") or by his full name. Whatever he's comfortable with, as far as I'm concerned.
There's an old inside-the-Beltway joke where a new House member is being shown around by a veteran of his own party. He is awed by entering the House floor for the first time, and is shown his new seat. He asks, pointing across the aisle to where the other party sits, "Is that where the enemy sits?" The older and wiser Congressman replies, "No, no, here in the House of Representatives we call our opponents 'the loyal opposition.' You're new, so you need to understand this. 'The enemy' is the Senate."
As I see it, the issue breaks down in a number of ways. The first question is anonymity -- do Americans have an absolute right to anonymity in political messages? The second question is technological -- is anonymity a right, no matter what the medium? And the third question seems to be political, and deal with campaign and election law -- what kinds of rules on speech are constitutionally allowable in politics?
One of the more scurrilous 2008 campaign tactics (in a campaign seemingly full of them) had to have been those insidious "Have you heard... Barack Obama is a secret Muslim?!?" emails. These bounced hither and yon on the internet almost from the beginning of the campaign itself (or at the very least, since when it looked like Obama had a chance at the nomination). This sort of activity would likely fall into most people's "there ought to be a law" list -- a list of things worth changing in our election process. Unfortunately, the state Supreme Court of Virginia handed down a ruling in the midst of the campaign which may ultimately make any sort of limits on this sort of anonymous political (and technological) mudslinging actually unconstitutional. Meaning it would be impossible to pass any sort of laws against the practice at all.
First, though, I got tired of endlessly downloading various "election results" webpages, in the hopes of getting some final results. And I also got tired of waiting for the mainstream media to do its job and inform the public what is going on with the remaining states, whose election results have not yet been reported. So I called up the state election officials myself, and thought I would share with you what I found.
Good news for the Bill of Rights out of Berkeley -- they've restored free speech. The really astounding thing, and the reason this is a "man bites dog" story and not a "dog bites man" bit of non-news, is that they updated their laws in support of those voicing extreme right-wing positions. Since Berkeley is charmingly known in the Bay Area as "The People's Republic Of Berkeley," this is news indeed.
As usual, I don't really have much of an opinion about who "won" the debate last night, because I think such designations are inherently subjective. I can see both sides thinking their candidate "won" the night last night, in other words.