[ Posted Friday, August 13th, 2010 – 17:36 UTC ]
Happy Friday the Thirteenth, everyone. It's actually a fitting day for this column, which I'll explain in a bit.
Because before we get to that, we simply must begin our column the way we do every week here, which is to call for the abolition of the Pentagon. Yes, as we've done consistently for the past 133 weeks, we demand that the Defense Department's budget be zeroed out entirely. Oh, and also that we immediately adopt a Canadian-style health care system. Can't forget that, as we've been railing about it for ever since Friday Talking Points, Volume One. And lest we forget, President Obama is nothing more than George W. Bush's third term. As I said, none of this will come as any surprise to faithful readers, since we've been saying this sort of thing all along, ever since we were massively disappointed that Dennis Kucinich didn't win the presidency.
Now, you'll have to excuse us, as we're late for our drug test.
What's that? This column has never said any of that, you say? Well, if that's true, it must be news to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who took the entire "professional left" to task this week for doing exactly that. He later narrowed this down to folks on "cable news," so I guess the Lefty Blogosphere is off the hook. Since, as fellow Huffington Post blogger Matt Osborne is fond of saying, "I'm still waiting for my first check from George Soros," I would likely only qualify for the "semi-pro left" or perhaps "triple-A minor league left" anyway, so I guess I'm not even included in Gibbs' sentiments. Whew!
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Thursday, August 12th, 2010 – 17:15 UTC ]
Colorado just held their primary election, and the results are in. On the Democratic side, Michael Bennet won the chance to run for a full term, beating out Andrew Romanoff in a race that had drawn national attention. On the Republican side, Tea Party candidate Ken Buck won the nomination, beating out Jane Norton.
On the surface, this looks like a victory for the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party over the establishment wing, who had backed Norton. On the Democratic side, the results are tougher to read, since Barack Obama backed Bennet, but former president Bill Clinton backed Romanoff. But still, most see this as a victory for the establishment wing of the Democrats.
But those are just the lessons of the primary. You could draw facile conclusions from them -- "Tea Party Ascendant, Progressive Defeated" -- but the real question is what it all means for the general election.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Wednesday, August 11th, 2010 – 17:32 UTC ]
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs recently expressed his frustration with what he called the "professional left," in no uncertain terms. Which, ironically, means the White House and the "professional left" have now achieved parity in that both sides express withering contempt for the other. The irony lies in the fact that both are probably thinking the exact same thing about each other: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"
From the White House's point of view, Lefties are not giving them sufficient credit for the things which President Obama has managed to achieve with a fractious Congress, and with an opposition party dedicated to the failure of any small shred of his agenda. From the Left's point of view, these are mostly hollow victories and were achieved at great price -- gutting the real reforms proposed, in exchange for something so watered-down it was barely worth passing (and certainly not worth praising). What all of this may mean is the opening round of the Washington game "Who's to blame?" which will likely start in earnest the day after the midterm elections this year.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 – 17:55 UTC ]
[ Posted Monday, August 9th, 2010 – 16:36 UTC ]
Last week, a federal judge handed down his decision in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which said (in no uncertain terms) that gay marriage was a civil right, and should be guaranteed to all -- no matter what voters thought about it -- in much the same way that interracial marriage is a constitutional right guaranteed to all (which happened via a similarly-contentious federal court ruling in the 1960s). While this ruling was rightfully hailed by gay rights supporters, everyone knows that there is still a long road ahead until it reaches the Supreme Court, where the matter may be fundamentally decided.
While the outcome in the highest court in the land is obviously uncertain, what strikes me is that even people who support gay marriage winning in the courts may not have fully appreciated what such a victory would bring. Because it would be monumental, and change forever the status of gay rights in this country in a very fundamental way -- one which would likely be impossible to touch, from that point onwards. I don't think I'm overstating the case when I say that if the Supreme Court upholds the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it will become the "final battle" for gay rights. Not that America would change overnight into some sort of Utopia for gays, but that the battles for legal equality would be decided once and for all, and (other than a few minor skirmishes) gay rights activists would move on to making sure that their rights were adequately implemented and defended from that point onwards, rather than having to fight to gain legal recognition of these rights in the first place.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Friday, August 6th, 2010 – 17:45 UTC ]
August in Washington means the beginning of the official "silly season" of politics. This is because Congress takes the whole month off, and political news stories become rather thin on the ground. Intrepid political reporters, wishing to be on vacation themselves, get lazy and start going crazy over non-stories hyped into political wildfires seemingly overnight -- over the silliest of subjects. But these fun and games have not quite yet begun, because the Senate wrapped up work this week, and a few legal decisions of great moment were in the news.
Silly Season '10 may not even begin next week, since Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called the House back into a rare vacation-interrupting session, so they can get some emergency money out to the states to save thousands upon thousands of jobs for firefighters, teachers, and cops. The Republicans, in a stunning display of hubris, called this a giveaway to "special interests," but more on that later.
Perhaps an early harbinger of this year's silly season was the Capitol Police allowing a protest group to hang a senator in effigy, but drew the line at beating the effigy with sticks (although slapping him apparently met their standards). So, anyone planning an effigy party in the near future, be warned -- the line has now been drawn. Hanging an effigy -- OK. Beating said effigy with sticks -- not OK. And both the senator involved and the group protesting hail from the Right, making the silliness all that more enjoyable.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Thursday, August 5th, 2010 – 16:40 UTC ]
There are certain court cases everyone schooled in America at least recognizes the names of: Marbury v. Madison, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, and, most recently, Roe v. Wade. Even if you don't remember the particular details in these cases, chances are you'll at least have heard all of these names before. And we could be on the brink of another landmark case entering this pantheon of pivotal legal decisions: Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Yes, California's "Governator" may go down in history as being on the wrong side of this case (even though he personally supports overturning Proposition 8).
But I do have to caution that there's only a chance of this happening -- and even if it does happen, it's going to take awhile. While the closest "landmark" case in American history to the subject at hand would be Loving v. Virginia, which overturned miscegenation laws and allowed interracial marriages everywhere in America, the question at this point is whether Perry v. Schwarzenegger will turn out to be this generation's Plessy v. Ferguson, or rather the Brown v. Board of Education of our era. This will depend on whether gay marriage wins or loses in the Supreme Court, of course.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Wednesday, August 4th, 2010 – 14:32 UTC ]
Underwater
President Barack Obama has reached the first crossover point of his presidency, where his job approval numbers with the public are lower than his disapproval numbers. This is not exactly good news for Obama fans, especially heading into a midterm election.
For five months, Obama was holding his head above water, metaphorically, and charting extremely stable polling numbers where his approval was slightly above his disapproval. This trend has now ended, and a new trend is emerging -- downwards for the president. What's even more ominous is the fact that this trend seemed to accelerate dramatically at the end of July, meaning August may be even worse for Obama.
After taking a quick look at July's numbers, we're going to attempt to put this into some sort of historical perspective by taking a look back at where other presidents first reached this crossover point in their presidencies, without drawing any sweeping conclusions (other than: "don't attempt to draw sweeping conclusions"). If at any time, while reading the rest of this, you get too depressed to read further, I would suggest skipping down to the last historical section and at least giving that a chance.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 – 15:41 UTC ]
Republicans and conservatives (virtually indistinguishable, these days) have been better at creating a narrative for their political philosophy than Democrats and liberals (at least in my lifetime). They "tell a story" about their political beliefs, and it's a story anyone can relate to, mostly invoking words like "freedom" and "liberty" but also holding sacred "private property" and severely frowning on "big government" which is perennially "on the backs" of the little guy. See, I don't even have to tell their whole story, just a few quick references, and the story pops into your mind in completion. You already know how the rest of this story goes, in other words.
But this is not an article decrying the Democrats' seeming inability to match Republican rhetoric in the public mind, as that's what we do around here on Fridays. Ahem.
Continue Reading »
[ Posted Monday, August 2nd, 2010 – 16:28 UTC ]
President Obama gave a speech to veterans today on the progress of the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The speech also addressed the situation in Afghanistan, as well as some more specific veterans' issues; such as Obama's poignant personal plea for soldiers not to hesitate to ask for help with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder:
So today, I want to say in very personal terms to anyone who is struggling -- don't suffer in silence. It's not a sign of weakness to reach out for support -- it's a sign of strength. Your country needs you. We are here for you. We are here to help you stand tall. Don't give up. Reach out.
But in all the media reports I've seen yet on the Iraq withdrawal part of the speech (considered by the media to be the most newsworthy part), very little attention is being paid to how exactly we got where we are today -- President Obama announcing he's meeting an important milestone on the timetable for American military withdrawal from Iraq. So I thought it'd be worth a look back at what preceded today's speech. Because, as I said, the mainstream media so far have fallen down on the job of providing any sort of context or perspective (or, even, "a timeline") to Obama's Iraq withdrawal whatsoever -- or, even worse than omitting things, getting them factually wrong.
Continue Reading »