Arkansas Victory

The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled the state's ban on gay foster parenting unconstitutional. 365gay:

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court ruling that it is unconstitutional to bar gays and lesbians from becoming foster parents.

The justices rejected an appeal from the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services which had argued children would suffer under the care of gays or lesbians.

"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual," Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion.

"The Arkansas Supreme Court clearly understood what social scientists and every respected child welfare organization have been saying for years: There is no reason to deprive children of good homes by excluding lesbian and gay people from serving as foster parents," said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas.

"We have a shortage of foster homes in Arkansas, especially for teenagers and sibling groups. Thanks to today's ruling, Arkansas' foster children have a better chance of finding loving homes."

The state Child Welfare Agency Review Board in March 1999 imposed the ban on placing foster children in households with gay adults in what it called an effort to protect children from disease, violence, sexual abuse, neglect and instability.

The right decision, and from a southern state too. Very encouraging.

Yesterday's Redistricting Decision

I hate it when I miss a blogswarm, but it happened again yesterday. The U. S. Supreme Court issued a decision in League of United Latin American Citizens et al v. Perry, Governor of Texas et al (LULAC v Perry), declaring TX-23, Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla's district unconsitutional. From the Statesman:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed most of the Texas congressional map but ruled that changes made to a border district in 2003 discriminated against minorities, setting in motion a redrawing of political districts that will ripple through Austin and Central Texas.

In its 130-page decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the District 23, which sprawls from San Antonio to West Texas, diluted the rights of minority voters and must be redrawn. In drawing that district, state lawmakers in 2003 split mostly Hispanic Laredo in half and added mostly Anglo Republican voters in the Hill Country to help re-elect U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio.

Redrawing that district will force nearby District 25, the Austin-to-Mexico district held by Democrat Lloyd Doggett of Austin, to be redrawn, according to the court opinion. The court's majority noted that the Doggett district, which joins two distinct Latino communities 300 miles apart, is not compact enough, although the justices did not specifically rule the district unconstitutional.

The court, however, rejected groundbreaking arguments by Democrats that the Texas map was politically gerrymandered, violated the need for equal population in each district or that the Legislature could not change a court-drawn map in the middle of the decade. The decision represents a triumph for Texas Republicans, led by former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, who engineered the new map in 2003 — and, in the case of District 23, an affirmation of minority voting rights.

I honestly don't know who this will end up helping, but most seem to think that the easiest way to fix the problem with Bonilla's district would be to put the rest of Webb County back in, which would likely cause Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar to switch districts and run against Bonilla. That would probably allow former Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, who narrowly lost the last two primaries to Cuellar, a chance to return to the House. In fact, I heard Rodriguez on NPR say he would run again if the district looked like his former district. On the face of it, that seems good for Democrats because it would give them an opportunity to take back Bonilla's seat, and put the more progressive and more loyal Rodriguez back in Congress.

Here's the blogswarm I missed: Burnt Orange Report (and here and here), Off the Kuff, Pink Dome, In the Pink Texas (who hears there's going to be another special session), Capitol Annex (and here and here), McBlogger (and here), Brains and Eggs, Common Sense, Just Another Blog, SCOTUSBlog, Swing State Project, MyDD, Daily Kos.

Put Conservatism in the Crosshairs

1994 was a rejection by the voters of liberals, Democrats, and Clinton. While anxiously watching as 2006 shapes up to be Democrats' 1994, I'm concerned by what I see as a disturbing divergence. I wasn't quite sure how to put my concerns until I saw this from George Lakoff:

The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush’s management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.

Incompetence obscures the real issue. Bush’s conservative philosophy is what has damaged this country and it is his philosophy of conservatism that must be rejected, whoever endorses it.

Conservatism itself is the villain that is harming our people, destroying our environment, and weakening our nation. Conservatives are undermining American values through legislation almost every day. This message applies to every conservative bill proposed to Congress. The issue that arises every day is which philosophy of governing should shape our country. It is the issue of our times. Unless conservative philosophy itself is discredited, Conservatives will continue their domination of public discourse, and with it, will continue their domination of politics.

2006 is certainly shaping up to be a rejection of Bush and Republicans. But to truly parallel 1994 and be a lasting realignment of American politics, the election must feature voters rejecting conservatism as well. Otherwise, conservatives will be able to rebound quickly once Bush is gone and the Republicans are out of power. Let's put conservatism in the crosshairs, shall we?

TX-Gov: Polls

Survey USA:

Perry (R) 35%
Friedman (I) 21%
Bell (D) 20%
Strayhorn (I) 19%

Zogby/Wall Street Journal:

Perry 37.7%
Bell 19.7%
Friedman 17.5%
Strayhorn 14.1%

Strayhorn is in third in both. I'm beginning to subscribe to McBlogger's "Three Little Pigs" description of the race.

TX-21: Good Polling News

Wow! This has me really excited. It looks like my Republican representative in Congress may be in a spot of trouble. This was something I was sort of expecting to see I guess, given Lamar Smith's ties to Washington's culture of corruption and John Courage's rather exciting candidacy. From the Agonist:

If the race between John Courage and incumbent Lamar Smith is any indication for the Republicans nationwide, then they are in deep trouble.

I just learned that a poll commissioned in the district has reported back amazing results:

In a poll conducted by Lake Research Partners of 500 likely general election voters June 18-21, 2006, only 31% said that they would vote to re-elect Lamar Smith.

The margin of error is + or - 4.4%. And as a campaign worker said to me:

This is an anemic number for an incumbent, as that number should on average be closer to 45-55%. The voters want change, and we’ve got a man of the people that is a teacher and a veteran who wants to be their representative.

I grilled a source with intimate knowledge of the poll about the results. I asked if the questions that were asked in the poll could skew the results? Short answr: hardly. Long answer: they oversampled Republicans in the polling process, so the real numbers may be even worse for Lamar Smith.

Karl-Thomas has more info on the same poll:

Here is a very important thing to remember. Lamar Smith is 20 year incumbent who has not faced a challenger in all that time that has spent more than $15k until John Courage came on the scene. In many years, he's had no challenger. He should have numbers that mirror the popularity of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Instead, we see this...

• Lamar Smith’s personal favorability is surprisingly low. Overall, only 15% of voters give Smith a very favorable rating, and less than half (49%) give him a very or somewhat favorable rating. His overall favorability ratio is below average for an incumbent.


• Just over a third of voters rate Smith’s job performance as good or excellent, and in fact more voters rate his performance as only fair or poor.

  37% - good/excellent
  40% - fair/poor

• Republicans in Congress have even worse ratings in the district.

  27% - good/excellent
  71% - fair/poor

Now, this district is supposed to be about 55% Republican indexed. So Bush's approval, even in Texas where he is marginally popular, should be positive right? Nope. And that's great news for John Courage.

• President Bush scores net negative marks as well.

  44% - good/excellent
  55% - fair/poor

  Not only is Smith personally weak, but together with attitudes toward the Republican Congress and President Bush, these ratings foreshadow a strong desire for change among Texas 21st’s voters.

• Relatively few voters are committed to reelecting Smith. Despite 20 years of serving these voters in the U.S. House, and years before that in the State House...

  31% - vote to reelect Smith
  46% - consider someone else
  23% - vote to replace Smith

  That means 69% of voters plan to or are willing to consider voting for someone else- John Courage.

I think the national analysts are overlooking this race. John Courage has a real shot, and I'm really looking forward to this campaign. A while back, I wrote up a district profile of TX-21. Here's a few numbers to look at:

In 2004, Rep. Smith was unopposed in the primary. In the general election, he spent $606,121 and garnered 61% of the vote (209,774 votes) against Democrat Rhett Smith, who's now running against Texas Governor Rick Perry in the Republican primary. That's nearly identical to President Bush's 61% in the district in 2004.

Rhett Smith was not a serious candidate, and Lamar Smith got only the same percentage as Bush. But in the 2000 election, this same district voted 67% for Bush over Gore, as opposed to 61% for Bush over Kerry in 2004. Bush has been losing ground here for years. And as Karl-Thomas pointed out, Bush is no longer popular in the district with a 44% positive to 55% negative approval rating. So Bush won't be pulling Smith up this time.

Of course, if the Supreme Court overturns the Texas districts here shortly, things may become more difficult for Courage, but for now, I'm really excited about his chances.

New Jersey Supports Gay Marriage

A Rutgers-Eagleton poll in New Jersey shows that state supports gay marriage, with September 2003 results in parentheses:

Favors gay marriage 50% (43%)
Opposes gay marriage 44% (50%)

Clearly New Jersey is moving in the right direction. The New Jersey Supreme Court is considering a case that could legalize gay marriage in that state. It should be interesting to see what happens there.

Civil unions, it turns out, would be favored by over 60%.

*Note: I'm back from Chicago now, and should be back in the posting habit tomorrow.

Wedding Season Strikes Again!

I'm off to Chicago for my cousin's wedding. Unfortunately, I don't have time to post much of anything today, but cheer up! I'll be back Monday. Here's a couple of things to check out while I'm gone.

The Episcopalians backtrack a tad on ordination of gay clergy. Basically, they passed a non-binding resolution saying that they won't ordain clergy, after failing to pass a church law against it.

Republicans in the House killed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. I think this may come back to haunt them.

Zogby has a new set of polls out. Texas-related:

TX-Sen: Hutchison (R) 56.7% Radnofsky (D) 33.2%
TX-Gov: Perry (R) 37.7% Bell (D) 19.7% Friedman (I) 17.5% Strayhorn (I) 14.1%

Oh well, at least Bell is in second.

Check out McBlogger, if you haven't yet, it's a truly wonderful and hilarious addition to the Texas progressive blogosphere.

TX-Sen: Radnofsky Gains

Rasmussen:

Hutchison (R) 53% (60%)
Radnofsky (D) 34% (32%)

Hutchison still has a huge lead of course, but this is more in line now with the Arizona Senate race (Jon Kyl) than the New York Senate race (Hillary Clinton), as the numbers from the previous Rasmussen poll on the race, in parentheses above, suggested.

Censorship in the Bluegrass State

Kentucky's excellent progressive state-politics-related blog, the Bluegrass Report, has apparently been banned by Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher, one of America's least favorite governors, from state-owned computers. Mark Nicholas, of the Bluegrass Report:

I've gotten a handful of e-mails this morning already that BluegrassReport.org has apparently been blocked to state computers by the Commonwealth Office of Technology. Readers in three different cabinets have e-mailed to tell me they get a "blocked" message when they try to access the site.

Nothing like a little censorship with your breakfast. Welcome to the People's Republic of Kentucky.

Of course, the national progressive blogs took notice. And Kentucky responded by... banning those bloggers too! This is going to be insane. I wonder how long before Perry picks up on the idea and blocks Burnt Orange Report, Pink Dome, and In the Pink Texas?

Shakespeare on the War

James at Opiate of the Masses has a look at a few quotes from Henry V that seem applicable to the U.S.'s present situation in Iraq:

Then the other day I was thinking about Henry V, which is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays, and I remembered a couple of quotes that are very applicable to the situation in America today. The first is from Act 4 Scene 1 in which Williams, a soldier, is speaking to Henry, who is in disguise:

But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
together at the latter day and cry all ‘We died at
such a place,’ some swearing, some crying for a
surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind
them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their
children rawly left.

I believe in the concept of a just and necessary war. I also believe the removal of Saddam from power is a good thing. Having said that I believe there was a better way for us to accomplish the goal of removing Saddam and introducing democracy to the region than using cherry-picked and massaged intelligence as a reason. Twenty-five hundred American lives and counting? A heavy reckoning indeed.

Well said.

Looking Into the Future

A new poll released earlier this week shows landslide Canadian acceptance of gay marriage:

Support Gay Marriage: 64%
Oppose Gay Marriage: 36%

This doesn't bode well for American James Dobson's attempts to interfere in Canada and get their parliament to repeal it.

Progress

Not all of the struggle for GLBT acceptance is taking place in the context of government. Other institutions, including religious institutions, are battlegrounds as well. I'm very proud of Reform Judaism, my choice of religious traditions, for being at the forefront of the struggle for gay rights. But I'm also happy to see progress in other religions. And today was a banner today for progress.

The Presbyterians' national assembly today approved a church law that grants local congregations and regional presbyteries the flexibility to deal with their own clergy and lay officers when issues of sexual orientation arise. While they kept a law on the books that bans partnered gay ministers to mollify conservatives, it's a step in the right direction.

The Episcopalians, meanwhile, at their own national assembly, rejected a demand from foreign Anglicans that they institute a moratorium on ordaining gay clergy. This came after the assembly angered conservatives in the church by electing a female bishop as their national leader for the first time. (Pink Lady has more on this.) I wonder if a schism of some sorts is in the works in the Episcopalian church?

The non-evangelical Protestant churches all seem to be struggling with gays in their midst these days. Best to keep an eye on those Lutherans and Methodists. They may be next with the good news. Then, God willing, the Catholics, Mormons, and Southern Baptists. But I'm not holding my breath there.

Survey USA 50-State Poll: Senators and Governors

Survey USA came out with its latest poll with every Senator's approval rating in their home state. Here's a summary of all those up for re-election this fall. Approval is sorted toward the center, with open seats in the very center. Incumbents below 50%, generally considered to be the vulnerability barrier, are in red. Each party has seven seats with incumbents below 50%. But the three most vulnerable-looking seats are Republicans: Santorum (PA), Burns (MT), and DeWine (OH).

First, here are the Democrats:

State	Senator	Approval/Disapproval	Notes
ND	Kent Conrad	75%/19%
NE	Ben Nelson	72%/24%
WV	Robert Byrd	67%/30%
DE	Tom Carper	62%/27%
NY	Hillary Clinton	62%/34%
NM	Jeff Bingaman	60%/30%
MA	Ted Kennedy	58%/37%
WI	Herb Kohl	58%/34%
CA	Dianne Feinstein	56%/38%
CT	Joe Lieberman	55%/41%	primary challenge
MI	Debbie Stabenow	49%/40%
FL	Bill Nelson	49%/36%
HI	Daniel Akaka	48%/43%	primary challenge
WA	Maria Cantwell	48%/43%
NJ	Bob Menendez	41%/42%
VT	Jim Jeffords	64%/30%	retiring
MD	Paul Sarbanes	48%/39%	retiring
MN	Mark Dayton	40%/50%	retiring

And here's the Republicans:

State	Senator	Approval/Disapproval	Notes
TN	Bill Frist	46%/47%	retiring
MT	Conrad Burns	36%/60%
PA	Rick Santorum	36%/55%
OH	Mike DeWine	41%/49%
AZ	Jon Kyl	45%/43%
MO	Jim Talent	48%/43%
RI	Lincoln Chafee	49%/44%	primary challenge
NV	John Ensign	52%/37%
VA	George Allen	53%/35%
WY	Craig Thomas	57%/34%
UT	Orrin Hatch	57%/37%
IN	Richard Lugar	59%/33%
TX	Kay Bailey Hutchison	62%/30%
MS	Trent Lott	66%/29%
ME	Olympia Snowe	70%/27%

Safavian Guilty on 4 of 5 Counts

The Justice Department got its first Abramoff-related conviction today. David Safavian, former chief of staff for the U.S. Government Services Adminstration, was conviceted on 3 counts of making false statements and one of obstruction of justice (Bloomberg):

A federal jury in Washington today found Safavian, 38, guilty of three counts of making false statements and one count of obstructing justice. He was acquitted of another obstruction charge. Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Safavian plans to appeal.

The verdict is a victory for the Justice Department's strategy of relying on e-mail messages between Abramoff and Safavian to prove guilt. Without calling Abramoff to the witness stand, prosecutors Peter Zeidenberg and Nathaniel Edmonds painted Safavian as a public servant led astray by lavish gifts.

VA-Sen: Webb Gains But Allen Above 50%

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows the Virginia Senate race narrowing, but Allen still leads from what is traditionally considered "safe" territory, above 50% (Apr number in parentheses):

George Allen (R) 51% (50%)
Jim Webb (D) 41% (30%)

Fear the Constitutional Convention

Think Progress:

Earlier this month, efforts to ban gay marriage by amending the Constitution failed badly in Senate. Now the religious right is considering appealing to state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention under an obscure provision of Article 5 that would allow amendments to the Constitution without congressional approval. The Evans-Novak report has the details:

Meeting after the big failure at the offices of the social-conservative Family Research Council, the top leaders of the marriage movement — Catholic, Protestant and Mormon leaders among others — discussed the possibility of an unprecedented Constitutional Convention. Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to call for such a convention — which could be done only with great difficulty. Even then, no one knows what such a convention would look like or what sort of amendments could result from it.

Right-wing pundit Bob Novak, who writes the report, appears to be pushing the idea even as he calls it “rather fanciful.” Novak argues banning gay marriage through a constitutional convention would be difficult but not impossible:

[I]f such a convention were to pass a marriage amendment, we estimate that 28 states would easily ratify it. Another eight states may do so only after a protracted and bloody political fight (which could span an election cycle). That leaves supporters with two more states to go to reach the threshold of 38 (three-fourths), and only the most difficult ground to fight on — states such as Maine, Rhode Island, Oregon and Nevada are probably not ideal places to win such a fight, although not all would be unwinnable.

Novak notes that such a convention would give liberals the opportunity to write their own amendments. He’s convinced, however, “that there are more than 13 states with legislatures willing to block anything too far out on the left.” That’s a relief.

If the states call a constitutional convention, there would be no limit on what amendments they could debate. In fact, they could scrap the constitution entirely. So basically, it looks like the religious right would rather scrap the consitution entirely than allow gay marriage. I can't imagine the states would go for a convention though. But if they did, America would become utterly different. And not in any predictable way, either. Fear the constitutional convention, because it would mean the end of the American experiment.

Polls Polls Polls

From Politics1, a site whose poll dump format is wonderful:

CONNECTICUT - US SENATE - DEM PRIMARY: US Senator Joe Lieberman - 46%, businessman Ned Lamont - 40%. (Rasmussen Reports).
PENNSYLVANIA - GOVERNOR: Governor Ed Rendell (D) - 49%, retired pro football player Lynn Swann (R) - 38%, businessman Russ Diamond (Independent) - 2%. (Strategic Vision-R).
PENNSYLVANIA - US SENATE: State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. (D) - 49%, US Senator Rick Santorum (R) - 40%, Others - 1%. (Strategic Vision-R).
PENNSYLVANIA - P2008 - DEMS: US Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - 33%, former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) - 18%, former-US Senator John Edwards (D-NC) - 14%, US Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) - 6%, US Senator John Kerry (D-MA) - 5%, former-Governor Mark Warner (D-VA) - 2%, retired General Wes Clark (D-AR) - 2%, US Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) - 2%, Others - 5%. (Strategic Vision-R).
PENNSYLVANIA - P2008 - GOP: Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) - 39%, US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) - 28%, former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) - 5%, Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) - 5%, Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) - 3%, US Senator George Allen (R-VA) - 3%, Others - 3%. (Strategic Vision-R).
RHODE ISLAND - US SENATE - GOP PRIMARY - (Rasmussen Reports):
US Senator Lincoln Chafee (R) - 44%, Former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse (D) - 42%.
Whitehouse (D) - 60%, Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey (R) - 25%.
TENNESSEE - GOVERNOR- (Zogby):
Governor Phil Bredesen (D) - 58%, State Sen. Jim Bryson (R) - 22%.
Bredesen (D) - 61%, businessman Mark Albertini (R) - 16%.
TENNESSEE - US SENATE - (Zogby):
Former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R) - 46%, Congressman Harold Ford Jr. (D) - 40%.
Former Congressman Van Hilleary (R) - 43%, Ford (D) - 41%.
Former Congressman Ed Bryant (R) - 42%, Ford (R) - 42%.

Rasmussen Reports also has a new poll out on the Rhode Island Governorship:

RI-Gov: Fogarty (D) 41% Carcieri (R) 40%

And the Texas Governorship, and this one is really throwing me for a loop:

TX-Gov: Perry (R) 38% Friedman (I) 20% Strayhorn (I) 19% Bell (D) 14%

Quinnipiac has a poll on the New Jersey Senate Race:

NJ-Sen: Menendez (D) 43% Kean (R) 36%

And Survey USA came out with its latest 50-state poll of Bush's approval rating. Bush seems to have had a bit of an uptick, with an overall rating of 37% approve, 61% disapprove. 5 states like him more than they dislike him: Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama, and sadly, Texas. Bush's best blue states are Washington, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Oregon, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. His worst red states are Nevada, Arkansas, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, and Tennessee.

Fox News has a new poll showing Bush at 40% approval, his best showing since March. At this point I think I'm not sure how much it matters for the upcoming election. He's been down so long, I think much of the damage for 2006 has been done. Clinton was mostly in the 40's during 1993 and 1994, and it turned out awful for him in part because it was a sustained period of low polling that helped Republican fundraising that cycle. I suspect Bush is facing something similar.

CT-Sen: Lieberman Prepares to Quit the Party

A new Rasmussen Poll on the Democratic primary in Connecticut came out today (April resuls in parentheses):

Joe Lieberman 46% (51%)
Ned Lamont 40% (31%)

Upstart Ned Lamont is showing so much strength that it looks like Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democrats' nomineee for Vice President 6 years ago, may just be defeated in the primary. But that may not be enough to dislodge Lieberman from the Senate. It looks like he's planning an independent run just in case he can't have the Democratic nomination.

Of course, that's a risky ploy. He'll have to turn signatures in the day after the primary, which means collecting them during the primary campaign. He should have no problem collecting the signatures, considering that his support actually comes more from Republicans anyway. But if he went that way, it would pretty much mean giving up on the Democratic nomination since Democratic voters would be seriously offended.

As a Democrat or independent, Lieberman would be favored to win re-election. But I think the polls will not continue to look like they do now after Lieberman leaves the party and Lamont wins the primary. This race could go any way in the world if it becomes a 3-way race, folks. The Republican candidate, who stands no chance if Lieberman is the Democratic nominee, suddenly becomes viable if Lieberman and Lamont are both on the ticket. But I wonder if Lieberman won't, in the end, actually take more votes from Streitz than Lamont?

Interestingly, it looks like the DSCC might well support Lieberman (as an independent) over Lamont anyway, though that support might not actually include any money unless the Connecticut state party endorses Lieberman. I think the progressive blogosphere will be very unhappy with Chuck Schumer, head of the DSCC, if that happens.

The Wicked Witch of the West

How does Ann Coulter get taken seriously by the press? She's a demogogue who shamelessly exploits distrust of minorities, and advocates the assassination of politicians from President Clinton to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and everyone knows it. Yet she still gets on all the leading opinion shows. I mean, I know the press thinks it owes the right wing, but this is ridiculous.

Every denunciation I've seen of her in the traditional media, like the op-ed piece in the Statesman today by Tom Teepen, includes some liberal "counterpart", and says something along the lines of, "and liberals sometimes say bad stuff too". Um, no. There is no liberal counterpart to Ann Coulter. There is no liberal pundit out there advocating the assassination of some political opponents and seriously accusing others of treason. Ann Coulter stands alone in her reliable egregiousness among the character assassins of today's political world.

Honestly, I haven't been able to get my mind around why the press talks to her after she accused, quite seriously, half the country of treason. I haven't been able to listen to her since she came onto the national scene during the Lewinsky scandal. I've turned off every show she's been on since she, again quite seriously, argued that women's right to vote should be revoked because they vote for Democrats, and wasn't effectively rebutted.

Her latest ridiculous thing is criticizing the widows of 9/11, saying "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," and according to Media Matters, when pressed to defend herself on the Today Show:

She criticized the widows for "speak[ing] out using the fact that they're widows" and "using their grief" and "the fact that you lost a husband" to make "a political point while preventing anyone from responding."

But what's that? Ann Ann Ann... Fled the Asylum over at In the Pink Texas seems to have pointed out pretty well what a load of hypocrisy that was:

From what I can tell, the gist of Coulter’s argument is “buy my book.” Other than that, her objection appears to be that these women have capitalized on their personal misfortune to advocate a certain national course of action. Neither James Brady nor Nancy Reagan were available for comment.

I’d like to say that I combed the archives and found a troubling inconsistency here. I’d like to say that I discovered a column dated September 13, 2001 in which Coulter capitalizes on her personal relationship with 9/11 victim Barbara Olson to lend herself credence in advocating a massive invasion of the Middle East and a global effort of forcibly spreading her brand of Christianity.

What a hypocrit. And although she decries the "Godlessness" of liberals, the church she claims as her own has never heard of her. But hypocrisy is likely the least of her ethical concerns. Beyond seeming to be a serial plagiarist, she might also possibly be a felon, having allegedly voted illegally in the wrong precinct. Even Chris Matthews has turned on her:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you find her physically attractive, Tucker?

TUCKER CARLSON: I'm not going to answer that, because the answer, I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. That's not the point.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Positively.

RITA COSBY: Don't ask me that question.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Mike, do you want to weigh in here as an older fellow. Do you find her to be a physically attractive woman?

MIKE BARNICLE: I'm too old to be doing that. I had enough fights in my life.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: OK, Rita, do you find her to be a physically attractive woman?

RITA COSBY: I'll throw it back to you, Chris, do you find her attractive?

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You guys are all afraid to answer. No, I find her—I wouldn't put her—well, she doesn't pass the Chris Matthews test.

Ha! She doesn't pass the Casual Soapbox test either. But I can't think of any conservative pundits who do. Anyway, it's time the media dump her... again. But this time, permanently, and from the talk show circuit too.

2006 Postpourri

CT-Sen: Lieberman is planning to run as an independent if Ned Lamont beats him in the Democratic primary.

VA-Sen: Former Reagan Administration Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb is the Democratic nominee to take on Republican Sen. George Allen in November, beating Harris Miller 53% to 47% in the Virginia Democratic primary.

AZ-Sen: (Rasmussen) Kyl (R) 52% Pederson (D) 35%
AZ-Gov: (Rasmussen) Napolitano (D) 55% Goldwater (R) 34%
CO-Gov: (Rasmussen) Ritter (D) 43% Beauprez (R) 38%
OH-Gov: (Survey USA) Strickland (D) 53% Blackwell (R) 37%
OH-Sen: (Survey USA) Brown (D) 48% DeWine (R) 39%
MI-Gov: (Channel 7/Detroit News) DeVos 48% Granholm 40%
TN-Sen: (Zogby International) Corker (R) 46% Ford (D) 42%
TN-Gov: (Zogby International) Bredesen (D) 58% Bryson (R) 22%

Stuart Taylor on the Federal Marriage Amendment Fight

In his latest column in the National Journal, "Gay Marriage and the Estate Tax", columnist Stuart Taylor criticizes Republicans for pandering to their base by staging a losing fight for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (as well as a losing battle on estate tax repeal). Most of it is pretty good:

Gay marriage. Many religious conservatives see homosexual acts as sins. And many other people fear that gay marriage would somehow harm an institution that has been a cornerstone of civilization for thousands of years.

I disagree. In particular, the notion that gay marriage would tempt straight and monogamous people to become gay or promiscuous seems far-fetched. So does the idea that gay marriage -- which would move not a single child from a traditional household to a gay one -- would be bad for children.

Nonetheless, Republicans are right to say that courts have no business revolutionizing marriage over the opposition of the people and their elected representatives. That's what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has already done and a few other state courts seem poised to do. Such judicial imperialism is undemocratic and divisive.

To capitalize on the backlash, Republicans argue that only a federal constitutional amendment can prevent activist judges from twisting the law either to impose gay marriage outright or to force all states to honor gay marriages recognized by any state.

I doubt that. There is no chance that the U.S. Supreme Court's current majority will find a right to gay marriage in the Constitution. And while a few more state courts may well impose gay marriage, the way to prevent such judicial fiats is to amend state constitutions. Nineteen states have already done that, and seven more may do it soon.

Republicans, of all people, should not be seeking a federal constitutional amendment to dictate what state law must be. Nor should they be interfering with future electoral majorities in states such as California, where the Democratic-controlled Legislature has already voted to legalize gay marriage. (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill.)

But let's assume for the moment that Republicans are right to say that in the long run it will take a federal constitutional amendment to keep lawless federal courts out of the gay-marriage business. My colleague Jonathan Rauch (who sees no need for any amendment) has drafted language that would do the job:

"Nothing in this Constitution requires the federal government or any state to recognize anything other than the union of one man and one woman as a marriage."

Why have Bush and other Republicans insisted on far broader language, designed to pre-emptively disable the democratic process for all time? Because this campaign is not about principle. It is about pandering.

The part I take umbrage with is his predictable attack on "activist" judges. To be fair, he is nothing if not consistent on this issue. But in this case, I disagree with him entirely. First of all, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not "revolutioniz[e] marriage over the opposition of the people and their elected representatives". The people of the state of Massachusetts supported gay marriage at the time, as well as currently. And judging by their failure to reverse the decision, the legislature did as well. No other state has been affected in the slightest by this, except perhaps to get a slightly more active conservative base pushing state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Second, on some issues of minority rights, judicial intervention is necessary and justified. Just becase 50% +1 of the people want the other 50%-1 to be prohibited from marrying doesn't mean they should get it. It's a question of human rights and the abuse of power by a self-justified majority. Judges have the ability to require a supermajority of 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to restrict minority rights, and when practical and necessary to protect minorities from majoritarian repression, should absolutely make use of that ability.

I would like to point to Loving v. Virginia as an example of a justified case of judicial intervention. The population of people in interracial marriages was very small at the time, and unpopular. The decision was unpopular as well. But it was still right, even though it was imposed from on high by unelected judges on an unwilling populace. Such is the case with gay marriage as well.

Texas Pride Festival

Since I wasn't attending either the Texas Democratic Party Convention in Fort Worth or Yearly Kos in Las Vegas, I consoled myself Saturday afternoon by visiting the Texas Pride Festival in Austin's Waterloo Park. It was my first Pride event of any kind actually, and it was a lot of fun. I only wish it had been cooler out.

I actually had a couple of reasons to go. The first reason was to say hello to the nice folks at the Stonewall Democrats booth. I went to a meeting for the first time on Wednesday at Magnolia Cafe, and I have to say it was really inspiring to talk to people who actually are working in their spare time to make a difference. I hope to become more involved with the Stonewall Democrats in the future.



The second reason was that my voice teacher, Lisa Richards, was performing songs from her new album, Mad Mad Love, which I madly madly love! She was fantastic, as usual.


I wish there had been more people there to hear, but it was so hot out, I think it scared some people away. The center-stage area was sunny and there wasn't a cloud in the sky. Also, there was a karaoke booth people had to pass to get to the stage area. It might have scared them off...

I must say I was pleasantly surprised to see Susan Steeg, candidate for Justice of the Peace, at yet another LGBT event. (She was also at the Stonewall Democrats meeting.) I really can't say enough nice things about her. I think she'll make a terrific JP. She's eminently qualified and is working very hard to get there. And to top it all off, she has a beautiful, friendly dog who's name escapes me at the moment. But how can you not vote for someone with a dog like this?


My one complaint about the event was the fence. The whole park was fenced off and I had no idea how to get in. I ended up running around the park about 3 times trying to find the entrance. When I finally got there, I realized I forgot to put money in the parking meter. When I finally got back to my car and put money in the meter, I finally realized it was Saturday and parking was free. Doh! Also, I thought I saw someone there I hadn't seen in a long time. But it was through the fence and I couldn't get his attention. Missed connections... oh well...

Edwards Leads in 2008 Iowa Caucuses

I know the 2008 Caucuses are a few years away still, but speculation is so much fun. And it looks like it will be a little more difficult than just watching Hillary win. The Des Moines Register (emphasis mine):

Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina leads a list of potential Democratic presidential candidates while Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack holds fourth place, trailing Edwards by 20 points in an early test of support among likely Iowa caucus participants.

A new Iowa Poll conducted for The Des Moines Register shows that Edwards, the runner-up in the Iowa Democratic caucuses two years ago and a frequent visitor to the state since then, is the choice of 30 percent of Iowans who say they are likely to take part in the January 2008 caucuses.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York follows on Edwards' heels with 26 percent in the Iowa Poll.

Experts say it's the first poll showing anyone besides Clinton as the preferred Democrat in the race for the White House.

The Convention

It looks like Boyd Richie barely won himself a full term, beating Glen Maxey with 53.2% to 46.5% of the vote. Glen Maxey wrote some of his thoughts up on Burnt Orange Report. The good news is, despite the raucous contest, the Democratic Party emerged united. Congratulations to Boyd Richie.

Congratulations also to Anna, who won her place on the Resolutions Committee. Way to crash that gate!

Based on some of the reviews I've seen from other bloggers, I definitely missed out. I did, however, get to go to the Pride Festival this weekend, so I'll have some pictures up of that tonight. I meant to have them already, but my camera was out of juice last night and I don't have time this morning. Soon, I promise, soon...

Murtha To Challenge Hoyer?

If the Democrats retake the House, it looks like the stage is set for a leadership struggle, as Rep. John Murtha seems interested in taking on the second-in-command House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer. The New York Times from Saturday:

Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvanian who has become a leading Democratic voice against the Iraq war, surprised many colleagues Friday by circulating a letter announcing that he would be a candidate for majority leader should his party gain 15 or more seats to topple Republicans from power.

"If we prevail, as I hope and know we will, and return to the majority this next Congress, I have decided to run for the open seat of the majority leader," Mr. Murtha wrote.

His move sets up a potential contest with Representative Steny H. Hoyer, a 13-term lawmaker from Maryland who is the Democratic whip and is also a candidate for majority leader if the job becomes available. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, is in line to become the first female speaker of the House if Democrats gain a majority.

I honestly don't know what to think about this. Why would he only want to challenge Hoyer if the Democrats retake the House? If something is wrong with Hoyer's leadership, shouldn't he challenge him regardless? Anyway, I don't have any particularly strong feelings one way or the other here, except to say that 1.) Murtha would be a fine addition to the leadership team because he is an inspirational figure to the Democratic base, and 2.) under Hoyer's leadership, the House Democrats have been more united that at any other time I can remember. Hopefully a bruising internal struggle won't prevent Democrats from accomplishing things once (and if) they take control of the House.

Goodbye, Gay Foster Parent Ban in MO

After Missouri repealed its unconstitutional sodomy law, the state attorney general gave in on the gay foster parent ban. (365gay):

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said that the state plans to drop its legal challenge to a Kansas City lesbian's efforts to become a foster parent because a law signed this week by Gov. Matt Blunt makes the appeal impossible.

Nixon cited a bill Blunt signed that toughens penalties against sexual predators. The bill, signed Monday, also includes language that deletes a long-standing state law banning same-sex sexual contact, one of the key arguments Missouri raised to deny Kansas City resident Lisa Johnston a license to raise a foster child.

A perfect illustration of why Lawrence v Texas was important, despite the fact that the sodomy laws were never really enforced. Of course, Gov. Blunt disagrees with Nixon's decision. But he's a Republican. They're disagreeable like that.

Good Luck, Anna!

If you're at the Texas Democratic Party convention in Fort Worth (and for some reason, reading my blog), please support Anna (of Annatopia) for Resolutions Committee. We desperately need some gate-crashing here in Texas.

TX-22: Tom DeLay's Last Day

Predictably partisan down to the last (Statesman):

Departing U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, combative to the end, addressed Congress for the last time Thursday and defended the tactics that have empowered Republicans for the past decade.

It's congressional custom in goodbye speeches "to lament the partisan rancor that now weakens our democracy," DeLay said. "Well, I can't do that.

"Partisanship, properly understood, is not a symptom of democracy's weakness but of its health. You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny."

The partisanship DeLay defended was evident early Thursday when Democrats initially denied unanimous consent for DeLay's farewell address. Instead, during their regular business, Democrats heaped praise on another retiring Republican, Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, with a string of Democrats stepping forward to offer Kolbe their best wishes.

There was no mention of DeLay.

Goodbye Hammer! See you on the chain gang! Interestingly, Democrats are trying to keep him on the ballot. Apparently, it's better to run against Tom DeLay than anyone else, considering Republicans haven't picked a replacement yet.

AK-Gov: Finally a Poll!

Ivan Moore Research, a Democratic pollster, has released a poll on the Alaska governor's race with a bunch of numbers, including Murkowski's unfavorable rating: 73%! Hotline on Call has some more numbers that the KTUU article misses. It looks like it might not be Knowles v. Murkowski after all...

AK-Gov (R)
Sarah Palin 43.6%
John Binkley 27.3%
Frank Murkowski 17.7% (ouch)

AK-Gov (D)
Tony Knowles 82%
Eric Croft 14%

AK-Gov
Tony Knowles (D) 53%
Frank Murkowski (R) 21%

AK-Gov
Tony Knowles (D) 43%
Sarah Palin (R) 39%

Zarqawi Is Dead

Betrayed from inside, apparently. Good. At long last. I wonder if that means someone collected the $25 million reward? It would be interesting to know if that was what worked.

In other Iraq news, most Americans agree now that the Iraq invasion was a mistake.

Missing Out

Damn you, friends and family. If I didn't have so many commitments stacked up this year, I might be attending one of the events that's (I would like to think) driving my site traffic down right now. One is Yearly Kos in Las Vegas, a national convention of progressive bloggers. The other is the Texas State Democratic Party Convention in Fort Worth, where the Texas netroots is in the progress of gaining a tremendous amount of influence in the state party, and networking with one another. I, on the other hand, have six weddings this year, as well as a few other planned junkets, and not enough vacation to take them all.

I've made my choices, of course, and they're the right ones. But I definitely feel like I'm missing out on the tremendous energy that's going on in the progressive blogging world right now.

CA-50: Republicans Hold On

Republican lobbyist and former Rep. Brian Bilbray has won the special election in California's 50th congressional district 49.33% to Democrat Francine Busby's 45.46%. This was corrupt Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's district. Apparently, the politics of immigration trumped the "culture of corruption" in this case.

CA-50 was rated tossup by the Cook Political Report before yesterday, and is now rated Likely Republican. But back when Cook, along with Sabato and CQ Politics, all rated CA-50 "Leans Republican", I wrote a post entitled CA-50: A Test of Conventional Wisdom, in which I argued that a win for Republicans in CA-50 would mean there would be a cap of a 19-seat gain, if the conventional wisdom was to be believed. I suppose it will be interesting to see if that little mental experiment bears out in November. I'll be keeping tabs.

Senate Gay Marriage Ban Underperforms

In 2004, the Federal Marriage Amendment got 48 votes for and 50 votes against (Kerry and Edwards, the 2004 Democratic presidential ticket, did not vote), 12 short of the 60 needed for cloture, and 7 more short of the 67 needed for passage. The 2004 election brought with it an expected 4-vote swing: 1 Republican who voted for the FMA (Fitzgerald) was replaced by a Democrat (Obama), while 5 Democrats who voted against the FMA (Daschle, Edwards, Graham, Breaux, and Hollings) were replaced by Republicans (Thune, Burr, Martinez, Vitter, and DeMint).

Predictably, the Republican brought up the FMA again as the midterm election draws near, in a blatant scheme to try and motivate their base while accomplishing nothing. Also predictably, it failed. But I was a bit surprised to discover that they got less votes than I expected. The FMA failed again this time with 49 votes for and 48 votes against. Republican Chuck Hagel (NE), who would have been in favor, and Democrats Chris Dodd (CT) and Jay Rockefeller (WV), who would have been opposed, did not vote. If all Senators had voted, it would have been 50-50, 2 short of expected. Why? Because Arlen Specter (R-PA) -- who I swear flips a coin to decide how he votes -- and Judd Gregg (R-NH) changed their votes.

The two Democrats voting in favor of cloture were Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Byrd, incidentally, voted for cloture, but said he actually opposed the FMA itself. All 5 New England Republicans voted against cloture, as well as coin-flipping Arlen Specter, and presidential candidate John McCain. McCain will probably have a few difficulties mending fences with Falwell and friends after this, so I imagine he would have preferred not to have to deal with this issue. But I'm sure he didn't want to be labeled a flip-flopper either by changing his vote from 2004.

Folks, the Federal Marriage Amendment is dead. The only way it will ever stand a chance is if Republicans control either house of Congress when the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage. If they do, there may be enough furor among the wackos to scare Democrats into voting for an FMA-like thing. Only it will probably be worse than the FMA. That's one reason why Democratic control of Congress is important to the struggle for marriage equality.

Another is that it may be a while before we can count on the Supreme Court. It's pretty conservative already. There may be 5 votes for gay marriage there under the right circumstances, but there certainly aren't 6. I sure hope those 5 make it through to the next Democratic president, but life throws strange curveballs at us sometimes. We may sooner see Congress enact civil unions on its own than the Supreme Court allow gay marriage.

June 6th Primary Results

The strongest Democrat won in at least 3 high profile races:

AL-Gov: Baxley over Siegelman 59.87% to 36.37% with 95.93% of precincts reporting.
MT-Sen: Tester over Morrison 60.22% to 36.27% with 85.58% of precincts reporting.
IA-Gov: Culver over the field with 39.03% to Blouin's 34.10% and Fallon's 25.85% with 97.76% of precincts reporting.

In Alabama, Baxley will face Governor Riley, who demolished former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore aka the Ten Commandments Judge. Couldn't happen to a nicer fellow.

Radio Silence Over

Things were crazy here at "Chez abramcf " for the last few days. We were hosting out-of-town relatives who were here for my brother's wedding, which was great! Shakespeare Wench is now my sister-in-law, and I couldn't be happier for them! Sara has some awesome photos up from their engagement/family photo shoot the weekend before the wedding. They really found a great photographer -- I can't wait to see the wedding photos.

The last of the relatives left today, so radio silence has now ended. More to come soon.

Cute Endorsements

I think Boyd Richie, candidate for Texas Democratic Party Chair, must have forgotten to carbon copy me on his latest round of endorsements. I hear it was quite the list. Verissa the angora bunny, Princess Stephanie the adorable kitten, and San Angelo Canine-America activist Muffin have all endorsed Boyd Richie for TDP Chair. But in what must be a blow to the Richie campaign, Teeny Tiny Tortie McTortlesons has declined to endorse.



I hear Richie had been counting on his support at the convention. Glen Maxey's campaign appears to have sensed an opening with McTortlesons' anouncement and issued a series of man-on-the-street endorsements. Meanwhile, Verissa's ne'er-do-well half-sister Fluffitude had this to say in an interview with Texas Monthly:

"Verissa has really let me down. Verissa will endorse whoever brings the carrot, know what I'm saying? And I hear the Richie campaign has been sneaking her shipments of carrots and parsnips in unmarked red wagons for weeks. Now that Princess Stephanie on the other hand... she's just so cute I think I'm going to have to endorse Richie too."

Oh...

...my lord. I'm going to hurl.

Postpourri

TX-Gov: Perry* (R) 41% Strayhorn (I) 20% Bell (D) 18% Friedman (I) 16% (Karl-Thomas Musselman thinks Bell and Strayhorn will be showing most of the movement this summer, McBlogger has a great analogy for the race: The three little pigs vs. the big bad wolf.)

PA-Sen: Casey (D) 56% Santorum* (R) 33% -- poor Rick Santorum. This is the worst poll I've ever seen for an incumbent senator running for re-election. Could be because he doesn't live in Pennsylvania anymore. Chris Bowers see a Pennsylvania landslide looming for Democrats, and I don't blame him.

CA-Gov: (Democratic primary) Angelides 37% Westly 34% (LA Times poll, via Politics1), or Angelides 44% Westly 32% (Survey USA poll)

Rothenberg, in article Evidence Grows of Incumbent Vulnerability in House Races (emphasis mine):

“It’s all about the environment, not the challenger,” he [Democratic pollster Anzalone of Anzalone Liszt Research] says. “Every Congressional poll that we have done for months has been good for Democrats and bad for Republican incumbents. Now, merely because of the environment, Democratic candidates can be at 10 percent in name ID and still be sitting in the mid-30s in [ballot tests]. That’s a huge difference from past years.”

And that’s why Republicans in 2006 are starting to look like the Democrats in 1994.

Cook, in article Getting Pulled Under (emphasis mine):

The mood among House Republicans has grown increasingly somber. They've seen more and more poll results showing GOP incumbents' leads narrowing or disappearing. Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, are optimistic and hopeful, though they're also cautious, because they recall that in early October 2000 all signs seemed to point toward their retaking the House.

By virtually any measure, the Republican Party's national poll numbers are at least as bad as Democrats' were before their 1994 debacle. For a time, the GOP's national problems did not seem to be spilling over onto individual Republican candidates. But since the first of the year, we have begun to see evidence that most House Republicans are running 5 to 10 points behind where they would be in the absence of a national undertow. And Republicans aren't being pulled down just in those few races where Democrats are fielding first-tier challengers. The pattern now extends to contests where the Democratic candidates are mediocre at best. One GOP strategist cautioned, however, that many GOP incumbents may have become complacent because they've won in recent years by margins that were bigger than they should have been, given their districts' political makeup. And strategists in both parties suspect that some of the GOP incumbents most likely to end up losing are those who have not had difficult races in many years, if ever, and may be resistant to doing what it takes to wage a strong campaign.

Markos Moulitsas (kos) is back posting regularly again at Daily Kos. While I've very much enjoyed the front pagers there who've been holding the reins while kos was on a book tour (especially Georgia10 and Bill in Portland Maine), I'm glad he's back. The sheer amount of election-junkie stuff has markedly increased since his return, and that makes me very happy.

CA-50: John McCain, one of the Republican Party's few remaining positive-press-makers, canceled a fundraiser for U.S. House candidate Brian Bilbray. I smell an upset coming...

National Popular Vote makes some headway in its drive to make the electoral college obsolete as the California Assembly passes a bill to join the "interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide". This would be a good thing. But I wonder if it will just barely come up short of succeeding. I hope I'm wrong.

A former Kansas Republican Party Chairman switched parties to run for Lt. Governor as a Democrat. (AP via Political Wire)

This whole John Solomon vendetta against Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has me a little upset. If I have time this weekend, which is unlikely because my brother's getting married Sunday, I'll write more about that.