The Next Hurrah

Pandering and Parenting

Imagine you were living in a state like Arkansas, where the supreme court recently overturned an onerous and sweeping policy which banned gay foster parents. Calls were quickly made to write this ban into formal law, via the state legislature. You wonder what your elected officials might say in response to this law. This is what one of their campaigns said:.

"He was raised by a single parent and remembers the way he was treated by other children because he wasn't raised in a traditional two-parent home," Wright said. "Considering the controversy this issue has given way to, it is hard to believe a child going to foster care from the home of a meth addict is equipped or in a place to understand and cope with the ensuing controversy about his or her foster situation."

Can you guess who that's from? The Republican?

Nope. It's the campaign of Mike Beebe, the Democratic nominee for governor.

Legacy of Katrina

by DemFromCT

What happens when the advocate of a policy is no longer trusted? What happens when it's a President? what happens is you get unexpected bipartisan resistance.

The nation's governors on Saturday launched a bipartisan drive to block a move to expand the president's authority to take over National Guard troops in case of natural disaster or homeland security threats.

At a closed-door luncheon on the opening day of the annual summer meeting of the National Governors Association, the chairman, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), told colleagues that a provision in the House-passed defense authorization bill would end the historic link between the states and their Guard units.

Wouldn't you think a major shift of policy like that would have been discussed on the merits, especially if it's politically sensitive?

Under the provision, the president would have authority to take control of the Guard in case of "a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident or catastrophe" in the United States.

Huckabee said he does not know if President Bush wants that authority, but said "the administration is supporting this."

He and Vilsack said they believe the provision was a reaction to Hurricane Katrina, when Bush debated taking control of National Guard units from Louisiana and Mississippi to end confusion about who was responsible for security in storm-devastated areas.

Vilsack called that a "misguided reaction." He said he had long since proposed an alternative that would give command authority to a federal official at the site of any disaster, while retaining a governor's authority over troops in his state.

That's just not how this president does things.

Calls to a spokesman for the White House National Security Council staff, where the plan reportedly originated, were not returned.

Huckabee, who is considering a presidential bid in 2008, said Congress and the administration -- run by fellow Republicans -- have moved far from what he called the "traditional states' rights position" of conservatives.

In addition to the National Guard, he cited the new "Real ID" legislation, requiring states to ascertain the citizenship status of everyone seeking a driver's license. Huckabee said that, in effect, "they are trying to make every entry-level employee in our [department of motor vehicles] offices an immigration officer, and they're giving us no money to train them or hire them. It is a disaster in the making."

That's how this president does things.

Is impeachment bad for Dems? Another data point.

by Kagro X

Back in March, I took a look at what little data there was that could test the conventional wisdom that discussion of impeachment was "bad" for Democrats. The data in question was the 2004 election results from Nevada, whose Democratic Party had included in its statewide platform a plank calling for impeachment.

The results, you may recall, were a net gain in seats in the state legislature, and increased Democratic performance in every Congressional District in the state.

Not rock solid proof that impeachment helps Dems at the polls, of course. But a solid data point in refuting the stab-in-the-dark guess -- and that's all it is -- that impeachment hurts them.

NY-Gov - Weld Drops Out

Last August, I wrote a somewhat hyperbolic item decrying William Weld's flip-flop on gay marriage rights when he suddenly got back into politics. Well, apparently he's gone from flip-flop to flop - after such campaign heights as his running mate donating to the opposing party's candidate, and the embarrassment of not getting the nomination at his state party convention and being asked by the GOP leader to drop out, Weld has left the race. 

KY-GOV - Fletcher picks new running mate, loses more ground

As if poor beleagured Ernie Fletcher (in the midst of a witch hunt by Partisan Democrats Gone Wild!) didn't have enough to deal with, his lieutenant governor opted out of a second term last week, but said he would stay in office until his current term expired. Admidst speculation that Pence will run in the 2007 GOP primary against Fletcher,  Fletcher asked him to resign immediately. Pence said no and Fletcher's people essentially had a little fit.

What was big time US Senator and Kentucky political kingmaker Mitch McConnell's response?

The Wrong Question

by emptypockets

New York's Court of Appeals -- the state's highest court -- heard arguments Wednesday in a gay marriage case that pools several suits, including one against the New York City official who issues marriage licenses. That case had previously been decided in favor of same-sex marriage, but was appealed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who supposedly supports same-sex marriage but wanted to appeal the favorable ruling to the highest court to clarify the decision. (He must feel he has friends in high places -- they also have granted him permission to unilaterally decide to ignore laws giving domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples.) Thanks, Mike.

In the coverage of the current hearing, something stood out to me -- something that couldn't help but bring to mind the words of the great courtroom orator Fielding Mellish, "I object, your honor! This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham." Specifically:

During the two and a half hours of oral argument, the judges on the Court of Appeals grappled with essential questions of social values, asking tough questions without tipping their hands as to their ultimate decision.

They wanted to know whether there were studies showing that children raised by mothers and fathers turned out better than those raised by same-sex couples, and they wanted to know whether opening the door to gay marriage would also open the door to bigamy or polygamy.

Let's put aside for the moment the fact that this is a question for an AM talk show, not for the highest court in the state. Let's dismiss, for now, the fact that the argument that marriage is only for the purpose of raising children is on its face absurd. And let's forget, temporarily, that the studies to which we're referring have been thoroughly discredited as far as I know.

Let's just pass by all of that right now and imagine it were true -- imagine that children raised by same-sex couples actually were, on average, somehow less well-adjusted. Is that seriously a path this court would want to go down? Are you telling me this court is ready to start withholding rights from individuals based on the average behavior of the class to which they belong?

Because I'm wondering how the studies will read, that look at whether children raised by Christian parents "turned out better" than the ones raised by Jewish parents. I'm wondering how the studies will read, that look at whether children raised by Democratic parents "turned out better" than the ones raised by Republicans. I'm wondering who else the court would be ready to declare unfit for marriage.

In particular, I'm looking forward to the study that examines how children "turn out" who are raised by married straight bigoted homophobes.

Flu Stories: Back To Basics - CA Unprepared

by DemFromCT

From the LA Times today:

State Not Ready for a Flu Crisis

A pandemic would quickly overwhelm the healthcare system, which lacks sufficient beds, medical staff and equipment, officials say.

Los Angeles County and the rest of California have nowhere near the capacity to treat the hundreds of thousands of people who might need medical care should a pandemic flu strike, according to health officials and experts across the state.

Officials are only beginning to work out how they would find the extra hospital beds, health workers and equipment needed in such a crisis. County and state authorities could not say, for instance, how many ventilators might be on hand to keep severely ill people breathing.

"No one, and I repeat no one, is prepared for a pandemic that starts tomorrow," said Dr. Howard Backer, an official with the California Department of Health Services.

And this is why we write about it.

In the criminal justice system...

by Kagro X

...the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the candidates for attorney general, who offer to prosecute the offenders. These are their stories:

March, 23rd. New York City – Today Sean Patrick Maloney, former senior Clinton White House official and investigative attorney running for the Democratic nomination for New York Attorney General, revealed a fresh idea to “legalize” the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program using a complaint that can be filed in federal court.

 

The complaint would seek a federal court order requiring the Bush Administration to comply with the law.  The plan does not stop, compromise or hamper ongoing operations but instead compels the Bush Administration to appear in federal court, in secret session, to show cause for wiretapping any citizens of New York. 

Impeachment Bad for Dems? A data point.

by Kagro X

Another common objection to impeachment is, "It'll hurt us in the election."

It's a convenient one because it fits the currently fashionable model of timidity seeking bi-partisan cooperation, sounds vaguely sophisticated (because it's contrarian), and is untestable, at least until it's too late.

But is it untestable?

Praising South Dakota. Confessions of an Ex-Abortion Provider

By Meteor Blades

For years, I've been complacent. Oh, I sent money. I slapped on bumper stickers. I voted for the right politicians. I swore at the passage of the latest restrictive statute. I sighed when a court ruling was announced. I shook my head in disgust upon learning that another doctor had felt compelled to buy a bulletproof vest or a shoulder holster. I got into a cocktail party argument every now and again. All along, I called myself pro-choice. A backer of reproductive rights. But, like a lot of people I know, I was lazy about it. Stupidly lazy. No more.

Here are three reasons why:

Bill Napoli

Julie Bartling

Mike Rounds