« Lieberman Aide: Booting Him Would Be Putting Politics Ahead Of Nation's Safety | Home | Election Central Morning Roundup »

Election Central Sunday Roundup

Rahm: Obama Sets The Tone For Bipartisanship
In an interview on ABC's This Week, incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel sought to downplay his reputation as a partisan bulldog, instead citing Barack Obama's frequent calls for bipartisanship. "So that is the tone. That is the policy," said Rahm. "And that is exactly how we're going to go forward."

New Obama Administration Eyeing Bush Policies To Be Reversed
The incoming Obama White House is already getting ready to quickly reverse various George W. Bush policies by executive order: The ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, the prohibition against California settings its own emissions standards, and the global gag-rule that prevents international groups that receive federal funding from counseling women about abortion, among others.

Over 81,000 Votes Left In Alaska
The Juneau Empire reports that over 81,000 ballots are left to be counted in the Alaska Senate race, made up of mostly early votes plus absentee and disputed ballots. With convicted felon Sen. Ted Stevens (R) leading Democratic opponent Mark Begich by only 3,257 votes in the current count, the result could easily shift depending on how those 81,000 votes turn out.

GOPers Already Eyeing 2012
The Politico reports that some top-name GOPers already seem to be laying the groundwork for 2012 campaigns for president, now that the 2008 race is officially over and lost. Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee will be visiting Iowa this month, and the upcoming annual meeting of the Republican Governors Association could also serve as an audition for multiple potential candidates.

FRC's Perkins: GOP Should Reach Out To Minority Groups On Social Issues
Tony Perkins, president of the Christian-right Family Research Council, says the Republican Party should expand its presence among minority groups by targeting them on social issues, citing the fact that these groups voted for Barack Obama but also favored state amendments to ban gay marriage. "If Republicans want to reach into those ethnic groups, really the only bridge they can cross over are the social issues," Perkins told the Associated Press.

Inaugural Committee: Don't Fall For Fraudulent Ticket Sales
The committee overseeing the presidential inauguration is warning the public against any online vendors claiming to sell inaugural tickets -- in fact, no tickets have been issued to anybody yet, and will not be issued until a few days before the event itself. "Anyone claiming to have tickets to sell right now, or saying that they will guarantee tickets, is not telling the truth," said a spokesperson for the committee.


102 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Bobby Jindal is 37, and he's an American Citizen. I would say those are his two qualifications right there.

user-pic

It will be the Obama campaign all over again. First they will ask in Jindal Indian American enough, then once he wins Iowa we'll say America has moved on beyond race, then Mitt Romney will ask "who is Bobby Jindal?", then Jindal will draw huge crowds but unlike Obama, Jindals crowds will be of the lunatic fringe Palin-type crowds threatening Romney's life because of his religion. Then Romney will win New Hampshire, then Bobby will have to make a race speech because his pastor screwed him over. But, Obama will win against Jindal because no one wants to vote for a crazy evangelical who thinks creationism should be taught, and who thinks castration is still appropriate in 2008...either way Obama wins.


Did Palin Just Go Rogue On Greta Van Susteren?

user-pic

She's getting her duckys in line for 2012. She's gonna meet with any MSM that wants to talk to her so as to refute the McCain's strategy of keeping her behind closed doors. Perhaps she'll verbally self-destruct before 2012 and won't be an issue.

user-pic

Jindal's followers will exorcise their opponents' right to vote.

user-pic

Pun of the week!

user-pic

Bobby Jindal does not represent America today, and certainly not in the future. He wants the Patriot Act made permanent, is anti-abortion, he states marriage is between a man and a woman only. No way will this mindset work moving forward.

Rep. Mike Pence (Representative Indiana) said today on Fox that the Republican party will move forward using the "Sanctity of Marriage" as it's core issue. 60% of people under the age of 30 are fine with gay marriage, so it is a bleak future for the Republican party. They just don't get it. We want a better living offered to us without government interference in moral issues. Until the Republicans understand the division of church and state, they will lose, again and again.

user-pic

They've beaten this issue to death -- it doesn't work anymore. Fewer Republicans voted for John McCain in Florida than voted for George Bush in 2004 even though the "defining marriage" amendment was on the ballot.

It seems an increasing number of people understand there are more important issues facing our country than the traditional Republican wedge issues.

The divide and conquer paradigm is over.

user-pic
The divide and conquer paradigm is over.

It's on the wane, but it's not dead yet.

user-pic

Yeah, you're right.

user-pic

They are clueless, and it will be amusing and gratifying to see them founder on the shoals of their own stupidity.

user-pic

I really would like an Obama spokesperson would put all of this bi-partisan speculation to rest along the following lines: "We ran on a platform of policies designed to give the American Dream back to the middle class, the vast majority of whom have been forgotten over the last eight years. Anyone who wants to join us in that effort, whether Democrat or Republican, will be welcome. We will not be counting votes based on party affiliation."

I think this is what many on the left have missed in the hand-wringing over Obama's "centrism": he is trying to get the things he believes in passed, and he is trying to poach as many moderate R's (assuming such a creature lives outside the wilds of Maine) as possible to do it.

user-pic

Rahm Emanuel basically said that today.

user-pic

Anyone want to buy tickets to the inauguration?

user-pic

I've read that because of the extraordinary amount of interest, the inauguration will have to be spread over two days.  Democrats get to attend on Jan. 20 and Republicans on Jan. 21.

user-pic

I heard that it's gotten so much interest, that they'll have to hold it early, and Bush will have to leave by the day after Thanksgiving.

We need to print this on fliers to stick on every windshield around the White House.

user-pic

Yesss!  Give that turkey the early boot!

user-pic

O yes please!

user-pic

It's odd that the remnants of what was once the GOP are scrambling for top honors for the head of the ticket in 2012. They're planning their campaigns based on this past election. It'll be 2 years down the road before anyone will be able to detect a trend that could become a major talking point in 2012. I suspect the sting of the defeat in 2006 has yet to sink in, coupled with the complete disintegration of their party just this week. They're a paper tiger without teeth or fangs.

user-pic

I just spent an hour reading the NYT among other things-

Noone really has come to grips with what just happened - especially not the Repugs and their water carriers.

So let them continue to bark at the moon about this being a "center-right" country - it's not and if they need more proof, well, we'll give it to them. They're just trying to make a place for themselves without have to examine why they fucked up. They keep this up, they'll never win again.

Guaranteed.

user-pic

"They're just trying to make a place for themselves without having to examine why they fucked up." Right on, Tena!

The Repub GPS unit gives only one direction:
"Turn right, turn right, turn right . . ."

user-pic

Because introspection is only for sissies and Democrats!

user-pic

And those who are trying to examine somehow are laughable. They are saying, essentially, "We lost because we were not crazy enough."

Our time has come, indeed...

user-pic

Items for 2012 Republican National Platform:
- Constitutional amendment to declare US a Christian nation
- Public flogging for illegal immigrants
- Triple the military budget, and name reverts from Dept. of Defense to Dept. of War

user-pic

That's the one that gets me. I'm laughing my ass off - that's just what a bunch of them are saying - Tony Perkins said that after their "summit meeting of the wackos on what to do next."

Clown college - they just decided to go for PHDs.

user-pic

Yeah= I like Rahm's idea of bi-partisanship -

I'm really not worried about accomodating Repugs too much. If that was the point, President Obama wouldn't have picked Rahm.

The bipartisanship this says to me is operative is the: "We won, we're willing to listen, but we won" - bipartisanship.

user-pic

Co-sign. There are good reasons political parties exist, and we won, they lost. The Obama administration will do what they got elected to do.

Bipartisanship is not to let losers behave as if winners. That's the whole point.

user-pic

The more I read about Rahm, the more like me he sounds.

I'm really loving this guy - "how many ways can you say 'I'm gonna tear your head off?'" And losing half his middle finger practically made him mute. LOL!

I love this guy. Plus the Repugs hate him, which is the best recommendation I can think of.

user-pic

Pacing and momentum will be so important for the Obama administration. Keep rolling out new initiatives that are non controversial to keep the sane GOP cooperating while at the same pushing out real liberal agenda items too.

A delicate balancing act I have full confidence that the Obama administration will handle as well as the campaign.

I am going to LOVE the next 8 years.

user-pic

You and me both! I love every breath I take in these days.

I love this fucking country so much - I love my new president so much - I love this Democratic so much that all I want is for things to be done right.

And if that takes time, so be it. I want to succeed. I want our president to succeed and I want our Congressional to succeed - not piss people off for no reason.

user-pic

I love this Democratic majority so much....

user-pic

I envy you that Tena. I don't love this country at all. Hopefully I will grow less disappointed.

user-pic

Are you upset over the gay marriage failures?

Don't be - this is just a setback of the inevitable - that's all it is.

It is inevitable, Amelie.

user-pic

Yes, very. I do believe you are right though, about the inevitable.

user-pic

Boo - there are over 300 million people in this country. Getting a majority of them to agree on something this traditional is not easy but it is closer than it was.

The problem is, I think, is that the idea of marriage is practically part of our DNA at this point - it's been going on since we crawled up out of the swamp, basically.

You can't just do a U-turn on millions of years of evolution. But it will happen.

user-pic

Marriage isn't a product of evolution, it's a product of society.

I was watching an History Channel thing on the Dark Ages last night. They pointed out that the idea of a man having a few wives and concubines, especially if he was wealthy, was accepted in Europe. It was the Church that put a lid on that. (No, I'm not arguing that I should have a harem.)

The product of evolution, I think, is humans' need to form groups, tribes, families, etc. And our ability to be flexible (or, to be able to change over the centuries) with these "traditions" as conditions change.

user-pic

Dude- you think Culture doesn't evolve just like we evolved physically?

Then how come they divide Anthropology up into two disciplines?


Society evolved just like your opposable thumb.

user-pic

But saying that marriage (the two-partner structure) is a product of evolution, and is wired deep within us, is just a step away from saying "traditional" marriage (male-female, with kids, with the man being the dominate partner) is a product of our evolution, and is part of our DNA.

The drive to reproduce is part of our DNA. Beyond that, it gets complex. Assumptions that our culture, our traditions in the USA in 2008, are the result of evolution (physical, not cultural), is like saying that we follow certain traditions because God wants us to.

user-pic

I agree, but you have to start with the idea that we are wired to reproduce.

From there it gets into kinship and mainly property. Marriage is a property right first and foremost. If you ignore the first part - just let them stew on that - and concentrate on the second, you effectively have disarmed your opposition.

They have nothing to argue about the legal aspect of it.

user-pic

As an interesting caveat to your comments I'd just like to add that in certain towns in Europe in the Middle Ages it was acceptable for to men to marry. Marriage has never been as traditional as we all would like to think. Just look at Vegas for chrissakes.

user-pic

That was true in many societies - many. I recognize that - I was throwing out one of those things that you just say - ok? Marriage between different sexes has been the cultural norm in every culture - even though many have made room for different arrangements. Many tribal societies have and do have those kinds of societal arrangements.

But you're fighting a really strongly held belief that isn't necessarily religious and even though people ought to be able to consider the thing reasonably, I don't think enough of them will to make this work in that sense - it will eventually. I just think and always have that if right now we can run an end game around that whole idea by concentrating on less cowbell and more brains we win this.

Then the weddings start to become part of our cultural landscape. But you need the license first - otherwise it's for nothing.


user-pic

I read somewhere that the outcome of Prop 8 is already going to the California Supreme Court. It's questionable whether Prop 8 is valid under the state constitution.

user-pic

I can tell you right now that it violates the US Constitution.

But there's a SCOTUS that may not see it that way - though how they could possibly reach that I cannot fathom.

user-pic

Some legal background from the ACLU on prop 8, and an excerpt:

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot through the initiative process. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.
"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

user-pic

May it be swiftly overturned!

user-pic

Word up!

I just can't see how it cannot fail to be given all the law and the constitutions involved. I don't. I can be wrong - spectacularly, but it doesn't make sense to me from a legal standpoint at all.

user-pic

Three different law suits have been put forth to the California Supreme Court here. LAMBDA, ACLU and one other. I am very hopeful this will be thrown out.

user-pic

Thanks for that site. After reading it, I am greatly encouraged. We might beat this yet :)

The protesting has been amazing. Thousands upon thousands.

user-pic

I might seem like an asshole but I wholeheartedly do not agree with gay marriage at all. I would never vote for it, however, Prop 8 was just wron and I wouldn't vote to take away the rights already given.

user-pic

I don't think you are an ass. Here is why I support it: Legal issues. Property rights and the fact that if one of the "couples" has employer health coverage and it covers the other partner, the IRS taxes the portion the employer pays towards the coverage, which comes from the employee's pocket. That is discrimination. If you speak with many gay people, it is not "marriage" they are fighting for, it is equal protection under the law regarding distribution of property, health coverage as stated, over site by one partner should the other get sick in making legal decisions, and so forth. Civil unions do not cover, for instance, the extra tax on health insurance a person has to pay for their partner. Anyway, it is equal legal protection under federal/state law that is at stake, not marriage.

user-pic

Word, Amelie. Discrimination based upon sexual orientation is still discrimination and ought to be against the law in the US of A. If they can find a way to make civil unions have the same legal rights as marriage, why don't they do that?

user-pic

What I don't understand is why, as a nation that explicitly has a separation of church and state, we don't simply end the concept of marriage as a state sanctioned contract. Make all unions civil in nature and let those who profess a religious bias have their ceremonies performed in accordance with their beliefs.

It's win-win; granting equal protection under the law for those who seek it, while simultaneously quelling any claim of moral outrage by those who are loudly clamoring on about the "sanctity of marriage".

user-pic

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html

Here's why, Chuck. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling of 2004 articulates more persuasively than anything I've read the reasons why it's GOTTA be marriage and not some BS separate-but-equal civil union accommodation. The sooner people as smart and good as you join in the unanimous realization that it's gotta be marriage or it ain't equal, the better.

user-pic

Thank you, Moe! You've articulated beautifully what I've tried (and failed) to say all day.

user-pic

You're welcome. :)

user-pic

And speaking of teeth and fangs, I've been thinking of Andrei Gromeko's deal breaker when the Politboro thought Gorbi was too soft and pretty, all nice words and no do, to wit: "He has a nice smile, and teeth of steel."

I have a suspicion that directly or indirectly Lieberman is going to feel that cold steel sooner rather than later. Bushie may get a hint of it, if he hasn't already, Monday.

On a lighter teeth and fang note: kitten put hers through the lead wire to the 'puter this am,,, all fixed now.

user-pic

I have a suspicion that directly or indirectly Lieberman is going to feel that cold steel sooner rather than later. Bushie may get a hint of it, if he hasn't already, Monday.

He is - that's why all this damn foofarah on the thread is driving me nuts. It's not going to happen yesterday - it will happen tomorrow or the day after.

We can wait - we've waited over 8 years for the love of pete.

user-pic

fracked up the tags - sorry. That first paragraph isn't mine. It's hootowl's.

user-pic
... all this damn foofarah on the [previous] thread is driving me nuts.

I saw some of it.  Lots of incoherent spouting with only a bit of insightful comment.

Chris Dodd was saying LieberSchmuck should not be booted from the Dem caucus.  I didn't see anything about Dodd opposing his removal from the HomeSec Committee chair.  The only quote along those lines came from a LieberSchmuck aide.

That's pretty much Harry Reid's position, too, and that's how I think it'll work out.  A lot of impatience with Reid is coming from commenters who don't understand how the Dem caucus works or just what Reid can and cannot do right now.

What got lost in the foofooraw was Dodd's comment that Dubya should take whoever BigO picks for Treasury and appoint him to the cabinet right now.  Hmmm.  Interesting but problematic.

user-pic

That's the main thing I want. I do not want him to chair that committee and I do not think anyone else in our caucus does, either.

I also do not think the White House wants him to chair that committee. I think the White House will stay out of it, but I think Reid knows exactly how everyone feels.

user-pic

Amelie - a lot of people, once the dust settles, will be outraged like you are because this is ugly. It was one of the only remaining divisive issues form the Bush years that was affirmed in this election and it's ugly that it went that way.


We're not going to be able to get rid of the religious fervor in America - it's a burden. We just have to quit talking about morality and religion and talk about law, the constitution - objective standards of liberty.


user-pic

Just a slightly related point on Prop 8 - I'd actually like to see the Legal challenge to this Proposition converge into a much broader question on the Proposition Process itself... as I think it has been an overall harm to the State of California.

From Prop 13 through 209 (anti Affirmative Action), the propositions process has been used to usurp the courts, the constitution (in this case) and the deliberative role of the legislature - and I think it needs to be reigned-in and made much more limited if used at all.

Any thoughts all??

user-pic

I hate ballot initiatives and would love to see an end to the bullshit on ballots.

Let's just vote for the candidates - never mind the rest of the crap.

user-pic

I totally agree with you on this. The whole initiative thing is terrible.

user-pic

Indeed - The Whole Point of Having a Constitution that Guarantees Equal Protection Under the Law is rendered Moot if the Majority Population is allowed to decide which rights to enforce and for whom and when... regardless of which minority is the target of choice this year or next - etc. Thanx friends!

user-pic

Exactly Tena.

user-pic

Why is it that my avatar is all over this thread by itself almost?

Is everybody still down below talking about Droopy? Goddamn I'm sick of Droopy -

user-pic
New Obama Administration Eyeing Bush Policies To Be Reversed The incoming Obama White House is already getting ready to quickly reverse various George W. Bush policies by executive order:

This is what I'm talking about!!!!

user-pic

Exactly.

Work together when we can, but get stuff done.

I also am confident that the Obama administration won't get caught up in issues that are GOP traps - gays in the military tripped up Clinton big time.

There was a smarter way of handling that to get the right result.

(Isn't if fun typing things like Obama Administration, President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama...)

user-pic

Yes it is. Did you know they went out to dinner last night for the first time since the election? They did. They went back to the same place they went for their anniversary and Michelle looked stunning!

I love these people - I hope they know how much we love them and that they aren't going to get one moment's peace from now on. LOL!!!!

And yes dammit - I want less cowbell and more brains, please.

There are smarter ways to handle this shit and our opponents are so easily outsmarted, people. Quit fighting headon - go around the motherfuckers and leave them howling in the dust.

user-pic

1. Bobby Jindal can use Tubular Bells as his theme song since he participated in an exorcism in his college days, supposedly helping to drive a demon out of a woman and curing her skin cancer. Just picture Jindal at a debate, shouting: "The power of Christ compels you!"

2. Speaking of supernatural matters, this is strange but true: On Novemeber 5, the day after the election, the Illinois evening Pick 3 lottery number was 6-6-6.

user-pic

As someone said on DailyKos:
Jindal/Father Karras 2012!

user-pic

Well if you want to talk omens - When Bush was inaugurated, Mars was ascendant - War.

Jupiter is ascendant when Obama is inaugurated - hope and commerce.

;)

user-pic

My source on that is the British astrologer, Jonathan Cainer. I'll provide a link if someone wants it, but somehow I doubt that is going to be a request.

lol!

user-pic

Glad you clarified that, Tena. I thought for a moment that your source might have been Nancy Reagan.

user-pic

No, but that's one reason I like Nancy. I didn't like her in the White House, but I have come to appreciate her since. And astrology is one of my guilty pleasures.

Some women read romance novels (why I don't know). I like astrology - I'm sure that's as much a mystery to those who don't.

I'm sure it has something to do with being a hippie.

user-pic

What did you think of the Nervous Nellies who were having fits over the Leo South Node and Obama's chart? I thought it laughable that people were talking about Failin' Palin being lucky because she's an Aquarius, and that where the North Node is...

/astrology nerd

user-pic

sooooo republican guy on MSNBC just said that Hispanics would vote for republicans if they had to pay taxes...

user-pic

O boy - keep that right the fuck up, Repugs. Hispanics just about won this election for us.

So keep that up. The Hispanics I know - and I know a bunch - certainly do pay taxes.

The rising middle class is largely Hispanic - at least all across the southwest.


user-pic

It's no deep dark secret that politics flows out of economics.

That is the dirty little 'secret' that will enable the Obama administration to empower the people and set The Republic aright, long term and short term. Now to paraphrase Franklyn,,,,, "if we only have the good sense to keep it."

To address Amelie,,,, just keep in mind that politics flows out of economics. Things like Prop 8 and its numerous permutations are simply bad economics,,,,, they just ain't good for business,,,, save feeding the maw of the nativist hate machine.

Businesses and Universities are pushing back,,,, in effect just ignoring Prop 8 kind of things in order to attract the best they can get. At the same time pressuring state govs as to how Prop 8 nonsence is making recruiting and hireing more difficult,,,,, It's the economy stupid !

Prop 8, et al, fall under the separate and unequal paradigm, and will crumble like the hulk of rotten flesh they truly are.

user-pic
they just ain't good for business,,,, save feeding the maw of the nativist hate machine.

So so true - great comment, hootowl - you do post great comments.

This is already behind the curve of history - it just got framed wrong and put on the ballot which sucks to start with.

It doesn't pass constitutional muster, IMHO. It certainly doesn't do one thing for society - it's counter to economics, to the law, to common sense, to everything we really believe in. It just has to be said in that way.

Women lose on our rights, too, when we let them set up the conversation about our right to make decisions about our bodies around murder instead of privacy. When you let them talk in Culture War and Religious terms, we lose. Usually.

Prop 8 is about Equal Protection. This whole issue is.


user-pic

"So so true - great comment, hootowl - you do post great comments."

Aw, shucks, Tena, you're just sayin' that 'cause it's true. 8>)

It is indeed equal protection, and the CN court so ruled. There is plenty of room for the CA court to use it as a basis for its decision in any or all of the three suits coming to it. Constitutions grant/recognize civil rights, not take them away or withold them,,,,,, hey, didn't we fight a war back in the Eighteenth Century along those lines ??

Power doesn't concede without a fight,,,, just ask the Founders, the Abolitionists, the Trade Unionists, the Suffregettes, Civil Rights movement folks,,,, especially Goodman, Schwerner, Cheney, Evers, Liutzo, King, Till, and how many others unknown.

One sleeps better knowing another tall, skinny, big eared Illinois politician is at the helm of the ship of state.

user-pic
One sleeps better knowing another tall, skinny, big eared Illinois politician is at the helm of the ship of state

No kidding. And government Chicago style is coming to the White House. At least, I think Rahm is like that.

Obama I am coming to appreciate more and more as I read about how tricky the transition period is and what a mine field is it for the president-elect. He can't take over really, but everyone is looking to him as president now - but if he does get involved, he eats whatever fuck up Bush manages before he leaves.

He is the most careful damn man. And I don't mean cautious, because I don't think he's cautious, I think he's bold. But careful. God he's careful.

After 8 years of criminal carelessness, does this feel a lot more like a safe, secure America.

user-pic

Hootowl, Tena and yourself actually put a smile on my face today, and I feel much more upbeat than I have all week. I think that Tena is right about legalities of Prop. 8, we shall see. What has really had me smiling too is Obama slashing the restriction of federal funding for stem cell research. I think he will do so pretty quickly. Stupid religious whack jobs regarding that issue too.

user-pic

Not only that - he's going to get rid of that odious global gag rule on abortion counseling.

Woo Hoooooooo!!!!!

user-pic

It's remarkable, the sheer sense of relief I continue to feel every day since Tuesday, knowing that there are going to be reversals of some of the most odious of Bush's policies.

And that relief grows when realizing that the anti-abortion lobby just took three hits in three relatively conservative states.

Hopefully, the same will start occurring for measures like Prop 8.

user-pic

Can you get over it? I promise that in 2004 I felt exactly like the sky had turned to iron and was about 2 miles above my head and pressing downwards.

I was so upset with Americans in 2004 until I started talking to strangers all over the place who said the same thing back to me: ?What happened? How did he win? And more and more people were openly hating on Bush every year and I finally thought - yes.

Right now I can't feel good enough about Americans. It'll wear off, but I'm enjoying the hell out of it right now.


user-pic

Once again your talking in "right-speak" Frame it as Anti Choice.:}

user-pic

Wackjobs of every size, shape, description and mental health status everywhere will hang onto the Roe v Wade, stem cell issue, sanctity of marriage and whatever because it gets them what they want,,,, power and money. Those goodies are the bottom line in their business model.

I truly believe that the issue of the 'sanctity of marriage' question is turning a curve,,,, not to answer the question of what the sanctity of marriage is,,,,, but that the Constitution does not grant the state the right to limit who may participate in same. It's just a matter of paperwork from here on out.

user-pic

My son wasn't upset about Prop. 8 at all. He thinks time will correct this and at 30, he sees it like you do. Just a matter of paperwork.

user-pic

That's the way my nephew and his spouse take these things.

I get most of my thinking on this from them, since they are the smartest humans I know and my nephew probably is the biggest-hearted person I know.

user-pic

My prospective on gay marriage in Cali is an optimistic one. I voted against the odious Prop. 22 in 2000. As I recall, it was leading by 10 points in the pre-election polls but passed 62-38%, a real stomping.

Here we are, 8 years later and intolerance is down to a 52.5-47.5 margin, and only got there with the help of those "traditional" marriage enthusiasts, the Mormon Church. (Can you say bigamy? I knew you could!).

The trend here is clear. It is sad that it is taking so long, but the future is bright on this.

user-pic

On January 20th he will say these words “I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear …..” and many of us who have worked so hard, hoped so much and even prayed are still in a state of semi-disbelief.
One interesting question that remains is how to properly celebrate this historic event. I for one can finally be happy that I permanently attached his bumper sticker on my car; but what else can we do to show our solidarity with Obama and his movement on that day?
The temptation might be to buy one of the beautiful posters with Obama’s name and face that have been created and, as an artist, I think this makes a lot of sense. But it occurs to me that there may be something too narrow, and shallow about this idea.
How many times did we hear him say that this movement is “Not about me”? And he meant that. I worked hard for him and I deeply trust him but using his face and name as the only symbol of what has happened may in fact point in the wrong direction. Demagoguery is too strong a word but the truth is that, if the only thing we affirm from this is faith in Obama then what is left when he inevitably leaves office? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we found ourselves drawn to something even deeper than what Obama himself has brought to our lives?
So that’s why I find myself considering what strikes me as an oddly simple but radical gesture, as much as an act of performance art as a way to publically declare my solidarity with Obama.
Here’s what I’m suggesting:
On January 20th, and not before, all of us who believe that Obama’s ascendancy to President is a momentous turning point in history should hang or otherwise display an American Flag in our windows and/or on our bodies as we move through the world.
Now I know that many of you reading this will find it an awkward, if not, distasteful thing to do. That's certainly what I felt when I heard the idea from a friend. Waving the American Flag is usually associated with a nationalistic impulse more appropriate for Right wingers with pickup trucks than we enlightened Progressives.
But consider this: What really made the election of Barack Obama possible? Is it that we Americans are somehow unique human beings from others in the world? Obviously not. We are humans like all others. And yet, what has happened in this election is breathtakingly profound. The competition for wealth and power has fueled wars and conflicts in every part of the world every single day throughout history. And yet what we have just witnessed is that the single greatest concentration of wealth, military and cultural power the world has ever seen has been instantly passed from an entrenched system of political philosophy to one radically different in a completely bloodless and even dignified way. What's more, a man from an historically oppressed minority of this nation will soon be its leader! What made this possible is not that we as individuals are different. What made this possible is that we operate under a political system that requires that this is the way we should behave. It’s the fact that we are citizens of the United States of America that is inspiring envy around the world. Our flag is the most direct and appropriate symbol of this timeless fact.
When I think of it in this way I find myself wondering why I’ve allowed reactionary people to co-opt this symbol as their own as if I was not included. The fact is that the most radical way to deconstruct the meaning of that symbol, to finally cause a revision of its significance and interpretation would be to have us declare that it represents a process and system of government that I, only now, find myself fully able to revere. When I’ve suggested this to some other progressive friends it has been interesting to see how they struggle and then deeply ponder what this could mean for them. It’s like finally taking a close look at what has become an habitual pattern and realizing that there’s an alternative way to function.
But most importantly, this one act, especially if done just when Obama is being sworn in, would be the realization of just what he has been saying to us from the beginning: That we are one people within the United States of America. Moving forward will require us to define what it means to be politically active in a different way than we are accustomed to. Somehow we have to look across familiar barriers and attitudes and behaviors and affirm values that we truly do have in common: democracy and the rule of law as a nation. Despite its troublesome history, this is exactly what the American Flag means and nothing would confuse and disarm Obama’s foes and critics more than if we boldly claim this symbol as rightfully, and finally, belonging to all of us.
So, that’s my proposal. Display the flag on Inauguration Day. If we wait and do in on that day the flowering of this symbolic act across the country will have an unmistakable meaning.
Think about it and do what feels right to you. The most important thing is that Obama will be sworn in as our President on January 20th. I’m not used to waking reality fulfilling such a profound dream but I guess I’ll have to rest of my life to consider what this means.
Thank you,
Chris Johnson

user-pic

Good thoughts on the flag. However, the national flag is not the Symbolum of The Republic,,,, only the Constitution is. I relish the way Robert Byrd always refers to the little pocket edition he carries with him.

Our troops fight and die for the Constitution, our oaths of office are sworn on the Constitution. Our Constitution is what has been most defiled by the flag waving monsters of the past eight years.

Restore the national flag to its proper place, by all means. Most of all, restore The Constitution to its proper place, first, last, and always.

user-pic

O I sent MoveOn $25 for 50 Yes We Did stickers. :)

user-pic

Good for you Tena. Today it really sunk in, after watching clips from the talk shows this morning. Rahm really stood his ground, and you can tell the guy is strong, stays on message, won't be baited and will serve President-elect Obama well. Meanwhile, Fox is still on their "center-right" America. I would argue that premise, and I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle. It might be center, but leaning more left than right.

user-pic
user-pic

Hey, does anyone know when Time magazine hit the shelves? I'm trying to get my hands on a copy. Thanks.

user-pic

You may be too late. They went on sale Friday. My friend had to get me one in Florida, and she's shipping it up to NJ for me. :( I'd give it a try, though.

user-pic

Thank you.

user-pic

Seems to me that the GOP, before doing anything else to remove themselves from the abyss, must stop insulting the intelligence of the American people, i.e., "I can see Russia from Alaska," and the robocall claiming that Castro endorsed Obama. Frankly, I don't think they can do it, which is fine with me. I hope they remain in the political wilderness and get lost there, never to be heard from again.

user-pic

I agree with you Chris J. I feel the Repugs played such dirty tricks when campaigning, saying Obama was a terrorist, unamerican, etc. That it made the hard right go nuts and increased the death threats on Obama and his family. And despite their efforts Obama won, but they've spent the last couple weeks (before and after the elction) buying guns and ammo. They are so sure that Obama will take their guns away.
His only comment I heard was against oozies. I don't think they should be available either, they end up in the hands of crooks or menatally ill people and kill people. There was a case on TV where a father gave his 8 year old son an oozie to shoot, it rebound and shot the kid in his head killing him instantly. They should be used only by our armies in war. That's where they really belong. Otherwise I have no problem with rifles or hand guns and I bet Obama doesn't either. These hard right people are just paranoid individuals that go to the extremes in thinking, I don't care if they stay in their homes and hide. When they start seeing changes maybe they'll come out, maybe not. They may refuse to believe too. I really don't care. I care more for people with good common sense. Those people voted for Obama. LOL.

user-pic

I need to get Time Magazine.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address