Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele.

[superaielman]

 

"Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not," Steele said in a written statement. "Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record."

Steele is mostly correct here. He's all yours. 

Reid called Specter a "man of honor and integrity" who would be welcome in the Democratic caucus.

lol

Sometimes, 'lol' is the only thing that quite sums things up. This would be one of those times.

Good piece by Douthat, on that note.

[Grefter]

Guy with politics that have gone against the progressively more and more extreme in it's views joins the part that won the election by appearing as centrist as possible?  This means he is a traitorous devil of course and cannot hold true to his beliefs (Fuck your smear campaigns).

[Cotigo]

"Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not," Steele said in a written statement. "Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record."

Steele is mostly correct here. He's all yours. 

Are there any politicians that have principles?  Are there any politicians not out there looking to keep their jobs?  And, really, are you going to smear someone who had the "gall" to switch parties when there's people in the Republican party who are talking openly about secession?

Sometimes "Fuck off and quit bitching." is about the only thing that sums things up.

EDIT:  Not that I don't agree that Specter is probably an unprincipled, whorey scumbag.  But him switching parties is hardly the reason.  He's a politician.  The system's kinda broke so that those are the only types of people that get elected.

EDIT 2: Hey, guess which Governor who attended a tea bag party and advocated reactionary secessionist ideology a few weeks ago is requesting Swine Flu vaccine from which federal government he had just recently advocated seceding from? 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html
http://governor.state.tx.us/

Now THERE's a whorey politician.

[Shale]

The party switch is a symptom, not a reason; Specter has been a complete douchebag for longer than I've been alive. So's Rick Perry, yes, but Perry's not getting supported by my party all of a sudden.

[Cotigo]

Pfft.  Like the Democrats haven't been filled with whorey scumbag politicians for a while anyway.  Still not seeing the big deal.

[superaielman]

The party switch is a symptom, not a reason; Specter has been a complete douchebag for longer than I've been alive. So's Rick Perry, yes, but Perry's not getting supported by my party all of a sudden.

I'll just second any motion that ships him and Liberman to siberia.

[AAA]

Reid called Specter a "man of honor and integrity" who would be welcome in the Democratic caucus.
lol

What's that? I can't hear you over the filibuster proof majority.

[Shale]

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Relying on Arlen Specter to deliver a significant vote under pressure may produce ulcers, homicidal impulses and rapid collisions of head against wall.

[AAA]

Take your reality elsewhere, Shale, this is the politics thread.

[Luther Lansfeld]

I assume he was just looking for an excuse to use that picture

[NotMiki]

I appreciate that Specter admitted in his statement that his decision was based mostly on anyone who would have voted for him in the primary having jumped ship to the other side.  That's honest opportunism, and I think it's healthy for politics.  The two-party system is a dangerous force in politics because it polarizes the political process.  A vote for a moderate Republican is exactly the same as a vote for a conservative one, provided that conservatives run the party.  If more politicians threaten to leave their parties when the votes dry up, we may see a more fluid, moderate-controlled political process.  Specter isn't any less of a political hack than people who always vote their party, but he's the kind of political hack that may be good for politics as a whole.  Maybe.  Then again, maybe not.

EDIT: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904u/arlen-specter

[NotMiki]

Some notes on the state of the nation:

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Obama100days/story?id=7459488&page=1

a plurality of respondents favor gay marriage, and a majority (53%) say gay marriages should be honored even in states that don't allow them.  49% of respondents favored gay marriage, 46% opposed.  This is up astronomically from other polls from even a few months ago.

On top of that, laws legalizing gay marriage have passed the Maine and New Hampshire senates.  Both are expected to pass the more liberal houses, so they should be in the hands of the respective governors before long.  It's unclear where those governors stand on the issue, and vetoes would kill either bill, but there's a real possibility that almost all of New England could allow gay marriage before the summer is out.

I'm thrilled about this, and a bit perplexed as well.  The country is in crisis-mode, and for good reason.  Why all this now?  Marijuana legalization is also more popular now than ever (still not in the majority, though: 52% oppose, 46% favor), and amnesty for illegal immigrants has shot through the roof (61% favor, 35% oppose).  Gun control, conversely, is less popular than it has been, though not dramatically.

Public opinion in the ABC poll seems to be heading in a socially liberal (or libertarian) direction, but the country still identifies itself as center-right (35-35-20: conservative-moderate-liberal) and a majority believe Obama is more liberal than they are (sorry, can't find the link).

In great but more predictable news, Obama's presidency has improved the perception of race relations in the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/us/politics/28poll.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=race%20relations&st=cse

[superaielman]

I'm thrilled about this, and a bit perplexed as well.  The country is in crisis-mode, and for good reason.  Why all this now?  Marijuana legalization is also more popular now than ever (still not in the majority, though: 52% oppose, 46% favor), and amnesty for illegal immigrants has shot through the roof (61% favor, 35% oppose).  Gun control, conversely, is less popular than it has been, though not dramatically.

One of the better quotes I read on gun control was from a columnist (Mosley may have been the name? Older black writer, been years since I've read him), who opined that the damage had been done with guns. Even if we could completely shut down our borders and the like (lol), there were way, way too many firearms in the US as is. Gun control can't effectively regulate illegal firearms in the US. Outside of a few things (Gun show loopholes), I don't think there's much headway that can be made.  In spite of the bleating from the Herbert types, I don't think gun control is an effective platform issue for the democrats.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/02/miss_california_usa-2/

A column on the Prejean stuff. It's not what you'd expect from a fox news blog, I'll say that.

[metroid composite]

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/02/miss_california_usa-2/

A column on the Prejean stuff. It's not what you'd expect from a fox news blog, I'll say that.

Interesting; major political forces I know in the LGBT community feel really strongly that she shouldn't have lost the title for that.  All of them feel strongly that she should be able to have that opinion and should be able to be honest about it (and also that Perez was out of line).  Granted, not that they agree with Miss California's viewpoint (obviously) but that they don't want to take away anyone else's rights to their own beliefs.

On the other hand, said LGBT leaders are diplomats themselves, so.... >_>

[superaielman]

I think pretty much everyone thinks Perez was a bloody idiot. You don't want to bring politics in it, but you ask an extremely political question. Right.

[NotMiki]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-normoyle/gathering-storm-miss-cali_b_195087.html

Here's what, for lack of a better term, "the liberals" have to say about the whole thing.  Obviously the writer speaks only for himself, but I think there is some consensus vis-a-vie "the juvenile grandstanding and self-aggrandizing douchebaggery of Perez."

I link this because I think this represents the gut reaction secular liberals have to the whole question of religious belief not only in regard to homosexuality but also the death penalty, premarital sex, contraception, and to a much lesser extent abortion.  They're skeptical of the earnestness of religious belief, and their immediate reaction is to try and pick it apart, focusing on (perceived) inconsistencies.  I think to a great extent that American conservatives concern themselves with morality and liberals concern themselves with hypocrisy.  Internal consistency is they key for liberals, as opposed to, y'know, just believing the right things.

[Cotigo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-normoyle/gathering-storm-miss-cali_b_195087.html

Here's what, for lack of a better term, "the liberals" have to say about the whole thing.  Obviously the writer speaks only for himself, but I think there is some consensus vis-a-vie "the juvenile grandstanding and self-aggrandizing douchebaggery of Perez."

I link this because I think this represents the gut reaction secular liberals have to the whole question of religious belief not only in regard to homosexuality but also the death penalty, premarital sex, contraception, and to a much lesser extent abortion.  They're skeptical of the earnestness of religious belief, and their immediate reaction is to try and pick it apart, focusing on (perceived) inconsistencies.  I think to a great extent that American conservatives concern themselves with morality and liberals concern themselves with hypocrisy.  Internal consistency is they key for liberals, as opposed to, y'know, just believing the right things.

I don't necessarily believe that that's a divide so much between conservatives and liberals so much as it is between religious people and secular people.  While there is a correlation between each group (religious/conservative, secular/liberal), attributing the trait to political affiliation instead of religious belief is misleading.

That said, I am not surprised that someone whose stage name is derivative of Paris Hilton is a grandstanding douchebag.  Or that a beauty queen doesn't have the most enlightened opinions. 

[Just Another Day]

While I'm not sure anybody really disagrees that Perez Hilton is a huge jerk, I'm not sure it's fair to say that Prejean got set up to take a fall for her beliefs. I think it's pretty common for Miss USA contestants to be asked featherweight questions about, say, world peace, and I don't think anybody would bat an eye if a contestant was disqualified for stating, no matter how hesitantly, that she would rather nations went to war for their beliefs more often (for all that this is actually a tenet of a political faction at least as healthy as the anti-gay rights crowd). Similarly, if for some reason a contestant was asked to comment on interracial marriage, the obvious parallel, and said she was against it, well, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, right?

As for the religious/secular divide, well, someone over on Secular Right is currently hashing out a (secular conservative) case against gay marriage, which is pretty interesting if ultimately (in my opinion) astoundingly unconvincing.

http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1940

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

The part where he tried to paint homophobia as part of human nature strikes me as particularly epic there - way to ignore your ancient history, mister. If this was human nature, I doubt the blatant bisexuality of the greeks would have even existed.

[Cotigo]

Or the Edo-era Japanese.  Or the pre-Christian Romans.  Or, I'm sure, lots more examples I'm unaware of that existed before exposure to Judeo-Christian doctrine.  Though he claims the argument is secular, it presupposes the "correctness" of Anglo-American norms which, hey, lookit that, are heavily grounded in Protestant, Puritan traditions. 

Calling some of the violence experienced by homosexuals as "occasional slights" is pretty damn offensive as well, and someone needs to point that asshole in the direction of Mathew Sheppard and other similar cases. 

And, really, I want to fucking slap everybody who makes the claim "NO WE CAN'T REDEFINE MARRIAGE BECAUSE THEN WE CAN REDEFINE IT HOWEVER WE WANT."  Do some fucking homework; Christian marriage has changed a lot over history--it wasn't even considered a holy sacrament until the Gregorian reform in the 13th century, and the Protestant Reformation (and the accompanying Counter-Reformation) changed it quite a bit as well, though I know a little less about the specifics of those changes.  People have been redefining marriage for centuries, and just like the rest of his pathetic little argument, this assertion is based on ignorance and unfounded presupposition.  If you're going to argue, do your homework, otherwise (at the risk of sounding like Bill O'Reilly...) shut the fuck up.

[Just Another Day]

Ah, but you forget, per Virginia Foxx, the hate crime aspect of Matt Shepard's death is a "hoax" (because normal everyday robberies totally involve tying the victim to a post and slashing the hell out of them).

One thing I find really interesting about the SR article there is that its relative articulateness really highlights the prejudice at the base of the anti-gay marriage argument: it basically boils down to A) ew, and B) quit your whining, it's not that bad. Bundled up with some selective historical blindness, of course. The only marginally convincing arguments on their side are religious (leaving aside the valid questions of how strongly the bible actually condemns homosexuality and how seriously to take those condemnations), and those are conveniently neutered by little things like separation of church and state and freedom of religion.

It's funny, it's become sort of a signature issue for me despite my agnosticism on state sponsored marriage generally, just due to the sheer intellectual bankruptcy of its opponents.

[NotMiki]

Yeah, everything that needs saying about that link has been said.

Recent legal decisions allowing gay marriage have ruled that homosexuality was immutable, in other words so intrinsic to homosexuals that it would be impossible or at least very damaging for them to change.  This is an understanding that is very new to the mainstream, and there are plenty of folks not on board.

From a historical standpoint, homosexuality has often been defined by behavior, gay sex, rather than gay love.  As long as homosexuality was considered behavioral, people who had gay sex were just people who had gay sex, and certainly weren't entitled to any special protections for it.  If homosexuals are simply as people who have gay sex, there's no reason whatsoever for them to accept gay marriage, or even laws barring sodomy.  There are still people who define homosexuality that way, and that's why they focus on the sex.

You see this kind of misconception in arguments against gays serving openly in the military.  This is a common theme: if you can't discriminate against homosexuals, then they can leer at you and make unwelcome comments and advances in the showers, and if you complain about it to your superior officer, you'll get in trouble for discriminating.  Homosexuality as a trait is being conflated with sexual harassment, which of course the military already has rules against.

On a more positive note, the Mainew legislature passed a bill legalizing gay marriage today, leaving it up to the governor to sign or veto.  New Hampshire is expected to do the same tomorrow.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/05/05/maine_house_oks_gay_marriage_bill/

On a less positive note, this guy still exists.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/05/joe/index.html

[superaielman]

He's right in the legal sense that gay marriage should be a state by state issue, but that is about as far as I'm willing to split hairs for that idiot.

[AAA]

So what do you think should be done if a couple that lives in a state that outlaws gay marriage travels to a state that allows it and gets married, then goes back? Does it count or not? Remember the Full Faith and Credit clause.

[superaielman]

State has to treat it as a marriage. I'm strongly in favor of legalizing gay marriage, but it's still something the states should specificallly have to do.

Abortion's the same way. I'm not really a supporter of Roe V Wade, but it makes an interesting case about the right of states versus the right of the person.

Defense of marriage act and other delightful laws goes against this, but still.