Month: January 2008

"For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values," – Ezra Levant, interrogated for publishing cartoons of Muhammad in Canada.

The benign interpretation of the Clintons’ evocation of the importance of an LBJ to complement an MLK is about the need for legislative activity to enshrine the vital work of civil rights activists. As such, it’s a perfectly reasonable analogy to make, if a little condescending to King. But does it reflect who the Clintons actually are? Are they really today’s version of LBJ? In fact, unlike most others in this race, we have some direct evidence of how the Clintons, given the power of the White House, responded to the civil rights movement of their own time.

In the 1990s, we saw a burst of grass-roots activism, protest and rhetoric in defense of gay and lesbian equality. Out of the ashes of the AIDS epidemic, the gay rights movement rose like a phoenix. And the Clintons, seeing a fund-raising opportunity, reached out to some in the movement to finance their own campaign. Those donors trusted them. I wrote the TNR endorsement. But as soon as the gays had performed their role – financing the Clintons in power and supporting their campaign – the Clintons turned on us. They dropped their promise to end the military’s ban instantaneously and then presided over a doubling of the discharges of gay servicemembers under the hideous "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy. They then used the other emerging civil rights issue – marriage equality – to triangulate against gay couples. They ran ads on Christian radio stations bragging about the Defense of Marriage Act that president Clinton eagerly signed. And the only gay people they embraced were those willing to continue to trade money for access – and loyalty to the Clintons. Who helped them devise this anti-gay strategy? Dick Morris. Who recommended hiring him in the first place? Hillary Clinton.

Johnson risked his entire coalition on the issue of civil rights – a heroic act that still reverberates today. The Clintons wouldn’t risk a smidgen of a percentage point in a Mark Penn poll for the duration of a news cycle. That’s the difference.

A reader writes:

I live in Grand Rapids, Michigan. My friends in this conservative town are overwhelmingly taken with Obama and the hope he represents to finally move beyond the futile politics of the past many years.

The only people I know voting for Hillary are women with strong feminist leanings. And the only reasons these women can offer for their vote is gender.

Everyone else thinks Hillary is slime. For us, this week presents a tough decision:

Do we vote for a true patriot, statesman, and capable candidate — John McCain … or do we take pleasure in voting against the Hillary-Machine and give our vote to "Uncommitted".

Tough choices. Following Obama’s example, I am taking the positive road and voting for McCain. Many of my Democratic friends loathe Hillary and will vote for McCain too.

I would too. The Michigan primary is meaningless for the Democrats. But it is critical to stop Romney and help McCain. The Romney-McCain battle is similar to the Clinton-Obama struggle: integrity against hollowness, the party establishment against someone who could help repair his party’s soul. At this point, I hope the old war-horse wins. Can you imagine how good it would be for America and the world to have a good, constructive campaign between Obama and McCain than a Romney-Clinton fake-off?

A blogger worries. If you missed David Boaz on Paul’s ugly newsletters, here he is. I second every word.

In South Carolina, from the State. And in Michigan too.

Rudy goes to church.

From the comments section on this piece:

Biden: I have worked with chairs all over the world, and most members of Congress agree with my plan for how to make chairs Bloomberg: I’ve put together a committee to survey voters on whether they want me to make their chairs Clinton: I have the most experience in making chairs Edwards: I will fight the chairmakers!

Giuliani: I can best protect you from the danger of chairs, just as I did in NYC

Huckabee: Chairs did not evolve, but were created

Kucinich: We should have a one-payer system for chairs

McCain: My friends, I believe we can sit together in our chairs and work out bipartisan solutions without torture

Obama: Together we can create chairs in a new way

Paul: Why is the government involved in making chairs?

Romney: Venture capitalism has made American chairs the greatest in the world

Tancredo: We must build a fence to keep out foreign illegal chairs

Thompson: I like a comfortable, yet presidential looking chair

The U.S. intelligence tsar talks about waterboarding.

They trash other people’s signs. McCain’s. And Paul’s.