Month: March 2010

Today on the Dish we noted Jon Stewart's pwning of Thiessen, the Virginia governor's U-turn in favor of gay equality, and some unsettling footage from Israel. Andrew assailed the Cheneys, explained why he supported the Bush tax cuts, discussed his marriage status, and went another round with Clive Crook. Another odd lie here.

In other commentary, David Gibson offered a rationale for the pope's silence in Uganda, Lexington assessed the causes of homophobia in Africa, Orin Kerr picked apart McCarthy's McCarthyism, Samuel Goldman hit back at NRO's hypocrisy on Obama, Weigel tackled Rove's new book, Steve Lombardo wondered how big the GOP comeback will be, and a reader chimed in, The Leveretts reported from Tehran.

Particularly creepy Christianist here and especially crazy Beck here. Moore award here. Reader debate over Mo'Nique continued here. A reader dissented over Andrew's approach to Israel. And Lost got the Baywatch treatment.

— C.B.

Jonathan Bernstein interjects:

I strongly suspect that when the full history of the health care reform effort is written, it will turn out that the White House was highly involved, every step of the way.  And, yes, it is the job of the Congress to legislate…but it's also the job of the president.  As Richard Neustadt said, it isn't a government of separation of powers; it's a government of separated institutions sharing powers. The president absolutely has a role in legislating.  What he can't do is dictate to the Congress.  Again, I suppose at this point there's as much speculation as anything, but it sure looks to me as if Obama successfully found the "middle way" that Crook wanted.  Of course, to understand that requires understanding that Congress is not something for the president to "guide and supervise."  It's a co-equal branch, and it must be worked with, not supervised.

Earlier thoughts here.

Orin Kerr whacks Andy McCarthy:

Consider McCarthy’s basic argument that lawyers who represented detainees “aided the enemy in wartime,” and should normally be guilty of treason. If that’s true, isn’t the federal judiciary, and aren’t the Justices of the Supreme Court, also guilty of treason? In fact, aren’t the judges the kingpins of this treasonous plot to “hurt the war effort”? After all, lawyers only make arguments to judges. It doesn’t actually help detainees to make argument courts reject. It’s up to the judges to rule one way or the other. If the lawyers are aiding the enemy, they’re only minor players: It’s the judges, and especially the Justices, who are the real guilty parties, as they’re the ones that actually help the detainees by ruling in their favor. Does McCarthy think the Justices of the Supreme Court are guilty of aiding the enemy, and that (if we treat them like everybody else) they should be “indicted for coming to the enemy’s aid during wartime”?

A reader writes:

You wrote:

“He’s been badly bloodied, but if he endures and wins, that makes his victory look like that of an underdog.”

Yes, but there is so much more here. Obama’s contention all along has been that it is better to talk, debate, listen. The GOP contention has been that it is better to oppose, vilify, demagogue.  This is the same GOP playbook that has worked again and again and again.  Despite the crushing losses of 2006 and 2008, still the machinery (Beck, Kristol, et al) continues the drumbeat for total war.

If Obama outlasts them — if he takes every punch and emerges victorious — then two key things will happen.

First, the voices on the right advocating opposition will have to account for their failing.  Second, Obama will gain more leeway and tolerance from the middle-of-the-road voter, further strengthening his hand.  In effect, succeeding grants Obama the right to move even slower in the future, as it suits him.  Trust is (re)born.

The rabid GOP mentality has not been broken.  The nationalistic heart of the beast still lives in the Cheneys.  But if they cannot deliver in 2010, or on healthcare, the number of people inside the party who will want to change course will only grow.  Throw in Palin and the sullen resentments of the fundamentalist right, and the GOP could be crippled for far longer than people currently imagine.

Do what you can to get healthcare passed. Yeah. I’m talking to you. Call your congressman and Senator. Organize.

Marcelas Owens of Seattle, Washington, holds a photo of his mother Tiffany (L) and his grandmother Gina (R) during a forum to tell their stories about denied coverage by insurance companies March 10, 2010 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Marcelas' mother Tiffany passed away in 2007 of pulmonary hypertension at age of 27. She had lost her job and insurance coverage after she became sick. By Alex Wong/Getty Images.

There are many signs that the GOP's most fanatical elements – the Cheneys, Kristols, Thiessen, McCarthy, Perkins, McDonnell – are beginning to realize they have over-stepped. The revolt against the gutter McCarthyism of the Keep America Safe group – which has mobilized all sane conservatives, even as far right as Ken Starr – is one sign. The February shift back toward support for health insurance reform is another. The farce of the Massa-Beck performance art gone awry, along with yet another anti-gay Republican being outed as gay seems to have prompted even a total maniac like Michelle Malkin to step back a little.

But few things were more aggressively meretricious than the allegedly moderate Virginia governor recent removal of sexual orientation as a non-discrimination category in state employment. Except his fellow Republican attorney-general, Christianist Ken Cuccinelli – who ran on McDonnell's moderate ticket – seeking to prevent any state colleges in Virginia from having non-discrimination policies against gays and lesbians and transgender and bisexual students.

This was a direct contradiction of McDonnell's campaign pitch that he was not a far right Christianist, determined to persecute gay people even more than they are already disenfranchised in Virginia. But Cuccinelli's act was a direct assault on the next generation who, Republican and Democrat and Independent, view gay people as human beings and worthy of equal treatment.

But guess what? McDonnell just issued a statement, with less force than his executive order, that backtracks on his previous position. Money quote:

Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

That's an amazing statement. It essentially states that gay people have a federal constitutional right to marry! The times they are a changing.

Here's the full executive order:

STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR CABINET MEMBERS, EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY HEADS, MANAGERS, SUPERVISORS AND EMPLOYEES CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

As the chief executive officer for the Commonwealth of Virginia, I hereby establish a standard of conduct to ensure that all cabinet members, Executive Branch agency heads, managers, supervisors and employees understand and enforce state and federal law prohibiting employment discrimination. Employment discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated by this Administration.

The Virginia Human Rights Act recognizes the unlawfulness of conduct that violates any Virginia or federal statute or regulation governing discrimination against certain enumerated classes of persons. The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination without a rational basis against any class of persons. Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

Therefore, discrimination against enumerated classes of persons set forth in the Virginia Human Rights Act or discrimination against any class of persons without a rational basis is prohibited. Consistent with state and federal law, and the Virginia and United States Constitutions, I hereby direct that the hiring, promotion, compensation, treatment, discipline, and termination of state employees shall be based on an individual’s job qualifications, merit and performance.

No employee of the Executive Branch shall engage in any discriminatory conduct against another employee. Allegations of any violation of the law or this standard of conduct shall be brought promptly to the attention of the Director of the Department of Human Resource Management for review and corrective action. Any cabinet member, agency head, manager, supervisor or employee who discriminates against a state employee or prospective employee in violation of the law or this standard of conduct shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, ranging from reprimand to termination.

I further direct agency heads to ensure that every manager and supervisor in their respective agency is aware of and enforces this standard of conduct. Civility, fair treatment, and mutual respect shall be the standard of conduct expected in state employment. – Robert F. McDonnell, Governor

Know hope.

Weigel reviews Rove's new book:

Accused of being a steamrolling, divisive political operative, he locates a loophole in the argument, and closes by insulting the wife of the person who criticized him. Apart from some gripping narrative sections about how the inner sanctum of the White House reacted to the September 11 attacks, “Courage and Consequence” reads less like the story of one of history’s most powerful presidential advisers and more like a quickie fightback book from some apparatchik ensnared in a petty scandal.

Why am I not surprised?

Check it out. If you backed him in 2008, he needs you now. Remember: we are the ones we've been waiting for.  The success of his presidency – and the possibility of any change – remains in your hands.

James Joyner moderates a debate.