Month: October 2010

Ben Adler undermines Obama's claim that only Congress can allow gays to serve openly:

At the time that DADT was passed, it was constitutional because there was no Supreme Court precedent establishing that homosexual relationships are protected under the implied privacy rights of the Bill of Rights. Then, 10 years later, the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas overturned an anti-sodomy statute on the grounds that it violated the privacy rights of gay couples. Since then, laws that impinge upon the sexual-privacy rights of gay couples are presumed unconstitutional if they have no rational state interest to justify them.

“Since Lawrence v. Texas, you can no longer discriminate against gays without reason,” says Mazur. “The constitutionality of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ has changed since Congress enacted it.” Given that top military leaders have said that DADT is harmful to the military, Obama could have simply announced that, absent the state interest to justify DADT, it is now unconstitutional and will no longer be enforced.

Ted Olson – former solicitor general, whose role is to determine the legal position of the US government before the Court – calls out Obama along those same lines.

Uh-oh:

Today, 44 percent of likely voters plan to vote for Proposition 19—the measure that would legalize marijuana—while 49 percent plan to vote against it, with 7 percent undecided. This is an 8-point drop in support since September (52% yes, 41% no, 7% undecided).

Support has declined among Democrats (56% today, 63% September), dropped sharply among independents (40% today, 65% September), and remains low among Republicans (30% today, 32% September). Support has declined across nearly all demographic groups, most strikingly among Latinos (42% today, 63% September). Most likely voters say the outcome of the vote on Proposition 19 is important (52% very important, 28% somewhat important). Those planning to vote no are more likely to consider the outcome very important (67%) than those planning to vote yes (40%).

TPM's comprehensive tracking of recent polls here. The scare tactics are working, especially among core Independents. All of which means getting the younger and more libertarian vote out is vital.

A reader writes:

I don't hate these people's success; I don't resent it one iota.  I want them to be successful.  Because when they succeed, people get jobs and work and can help to build the economy.  I resent their failures, Andrew, their giant fucking failures. 

My problem is that these people are so wealthy, so able to insulate themselves from any of their mistakes whether financial, or moral, or even criminal that there is absolutely no accountability.  Zero.  None.

Our titans of finance essentially gamble away the money of stockholders and pension holders on the derivatives market.  Do they lose their jobs?  Of course not! There are a couple of sacrificial lambs, but for the most part the whole industry got a huge bailout AND gave themselves gigantic bonuses – at taxpayer expense!  In the meantime, I can turn on the TeeVee and see Rick Santelli tell the little people who tried to get their tiny slice of the American dream that this mess is all their fault.

Meanwhile, across the country, people are losing their jobs and homes, health and well being.  Families and marriages are ripped apart under financial pressures.  People, right now, who want to work for a living, who have scrimped and saved and done everything "right", are at this moment, through no fault of their own, choosing between the rent, the heat, and the grocery bills.  Those people can only dream of the magical world without accountability, where our wealthy and powerful live.

I don't resent their success; I resent their utter and complete inability to fail.

On that I completely agree. It goes for politics and punditry as well. Alas, with the banks, they held us hostage. But I would do what the British Tories have done after having done what had to be done with gritted teeth:

George Osborne said he would shortly introduce new laws to raise a £2.5 billion levy on banks' balance sheets. However, he said that the levy could be increased – if it did not prevent banks from moving abroad – and added it should “raise more and more each year”. It will be introduced on January 1st. Mr Osborne said banks should share the pain of measures to repair the deficit caused by the global financial crisis.

The DADT ruling has been stayed, which I find unsurprising, as does Dale Carpenter.

Conor wonders if firing Juan Williams isn't counterproductive:

The downside to stigma firings is that some ignorant beliefs persist for lack of airing and being shown to be wrongheaded. The notion that “people in Muslim garb are scary” is widespread in America, and its noxious that many people believe as much. Countless people getting on planes have thought the same thing as Mr. Williams. This is exactly the sort of case where airing and logically refuting a bigoted view is better than making it so that it’s an unspoken thing that many people persist in thinking privately.

But how does an employer publicly refute an employee? And how does it retain a reputation for fairness and non-bigotry if it continues to employ him?

Ryan Avent explains it as clearly as anyone:

For now, Mr Osborne and the ruling government are the heroes of deficit hawks and supporters of a small state the world over. But Britain's conservatives have gambled heavily. If deep budget cuts amid economic weakness send the economy plunging back into recession, the government may be unable to make the cuts stick, and austerity could be discredited around the world. If disaster is avoided, it will strengthen the hand of fiscal conservatives everywhere. It would be an exciting experiment to watch if so many livelihoods weren't caught in the balance.

Remember: Thatcher preceded Reagan. And Toryism can be radical if the circumstances are dire enough. So much for all that talk of Cameron's wetness. And remember also that this is a Coalition government, in which the Liberal Democrats have also placed their bets on fiscal retrenchment – and the Labour opposition is in great disarray.

(Photo: Peter McDiarmid/Getty.)

“Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too,” – Kelly Khuri, founder, Clark County Tea Party Patriots. And William F Buckley rolls in his grave.

(Hat tip: Will)

Nate Silver's House forecast now gives Republicans a 49 seat gain; Larry Sabato predicts a 47 seat gain in the House and a pick-up of 8 to 9 Senate seats. There's a minuscule tilt to the GOP in the last week, and uncertainty remains high, despite a real gain in GOP financing:

For the time being, we are still in a universe where Democrats could probably hold the House by having the coin come up heads in a sufficient number of tossup races. We may not be far from the point, however, where their chances would boil down, in essence, to there being systemic errors in the polls, which could potentially affect a large number of races — or there being some sort of last-minute change in the macro environment.

"I don't think we came from monkeys. I think that's ridiculous. I haven't seen a half-monkey, half-person yet," – Glenn Beck.

Sigh. They don't just deny the fact of climate change; they deny evolution as well. How can a sane conservative in any way support these nutcases?