Month: March 2011

Sometimes it's great to see a statement so obviously disingenuous, so purely political, it rises above the din and becomes a work of art. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you this:

I have heard from constituents, friends, and advocates from across the spectrum of views and have thought about the issue of same-sex marriage extensively. I understand their concern—this is a very serious issue, and one that many people feel passionately about. As the vote drew nearer, I wrestled with this issue in a way I never had before, which led me to realize that I had some concerns about the bill. While I personally believe that Maryland should extend civil rights to same-sex couples through civil unions, I have come to the conclusion that this issue has such impact on the people of Maryland that they should have a direct say. I will vote to send the bill to the floor because it deserves an up-or-down vote. On the floor, I will vote to send the bill to the governor so that Marylanders can ultimately decide this issue at the polls. I think that is appropriate.

The word "appropriate" is the real clincher. It has that Clintonian ring to it.

If this is any harbinger of a presidential candidacy, he's in trouble:

You know Michael, one of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. And I think it gives a distorted image that yes, not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock.

The general point about the importance of two parents and marriage for children in poverty is well taken. But using Portman as an object of scorn? A woman who is in a loving relationship, is engaged to be married, and who publicly called her impending motherhood "the most important role of my life"?

She seems an unlikely culture war target. And a hopelessly tone-deaf one. Huckabee seems unready to me, or unwilling, to enter the race. And if he doesn't, we all know what that means …

Felix Salmon reveals how many jobs the US needs to add each year – just to keep up with population growth. So the latest news is in the right direction. The better news is that we're entering a period where population growth will actually make it easier to bring the unemployment rate down.

Greenwald catches a particularly egregious example:

In an August article headlined "Dodd forswears a lobbying career," The Connecticut Mirror quoted him as saying:  "No lobbying, no lobbying."  That vow earned this praise from Public Citizen's Craig Holman:  "That's excellent on Senator Dodd's part." Here's what Chris Dodd's word and integrity are worth, from The Hill yesterday: "Dodd to be Hollywood's top man in Washington."

A reader writes:

I've been busy and came to this late, but the most important part of the Rotary Club in small town America has not been noted yet. It's not just that they are international; they do the ubiquitous exchange student program.  If like me you grew up in a small conservative communities of the sort that Huck is referring to, the most exposure you probably ever had to internationalism was a student sponsored by the local Rotary Club.

What this man who apparently wants to be president doesn't know about the ubiquitous clubs in small town America is just spectacular. Huckabee must have spoken to a Rotary club fundraiser or two as a politician in Arkansas. Did he pay any attention?

(Photo of Rotary exchange students by Philip Flindt)

Joshua Foust reacts to ISAF's welcome apology for killing nine children by noting an extraordinary gaffe by Petraeus last month:

To the shock of President Hamid Karzai’s aides, Gen. David H. Petraeus suggested Sunday at the presidential palace that Afghans caught up in a coalition attack in northeastern Afghanistan might have burned their own children to exaggerate claims of civilian casualties, according to two participants at the meeting.

Oh well. His spokesman, Rear Admiral Greg Smith, later clarified that what Petraeus really meant to say was that he thought most Afghan parents burn their own children as a means of enforcing discipline.

One of his commenters says this gaffe became a huge deal in the occupied country:

This was actually the most talked about thing amongst Afghans for the past week or so.

When P4 made his comment about Afghan Parents the whole country went into SMS mode and it flew from cousin to cousin, province to province. ISAF may not be aware, but P4 is becoming a bit of a Mubarak/Gaddafi type villain amongst many Afghans. The comment he made struck home very hard and hurt many to the point of sheer anger.

The thing about “saying sorry” is that it only works for a while. P4 lost all credibility again with his attack on Afghans parents. It really was a key moment in this war and a key moment in the myth of Petreaus here in Afghanistan.

Jay Gatsby calls out Laura Ingraham and the rest of the talk radio right for preferring the New Jersey governor to Indiana's:

The Indiana governor drew accolades from many for his CPAC performance — but Rush Limbaugh and other talkers have blasted him for his talk of a truce on social issues and his decision not to insert a brand-new right-to-work initiative at the top of his agenda. Why is Chris Christie the heartthrob of the radio right, while Daniels is suddenly an intolerable RINO? Christie is not more conservative than Daniels, and arguably even less so. Christie told the Newark Star-Ledger that while personally pro-life, he won’t use his office to “shove that down people’s throats.” He supports New Jersey’s restrictive gun laws.  And like Daniels, he has decided it’s tough enough to face his public-sector unions without starting an unrelated fight over right-to-work with private-sector unions.

Yet the most acid-tongued of all right-wing commentators, Ann Coulter, has championed a Christie candidacy, asserting that if he declines to run, “Romney will be our nominee and we’ll lose.” The difference is this: talk radio is not much interested in the substance of a politician’s views or the reasons for decisions. Talk radio wants a confrontational style, and unlike the soft-spoken Daniels, the fierce Christie meets the test. The rule seems to be: it’s OK to be a Republican moderate – provided you are belligerent enough about it.

On one level it makes sense – if a conservative reformer succeeds without being a belligerent prick, it'll be proof that the talk radio right's whole approach is mistaken.

  

New from Pew:

[D]rawing on trends from Gallup and the General Social Survey – support for legalizing marijuana has never been higher. Young people under the age of 30 favor legalizing the use of marijuana by a 54%-42% margin. Opinion is divided among those in middle age groups. Those 65 and older are broadly opposed to legalization (66% illegal, 30% legal).

Danial Anas Kaysi thinks the February protests in Iraq may be "a mere test run for a much deeper crisis of legitimacy":

Maliki has shown an increasing impatience and lack of respect for the protests. While he stressed the protesters' rights under the democratic system, his security forces continued to crack down on independent media and protest organizers, and the prime minister continues to charge political foes with instigating and steering them. There is no doubt that political foes may have may anticipate gain from coupling their resistance from within the government with support for protestor demands, but Maliki's tactics of questioning the protestors' intentions and of openly pushing the situation towards politicization may harm him above all others. 

I take the point. On the other hand, the core demands of the protesters are about delivering security and services and public goods. This is what we were once hoping for in Arab democracy. No rants against the Great Satan or Israel. Just demands for better governance. And that seems to be the case throughout these uprisings – along with a sudden rage at police brutality and economic stagnation.

They aren't good:

Despite his being more certain to run than several other candidates, betting markets put Mr. Gingrich’s chances of winning the nomination at 15-to-1 against; those seem like about the right odds for such a parlay.

I fail to see the case for Gingrich. He has no core persuasive skills – especially for those whose votes he'd need to win in a general election. He has a prickly personality. His conversion from callous hypocrite on the personal front to devout Catholicism may be genuine, but it's also a little convenient for some of the holy rollers he needs. He has none of the star quality of a Palin; none of the affability of a Huckabee; none of the executive experience of Romney; less of the theocon cred than Santorum; no more fiscal conservatism than Daniels; and a persona most grew sick of more than a decade ago.

Or am I missing something?

(Image taken from the new Tumblr "Newt Gingrich In Front Of Stock Photos", a spoof of this original.)