Month: June 2011

Jonathan Bernstein tsk tsks the media for focusing heavily on Michele Bachmann's gaffes:

You know what’s not getting nearly the same treatment? Bachmann has been going around for some time now, including on her Sunday TV appearances, spouting absolute nonsense about the debt ceiling. She’s claiming that somehow it would be no big deal if the limit wasn’t raised. And yet, while her “gaffes” are getting pilloried by reporters, that assertion is just getting he-said-she-said type “balanced” reporting (see, for example, this AP story).

Gallup reports:

It's all about presiding …

Nate Silver runs the numbers on the state's 2012 anti-equality ballot measure:

The Minnesota measure, which would ban same-sex marriage but not domestic partnerships, should be considered something of a tossup. Under the Accelerated Model, it would fail with about 49 percent of the vote, while under the Linear Model it would pass with 54 percent — both forecasts well within the models’ respective margins of error.

One additional factor, however, is that Minnesota rules require a majority of all voters to cast a ballot in favor of a constitutional amendment in order for it to pass. So someone who turns out to vote next November and punches her ballot only for the presidential election is essentially a “no” vote. Historically, about 5 percent of Minnesota voters undervote constitutional amendment proposals despite casting ballots for other races, so what this means is that the ban on same-sex marriage will de facto need something like 52 percent of the vote in order to pass. For this reason, I’d conclude that the Minnesota measure is a slight underdog.

He got the US to spend $4.4 trillion in a decade on counter-terrorism, using just a handful of men with boxcutters – and a whole lot of fear. For good measure, he goaded incompetents like Dick Cheney into violating core US standards of morality.

"We will support a Republican senator against a Democrat. We will support a Republican senator who votes ‘yes’ against a gay Democrat," – Brian Ellner, HRC's chief strategist in New York, pledging to protect the Gang of Four.

Tim B Lee and Reihan have been going back and forth over immigration. From Tim's latest dispatch:

I reject the proposition that unless I’ve developed a comprehensive immigration reform agenda, I’m not allowed to make value judgments about individual parts of the immigration system. It’s obvious that Jose Vargas should be allowed to stay in this country. The exact details of how we accomplish that—whether we pass the DREAM Act, raise the quota for skilled Filipino immigrants, grant blanket amnesty, etc—is a question that reasonable people can disagree about. But our current immigration system is indefensible, as is the large number of people who seem to believe the top priority is to crack down even harder on its victims.

Reihan shies away from "the politics of moral outrage":

Tim seems to believe that there is an obvious bright line between immigrants who make positive contributions to our economy and those who do not. I’ve known unauthorized migrants who’ve made immensely positive contributions to our country in the form of household production, civic engagement, community uplift, and much else, yet who made limited contributions in the form of market production or tax revenues. Are these migrants obviously “worse” than net taxpayers in some moral sense? I find this troubling as a moral argument.

And that is why I’m not particularly interested in making moral arguments in this domain. To underscore, any form of immigration restriction is morally problematic. Some are more so than others.

Adam Ozimek tosses in his two cents.

K-Lo interviews Robbie George. Money quote:

LOPEZ: What does it mean for the meaning of marriage in New York?

GEORGE: It means that New York has abolished marriage as a matter of civil law and replaced it with a counterfeit that New Yorkers' children and grandchildren will be taught to accept and approve as if it were the real thing. What New York now offers its citizens is "marriage" in name only.

All you straight married New Yorkers? National Review regards you as divorced. Then there's this personal swipe at Cuomo and Bloomberg:

Although they claim to be supporters of marriage who merely want to “expand” the institution (or expand “access” to the institution) out of respect for what they regard as the civil rights of people to have their romantic partnerships (whatever their shape) recognized and legitimated by the state, both are reported by New York media to openly cohabit with women with whom they are not married. They do this not in defiance of their stated beliefs about sexual morality and marriage, but in line with those beliefs. Neither supposes that he and his mistress are setting a bad example for children or undermining the public’s faith in important marital norms.

The always reliable Daily What finds another one:

Harry Hanrahan takes a break from compiling visual movie quote lists to stitch together an ode to cinema’s greatest bridge explosions. Why? Because exploding bridges, that’s why.

"But you know, there's never really a venue that absolutely lets somebody set the record straight. I mean, there are so many false narratives about me, about Todd, about our kids, about my record, about my team that has worked so hard together, that there's never gonna be a way to absolutely set the record straight," – Sarah Palin.

Medical records proving her maternity of Trig would be a pretty definitive way of resolving that issue, wouldnt it? So why won't she? Just put them on Facebook or send them to a friendly news editor. Story over.