Even Glenn …

… thinks Limbaugh is full of it:

I note that Rush Limbaugh, who was complaining about my pre-mortem before, now says he feels "liberated" because he’s able to say things like . . . what I said back before the election. Well, better late than never, but one problem with the GOP is that it lost touch with the things it was supposed to stand for, and a little more tough love from Limbaugh before the election might have done some good.

Reynolds voted for the GOP in the Senate. He was against the Republicans before he was for them.

They Knew Haggard Was Gay!

Haggarderikstenbakkenap_1

Here’s a startling admission from the Reverend Louis Sheldon, a Christianist from the "Traditional Values Coalition:

Sheldon disclosed that he and "a lot" of others knew about Haggard‚Äôs homosexuality "for a while … but we weren‚Äôt sure just how to deal with it."

Months before a male prostitute publicly revealed Haggard’s secret relationship with him, and the reverend’s drug use as well, "Ted and I had a discussion," explained Sheldon, who said Haggard gave him a telltale signal then: "He said homosexuality is genetic. I said, no it isn’t. But I just knew he was covering up. They need to say that."

Or maybe Haggard was telling the truth. And maybe it’s the Christianists who are "covering up" the simple fact of homosexual orientation.

The parallels with the Vatican are eery. They too knew they had priests behaving at odds with church doctrine. But they chose to protect them, rather than the children and youths the priests were molesting. Haggard’s activity is far less grave than molestation, but it was a manifest contradiction of his own teaching. And many evangelical leaders, according to Sheldon, knew they had a hypocrite on their hands for a long time. And they did nothing. They kept this fact from Haggard’s flock. And people wonder why voters put corruption and ethics at the top of their concerns in this election; and why white evangelicals abandoned the GOP in such large numbers. They can smell the b.s. They can smell the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. For the last several years, the American right has been full of both. They now have a chance to rethink. Here’s hoping they can.

(Photo: Erik Stenbakken/AP.)

Vive La Resistance

"You’ve heard of IslamaFascists – I think we now have Christian fascists. What is the definition of a fascist? Not only do they want to beat you, but they want to destroy you in the process… if things keep going the way things are going locally and statewide, it is going to be more and more difficult for Republicans to recruit candidates. We have elements of the party who are moral absolutists, who take the approach that if you don’t take my position every step of the way, not only will I not support you, but I will destroy you," –  Republican Chairman Steve Salem from Woodbury County, Iowa.

Marriage Equality Watch

The ANC, divided on the issue, just resolved it:

In a major about turn, the African National Congress (ANC) in Parliament‚Äôs home affairs committee yesterday swept aside opposition objections to the same-sex marriages bill and used its 70 percent majority to force the use of the terms ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’ equally.

The approved version of the bill makes the term ‘civil union’ the same as a ‘marriage’ and wherever the one appears, so too does the other. This approval is a direct rejection of the masses of submissions from religious groups objecting to giving homosexual couples the choice of using the term marriage. It is also a direct rejection of traditional leaders who wanted the constitution to be changed rather than the bill approved.

In Massachusetts, the legislature has done, in my opinion, the wrong thing. By denying the voters the chance to have the final decision on marriage rights, the pro-marriage forces have lost a clear chance at democratic legitimacy. Yes, in some respects, civil rights should not be up for a vote. But many opponents of equality in marriage do not accept the premise that civil marriage is a civil right for gays. I think they’re wrong; but it’s an honest disagreement. And they’re not wrong that equality in civil marriage is also a social change that should have democratic input. To prevent such input by parliamentary maneuvers taints the victory. I think we would have won the vote in 2008. I’m sorry we won’t now get the chance to prove it.

Nationally, of course, Massachusetts is becoming less anomalous. In California, the state legislature has approved full marriage rights for gays; and the issue is awaiting the state Supreme Court’s ruling. I hope they rule for full civil marriage rights and that the first governor to sign a marriage law into effect for gay couples in Anerica will be a Republican in the most populous state in the Union.

Quote for the Day

Barbara_bush

From Woodward:

"You always told me the truth," Barbara Bush opened, drawing Boren aside for a private chat. [David L. Boren was the former Democratic senator from Oklahoma who had been the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence during the presidency of George H. W. Bush.]

"Yes, ma’am," Boren replied.

"Will you tell me the truth now?"

"Certainly."

"Are we right to be worried about this Iraq thing?"

"Yes. I’m very worried."

"Do you think it’s a mistake?"

"Yes, ma’am," Boren replied. "I think – it’s a huge mistake if we go in right now, this way."

"Well, his father is certainly worried and is losing sleep over it. He’s up at night worried."

"Why doesn’t he talk to him?"

"He doesn’t think he should unless he’s asked," Barbara Bush said.

Eventually, my guess is: he was asked. Or Barbara picked up the phone herself.

Frum’s “No-Show”

I have been accused of "outright falsification" by David Frum because of an offhand tease that he was a no-show on a Canadian radio show earlier this week. Since I was sitting in the radio studio, waiting to debate him, on time, and was told he hadn’t shown up, my comments were entirely accurate. I called the producer yesterday, after Frum’s accusation, to ask whether I had been hallucinating. She told me that indeed Frum had not turned up on time for the interview, he was in the gym, but they had tracked him down. She also confirmed to me that if he had arrived on time, we would have gone ahead. Unbenownst to me, the producers then decided to cancel the entire segment because of the Rumsfeld resignation. "If he’d arrived on time, we would have taped it, but probably been unable to use it," the producer told me. That I didn’t know till I spoke with her again this morning. So David was a no-show and subsequently the show was canceled. My little tease falls a little flat. But I was not outright falsifying anything. I don’t do that.