The Dish

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.

Greenwald tweeted:

Conservative Conor Friedersdorf: “Why Self-Respecting editors should be embarrassed to publish Marc Thiessen”

Friedersdorf winces:

[A]ffixing “conservative” to my name…is meant not to identify the tradition of thought that I find persuasive, but rather to place me into a political coalition for rhetorical effect or as context for readers: “Why look, this guy is a member of the same political coalition as Mark Theissen, and even he, a fellow conservative, thinks that Mr. Thiessen is an embarrassment.”

I understand why this might seem like a legitimate thing to do if one didn’t think about it long enough. But I don’t share a political coalition with Mr. Thiessen or his allies — that is to say, those on the right who argue that waterboarding isn’t torture, that the Bush Administration took the appropriate approach to detainee issues, and that lawyers who represented War on Terror detainees are equivalent to mob lawyers. I’d never support a candidate who believed those things, I write against them, and insofar as I care about the Republican Party at all, I do my utmost to steer it in as far in the opposite direction as possible. When it comes to the War on Terrorism, Mr. Theissen and I share neither an ideological nor a political coalition, even those we both call ourselves conservative — as far as I can tell, that’s because he is using the word to refer to the political coalition called the conservative movement, whereas I am using the word to refer to a body of thought contained in old books. On domestic policy, I think there is still some overlap between these camps, but on foreign policy, not so much.

A reader writes:

I don't mean to pry, but I know you and your husband were married in Massachusetts. I'm wondering, will DC recognize your marriage, or will you have to go through the process again?

Either way, congrats on this auspicious day.  Marriage advocates across the country should rejoice.  I'm a heterosexual woman and closet romantic. I looked at many of the photos from the day simultaneously overjoyed and wondering if hetero marriages in DC have already begun to disintegrate from this grievous affront.

Our marriage was already recognized by DC before this wonderful day. Now for the joint tax returns! Except we file a married return for state taxes and then have to say we are total strangers for the federal returns.

Even though we have been together for six years, shared a household for five and a half years, pooled our finances for five and a half years and will be celebrating our third wedding anniversary this summer, we are total strangers as far as the federal government is concerned. And if the federal government recognized our marriage, I would have been an American citizen three years ago. In fact, if I had married a longtime female friend 20 years ago, I would be a long-standing citizen right now. (Yes, a heterosexual marriage would have voided the HIV ban automatically for the past 22 years.)

What does the federal government call a legally married man who has paid taxes for twenty-two years and has a PhD, and a job? A faggot.