The Dish

There is some confusion in the post I linked to about the specific source of the phrase "plausible deniability" in describing the LDS church's master-minding Prop 8 and "respectable distance" in the same context. The post I linked to said that this was a quote from a document. It now appears from the full trial transcript that it wasn't. It was a quote from a plantiffs' witness' characterization of a Mormon document, as in the following exchange (PDF Pages 1628 – 1637):

Q. As a political scientist, what is it about this document and these statements that is relevant to analyzing the balance of political power between gay men and lesbians and religious organizations to the extent they're involved in political activities in California?

A. Well, with respect to the Proposition 8 campaign, it makes it clear that there was a sort of two-way flow of information, where strategic talking points were being provided to religious leaders by the campaign. And, in turn, the religious leaders were providing volunteers to the campaign. But there was this cautious strategic not-to-take-the-lead notion so as to provide a — I don't know, plausible deniability or respectable distance between the church organization per se and the actual campaign.

Here's the actual quote from the document the witness was interpreting:

"He has also been hired by the coalition to do polling work for Prop 8. The main California grass roots leaders are in the process of being called as, quote, area directors, end quote, with the responsibility for areas that generally correspond to each of the 17 LDS coordinating councils for the LDS mission boundaries. Thereafter, priesthood leaders will call local prop coordinators over each stake and leaders by zip code within each ward – potentially working not only with LDS, but also LDS volunteers."

Conor Friedersdorf tries to get conservatives to open their eyes:

If I may address the skeptics on the right directly, it is penny wise and pound foolish to worry about creeping tyranny via government-run health care or gun control when we’re another terrorist attack away from popular support for an archipelago of secret prisons where anyone can be whisked away and tortured without any evidence against them. Look to Europe if you doubt whether government-run health care or black sites run by secret police are a more immediate threat to the liberty of innocents.

Do you think that I exaggerate?

Know that one of the Gitmo Three was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.

It is, in my view, simply indisputable that if a Democratic president had tried even an ounce of this, Mark Levin and the GOP would have demanded impeachment a long time ago. Which tells you a lot about what their real principles actually are: power, power and power.

Margaret Talbot contrasts yesterday's testimony on the political disenfranchisement of gays with Cindy McCain posing for an ad campaign against Prop 8:

The argument that gays and lesbians are politically disenfranchised has always seemed to me the most difficult one for the pro-marriage-equality legal team to make stick. (It’s one of the criteria that would qualify Prop. 8 for strict scrutiny, the standard that would place the highest burden of proof on the proposition’s defenders.) Demonstrating a history of prejudice against gays and lesbians isn’t hard at all. But we do live in a country where there are openly gay elected officials, where the President of the United States was the keynote speaker at the annual dinner for the largest gay-rights organization, and where, as of now, five states and the District of Columbia have managed to legalize gay marriage, while another ten have legalized civil unions or domestic partnerships. Of course, you can still make the point that if marriage-equality advocates have to go to a popular vote, they will usually lose, just as civil-rights advocates would have if they had put Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia to a vote instead of turning to the courts. The majority can’t be relied upon to ratify the rights of a minority—that’s what the Constitution is for.

The anti-busing crowd back in Boston in 1978:

The WGBH anchor notes a “new touch” to the protest movement, “the abundance of teabags, apparently to signify that the demonstrators were in the same vein of those who tipped the tea into the harbor.”

You get to make up headlines like this one:

Sterilized Daughter of Nazi Bigwig Reconciles Santa Fe Jews

My recent unkilled Dish darling:

Why Didn't He Just Blow Himself Up In The Toilet?, Ctd

It's the Ctd that perfects. You get your kicks where you can.

(Hat tip: Pandagon)

Palin announces her plans to campaign for John McCain, as well as Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. Mudflats reacts:

McCain may face a primary challenge from J.D. Hayworth, an ex-state representative and current radio talking head who talks tough on immigration. If the challenge looks serious, the Dems may decide to run a serious candidate. But they’re going to just wait and see. Because that’s the kind of thing that really gets people fired up and ready to work really hard to elect them.

Yep: file under why I could never be a Democrat. Meanwhile, McCain is having trouble keeping his facts straight on the undie-bomber.

FNC's Doocy dispenses some wisdom on the religious rifle-scope scandal. It's staggering to me that this story has been exhaustively covered by the US MSM but eye-witness accounts implicating US agents torturing three prisoners to death and then covering it up by claiming suicides are simply ignored.

The MSM cannot handle the truth, can they?

Frum takes aim at the proposed $90 billion bank tax:

The president argues that the tax will help repay taxpayer losses in the TARP bailout program for banks. It’s a crummy argument. Most of the TARP losses will be racked up not at banks, but at the AIG insurance company and the rescued automakers, GM and Chrysler. No tax for them. Meanwhile, banks that received not a dime from TARP will be taxed.

Niraj Chokshi spells out ways the banks will try to dodge the tax. Clive Crook tries to figure out the small print.