News Today

There were a number of races and issues that were voted on yesterday. Let’s take a look at some of the more intriguing races and results.

NY-23 Special Election - Despite the best efforts of conservative star-power like Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, voters in this district (A Republican lock since the Civil War) chose Democrat Bill Owens over the Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Still, it would be wrong to label this a defeat for the hard-right Tea Party movement. They had enough influence to knock G.O.P. candidate Dede Scozzafava out of the race and brought some much needed national attention to their movement.

New York Mayor - After running the most expensive self-financed campaign ever, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg won an unexpectedly tight race Tuesday night with long-shot challenger City Comptroller William Thompson Jr.

Virginia - Republican Bob McDonnell, in a replay of Virginia’s Attorney General race four years earlier, cruised to an easy victory over Democrat Creigh Deeds in the Virginia governor’s race. “One of the reasons we were so successful is we had independents and Democrats come over to our side,” said McDonnell, in a quote that sounds eerily similar to our president. “For those of you who did not support me, I say give me a chance to earn your trust.”

New Jersey - Chris Christie became the first Republican to win statewide in New Jersey in more than a decade by ousting the Democrat incumbent Jon Corzine. Christie was aided by a poor showing from independent candidate Chris Daggett. Despite polling as high as 20 percent in October, Daggett, a former Republican and EPA official, was unable to break double digits at the polls.

Maine - Voters in this state chose to repeal a state law granting same-sex couples the right to marry, marking a defeat for gay rights activists who were hoping the state would become the first to approve gay marriage at the polls. Currently Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut are the only states to allow same-sex marriage.

Ohio - Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo will be building Las Vegas-style casinos after voters in the buckeye state passed Issue 3. This was the fifth statewide vote on the issue since 1990, but with state unemployment hovering around 10% voters said yes to the promise of 34,000 new jobs, $1 billion in capital investment, and $651 million a year in tax revenues for local governments and school districts.

Sources:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/election/ohioans-approve-casinos-for-4-cities-382796.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29119.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110402115.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29103.html
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/102397/Tea_Party_backlash_in_NY

Regardless of what happens at the polls today in NY-23, one thing is clear. The G.O.P. has a big red problem, one that is likely to get even bigger.

Still think this is astro-turf Nancy Pelosi?

Ask Dede Scozzafava if she thinks it’s not a legitimate grassroots campaign. At the beginning of the month Scozzafava held a 7-point lead over Democrat Bill Owens. Fast forward to today and Scozzafava, the G.O.P. candidate picked for NY-23, has already bowed out of the race and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman holds a slim lead over Owens in polls, 36 percent to 35 percent.

Inspired by their NY-23 victory, conservatives and tea party activists have already set their sights on some other G.O.P. Senate recruits like Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut, Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois and even GOP incumbents like Utah Sen. Bob Bennett.

“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of Freedom Works, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”

NY-23 has brought up some intriguing questions. What will the long-term impact of this conservative infighting be? Could this be the fall of the Republican Party? Are we about to enter a new era in American politics?

Some analysts think so, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. In states from California to Connecticut the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is choosing candidates who appear at first glance to be strong general election prospects in their districts. Nevertheless these candidates are meeting tough resistance from grass-roots level from activists who believe in supporting the conservative cause, even if it means going against the party nominee.

“New York 23, on some scale, is the first battle of a larger internal Republican debate over how to define the party,” said former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, a conservative who is challenging Crist for the Senate nomination. “They want us to vote for their candidates, but they don’t want us to run for office.”

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/politics3237585;_ylt=AlPTu_LeTcdo21OVPHmfpFBh24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2ajVuNTVrBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDLXJlYWRpbmdlbGVj
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_what_s_at_stake
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091103/pl_politico/29057

As Scotty says, Halloween is over, and it’s time to get back to work.

It was a pretty active weekend too, which I would say calls for a quick round of this and that…

The FBI released the 2004 interview summary of Dick Cheney’s answers in the Valerie Plame criminal investigation. Apparently the interview contained 72 instances where Cheney “could not recall” the answer and one instance where he refused to answer altogether.

The G.O.P. is getting ready to release a health care bill, which will focus on lowering costs rather than expanding coverage. “If you drive down costs, you can expand access,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner on Monday. No word yet on cost.

One of my favorite stories got that much more interesting on Saturday when Dede Scozzafava decided to drop out of New York’s 23rd district special congressional election. What will the long-term implications of this race be?

It will be interesting to see how all of tomorrow’s elections play out.

President Barack Obama gave Afghan President Hamid Karzai a cold congratulations on Saturday, warning Karzai that America needs to see an improvement on corruption in the Afghan government. “The proof is not going to be in words,” said Obama. “It’s going to be in deeds.”

And Dylan Ratigan of the Huffington Post poses a very intriguing question: Why keep Timothy Geithner?

While Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made it through the Senate relatively easily (68-31 with 9 Republicans joining a unified Democratic Senate in approving the justice), the rest of President Barack Obama’s lower court nominees are moving at a much slower pace.

Slower than molasses, even.

Only three of his 22 lower court nominees have been confirmed so far and the latest, Roberto Lange (for a federal district court appointment in South Dakota), waited 3 1/2 months to be approved. Gerard Lynch from New York and Jeffrey Viken from South Dakota, the other two nominees to be confirmed, spent a similar amount of time waiting to be approved.

Two unapproved nominees, Andre Davis of Maryland and David Hamilton of Indiana, cleared the Senate judiciary committee almost 150 days ago. Both of them are still waiting for a floor vote. Another nominee, Beverly Martin, has the support of Georgia’s two conservative Republican senators and was unanimously reported out of the Senate judiciary committee almost 50 days ago. She, too, has not received a Senate floor vote.

All in all eight of Obama’s nominees are currently waiting for floor action.

In some ways this is nothing new. Senators in both parties have been guilty for a while now of using procedural tactics to block or delay confirmations. However, as Slate’s Doug Kendall points out, these heavy-handed tactics were typically reserved for controversial candidates whereas the Republicans appear to be contesting them all.

From Kendall’s article:

“To date, however, the tit-for-tat game has played out within a fairly narrow category of nominees who are deemed controversial. While there has never been an agreed-upon definition of what that means—it’s an eye-of-the-beholder type of thing—there has consistently been a large category of nominees that are not considered controversial. They have typically made it easily through the Senate confirmation process, no matter how rough the ride is for their controversial counterparts.”

Let’s compare Obama’s progress with his predecessor. During the last two years of his presidency, George W. Bush’s support was dwindling and he faced a Senate under Democratic control. Still, 26 of Bush’s 68 nominees cleared the floor within 3 months of Bush nominating them and 23 of the Bush nominees were confirmed on the Senate floor within a week of passing out of the judiciary committee.

Bush’s first two years went about the same. A Democratic majority in Congress confirmed 100 of Bush’s nominees in 17 months, even after delays due to a change in party control.

So why is it that the more popular Obama, with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, is having so much trouble?

Again let’s turn to Kendall’s article.

“The emerging Republican strategy is to hold these uncontroversial nominees hostage as pawns in the larger war over President Obama’s agenda and the direction of the federal judiciary. The Senate operates according to a set of arcane rules that allows a minority party to bring the institution to a halt if it chooses to do so. Most bills and nominations pass through the Senate with no debate and only a voice vote on the Senate floor. But this requires every senator to play along. By stonewalling on every nominee so far, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is requiring his counterpart, Sen. Reid, to negotiate, or devote precious floor time, for every judicial confirmation.”

While I can’t say I agree much with Kendall’s description of our government’s checks and balances as “a set of arcane rules,” Kendall goes on to describe why the G.O.P.’s tactics are detrimental to our whole judicial system.

“This is unprecedented and dangerous. There are already 95 vacancies on the federal bench at a time when there is bipartisan agreement that we need more judgeships. The last thing we need is for existing seats in overworked courts to go unfilled.”

“Even more important, Republican obstruction of uncontroversial nominees undermines the one part of the judicial confirmation process that was still working, until now. Well-qualified nominees who enjoy bipartisan support should be able to count on a fair and relatively smooth Senate confirmation process. This is critical because while they’re waiting, the careers of these nominees go on hold. Given the demands of the bench, and the gap between judicial salaries and what these candidates could earn in private practice, the nation is already lucky that top candidates are willing to serve. If we throw in an unpredictable and lengthy confirmation process, the quality of the federal bench—and the dispensation of justice—will unquestionably suffer.”

Sources:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_next_war_over_the_courts
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/sonia.sotomayor/index.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2233309/#return

Oops, I better clarify that the title of this post is satirical.

Because you can’t trust everything you read on the internet. You have to verify it, take some time to find sources to back up your conclusions. That’s why I list my sources underneath every one of my articles, so you the reader can do just that. I don’t mean to sound all preachy and everything but this latest story I ran across shows why it’s important to research what you read.

Matthew Avitabile is an upstate New York grad student who writes a blog called Jumping in Pools. Often times his posts are satirical. In fact, one of the more recent blog posts that Avitabile did was actually titled “Obama to Consult Magic 8 Ball for Afghanistan Strategy.”

There’s nothing wrong with Avitabile’s postings. In fact, some of them are quite humorous. A while back Avitabile posted a blog, labeled satirical, about a fictitious seminar paper that Barack Obama wrote while at Columbia.

From JIP:

“Obama was required to write a ’senior seminar’ paper in order to graduate from Columbia. The subject of this paper, which totaled 44 pages, was American government. Entitled Aristocracy Reborn, this paper chronicled the long struggle of the working class against, as Obama put it, ‘plutocratic thugs with one hand on the money and the other on the government.’

“In the paper, in which only the first ten pages were given to the general media, Obama decries the plight of the poor: ‘I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach to me with bleary eyes and all I can do is sigh.’

“In part, the future President blames this on the current economic system: ‘There are many who will defend the ‘free market.’ But who will defend the single mother of four working three jobs. When a system is allowed to be free at the expense of its citizens, then it is tyranny.’

“However, the President also singled out the American Constitution: ‘… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.’

“It is yet unknown if more of this thesis will be released. It was also noted that the President received an A- for the paper, which later led to his graduation.”

Despite the satire label on the post, the blog posting began to gain credibility. So much so that Rush Limbaugh actually cited the posting’s claims a couple of days ago on his radio show.

“The Constitution is the most liberty-promoting and freedom-acknowledging document in the history of the world, and this little boy in college is writing about it with utter disdain, and he still shares those feelings,” Limbaugh said, adding, “So Joe Klein at Time magazine has known for a long time about Obama’s college thesis when he was at Columbia. Why didn’t this come out a year ago at this time? Why didn’t this come out before the election in November?”

Perhaps because it never happened? Within minutes a caller informed Rush that there wasn’t any credibility to the accusations. Sometimes men like Rush Limbaugh don’t like to let pesky things like truth or facts get in the way though.

“I’m also told that the blog containing the passage on Obama’s thesis is a satire blog…,” he said minutes later in the same show. “So I shout from the mountaintops, ‘It was satire!’ But we know [Obama] thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He’s mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That’s how it works in the media today.”

Rush wasn’t the only one trying to backtrack though.

“It’s important to note that none of this nonsense would be running wild around the internet if the campaign had just released Obama’s thesis in the first place,” said Meredith Jessup of TownHall.com.

Yeah about that. A Columbia University spokesman told PolitiFact that “an undergraduate thesis requirement for those in political science did not even exist at Columbia in 1983.” There was no thesis, not for Obama or for any other Columbia political science student in that era.

Amazingly enough, this isn’t even the first time that one of Jumping In Pool’s fictitious postings had gained credibility. Remember the claim that Obama wanted soldiers to stop taking an oath to the Constitution and instead pledge their loyalty to the president himself? That claim was started by Avitabile as well (and was also false).

I’d like to clarify again, there’s nothing wrong with what Avitabile is doing. One of the most entertaining bloggers on today.com makes his money by posting nothing but satirical news posts. Avitabile explained that he wanted to do the post in satire, but not so over-the-top that you knew it was false right away.

“If you have to explain a joke, it’s not funny,” said Avitabile. “I kind of get inspiration from Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. You want people to be let in and then at the end, they realize it, and either find it funny on its own terms or find their reaction to be funny.”

The problem comes when people blindly trust what they read in an e-mail forward/blog post and don’t take the time to do even a minimal amount of research before believing something that they hear or read.

Sources:
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/26/blog-posting/obamas-columbia-thesis-all-fiction-dreamed-blogger/

Every once in a while you have to give credit where credit is due. Too many people in this country have forgotten that a truly great public protest is like a fine work of art. It has to be carefully planned, timed and choreographed…

Anyways, regardless of what you think about their politics you have to admit one thing, the group ‘Billionaires for Wealthcare’ know how to protest. They recently interrupted a conference held by the health insurance lobbyist group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) by spontaneously breaking out into a sarcastic song (using Annie’s “Tomorrow” as theme music) thanking the lobbyists in attendance for killing the public option.

“People were surprised and laughed in that nervous ‘I don’t know what’s going on here!’ way.” Said Melissa Collom, one of the protestors. “Even the speaker himself chuckled as he stepped aside from the podium.”

Sources:
http://www.billionairesforwealthcare.com/
http://www.mediaite.com/online/singing-public-option-protesters-punk-health-insurance-lobbyists/

Another third party candidate is poised to make a legitimate run in an upcoming special election. Meet Doug Hoffman, a Conservative Party candidate who has been gaining support in his campaign to take over the New York House seat left vacant by the resignation of Republican Representative John McHugh.

The support for Hoffman isn’t just some astro-turf nonsense either. It’s even bigger than a legitimate grassroots uprising. In a surprising coup, many of the Republican Party’s most vocal leaders are also backing the Conservative Party candidate, despite the fact that the G.O.P. already has a candidate in the race, Dede Scozzafava.

On Friday former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum became the latest in a growing list of G.O.P. leaders to endorse Hoffman. That list includes former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

To these conservatives Scozzafava has way too many strikes. A state assembly woman who supports gay marriage rights, abortion rights and is in close with labor?

Palin’s endorsement came on Thursday, and the former governor said that Hoffman “stands for the principles that all Republicans should share” in a statement about her decision. By the way, Hoffman’s campaign reported over $100,000 in campaign donations in the 24 hours following her endorsement.

Still, not all Republican Party leaders are convinced of Hoffman’s credentials, or that it’s a good idea for G.O.P. members to undercut one of their own. Newt Gingrich, who endorsed Scozzafava, offered these grim words of advice for conservatives — “if you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority.”

. . .

In keeping with the independent theme of the post, Mark Blumenthal of the National Journal had a very interesting article about New Jersey’s Independent gubernatorial candidate Chris Daggett. In his article Blumenthal alluded to a “perfect storm” of sorts that Daggett appears to have going for him.

From the article:

“Those who follow politics are familiar with a pattern, evident mostly in primary elections, in which two front-running candidates will battle for months, often with an acrimonious exchange of negative advertising, only to be overtaken by a little-known third candidate who surges from single digits in the campaign’s final weeks.

In almost every case, three dynamics facilitate the also-ran’s rise: Strong performances in campaign debates and endorsements from prominent newspapers boost their name recognition, while a last-minute surge in the polls helps convince voters that the long shot really can win.”

A closer look at New Jersey’s race reveals that Daggett’s campaign is following that pattern. Daggett has been the clear winner in both debates, he’s already won the endorsement of the Newark Star-Ledger and a Thursday Rutgers-Eagleton Poll showed 39% of voters going for Corzine, 36% for Christie and 20 percent for independent Chris Daggett.

All this being said, it’s undeniable that history is against him. Out of the 365 governors to take office since 1970, only five have claimed a political party affiliation other than Democrat or Republican.

Sources:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/yet_another_fight_over_party_i.php
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20091023_1421.php

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28671.html
http://daggettforgovernor.com/wordpress/

One issue that I think will define the next generation, much like the civil rights era did for the baby-boomers, is gay marriage. This is an issue that runs deep in a lot of places across the United States, and even the world.

Gay marriage has actually been around for a lot longer than most people think. The first recorded mention of same-sex marriage occurred during the early Roman Empire where it was practiced both openly and commonly.

In fact, it wasn’t until 342 AD when the Theodosian Code was issued by the Christian emperor Constantius II that gay marriage became outlawed in Rome. Same-sex marriage didn’t just disappear though, there’s actually evidence that gay marriages were performed in medieval Europe as long as 600 years ago.

In 1989 Denmark became the first country to recognize same-sex unions in the form of “registered partnerships”, and in 2001 the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages. Today, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden are the only countries to date that give equal marriage status for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

In the United States gay marriages are not recognized federally, however, same-sex couples can currently marry in six states and receive state level benefits. Several states also offer civil unions or domestic partnerships.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he is opposed to same-sex marriage, but he does support “full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples”, and called Proposition 8 “unnecessary.”

If you asked 100 U.S. citizens if they supported the issue or not, you’d probably get about the same amount of people in support as you would people against it. If you asked me whether I’d support the issue, you’d get a resounding NO.

Now let me explain myself…

In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage solely as a union between a couple of the opposite sex for all federal purposes. This is often an argument you’ll hear from people who are against gay marriage, that marriage cannot be defined as anything but between a man and a woman.

This got me thinking… To me, that seems like something that individual churches could decide a lot better than the federal government. In fact it seems very out of place for our government to be as heavily involved in marriages as they are.

It was in thinking about this that I stumbled (somewhat accidentally) upon my position against gay marriage, or really against marriage itself. There is no reason why our government needs to be involved in the actual marriage process, that is a role much better suited for our church.

I believe the government should offer civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships — whatever you want to call it — to anyone and everyone. These partnerships should have equal protection and rights, regardless of the couple’s sexual preference. That’s only fair, and what we have right now is far from being fair.

In fact, a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found 1,138 statutory provisions “in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving ‘benefits, rights, and privileges,’” including complete ineligibility for same-sex couples for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.

Besides, the other positive about this kind of a solution is that the actual “marriage” issue (whether marriage is a term that applies only to a man and a woman) would be left up to individual churches, where it belongs. This way if a church did not want to recognize/perform gay marriages, then they would not be forced to.

Thoughts?

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/21/readers-respond-to-obamas-complex-stance-on-gay-unions-.html

Today the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners for trials in the United States. The measure passed by a 79-19 vote after being tacked on as part of the $44.1 billion budget bill for the Homeland Security Department.

This marks a step forward on the issue for the President, who ordered the facility closed within a year in January. Obama will now be able to sign the measure that already passed the House.

Tuesday’s plan requires the administration to develop a plan before any more transfers can occur. It also requires at least 15 days’ notice before a transfer can occur and a “certification that the prisoner does not represent a security risk.”

Navy Rear Adm. Tom Copeman, the prison camp commander, told reporters that he could clear out the detention center within ten days.

“If they say on Jan. 12, ‘Move them out,’ we can meet the deadline,” said Copeman, “given the proper amount of logistical support.”

Copeman didn’t mention how much the logistical support would cost, although he did say that he would need the use of the C-17 Globemaster aircraft to move the detainees.

Interestingly enough, this all happened on the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case of men who have challenged the U.S. government’s right to hold them at the Guantanamo Bay detention center after it’s been determined they pose no threat to the USA.

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_guantanamo_prisoners
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/77476.html#
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/as_high_court_takes_new_case_n.html

While it’s not an exact science by any means, one pretty good indicator of how an election cycle is going to turn out comes from watching the campaign contributions taken in by each side.

And if September’s fundraising totals are an indication of how the 2010 elections will turn out, the Republican party is in for another bad defeat at the polls.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) raised $7.05 million in September, its second-highest monthly total this year. The DCCC has now put away over $14.7 million in funds for the 2010 midterms.

On the other side of the aisle the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) raised $3.4 million for the month giving them $4.3 million cash-on-hand (with over $2 million in unpaid debt).

There are some positives for the G.O.P. to take away. September was the fourth straight month that the NRCC was able to top the three million dollar mark, and the $4.3 million cash-on-hand is the NRCC’s highest total since March.

Still, the latest numbers have to be troubling to the NRCC. The Democrats’ House campaign arm more than doubled the fundraising performance of their Republican counterparts, and the Democrats’ Senate campaign arm outraised its GOP counterpart $5.9 to $3.2 million in September.

Source:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1009/DCCC_doubles_up_NRCCs_Sept_fundraising.html?showall#