Prop8 in court

I watched most of the CA Supreme Court hearings on overturning Proposition 8 on Thursday. Many had predicted that it would be overturned, because these are the same judges who said last May that it was unconstitutional to deny equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.

In May, it was a 4-3 decision, so only one vote would have to change. And one of those judges in the majority in the May decision kept emphasizing in the colloquy on Thursday that this is a different question than they decided in May.

In May, it was a question of denying equal treatment in marriage laws that did not specifically forbid same-sex marriage; now the defenders of Prop8 and some of the judges are defining the question as "overturning the will of the people" in the November vote, which specifically does deny marriage rights to same-sex people. As one put it: there are two competing "inalienable rights:" the right to equal protection and the right of the people to change the Constitution.

The CA Constitution (which was the will of the people when they adopted it) provides two different means of changing the Constitution: (1) by revision, which requires legislative action to put it on the ballot and which, they argue, has never been used except to change the structure of the government; and (2) by amendment, which can be put on the ballot simply by petition of the people and which is to apply for lesser matters. The question then is this: in which category does discrimination against a class of people fall?

Kenneth Starr emphasized in his defense of Prop8 that the people have the right to take away rights of minorities. It doesn't make it right but it is constitutional, in his view. If one judge agrees with him, then the measure fails. If it violates the U.S. constitution, then it could be appealed to the US Supreme Court. But there is no federal protection of the right to marry; in fact there is the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The rebuttal to this idea -- completely convincing to me -- was that overturning Prop8 does not violate the right of the people to change the constitution. In adopting their constitution, the people expressly set up the more restrictive method for revising the constitution, and that was not followed in adopting Prop8. Taking away rights of a "suspect class" requires revision, not simple amendment. The people would still have the right to try again to pass it by the revision process.

In the end, it will be decided by these 7 judges, and it will likely depend on how each weighs the relative primacy of the right to equal protection and the right of the people to change the constitution, even to take away rights.

They have 90 days to give their decision. I'm pessimistic.

Ralph

Rush vs Michael

It's being told that Democrats are eagerly pushing the idea that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto head of the Republican party, insinuating political dirty tricks. Now someone has countered that it's the same thing that Republicans attempted in trying to hang Michael Moore around the neck of the Democratic party in years past.

Michael Moore has responded, saying there's a big difference. The people agree with his positions and the Democrats won.

The Right and the White House spokespeople came after me time after time. President Bush 41 called me an "a**" on TV, and I became a favorite punching bag at both the 2004 and the 2008 Republican National Conventions in speeches by John McCain and Joe Lieberman. On the front page of this morning's Washington Post, Mark McKinnon, a top adviser to George W. Bush, revealed -- for the first time -- the Bush White House strategy of singling me out in the hopes of turning the country against me and the Democratic Party. Here's what the Post said:

Mark McKinnon, a top adviser in President George W. Bush's campaigns, acknowledged the value of picking a divisive opponent. "We used a similar strategy by making Michael Moore the face of the Democratic Party," he said of the documentary filmmaker.

In the end it all proved to be a big strategic mistake on their part. Thanks to the Republican attacks on me, average Joes and Janes started to listen to what I had to say. . . .

Yes, the more the Right went after me, the more people got to hear what I was saying -- and eventually the majority, for some strange reason, ended up agreeing with me -- not Rush Limbaugh -- and elected Barack Obama as president of the United States, a man who promised to end the war, bring about universal health care, close Guantanamo, stop torture, tax the rich, and rein in the abusive masters of Wall Street. . . .

Obama and the Democrats going after Rush is a good thing and will not do for him what the Republican attack plan did for me -- namely, the majority of Americans will never be sympathetic to him because they simply don't agree with him.

The days of using my name as a pejorative are now over. The right wing turned me into an accidental spokesperson for the liberal, majority agenda. Thank you, Republican Party. You helped us elect one of the most liberal senators to the presidency of the United States. We couldn't have done it without you.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Ralph

Karl Rove is right

Finally Karl Rove has said something I can agree with.

In an interview with FoxNews about his upcoming testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, he said: " Some Democrats would love to have me barbecued."

He's right. I for one would love to see him have to answer for his actions in a setting that he cannot weasel out of. Clearly he intends to do so, and it seems he has negotiated an agreement that limits the scope of inquiry. He will not testify to any conversations with President Bush about the federal prosecutor firings.

I don't understand how he gets to limit a congressional oversight inquiry, which is their constitutional duty. He had previously refused to even appear, citing executive privilege. But his boss is no longer president, so how does Rove still get to dictate terms?

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers calls it a victory and vindication. To me it seems too little and too late, but better than nothing. Initially, it will be conducted by committee staff in private but under oath, and the transcript will be released. Later public hearings may be held with questioning by committee members themselves. I think this is the usual procedure for congressional hearings: staff interviews first, then public hearings. So maybe we'll actually get to see Karl being grilled.

Perhaps the biggest victory, however, is that the committee will get the documents it has been seeking -- all those emails, at least the ones they didn't destroy.

Ralph

Rush's ? influence

It's a big distraction, talking about Rush Limbaugh, while the Republican party continues to plunge downward in voter's approval ratings. RNC Chair Steele continues to make rather inane remarks, such as his latest plan to put the party on a "12-step program of recovery."

But just how much influence does Limbaugh have outside the red-meat conservatives that he entertained at last week's C-PAC meeting? Some cite his 20 million listeners as evidence of his influence.

I have news for them. Not all those listeners, by a long shot, agree with or support Rush. I personally know people who listen for the entertainment but who vehemently disagree with Rush.

And the polls show it: only 11% approval in the under 40 age group.

Ralph

"King Rush" a Dem strategy?

Politico is reporting that Democratic strategists James Carville and Stanley Greenberg first hatched the idea of depicting Rush Limbaugh as the face of the Republican party last October. A poll they conducted found that Rush had an overall favorable rating even lower than Jeremiah Wright or William Ayers; and, among voters under 40, only 11% had a favorable opinion of him.

Then Rush played into the strategy when he made the controversial statement that he hoped Obama would fail. Of course, reporters were then going to ask Republican politicians whether they agreed with Rush -- pushing them either to support the hero of the conservative base or to repudiate him.

Then it turned into a media circus -- and a nightmare for the GOP.

Rush has such a passionate following that it's surprising to find how narrow that base really is. If the Republicans don't wake up quickly and realize that, they'll just keep going down the wrong road to recovery. And that's all right with me.

Ralph

Obama's 6 week report card

In an NBC/WallStreetJournal opinion poll, President Obama's approval rating stands at his all-time high of 68%; and 41% feel that the country is headed in the right direction, compared with 26% only a month ago.

"What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank."

These high marks for Obama and his performance thus far come despite the fact that only 7% are satisfied with the state of the economy and 76% believe we have not yet hit the bottom. These figures suggest that it is faith in Obama's ability and the hope he inspires, which are absolute necessities alongside an effective plan.

It also suggests vulnerability for the Obama administration if people do not begin to see some results within the coming year. Obama is aware of this, and he is pushing programs that can show some early results. Already today, there are news stories of construction projects that states are ready to begin, now that the stimulus money is being distributed. This will create jobs and slow the unemployment avalanche, but we have to be ready to see progress in that slowing and wait a long time to see a reversal.

Meanwhile, Republicans did not come off well at all in the NBC/WSJ poll. Only 26% view the Republican party favorably, an all time low. By 48%-20%, they think the Democratic Party would do a better job of getting the country out of the recession. Congressional Republicans are blamed by 41% for the partisanship in Washington; 24% blame the Democrats. Pollster Hart says the Republicans "have been tone deaf to the results of the 2008 election... They never heard the message. They continue to preach the old-time religion."

I don't think we have to worry about their approval ratings improving any time soon, given the antics coming out of the C-PAC meeting and the big flap over King Rush and his acolytes and who is head of the GOP.

Ralph

GOP in disarray

Beneath the squabbles over who is the "de facto head" of the Republican party lies the real struggle to regroup, forge an identity, and let leaders emerge. This is necessary in a party that has gone through a disastrous 8 year presidency, that lost control of congress, and is now in a minority status. It's losing presidential candidate cannot unite the party, and no one has yet emerged who can heal the sharp split between the fiscal conservative and the social conservative wings of the party.

So we're seeing the natural evolution as they fight it out. Sam Stein (HuffingtonPost) wrote of the straw poll at the recent CPAC conference:

In the end, the numbers underscored the softness of Romney's 'frontrunner' status. The former Massachusetts Governor won only 20 percent of the CPAC vote; four other individuals -- Bobby Jindal, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich -- earned ten percent or more. And all were overshadowed by Rush Limbaugh.

The boisterous talk show host was the belle of the CPAC ball, earning the unofficial title of GOP spiritual leader following a winding and brash 90-minute speech. But his appearance, while loved in the ballroom, only exacerbated the intra-party fissures. As the crowd ate up Limbaugh's red meat, other Republicans watched in horror; the figurehead of their movement -- a rambling, sweaty and at times angry man -- was calling once again for the intensely popular president to fail.

"If we don't modernize conservatism, we are going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, joining every applause line, ripping the furniture up, we're going to be in permanent minority status," said Mike Murphy, a longtime Republican strategist, declared the next day on Meet The Press.

We'll have to wait to see how this shakes out over time. Meanwhile, don't get in the way of their crossfire or try to talk them out of their circular firing squad.

Ralph

Now it's official: King Rush

In recent weeks, a controversy has erupted over whether Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Not only Rush devotees claim it but also a few Democrats are getting into the act, namely James Carville and even a nudge in that direction from Rahm Emmanuel -- a little bit like taunting, "let's you and him fight."

Within days of Obama's inauguration, Rush had declared, "I hope he fails." Congressman Phil Gingery (R-GA) called on him to "back off," saying how easy it was to sit back and throw stones. As reported by Joel Connelly of Seattlepi.com:

Gingery was back groveling before Mount Rush a day later, apologizing for "putting my foot in my mouth."

"Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement's conscience," he said, begging forgiveness. "Every day, millions and millions of Americans -- myself included -- turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and determination."

Talk of Rush as head of the GOP took on new life when he was invited to give the keynote address at the recent CPAC conference, where he repeated his claim of wanting Obama to fail "at everything he does."

In a CNN interview with D.L. Hughley, who referred to Limbaugh as the de facto head of the party, the actual elected Chair of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, corrected him: "No, he's not. I am the de facto head of the Republican Party. Let's put it in the context here," said Steele. "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment."

Rush responded by pointing out that Steele is Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He is not the head of the Republican Party. So then Steele -- guess what? -- apologizes to Rush, saying:

"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh," Steele said. "I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. ... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

Let's see: if Republican leaders have to apologize for saying Rush Limbaugh is NOT the de facto leader of the Republican party, does that mean that he is?

Seems to me that it at least proves that he has tremendous political power and that they are scared of crossing him and upsetting his vast numbers of supporters.

Ralph

Sibelius for HHS

Governor Kathleen Sebelius will be nominated by President Obama tomorrow as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Although Tom Daschle would have had the advantage of being experienced in the ways of Congress for getting legislation passed, Gov. Sebelius herself seems a superb choice; and there may be some advantages to her being a Washington outsider. At least she doesn't have the gray-area financial ties to health care corporations that Daschle did.

She is widely recognized for her success in working with Republicans as a Democratic governor in a very red state. She chose a Republican for her running mate as Lt. Gov., and she has high marks for her bipartisanship. Yet in policies, she is solidly progressive and no pushover in negotiations. She recently hammered out a difficult budget battle to deal with the state's financial crisis. In addition, she was Insurance Commissioner of Kansas for 8 years, during which time she was much involved in health insurance battles, and she knows the issues well.

Right wing Republicans are set to mount a vigorous opposition because of her stance on abortion. She vetoed a bill in 2008 that would have restricted late term abortions, and they will try to paint her as radically pro-abortion. Herself a Catholic, she has come under fire from Church officials who call on her to repudiate her pro-abortion positions.

However, she has also received the backing of rights organizations and women's groups who point out her role in reducing abortions in the state.

"Gov. Sebelius is a proven and tireless advocate for children's health care, education, adoption, and support for pregnant women, all components of a public policy agenda intended to benefit the common good. Under her leadership, the state of Kansas has witnessed sharp declines in both abortions and teen pregnancy," said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United.

This adds another woman to Obama's cabinet in a significant position, which is a good thing. Others being: Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, Labor, Administrator of EPA, and Ambassador to the U.N. I think this may be the most women cabinet members ever.

Ralph

Trouble posting?

Because there have not been any comments posted on this blog for a while (except from me with second thoughts or updates), I'm wondering again if anyone is having trouble with the posting procedure. If you try to write a comment and can't get it to "publish," please let me know: rroughton@bellsouth.net.

Ralph

"Nationalization" clarified

In the current governmental intervention in failing banks, the term "nationalization" has become a shibboleth, with some using it to clobber Obama's plans and others, even Repubicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Alan Greenspan, advocating it. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has been trying to avoid the term, understandably, in order to avoid the distractions that opponents' misrepresentations would bring.

Today's AJC has an unsigned article that clarifies the muddled waters. It cites three things to consider that make the difference in the nature of governmental "taking over" the banks: ownership, control, and intent.

1. Ownership: The government will buy shares in failing banks. In some cases it will become the largest shareholder but most often less than 50%. If it owns 80% then accounting rules change and the bank must be included on the government's balance sheet. It wants to avoid this kind of "ownership," so it took only 79.9% stake in AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

2. Control: The government says it will not run the banks in the sense of day to day operations. And it will sell the banks it does take over as soon as the bad assets are dealt with. For example, it seized the failed IndyMac, held it for six months while restructuring it, and then sold an improved institution to private investors.

3. Intent: This is the key. The government does not want to run banks permanently. Of the 14 it has seized this year, it has tried to sell the healthy part of the banks right away. It's more like car repair: "pull the bank into the shop, replace the broken parts, and get it back on the street." Rather than retaining ownership, you put it back in the private sector as soon as it is ready to sell.

All these factors should be reassuring to those who think that "nationalization" is the same as what fascist dictators do when they take complete control of their countries' financial institutions, along with industry, resources, and communications.

I found this helpful -- and good talking points the next time someone tries to play the "socialism" card.

Ralph