The other right-wing

Sarah Palin may be going after "fear of government control of your lives" as her message, but there is another wing of the right-wing: the old one.

And Newt Gingrich is playing that one to the hilt. He and Mike Huckabee spoke at a Virginia event today, "Rediscovering God in America." Both urged members to get involved in politics in order to increase the presence of religion in our public life.

Both men railed against abortion rights, gay rights and the lack of religious influence in American public life, however Gingrich upped the ante in his attempt to stir up the crowd with this line:

I think this is one of the most critical moments in American history. We are living in a period where we are surrounded by paganism.

Huckabee went further, saying the the U.S. is a blessed nation and that it was "a miracle from God's hand," that defeated the legalization of gay marriage in California.

I wonder what he'll say when gay marriage gets reinstated in the next ballot initiative? And why didn't God do a miracle in Vermont, Iowa, Maine, and New Hampshire this spring?

I should never be cynical about someone else's religion, but I really do find it hard to believe that Newt's embrace of it is genuine and not opportunistic. When someone, whose prior life has not been exactly exemplary, suddenly "gets religion" just as he's trying to whip up support for a presidential run, and he is obviously courting the religious right vote -- I think Newt himself would question that, if it were someone else.

Ralph

The new right-wing tactic

I think I see the beginnings of the new right-wing political tactic to rouse their base. With the tragic murder of Dr. George Tiller, abortion is not their best issue right now; and gay marraige is on a roll and probably isn't either.

But Sarah Palin seems to have caught the breeze: stir up the base with the fear that all of Obama's programs are a design to gain control over the people, and even state governments.

In a speech in Seneca Fall, NY yesterday, she suggested that Obama is trying to impose big government as a tool of control.

"We need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers, being led to believe that big government is the answer, to bail out the private sector, because then government gets to get in there and control it," she says. "And mark my words, this is going to be next, I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states. Then government gets to get in there and control the people."

I guess creating a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers, being led to believe government is the problem, and to outsource to the private sector everything from auditing the books to fighting wars -- that argument is cut from a whole different piece of cloth.

So it's not going to be the social wedge issues but big government controlling your lives. Let's see, that'll work for gun control, regulations on the financial industry, temporary ownership of auto manufacturers, public health care plans, climate change, and probably anything else that Obama tried to do.

Problem for them: it will rile up their base, but it's a dwindling base; and if Obama is successful in even half what he tries to do, it won't attract the swing voters.

Well, at least it's a more honest, transparent disagreement: is government the problem or part of the solution? I'd like to see an election based on the proposition, clearly stated.

Ralph

Analyzing "the speech"

David Levy's analysis of Obama's Cairo speech is worth reading.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/04/10_comments_on_obama_in_cairo_-_still_accumulating/

Particularly striking was that President Obama almost certainly has emerged from the Cairo speech having accumulated additional capital rather than expending it, with greater popularity, traction, and respect among not only his ostensible target audience, the Muslim world, but also globally, including at home in America and even in Israel and with the world's Jewish community. His future leverage across a range of issues has been enhanced.

Little george w. bush shrinks in stature every time Obama does it so well. And, to his credit, he does not flaunt it or go out of his way to point out dubya's mistakes, not does he reflexively do everything differently (to the consternation of some progressives); but neither does he shy away from saying, and doing, what needs to be done.

Like his other major speeches, the Cairo address to the Muslim world was moving to listeners; and it reads even better on analysis, when you realize the vast knowledge and sensitivity that went into all the details, the subtle messages that were knowingly sent, and the balanced tone of understanding and tough expectations.

The way he handled the Israeli-Palestinian issue was, to my mind, sheer genius. At the same time, it is genius only in the context of how wrong-headed our policy and tone have been. It is only what it should have been all along.

The genius is in Obama's being able to turn the lumbering battleship around with grace and balance, with his empathic ability to speak to adversaries with respect and understanding of their plight.

Ralph

Leave it to Jon Stewart

I'm still waiting for The New York Times to report on Dick Cheney's blatant lie at the National Press Club about Richard Clarke: "He was head of counterintelligence leading up to 9/11. He obviously missed it."

Jon's reaction: "Holy [bleeped] shit. Did he just blame 9/11 on Richard Clarke? The same Richard Clark who five days after Bush was inaugurated sent Condolessa Rice a letter warning them about the threat of Al Qaeda and asking for a high level meeting? [which never happened until after 9/11] The same Richard Clarke who on September 4th, one week before 9/11, sent a memo warning them of Al Qaeda and an attack?"

Why did this not at least make page 18 of The Times in a tiny paragraph, if not in fact blazing headlines on the front page? And why did the assembled journalists not boo Cheney off the stage?

No wonder more and more people say they get their news from The Daily Show and the blogs.

Ralph

Making a difference

One man can make a difference. In his 4+ months in office, it's hard to simply keep count of the major changes, both substantive ones and those that dramatically differ with bush attitudes and tone of message.

In another of his major speeches (so far, he's tackled race, the economy, national security, and now the Middle East), Obama spoke to the Muslim world with outstretched hands and some tough-love for both Muslims and Israelis -- and an acknowledgement that the US played a role in the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953.

Here are some excerpts:

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. . . .

"So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. . . .

"And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. . . .

"The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

"America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. . . .

"On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. . . . So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. . . .

"For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. . . .

"Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. . . . It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered. . . .

"At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

"The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons. This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. . .

"I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. . . .

"The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. . . .

"That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election."

---------------------

George W. Bush and Barak H. Obama -- what a difference one man can make.

Ralph

And now there are six

Just 134 days ago, when Obama was inaugurated as our 44th president, there were two.

Just 57 days ago, on April 7, 2009, I wrote a blog titled "And now there are four." Iowa and Vermont had joined Massachusetts and Connecticut as states that permit same-sex couples to marry. Vermont was the first state to do it by legislative vote, with enough support to even override the governor's veto.

Just 28 days ago, on May 6, 2009, Maine's legislature voted it in and the governor signed it.

And yesterday, on June 3, 2009, the New Hampshire legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill and the governor signed it into law. So, now there are six.

And of course there is California's off again on again gay marriage. It's clear that it will be submitted to another voter referendum, either in 2010 or 2012, and will probably win this time -- unless the lawsuit to ask the federal courts to declare Prop8 unconstitutional is successful and makes the issue moot.

With none other than conservative Ted Olson as one of the two lawyers for the case, this has to be taken as a serious challenge, although there is also serious doubt that the current Supreme Court would decide in his favor. Anthony Kennedy would be the crucial swing vote, and it's not clear that his strong opinions striking down sodomy laws would translate to support for gay marriage.

Many are now saying that going the legislative route is the wiser course. It gives less ammunition to opponents who claim that "activist judges" are over-ruling the people's will.

Next in line with a bill in the works is New York, with New Jersey perhaps not far behind.

Perhaps by the end of the year, I'll be writing: "And now there are eight."

Ralph

The truth will out

It's amazing to me, now that 'the wicked witch is dead,' what some top Washington players are willing to say on the record.

Max Bauchus is the Democratic Chair of the Senate Finance Committee and a key senator in getting health care reform passed. For an article in the upcoming Sunday New York Times Magazine on how Obama is working with Congress on the issue, Matt Bai reports a conversation with Bauchus:

When I asked Baucus, who worked with George W. Bush to pass his tax cuts in 2001, what kind of impression he had formed of Obama to this point, he looked down at his hands and thought for a moment. “How do I say this delicately?” he asked. “President Bush, he liked being president. You know, there are be-ers, and there are doers. And I think he liked being president, as opposed to doing.” Obama, on the other hand, strikes Baucus as a doer. “You’ve really got to work at it, rather than just enjoying the job,” he said.

These days, I become almost manic with excitement as the cover comes off the last eight years, and the truth comes burbling out. This one is minor compared to the exposure of the cheney lies. But we were so starved for the truth during the bush/cheney era that it feels a little like Dickens' street urchin Oliver Twist getting his daily ration of gruel and saying, "may I have more, please?"

Ralph

Obama as negotiator

Thomas Friedman writes in today's New York Times of an interview with President Obama about his trip to the Middle East, his message and his objectives.

It reveals, once again, the measure of this man we have elected as our president. If anyone can lead the world to progress in this quagmire, he seems best equipped by his ability to tell the truth to each side and to tell it with respect and, yes, empathy.

Here is his approach, in a nutshell:

If you go right into peoples’ living rooms, don’t be afraid to hold up a mirror to everything they are doing, but also engage them in a way that says ‘I know and respect who you are.’ You end up — if nothing else — creating a little more space for U.S. diplomacy. And you never know when that can help.

Another excerpt from the interview:

A key part of his message, he said, will be: “Stop saying one thing behind closed doors and saying something else publicly.” He then explained: “There are a lot of Arab countries more concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon than the ‘threat’ from Israel, but won’t admit it.” There are a lot of Israelis, “who recognize that their current path is unsustainable, and they need to make some tough choices on settlements to achieve a two-state solution — that is in their long-term interest — but not enough folks are willing to recognize that publicly.

”There are a lot of Palestinians who “recognize that the constant incitement and negative rhetoric with respect to Israel” has not delivered a single “benefit to their people and had they taken a more constructive approach and sought the moral high ground” they would be much better off today — but they won’t say it aloud. . . .

What a nigh/day difference from our previous POTUS and VPOTUS, who could only think in terms of aggressive threats and deception.

Ralph

Exposing Cheney

It keeps getting better and better.

Dick Cheney is getting exposed for the liar that he has always been (in defense of national security, he would justify.)

The latest exposure is an article in today's Washington Post revealing that Cheney personally oversaw many, and personally and secretly appeared in some, of the briefings of Congressional leaders on torture. This was mostly in 2005, after they had (supposedly) stopped using waterboarding; but it was a hot issue because of movements in Congress to adopt legislation opposing its use. Cheney actually led the fight, even bringing in John McCain to try to get him to drop his anti-torture bill.

And Arianna Huffington, for one, is not going to let him get away with it. Headlining her blog on Huffington Post: "When Will Dick Cheney's Tower of Lies Finally Come Tumbling Down?"

He is now saying that "the evidence was never there" linking Al Qaeda and Iraq -- and yet as recently as 2004, after the 9/11 Commission had said there was no link, Cheney was still claiming the evidence was "overwhelming." And even last week in his Heritage Foundation speech, he referred to the "known ties between Saddaam and Mideast terrorists."

So, in this latest statement, is he actually saying he lied before?

Mickey Nardo is right: Cheney is doing what he's always done: lie, twist, distort, mislead. The difference is that "We're getting better at instant refutation. . . "

And he no longer has a culpable media to parrot back whatever he says. It's a new day, Dick Cheney, and you no longer pull the strings. Get over it. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

On second thought: keep on digging. Because your digging is what's bringing the truth to light. And it's not your version of the truth that we're buying.

Ralph

Cheney backlash

Dick Cheney is probably doing more than anyone to get the true story out.

I don't mean that Cheney is telling the truth. But his blatant distortions are giving license and incentive for others to tell what they know in order to correct his distortions.

Yesterday, Cheney told the National Press Club (from Sam Stein, HuffPost):

"Richard Clarke was the head of the counter-terrorism program in the run up to 9/11," Cheney declared. "He obviously missed it."

It was about as harsh an attack as the former vice president could muster -- blaming the death of 3,000 Americans on a single person. It is also deeply debatable. There is, of course, the August memo, handed to the president, which declared that al Qaeda was determined to attack the United States. Clarke himself wrote in his book that in the run-up to 9/11 he expressed deep concern over such an attack, but to no avail.

Reminded of this, Cheney replied, "That is not my recollection. But I haven't read his book.

Cheney also put a lot of blame on George Tenet, saying they were relying on what he told them. Of course it has been revealed that Cheney was the one throwing his weight around at the CIA, demanding to get the answers he wanted -- even demanding they give him and Rumsfeld the raw data without the CIA's analysts' input as to what was reliable.

Careful, Mr. XVP. You're just asking for it -- and I hope Clarke and Tenet and everyone else feel perfectly free to tell all.

Ralph

Speak values

Drew Westen, our local but nationally renowned psychologist who explains to politicians how to more effectively deliver their message to voters based on his research, has a piece on HuffingtonPost that's worth reading.

It's a plea to President Obama to speak out more forthrightly on social issues. In trying to avoid rankling the social conservatives, with their black/white, right/wrong mentality, he could make his case better. Here's a sample:

What my collaborators and I have found will strike many readers as surprising: On every issue we have studied, from abortion to immigration, a well-refined progressive narrative, designed to speak to the hearts and minds of the American people in their language, not the language of activists and advocates, can beat the strongest of conservative messages nationally by 15-20 points. Even in the Deep South, where I live, we can win by strong double digits with common sense, center-left messages on issues such as abortion. . . .

The reality is that when Democrats clearly state their values on this issue, Americans prefer their message over a strong, well-crafted "pro-life" position by double digits.

Westen and pollster Stan Greenberg tested various messages on abortion for voter reaction. This message beat a strong conservative message nationally by 20 points and in Georgia by a 2:1 margin:

I'm not pro life, I'm not pro choice, I'm pro common sense. None of us truly knows what's in the mind of God, and the government has no business telling a man and a woman when they should or shouldn't have kids based on somebody else's interpretation of Scripture. But we need to find the common ground on abortion, reflecting our shared moral beliefs, not the beliefs that divide us. That means doing everything we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and abortions. And it means preventing abortions late in pregnancy, except when the mother's life or health is in danger, because abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control, and it shouldn't be used when a fetus is too far along. This should be a personal and moral issue, not a political one.

Westen concludes:

I suspect President Obama would be comfortable with either of these messages, because from what I know of his position on abortion and his religious faith, both messages map closely onto his personal values. The point is that the president does not need to choose between urging mutual respect and taking a strong stand. He can do both. And he needs to.

Let's hope someone in the White House is listening. Obama is doing great; but the Republican message-machine is powerful. Obama has a tendency to try to avoid stirring them up, rather than being candid. But then he is capable doing just what Drew prescribes: like his great speech on race in Philadelphia and not shying away from talking about abortion at Notre Dame. He needs to speak out on the issues that they are throwing at Sonia Sotomayor -- racism, judicial activism, judges "making policy," emotions' role in judicial decisions --before her hearings.

Ralph

Bill O'Reilly - ? accessory to murder ?

At what point does rabble-rousing hate speech constitute being an accessory to someone who commits the murder you are all but asking to have carried out?

Salon.com reports on Bill O'Reilly's relentless denunciation of Dr. George Tiller, who as far as we know was a compassionate, humane doctor who performed abortion services completely within what was legal. Through decades he has received death threats, his clinic has been bombed, and he was actually wounded by gunshots intended to kill him several years before his assassination yesterday.

According to reporting by Gabriel Winant on Salon, O'Reilly mentioned Tiller on 29 on-air episodes in the past 4 years, most recently in April 2009. He writes:

"There's no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists."

According to Salon, among the things O'Reilly has said of Tiller: (1) He destroys fetuses for just about an reason right up until the birth date for $5,000; (2) He's guilty of "Nazi stuff;" (3) A moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida; (4) This is the kind of stuff that happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union; (5) operating a death mill; (6) executing babies about to be born.

And what is his evidence? None. Tiller has been investigated and acquitted by a grand jury who found no evidence of illegal actions.

I admit it's a stretch to connect O'Reilly's rants with the actual assassination, but he is one of those who create the climate of hatred and lies that fanatics and mentally unstable people take as a license to kill -- in the name of saving lives of the unborn.

Ralph

Assassination

Let's call it what it is: assassination and terrorism and fascism.

The murder of Dr. George Tiller yesterday at his church removed one of the reportedly three doctors who do late-term abortions. This is a much-maligned procedure that is rarely performed and is legal only in cases of a threat to the mother's health or because the fetus is defective and unviable.

By first person accounts, Dr. Tiller was a compassionate man and a humane doctor who operated within the law, despite trumped up charges and investigations. He had previously not only received countless death threats, but his clinic has been bombed and he was wounded in a previous attempt on his life.

The Colorado Independent reports:

Hours after the Sunday morning shooting death of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller in Wichita, Kan., a Boulder physician — who says he could be the only doctor in the world still performing the procedure — said Tiller’s assassination was the “absolutely inevitable consequence” of decades of anti-abortion fanaticism.

I’m profoundly sad and I’m furious and I think the American people need to understand that we have a fascist movement in this country,” Dr. Warren Hern told The Colorado Independent on Sunday. “We don’t have to invade Iraq to find terrorists. They’re right here killing abortion doctors.”

“Every doctor that does abortions has been under an assassination threat for decades,” Hern said. “The anti-abortion movement message is, ‘Do what we tell you to do or we will kill you,’ and they do. This is a fascist movement.”

Hern laid blame for Tiller’s death at the feet of the anti-abortion movement’s encouragement of violence against abortion providers and the Republican Party’s “exploitation” of the extremist rhetoric. . . .

Janet Napolitano was forced to retract a Homeland Security report that mentioned right-wing extremists as a threat, because of an outcry from right-wing politicians and radio/tv ranters.

Randall Terry, who had led protests at Tiller's clinic in 1991 as head of Operation Rescue said:

George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.

Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder. Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.

Notice that he says "peacefully protest," but he's concerned about having to surrender "our most effective rhetoric and actions." He does not condemn the murder of the doctor. It is this kind of support that leads fanatics and mentally unstable to feel justified in doing the killing.

This is not about whether a fertilized ovum is a human being or when an embryo becomes a living being. This is about vigilantism, terrorism, hate speech, hate crimes and, yes, a fascist movement in God's name.

Ralph

One more . . .

Add one more voice to those insiders who are criticizing the way we handled Iraq and/or who are speaking out in opposing torture.

General Ricardo Sanchez, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, has called for a truth commission. He said there were failures at all levels of civilian and military command that led to abuses in Iraq and that "if we do not find out what happened, then we are doomed to repeat it."

He also said this:

"during my time in Iraq there was not one instance of actionable intelligence that came out of these interrogation techniques."

Judges do make policy

Senator Diane Feinstein said on Face the Nation today that, of course, judges do in fact make policy.

Responding to Republican insistence that judges should not make policy, she said: "In my experience, 16 years on the [judicial] committee, that's not true. If there is no precedent, judges do make policy. If there is no precedent, an appellate court judge will, in effect, by their opinion, make policy."

Up to their usual tricks of obfuscation, when they talk about it, they say "make laws." Nobody on the Sotomayor/Obama team has said "make laws." They've said "make policy." They're not quite the same. What we're talking about is where the law is not clear and must be interpreted by judges. Whatever decision is made, that contributes to the tradition of case law and will be used in future decisions as precedent. That is how ambiguous laws evolve into policy.

Republicans set up a straw (wo)man in order to be outraged and rant about "activist" judges. No one can make a factual case that Sotomayor has been an activist judge by her record.

Poor things; they just can't help it. It's part of their nature. The only pity is that they do still have certain amount of power to obstruct and make things difficult.

Ralph

Rational thinking vs emotions

Sonia Sotomayor's nomination has put the question front and center: do judges make their decisions solely on the basis of the law and reason, or are their decisions influenced by who they are, what their life experiences have been, and what group identities they belong to?

Of course, in the heat of this Supreme Court nomination, Republicans are challenging the idea that one's feelings enter into decisions at all, along with the idea that the court needs balance based on gender, ethnicity, and other background issues.

I take the position that decisions are far more influenced by emotions and by life experiences than most people realize; and now we have brain-imaging research that shows this to be true.

This is probably no more true in any issue than ones on equal treatment for same-sex behavior. And this makes me wonder why Ted Olson is taking a high profile case that seems unlikely for the conservative lawyer that he is. I'm not suggesting that he is a closeted gay man; there's nothing I know to suggest that. But being gay oneself is not the only way one's empathy may be formed to see issues differently.

In 1992, I was asked to form a new committee on gay/lesbian issues in the American Psychoanalytic Association. The trouble in forming such a committee was that, with one exception, we did not have openly gay members (because of prior discrimination) who could be asked to be on the committee. Nevertheless, several respected members of the Association volunteered and served as members. I found out later that some of those who did were moved to volunteer because they had a gay family member or a good friend or respected colleague.

Knowing a gay or lesbian person as an individual changes one's impression of the stereotype. I'd be willing to bet that Anthony Kennedy and Ted Olson each has a gay family member or a close friend or law clerk, who has helped him see the injustice of discrimination on the basis of whom one loves.

Ralph

Thanks, but no thanks

The biggest surprise of the week was the announcement by Ted Olson and David Boies that they will represent a lesbian couple who are challenging the State of California on the grounds that the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership, instead of full marriage, violates equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, creating a class of second-class citizens.

The surprise is that Federalist Society member Ted Olson is arguably the most respected conservative lawyer in the country, having defended Reagen in the Iran-Contra scandal, and having argued and won Bush v Gore before the Supreme Court. The other part of the surprise is that David Boies was the opposing attorney in Bush v Gore. The old rivals have teamed up to push same-sex marriage in the federal courts and, presumably, to the Supreme Court.

Which has created great consternation among supporters of gay marriage. Because they fear that it will go to the Supreme Court and lose. As I wrote before, a favorable decision would require the four liberal judges (and we don't yet know about Sotomayor) plus Kennedy. And, although he wrote the opinions on the last two major gay-issue decisions (and, yes, let his feelings show in both; see my blog of May 28), there is no indication that he would decide in favor of gay marriage.

My thought is that it's too risky at this point, both for a negative decision which would set back the cause a decade, but also that going the legislative route is the better course. The momentum that we are seeing in the northeast states is mostly a legislative one, not judicial.

Even George Will said as much this morning on This Week With George Stephanopolis. He said it is working it's way through the state legislatures in an orderly fasion, and no one seems to care; if you shift it to the courts, it will only derail that orderly process and create a backlash if judges impose it.

That was the other big surprise. He didn't actually say he favored it, but his tone of approval at the way the states are approving gay marriage strongly suggests it. George Will? Another conservative voice for gay marriage?

Ralph