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