« May 4, 2008 - May 10, 2008 | Main | May 18, 2008 - May 24, 2008 »

May 17, 2008

Problematic FEC Nominee Withdraws Name... Finally

Hans von Spakovsky, the major hold-up in seating the FEC and the GOP's point man in disenfranchising minority voters, may finally exit the national stage.

President Bush's contentious nominee for the Federal Election Commission removed his name from consideration Friday, potentially ending a lengthy stalemate that had paralyzed the work of the agency.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who never had Democratic support to win confirmation, withdrew his nomination, saying it was time for the protracted deadlock to end....

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., welcomed von Spakovsky's withdrawal. Democrats have charged that von Spakovsky tried to suppress voter participation through new restrictions such as voter identification laws and voter roll purges.

"Democrats stood united in their opposition to von Spakovsky because of his long and well-documented history of working to suppress the rights of minorities and the elderly to vote," Reid said. "He was not qualified to hold any position of trust in our government."

Progress has already been made on the FEC. This may seal the deal. Next step: Get to work.

Scenes From a Nader Fundraiser at a San Francisco Dive Bar

The 540 Club, in an old bank building at 540 Clement Street in San Francisco, is the only bar in town to call an elephant its mascot. A 300-pound stuffed pachyderm blobs on a ledge above the front door, a cast-off inherited after the San Francisco zoo shuttered its elephant exhibit. The bar's logo, a pink elephant found on its tables, its business cards and the forearm of its soda jerk, is described by the staff as "the universal symbol of alcoholism and sloth etc," and not as any sort of inducement to Republicans. In fact, the threat, in liberal San Francisco, of being labeled a GOP sympathizer never really occurred to the owner of the bar, Jamie Brown—until this week, that is, when he found himself debating whether to supplement the elephant with a stuffed donkey. The bar was set to hold a fundraiser for none other than the Great Spoiler, Ralph Nader. "What the hell?" Brown said Sunday morning, apropos of nothing, as he dragged on a Camel and waited for Nader's entourage to arrive. "Just in general, what the hell?"

Brown had sent two emails announcing the event. One said Nader would be coming. The other said this wasn't a joke. The local media had called to ask if the fundraiser was a ploy to sell drinks. Patrons hadn't known what to think. A few days after the email went out, during the bar's "Uptown 20s Jazz and Big Band" night, one drinker had supposed Nader would read from Don Quixote; another wondered of the man: "What did he do? Was it a car dealership?"

"I still think people think it's a joke," Brown said that morning before the Pabst Blue Ribbon clock struck noon. Nader was running late. A small crowd at the bar nursed pint-sized bloody marys. Brown, who sported several days stubble and a severe bed head, excused himself for a moment. "I need a shot, sunglasses, and a pack of cigarettes," he said.

At the back of the bar, attorney John Hoar was wearing a "Modern Drunkard Magazine" sweatshirt and sipping a shot of Fernet Branca, the herbal hangover remedy. He'd come to defend the Corvair: "It was a small, lightweight, early ‘60s, fuel-efficient car," he said, "and Ralph killed it." Several minutes later a woman shuffled into the bar pushing a walker. "That isn't Ralph is it?" Hoar looked up from his drink.

It was Jeanne Lynch, a senior citizen activist. She ordered a stein of warm brandy and sat down near the middle of the room on her walker, which doubled as a chair. She wore a purple jump suit, purple glitter sunglasses shaped like hearts, and a purple beret. "Power, loyalty, and royalty: It's my signature color," she said.

Another regular at the bar, Jenny Pfister, had come on behalf of the German zine Der Penis to photograph punk rocker Jello Biafra, who was supposedly accompanying Nader. Her roomate had slept in—"I'm not feeling political yet," he'd said—and she'd arrived late, alone, and without a camera, but with a copy of Der Penis in hand. She'd recently come from the zine's anniversary party in Bavaria, where she'd earned kudos for dressing as a penis.

Despite everyone's respect for Nader's accomplishments and irreverent style, nobody that morning said they'd vote for the man. When someone suggested the event be dubbed Naderpalooza, the bar's Iron Man bouncer suggested instead: "Nader's A Loser." Still, he planned to defend the Great Spoiler from any belligerent Democrats. "I'm gonna put it on my resume," he said.

Sometime after noon, Nader's scout arrived in a sticker-smeared Prius. A few minutes later Nader stepped out of a Ford Escape SUV and waded to the back of the bar. The Grateful Dead cut out and Nader paused, letting his eyes adjust to the speakeasy darkness. "Suddenly everything's quiet," he said. "Where's the mariachi band?"

"In the early 60s we had these small, lightweight, fuel-efficient cars," began Hoar, the Modern Drunkard, who found his stool conveniently situated next to where Nader had paused. "And later we had these huge land yachts. I consider that your fault."

"Actually, the mileage wasn't that hot," Nader said.

Having no immediate retort for this, Hoar changed the subject to turbocharged convertible Corvair Spyders. "Very deadly and very expensive and crappy," Nader offered.

After an introduction by his running mate, former San Francisco mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez, Nader warmed up the crowd with an anecdote about how it used to be you could walk into a bar and ask, "who runs this city?" But, he added, "I don't know if we know the answer to that today. We knew who our rulers were years ago—John D. Rockefeller, JP Morgan. Now we have these faceless, giant corporations, and look how they've repaid the American people."

Forthwith began a drubbing of the oil companies, the auto companies, the drug companies, the big banks, the copper companies, the big HMOs, George Bush and Dick Cheney ("who are marinated in oil"), the genetic engineers and, in particular, the credit card companies. They change the terms, charge penalties, and raise the rates in the middle, Nader said, "but they never say you've got to write us a check. They just debit you. And so it goes doesn't it? So it goes."

Before ducking out, Nader handed the mike to fundraiser Gregory Kafoury, who informed the crowd that Nader would take $100 donations on plastic. "Put it on a credit card--it's not like you really have to pay for it," he said. "Do it over time. $10 bucks a month for 10 months."

The purple grandma volunteered $100. As did a bartender who'd been laid off her job managing a call center. Someone in the back volunteered $5.

On the sidewalk outside, Kafoury was accosted by a bar patron for denouncing credit card companies while relying on them. "OK," Kafoury admitted after five minutes of heated polemics, "you think it's ironic."

Back inside, Brown, the owner, and his bouncer were trading thoughts over shots. "It's the stop, drop and roll of political commentary," the bouncer said. "You hear that and you just want to roll under your desk and wait for the nuclear weapon to detonate over you."

"You know what, that was one of the coolest things that's ever going to happen in my life," Brown replied.

"I'm sorry," the bouncer said. "I did twins once."

They clinked glasses and downed shots of vodka. "Yeah, you're right," Brown said. "That was cooler."

May 16, 2008

Right Wing Hackery the Same the World Over

Who else is attacking their domestic political opponents for failing to wear a flag pin? Lawrence of Cyberia has the extremely enjoyable answer: Hamas.

Popular Vote Musings on a Friday Afternoon

A friend just alerted me to the fact that the popular vote section at Real Clear Politics has myriad different totals for the Democratic primary race. Enough to make the notion of a "popular vote" useless, in fact.

Here are the different ways you could calculate the popular vote. If there's something I'm not thinking of, tell me in the comments.

1. Just the primaries.
2. The primaries with Florida.
3. The primaries with Florida and Michigan with Michigan's "uncommitted" going to Obama.
4. The primaries with Florida and Michigan with Michigan's "uncommitted" going to no one.
5. The primaries, plus caucuses.
6. The primaries with Florida, plus caucuses.
7. The primaries with Florida and Michigan with Michigan's "uncommitted" going to Obama, plus caucuses.
8. The primaries with Florida and Michigan with Michigan's "uncommitted" going to no one, plus caucuses.

You can see why people are so confused. Further complicating the picture: Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington state are caucus states that have not released public figures on caucus attendance. Estimates are needed in those instances.

I think in scenario 4, Clinton might be winning the popular vote. Maybe. Or something.

John McCain and the NRA Make Nice

McCain is speaking at the NRA today, as part of his quest to woo traditional parts of the Republican base. Like with so many other situations, McCain has a history opposing the group he now seeks to cozy up with. Here's McCain in 2000:

For its part, the NRA called McCain "one of the premier flag-carriers for enemies of the Second Amendment." Nowadays, though, the organization is ready to play ball. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president told the press that there are "vast numbers of areas" where McCain and the gun lobby agree. And McCain showed last year that he can parrot the right talking points when necessary: "I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control."

Waxman to EPA Official: When You Appear Before Me, You Shall Bring Documents

On Friday Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the chair of the House oversight committee, sent a letter to Stephen L. Johnson, the EPA administrator. It wasn't a friendly note. Waxman is frustrated that the EPA has failed to comply with his May 5 subpoena for "more than 30 documents relating to communications with offices in the White House." (The committee is investigating political interference with the work of EPA scientists.) Waxman explains that Johnson has "two basic options for each of the documents: provide the document to the Committee or assert executive privilege with respect to the document.”

So far, the White House hasn't asserted executive privilege with regards to the documents Waxman wants. That means that if he doesn't bring the requested documents to a May 20 hearing where he is expected to appear, Johnson will be in defiance of the subpoena. The Chairman didn't mince words, either. The first sentence of the letter reads: "I am writing to advise you that when you appear before the Committee on May 20, 2008, you should appear with documents."

Waxman's not known for bluffing, so it should be quite a scene if Mr. Johnson shows up next Tuesday without his homework. I'll keep you posted.

Devastating Article by Israel's Top Journalist on Casino Mogul Sheldon Adelson

One of Israel's top journalists and commentators Nahum Barnea writes in his column at Yediot Aharanot today about Sheldon Adelson throwing his political weight around in Israel.

When Sheldon Adelson gave his speech on the podium of the International Convention Center two days ago, I looked at Shimon Peres. I was happy for him. [...]

As a citizen of the country, I was less happy. I saw a gambling tycoon from Las Vegas who bought my country's birthday with three million dollars. I thought with sorrow: Is the country worth so very little? Were the champagne and the wine and the sushi that were given out for free in the lobby, unlike what is conventional for such events, worth the humiliation?

Adelson is a Jew who loves Israel. Like some other Jews who live at a safe distance from here, his love is great, passionate, smothering. It is important to him that he influence the policies, decisions and compositions of Israeli governments. He is not alone in this, eithe ... This kowtowing to other people's wallets-that is the common denominator of Rabin and Peres, Netanyahu, Barak and Olmert. [...]

Adelson is like the others, and yet different. He has the gift of authority and the bluntness of someone who made a lot of money quickly. He does not ask. He commands.

"He talks to me as though I were his property," the director of an important Jewish-American organization, one of the guests at the conference, told me. I heard similar complaints from others, Israelis and Americans, who got scandals from Adelson. [...] There is a story about an anti-Arab propaganda film that Adelson heard about. He telephoned the director-general of a Jewish organization, asking him to buy and distribute the film. But the film is distorted, said the man. No one will believe it. So edit it, Adelson commanded. The film is not editable, said the man. All right, Adelson said. I will buy the film at my expense, but you will distribute it. "He would like all the Arabs to disappear," another activist for a Jewish organization told me. "It seems that he thinks that the Arabs are gambling chips."

Several months ago, Adelson contacted another Jewish-American millionaire and asked him to donate a large sum of money for a campaign that he was organizing against the current Israeli government. The man politely refused. You know what, Adelson told him, do not donate. Just sign. The man refused again. Adelson accused him of funding anti-Israel research. I do not know what you mean, the man answered. When my man in charge of these things is in Las Vegas, he will come to you. Look into the matter.

The meeting at Adelson's office, in the Venetian hotel-casino, was a stormy one. Adelson took out a written list of accusations, many of them childish. You hosted (PA prime minister) Salam Fayyad, he said. He is a terrorist with blood on his hands. He is one of the founders of Fatah. Salam Fayyad was never involved in terrorism, his interlocutor said. He is not a member of Fatah. Where did you get these accusations from?

From Steve Emerson, said the billionaire. Emerson is an American Jew who often analyzes terror matters. You work with Olmert's government, accused Adelson. This is an illegitimate government. It must be thrown out. I thought that Olmert is your friend, said the man. And, indeed, they were friends. Such good friends that Olmert wrote him a letter and asked him to buy mini-bars for his hotels from a company that Talansky represented.

("This is not something new," one of the Americans who came to the conference told me. "One day I get a call from an Israeli, a former senior government official. I have a request, he said. Talk to Adelson about buying safes for the rooms in his hotels from a company that I work with. If the deal goes through, your organization will get a donation of USD 1 million." The man absolutely rejected the request.)

Adelman is convinced that Netanyahu, not Olmert, must be prime minister of Israel. In order to advance this idea, he established a newspaper, which devotes it pages to the fight against Olmert and praises Netanyahu. Allegedly, this investment is the largest election gift given to Israel ever. I do not claim this. Firstly, it is a legal gift, legitimate. Secondly, when Netanyahu is elected prime minister, he will have to act within the constraints of the State of Israel, not take dictates from a patron in Las Vegas.

Adelson, surrounded by guards, was king of the conference. He sat in the first row, with Shimon Peres between him and Olmert. He put his hand out to Olmert. Olmert shook it with a sour face. They did not exchange a single word.

So Adelson is trying to take down the Olmert government because he feels that's his prerogative.

It was striking seeing Adelson and Bush in the front row of the Jerusalem conference the other day, Israeli president Shimon Peres, the conference host, between them, as if Bush and Adelson were diplomatic-protocal-speaking some sort of equals.

Maybe at some point American conservatives will get as fed up with Adelson trying to run their movement as apparently some Israelis are about Adelson trying to buy the highest levels of poliitical influence so easily in their country. But I doubt it.

May 15, 2008

Bush's Politicking at Israel's Knesset Neglects His Role in Hamas' Election Win

You've likely already read about Bush using the opportunity of his address to Israel's parliament, the Knesset, yesterday to liken all those who would negotiate with "terrorists and radicals" to Nazi appeasers -- and Democrats' swift and outraged response.

Beyond the fact that Bush's own administration has repeatedly offered to negotiate with Tehran should Iran suspend uranium enrichment, and that his top diplomat in Iraq has talked with his Iranian counterparts, as has his former ambassador to Afghanistan, both with the White House blessing, as well as the ongoing negotiations with Pyongyang, Libya, and the Syrian deputy foreign minister's visit to Annapolis; beyond those recent demonstrated exceptions in action to Bush's rhetoric (I guess the word for it is "hypocrisy"): It's also worth pointing out, as several Israeli security officials and political observers have recently done to me here, a bit of recent history Bush neglected to mention at Israel's parliament. That Israel and the Palestinian Authority have chiefly him to thank for Hamas having a degree of political legitimacy it otherwise would not have had. After all, they point out, it was the Bush administration that "twisted the arm" of Israeli and Palestinian leaders against considerable resistance and skepticism on their part to allow the Palestinian militant group Hamas to run in 2006 Palestinian elections that Hamas won -- an outcome to its policy interventions that the Bush administration once again failed to anticipate.

"It never occurred to them, as in Iraq, that the two goals – regime change and democracy – may not work together," Jerusalem-based writer Gershom Gorenberg recently told me. "That psychology left them open to the idea that on the one hand they can have their cake and eat it too. You could get rid of Arafat, have democratic elections and you will get Republicans." Or so the Bush administration wished.

“And the Israelis completely didn’t agree,” Gorenberg added.

Such Israeli (and Palestinian moderates') skepticism about the Bush administration's naive and wishful thinking that elections would swiftly topple militants proved correct. "This administration, which says it has a principled approach [of not talking to terrorists], is the very administration that in 2006 twisted the arm of the Israeli government and of the Palestinian authorities and forced them both to accept Hamas as a participant in the elections," former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told me. "When the result of the election was a surprise, the immediate reaction was, 'Okay, We don’t like this result, so we’ll change the rules.' ... The administration is inconsistent in its approach."

And equally inconsistent in the case of Lebanon, Halevy adds. "By the way, the Bush administration was inconsistent on elections in Lebanon as well. In the past, there had been a golden rule that you cannot go to the ballot box with a gun in your belt. This rule was waived twice at [the urging of the Bush administration] in the Palestinian case and also waived in the case of Lebanon."

Furthermore, Bush's military commanders and diplomats have been talking with the guys with guns quite a bit in Iraq in recent months -- and arming them too, Halevy notes. "The administration has been flexible and has been able to be flexible, when it came to Iraq," Halevy says. "When they ascertained that the only viable option to turn events in Iraq at least partially if not entirely in a different direction, they went to Anbar province. They contacted people close to Saddam Hussein, who had been acting against the US presence in iraq, who had been carrying out operations against American servicemen and causing American deaths, and they made a deal with them. And they found these warriors in Anbar province very effective and very good and it was an excellent thing to do."

"Why do the rules of Iraq not apply here?" Halevy asks. "If they can be pragmatic in Iraq, why are they ideological in Palestine?"

Good question. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

I asked one of Israel's premier Iran experts, David Menashri, what he thought of Bush's speech at the Knesset. He said he thought Bush was trying to show solidarity with Israel, where many officials at least publicly describe an Iran led by Ahmadinejad with a nuclear weapon as an existential threat to their country. By using the "Munich" comparison, in other words, Bush was symbolically telling Israel that he shared that view.

Menashri supports the US trying to dialogue with Iran, although he's not optimistic such negotiations would succeed. Halevy also supports talking with Iran, and told me that if the US does so, Israel has to be in some way at the table, since the issues involved so impact Israel's vital national security interests. (Incidentally, Halevy says Israel is indestructable, for a variety of reasons, alluding to its own nuclear arsenal, but not only. He also believes negotiations with Iran can work to persuade it to abandon its nuclear program).

Quite a lot of chutzpah for Bush to characterize the likes of Halevy and his colleagues who have spent decades in the trenches trying to promote their nation's security and who advocate engagement as Nazi appeasers.

Embryos Up for Personhood in Colorado, Even the Gay Ones?

Lots of big news the last couple of days. The polar bear apparently has the right to protection under the Endangered Species Act. California same-sex couples can, in fact, marry. McCain has amended his Iraq 100-year-plan to say most troops will out by 2013. Hell, we may even tax porn. But amid all of the news of progress have you heard this one?

On Tuesday the group Colorado for Equal Rights submitted 131,245 signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would define a fertilized embryo as a person. Voters will decide on the measure that would amend the state Constitution to extend a fertilized embryo equal rights and protections. It would define "any human being from the moment of fertilization" as a "person" for purposes of the state's constitutional provisions "relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law."

Never mind that the 'moment of fertilization' is not a medical definition and is almost impossible to determine. Consensus from women's rights organizations is that the amendment would be catastrophic for women and their ability to determine their own futures. Doctors and legal rights experts say the amendment could trigger governmental investigations into miscarriages, restrict in-vitro fertilization by couples trying to conceive, and could limit birth-control methods.

And to those hundred thousand-plus Coloradoans who endorsed the measure into being, if they so passionately believe in equal rights, what about the gay embryos? Equality still fair game? Just a thought.

And Now, the Honeymoon

Most people aren't alive for their parents' wedding day, but I was. The date was February 16, 2004, four days after Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that San Francisco would issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples. My parents had been together for 24 years at that point, so it was natural for them to question the value of a piece of paper when the test of time had already validated their relationship. But when the right to marry presented itself four years ago, they jumped on it.

With their friends Frank and John, my moms drove two hours from their home in Monterey to the majestic steps of San Francisco's city hall. That first day, the line of elated couples waiting to be married wrapped around the building, more couples than city officials had time to handle, and so they came back at 6am the next day and stood in line for 13 hours. Cars drove by honking in support, restaurants brought beverages and food to the waiting masses, strangers dropped off flowers and balloons, and cheers erupted each time a set of newlyweds came through city hall's golden doors. And then, what began as a historic event televised around the world became a wholly personal moment for my family. I listened on the phone from Atlanta as my moms exchanged their vows. (Because we'd had no notice of Mayor Newsom's bold move and because no one knew how long the opportunity would last, I didn't have enough time to fly home for the occasion.)

My moms came to visit me a few weeks later for what they dubbed as their "honeymoon." They were like two teenagers in love for the first time. And let me tell you, they made sure everyone knew it was their honeymoon: They told our waiters, my co-workers, and anyone else who would listen. The official acknowledgment given to them by the city of San Francisco was more meaningful than they or I had ever imagined it would be.

This morning, when the California Supreme Court handed down its decision to overturn a 2000 ballot measure that banned gay marriage, I called my moms to deliver the good news. They were thrilled, and immediately started planning their next wedding ceremony—which they'll need to have, because a court in August 2004 nullified their first marriage. This time, they said, I would be there to give them both away.

For a few hours after the news broke, the Mother Jones' staff was abuzz with comments. Then came an email from one editor: "Great news, but you know this'll get conservatives to the polls if McCain doesn't." It reminded me of when one of my mothers woke up to the Monterey Herald's front page headline just after the 2004 presidential elections: "Gay Marriage Lost Election for Democrats". She was devastated. As if Bush's reelection wasn't bad enough, now she felt betrayed by her party. It's ironic that today's decision comes six months before Californians will vote for a new president, and also on a second gay marriage ban. The initiative, which would amend California's Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage, has received 1.1 million signatures—all but guaranteeing it a spot on November's ballot. The similar 2000 measure, which the court ruled unconstitutional today, was approved by 61% of the popular vote.

Some say gay marriage will again be a wedge issue that galvanizes the conservative base this fall, while others are skeptical that it will have the same traction it did four years ago. Either way, when it comes down to it, equal rights should always trump politics in my book. Today's California Supreme Court decision will be on the books far longer than McCain, Clinton, or Obama will be president. And for my family, one candidate's campaign promises don't come close to matching the promise encapsulated in the court's words: The "right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own—and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family—constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society."

—Celia Perry

Students Think Liberating Lab Animals Is Lame

The results of our student activism survey are already flooding in, and respondents—both current and former students—believe the lamest form of activism is liberating lab animals (second place: tree sitting). Don't miss your chance to chime in.

We're still looking for the lowdown on student activism, past and present. Been arrested and regret it? Would your school win the prize for silliest student protest? Was student activism way better when you were in school? Is your cause unique?

Help us put together our best student activism roundup yet. It's our 15th annual! Check out last year's. Answer a few quick questions and you could win some cool prizes.

Click here to begin!

Reliable Replacement Warheads Rejected by House

Back in April, I reported on the White House's back-door attempts to secure funding for a new generation of nuclear weapons—a missile called a Reliable Replacement Warhead. Well, Congressional Democrats weren't fooled by the administration's efforts and today the House Armed Services committee zeroed out funding for the project in the Defense Authorization bill.

Ten million dollars for the project still remain in the Senate's version of the bill, which will be reconciled with the House legislation later this year.

McCain Sounding Obama-esque

Here's a portion of that speech that David mentioned earlier today. It's kind of hard to tell which presumptive nominee is speaking.

If I am elected President, I will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. I will listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse. I will seek the counsel of members of Congress from both parties in forming government policy before I ask them to support it. I will ask Democrats to serve in my administration. My administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability. I will hold weekly press conferences. I will regularly brief the American people on the progress our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered. When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them. I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.

A lot of this is admirable (who knows if it'll actually happen, but it's nice to hear), especially the last line about taking direct questions from the rank and file of Congress. But if McCain wants to "set a new standard for transparency," he might ask his wife to release her tax returns. That would meet the current standard of transparency.

Update: I would also add that the cause of political reconciliation isn't furthered by implying your opponent is a Nazi appeaser.

McCain to Social Conservatives: No Soup for You!

John McCain today gave a big speech to describe what the United States would look like in 2013, after four years of a McCain presidency. Boldly and confidently peering into that future, McCain sees that "the Iraq war has been won" and that "Iraq is a functioning democracy." The threat from the Taliban has been "greatly reduced," and Osama bin Laden has been captured or killed. Iran and North Korea no longer hold nuclear ambitions. Sudan is at peace. The United States economy is growing robustly. Government spending has been cut. New free trade agreements have led to prosperity at home and abroad. Public education is "much improved." Health care "has become more accessible to more Americans." The threat from global warming has declined. The border is secured. There have been no terrorist attacks against the United States.

In other words, a fairy tale.

In this address, McCain does not explain how he has managed to orchestrate all these miracles. It's nothing but a wish list. And in the news coverage of the speech, the media have focused on McCain's quasi-promise to win the Iraq war and withdraw most U.S. troops by 2013--which is certainly easier said than done. But what's most interesting about this speech is what's not in it: abortion and gay marriage.

Regarding these two top issues for social conservatives--many of whom have long been wary of McCain--the presumptive Republican nominee says nary a word. Looking into his crystal ball, he envisions no outlawing of abortion or gay marriage during his years in the White House. He doesn't even foresee an effort to do anything on these fronts. The closest he comes to addressing the priorities of the fundamentalist right is to note the appointment (and confirmation!) of federal judges "who understand that they were not sent there to write our laws but to enforce them." This is, of course, code language for judges willing to overturn Roe v. Wade and to hold the line against gay marriage. But McCain's de rigueur right-wing boilerplate hardly substitutes for a vision of a McCain-governed America in which abortion is criminalized and gay marriage banned across the land.

Any self-respecting social conservative should be enraged. On a day when the California Supreme Court has overturned the gay marriage ban, McCain's speech is insult added to injury. It goes to show that those leaders of the religious right who were suspicious of McCain were right to fret that McCain was only a fair-weather--that is, primary season--friend. In his future, their chief concerns are not even worth mentioning.

CA Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

The California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage today in a ruling that will make California the second and largest state to allow gay and lesbian couples join together in matrimony.

On the steps of the courthouse in Sacramento, Stuart Gaffney and his partner John Lewis, among 19 plaintiffs in the case, were ecstatic. "I'm feeling just complete joy," Gaffney said. "Rarely is a legal decision so romantic, but this one means John and I can now be newlyweds after 21 years together."

Gaffney and Lewis were among thousands of couples married by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 in a move that was immensely popular in San Francisco but inspired a conservative voter backlash across the country that many people blamed for hurting the electoral prospects of Sen. John Kerry. That August a California court annulled the marriages and appeals have been winding though state courts ever since.

Gaffney and Lewis, star plaintiffs in the case, have compared their fight for legal status to that faced by Gaffney's parents, whose marriage in the 1950s was not recognized in Missouri under the state's strict anti-miscegenation law. Gaffney's father was Irish and his mother was Chinese. California's landmark 1948 Perez v. Sharp ruling was nation's first to overturn such laws and had become a key precedent in the gay marriage case. More broadly, the case rested upon the California constitution's promise of individual liberty, due process, and equal protection under the law.

Although the ruling doesn't validate the 2004 marriages performed by Newsom, and conservative groups have vowed to push for another ballot measure to change the California constitution to specifically ban gay marriage, for now, gay and lesbian couples are in the clear to tie the knot. When Gaffney's mother called him today, she immediately asked, "When is your wedding day?"

"We are going to get married as soon as we can because we have waited long enough," Gaffney said. "But we are going to get married with our friends and families." He paused, fighting back tears. "I'm still just sort of floating from it," he said.

The mood was jubilant that afternoon in San Francisco, where city hall had joined the case as a plaintiff. After a triumphant press conference outside the Mayor's office, same-sex couples milled about and embraced beneath the rotunda as the PA system piped in love songs. "We were on complete pins and needles, very pointy pins and needles," said Jennifer Pizer a plaintiffs lawyer on the case. "And then we got the decision and started tearing up.

"For many of us this isn't just an exercise of the law, it's about our lives--whether we're good enough and our love is good enough." Pizer could not immediately say whether she'd now be getting married. "My partner of nearly 24 years has said yes," she added, "but I should probably talk to her first before I talk to anyone else."

The marriage party could be short lived, however. Conservative church groups have already collected 1.1 million signatures in favor of the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. If the state determines that 694,354 of those signatures are valid, the proposed amendment will qualify for the November ballot. Unlike Proposition 22, the gay marriage ban that was overturned today, the new ballot measure would be immune to court challenge. The question is how many among the 63 percent of Californians who'd supported Prop. 22 have changed their views toward gay marriage since the measure passed in 2000. "I think California has come a long, long way since then," Pizer said. "I think it changed a lot of people's minds to see how much it meant to couples to be able to marry in San Francisco."

As coincidence would have it, Robert and Amy McHale, a white and Asian couple from New York, had shown up in the city hall rotunda today in wedding dress and tuxedo, completely unaware that the Supreme Court had just passed down its landmark ruling. They'd come instead to snap wedding photos. As they stood on the granite steps bathed in the strobe of flash bulbs, a lesbian activist approached to congratulate them. "Understand that you are getting married on such a blessed and auspicious day," she said.

Robert McHale's thoughts on gay marriage? "Sure, why not?" he said. "That's fine if that makes people happy. We are all about happiness."

GOP Can't Win Down Ticket by Tying Dems to Obama

Not in the South, anyway. As you probably know, Democrat Travis Childers won a special election on Tuesday in a conservative Mississippi congressional district, scoring a big upset for the Dems that many political observers say is a sign of Democratic victories to come. The Republicans botched one part of the strategy, apparently (from the Times, via the Stump):

But the Republican strategy of trying to link Mr. Childers to more liberal national Democratic figures fell short, as it did in Louisiana. Indeed, voters here were bombarded by advertisements equating Mr. Childers with Senator Barack Obama, a tactic intended to turn conservative whites away from Mr. Childers.... [It] may have helped Mr. Childers more than it hurt him, as campaign aides reported heavy black turnout, heavier than in a vote three weeks ago when he came within 400 votes of winning.

"I like what Childers was saying: he was more truthful and down to earth," said Mary Shelton, an African-American who had just voted for him at the Yalobusha County courthouse here.

And Mr. Childers's association with the party that might nominate Mr. Obama didn't hurt either. "We need a change, we really do," Ms. Shelton said.

Mr. Childers won Yalobusha, having lost it in the April vote.

And even in this district, it is not difficult to find conservative voters dissatisfied with the administration in Washington. "There's a lot of people that are mad at Bush," said Jim Jennings, a retired businessman, sitting at a table with Republican voters at a barbecue restaurant in DeSoto County.

Obama Attack Vid: Flag Flag Flllaaaaag

I guess when you don't have any actual arguments for why you should be in charge, you rely on symbolism instead.

Here's my solution. Obama changes his name to Barack Flag Pin Obama. He automatically convinces everyone of his patriotism, and eliminates the most problematic part of his name. From then on, whenever someone says, "Why don't you wear a flag pin?" Obama can respond, "I am Flag Pin!"

Why the John Edwards Endorsement Doesn't Matter That Much

There is a lot of talk among political observers that John Edwards' better-late-than-never endorsement of Barack Obama will help Obama among working-class (read: white) voters, as Edwards extends his populist mantle to the near-presumptive Democratic nominee. Such talk is overstated, for Obama won't need Edwards in the fall to prove he's the populist in the race. With John McCain as the Republican nominee, Obama will have little competition in the most-populist category.

Too many commentators are, for the moment, still stuck in an Obama-versus-Clinton framework. That is so three-days-ago. The race is essentially over. Obama no longer needs to do better than Hillary Clinton among Democratic working-class voters in Democratic primaries. Clinton cannot overcome his lead in pledged delegates, and Obama has surpassed her in superdelegate commitments. (Edwards' endorsement is indeed one more signal that it's curtains for Clinton, and the handful of delegates pledged to him presumably will trot over to Obama's column.) So baring any unforeseen calamities or drama, Obama is it.

That means he no longer has to worry about having more populist appeal to Democratic voters than Clinton. His concern is McCain and attracting blue-collar and white voters in the general election against the Republican nominee. Sure, Edwards can help in that mission. But in some ways, this task is easier.

Clinton made a direct, populist-ish pitch to these hard-pressed voters: I will fight hard for you and promote and create government programs that will directly benefit you and your kids. Though Obama fiercely blasted special interests for corrupting government with political donations and lobbying efforts and called for health care reform, boosting education spending, and devoting billions of dollars to jobs creation programs, his message was less us-versus-them, as he told voters that we can achieve these changes by working together. Clinton promised to be a working-class champion (put aside whether she has been in previous decades); Obama vowed to lead a movement. It's no wonder that Clinton's approach resonated with folks who might feel disempowered and economically distressed (racial considerations aside).

In the fall, Obama will not be facing an opponent who makes such a populist case designed for working-class Americans. What McCain offers to voters worried about the economy is nothing but traditional Republican fare: calling for more tax cuts and railing against government regulations and spending. This recipe is rather discredited at the moment. In Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the Republicans in recent weeks decisively lost three special House elections in districts that were Republican strongholds--even after they tried to tag the Democratic candidates as Obama-lovin' liberals tied to Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The Republican brand--meaning the Republican message--is in tatters. The Republican Party is in crisis. (As has been widely noted and derided, the hapless House GOPers concocted a new slogan for the coming congressional elections--"the change you deserve"--that also happened to be the slogan for a popular antidepressant drug.)

This is not to say that McCain won't be able to appeal to working-class white voters. He's not likely to win them over on the Iraq war, which remains unpopular. Yet he may do so via personality and history--and by playing up his hyped-up independent streak, talking about guns, and pandering to social conservatives. Still, on economic matters of concern to working-class white voters, McCain--who has flip-flopped from opposing to supporting the Bush tax cuts for the well-to-do--will be at a distinct disadvantage. (In a recent Quinnipiac poll, Obama led McCain 47 to 40 percent. Among white voters, Obama trailed 47 to 40 percent.)

Having John Edwards at his side during the general election will help Obama to a limited degree. But that won't do much to populist-ize the likely Democratic nominee. Obama--as would practically any Democrat--will come across as a populist and working-class advocate not by campaigning with Edwards but by campaigning against McCain.

Sudan: An Example of Why Cindy McCain Must Release Her Tax Returns

John McCain has been critical of China for its willingness to do business in Sudan. "China needs Sudan's oil," he has said. "The politics of oil impede the global progress of our values, and restrains governments from acting on the most basic impulses of human decency."

Turns out it's not just China that ignores Sudan's humanitarian atrocities in order to make a profit.

Cindy McCain, whose husband has been a critic of the violence in Sudan, sold off more than $2 million in mutual funds whose holdings include companies that do business in the African nation.

The sale on Wednesday came after The Associated Press questioned the investments in light of calls by John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, for international financial sanctions against the Sudanese leadership.

Last year, at least four presidential candidates divested themselves of Sudan-related holdings.

According to McCain's personal financial disclosure, Cindy McCain's investments include two mutual funds — American Funds Europacific Growth fund and American Funds Capital World Growth and Income fund — that are listed by the Sudan Divestment Task Force as targets for divestment.

"Those have been sold as of today," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

The AP adds, "Cindy McCain is heiress to a Phoenix-based beer distributing company whose fortune is in the $100 million range." Who knows what other investments are in that $100 million? Are there connections between her money and John McCain's actions as a Senator? Between her investments and his political positions?

The answer may well be no. But the only way to find out for sure is for Cindy McCain to release her tax returns, which every president and first lady have done in recent memory. Most presidential candidates and their wives do it well before they take the White House. Cindy McCain has flatly refused to ever release her tax returns, a position that grows increasingly untenable with today's news.

May 14, 2008

Bush in Israel

President and Laura Bush attended an event in Jerusalem last night to celebrate sixty years of friendship between the US and Israel. The event was hosted by Israeli president Shimon Peres and honorary conference co-chairs Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, the Las Vegas casino mogul and conservative philanthropist and his Israeli physician wife. Among the evening's festivities, an interpretative dance number to "You've Got a Friend," Cold War style video interludes documenting US support to Israel at key moments since its creation, Israeli and Maryland children's choirs singing "Let It Be," and speeches by among others Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who is the target of a current corruption probe.

If Bush was looking for support in his belief that public opinion is fleeting but that history will be the ultimate judge of his presidency, he found it in spades last night here, where he is widely viewed as a determined leader who understood the terror threat and was willing to act to meet its challenge. Applause interrupted his speech -- replete with famliiar references to remaining steadfast against terror and advancing human liberty -- as well as the speeches of those paying tribute to him. Among others in attendance at the conference, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, former Clinton Middle East hand Dennis Ross, former Clinton era US ambassadors to Israel Martin Indyk and Daniel Kurtzer, an Obama advisor, former Czech president Vaclav Havel, former British prime minister and Quartet leader Tony Blair, Google's Sergei Brin and media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Though Bush was described as among the most supportive US presidents of Israel, some Israeli security officials have questioned not his good intentions toward their nation but the pragmatic outcomes of his policies, particularly as Hezbollah demonstrates its growing strength in Lebanon over the US-backed Siniora government and Hamas continues to launch rockets from Gaza into the town of Sderot and the city of Ashkelon. The Bush administration pushed Israel and Palestinian moderates to allow Hamas to run in 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections which Hamas then won, and it took over the Gaza strip last year.

Indeed, Bush's visit came a few hours after a Hamas rocket hit a shopping mall in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon Wednesday, wounding 38 people. Olmert seemed to indicate in his speech Tuesday night that sometime after Israel's sixtieth anniversary celebrations wrap up, Israel will launch intensified military operations in Gaza against Hamas, which controls it.

Security is intense here for Bush's visit, with whole sections of the city closed to traffic, armies of police patrolling the city center and conference area.

Bush addresses Israel's Knesset* and visits Masada today. He then heads to Saudi Arabia for a half day meeting, and then to Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on Saturday to meet with among others Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. The government of Egypt has been brokering indirect ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas, so far to little effect. Israel insists that any ceasefire agreement include a provision for Egyptian or international troops to patrol Gaza's 14 km border with Egypt, through which Israeli officials say Hamas is smuggling in Iranian made weaponry, including the Grad type rocket which hit Ashkelon yesterday. Israel also demands the return of an Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit kidnapped by Hamas in 2006. Hamas has apparently so far rejected those conditions.

*Update: Bush's address to Israel's parliament, the Knesset, was controversial back home for being so partisan - and for dissing some of the policies his own administration has been pursuing with Libya and North Korea. Time's Massimo Calabrese reports:

Today, in front of a supportive audience at the Israeli Knesset, Bush went right at Obama. He mocked those who "believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." [...] Today Bush called that approach "the false comfort of appeasement."

But the speed with which Obama responded to Bush's Knesset comments says something about his eagerness to lock horns with the President and the use his campaign is going to make of him in coming months. Bush was barely out of the Knesset before Obama's campaign went at him. "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released by the campaign.

“Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation’s history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round," responded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). "And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics. President Bush’s own actions demonstrate that he believes negotiations – at the right moment, under the right conditions and with the right leaders – can both show strength and produce results. He has relied on negotiations with North Korea and Libya, two state sponsors of terror.”

"This is bullshit, this is malarkey," Sen. Joseph Biden said. "This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement."

What's more, as several Israeli security officials have pointed out to me, it was the Bush administration that pushed Israeli and Palestinian leaders to let Hamas run in 2006 Palestinian elections that Hamas won, giving the group a degree of political legitimacy it might not otherwise have had. "This administration, which says it has a principled approach [of not talking to terrorists], is the very administration that in 2006 twisted the arm of the Israeli government and of the Palestinian authorities and forced them both to accept Hamas as a participant in the elections," former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told me. "When the result of the election was a surprise – by the way to Hamas itself – the immediate reaction was, 'Okay, We don’t like this result, so we’ll change the rules.'"

"The administration is inconsistent in its approach," Halevy continued.

Inconsistent, and as one observes the indisputable evidence of the much increased power of Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran during Bush's years in office, not very effective either.

John McCain and the Dictator Money Trail

John McCain will fire you for lobbying for Burma, but he'll still take your money.

Republican operatives Doug Davenport and Doug Goodyear were both quietly released from their duties with the McCain campaign this week when it was revealed that their Washington lobbying firm, DCI Group, had been paid $348,000 to represent Burma's repressive military junta in 2002. McCain's critics noted that top McCain aide Charlie Black has lobbied for authoritarian regimes as nasty or worse than Burma's, raising the question of whether McCain will cut ties with tainted figures only when it is politically expedient for him to do so.

There are other facts in the situation that may prove controversial. The two lobbyists for Burma were also donors to McCain. Doug Goodyear, DCI Group's chief executive and the man McCain had selected to run the GOP national convention, and his wife Carla donated $4,600 to McCain's presidential campaign and $2,500 to McCain's Straight Talk America PAC. Carla Goodyear also donated $1,000 to McCain's 2004 Senate reelection bid. Doug Davenport, the head of DCI Group's lobbying arm and a former regional campaign manager for McCain, and his wife Kelley contributed $6,900 to McCain's presidential campaign and $3,500 to his PAC.

Other DCI Group employees have donated $2,000 to McCain. All told, DCI Group employees and their spouses have sent $20,500 to McCain. McCain fired the two DCI Group executives from his campaign, but will he return their contributions? We called McCain's press office to ask and have not yet received a response. Can it be that McCain is willing to separate himself from lobbyists working for Burma but will cling to their cash?

ACLU Releases New Detainee Docs

The ACLU got its hands on a bunch of previously withheld documents from the State Department, DoJ, and military officials regarding the treatment of detainees. Of note are a summary (.pdf) of investigations into four detainee deaths (including one where an interrogator bashed in a detainee's head with a stove) and a detailed memorandum (.pdf) from Brittain Mallow, the head of Gitmo's Criminal Investigation Task Force, that spells out in minute detail exactly which interrogation techniques are legal—something the Bush Administration has generally found itself unable to do. According to Mallow, acceptable methods include prolonged interviews, interrupted sleep (as opposed to deprivation), deception, incentives, and props (think photos, not stoves). Unacceptable methods include threats, promises that cannot be kept, unnecessary discomfort, and sensory deprivation.

There's still some gray area—although the prohibition on "discomfort" includes "any form of physical contact designed to cause physical discomfort," it's not clear whether it extends to physical abuse. Nonetheless, Mallow's specificity is a welcome respite from the legal bobbing and weaving we've come to expect from administration lackeys.

(h/t Glenn Greenwald)

—Casey Miner

Not Quite Ringing

NARAL's endorsement of Barack Obama sounds less than enthused:

"Today, we are proud to put our organization’s grassroots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Sen. Obama." — Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America

With NARAL this afternoon and Edwards possibly coming this evening... oh wait, I forgot. The race is already over.