(Sung to the tune of "The Twelve Days of Christmas")

On the first day of Christmas
Republicans told me
Obama's born in another country.

On the second day of Christmas
Republicans told me
Gay marriage is like box turtle love and
Obama's born in another country

On the third day of Christmas
Republicans told me
Thank the one percent
Gay marriage is like box turtle love and
Obama's born in another country

On the fourth day of Christmas
Republicans told me
We don't torture
Thank the one percent
Gay marriage is like box turtle love and
Obama's born in another country

On the fifth day of Christmas
Republicans told me
Tax cuts more revenues bring
We don't torture
Thank the one percent
Gay marriage is like box turtle love and
Obama's born in another country

On the sixth day of Christmas
Republicans told me
Half the people no taxes paying
Tax cuts more revenues bring
We don't torture
Thank the one percent
Gay marriage is like box turtle love and
Obama's born in another country

On the seventh day of Christmas
Republicans told me
Government Reagan was trimming
Half the people no taxes paying
Tax cuts more revenues bring
We don't torture
Thank the one percent
Gay marriage is like box turtle love and
Obama's born in another country

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (890)

PLAYS: (12124)

Embed

Liberals, as the tired conservative slander goes, hate America. This, of course, is nonsense. Liberals simply want to deliver on the national promise of a more perfect union, to shorten the distance, as Bruce Springsteen aptly put it, "between American ideals and American reality."

But if the past three Republican presidential debates are any indicator, it would appear that conservatives hate Americans. Or more precisely, some Americans. As audiences of the faithful booed an active duty U.S. soldier because he is gay and cheered the deaths of executed prisoners and the uninsured alike, the GOP White House hopefuls on stage remained silent. All because, it seems, they had to. Sadly, that complicity is apparently now a requirement to lead a Republican Party in which demonizing gays, minorities, immigrants and Muslims - that is, hating Americans - is increasingly a centerpiece of its politics.

For his part, Weekly Standard editor and conservative strategist Bill Kristol summed up Thursday night's GOP debate debacle in a single word - "Yikes":

Reading the reactions of thoughtful commentators after the stage emptied, talking with conservative policy types and GOP political operatives later last evening and this morning, we know we're not alone. Most won't express publicly just how horrified--or at least how demoralized--they are...

The e-mails flooding into our inbox during the evening were less guarded. Early on, we received this missive from a bright young conservative: "I'm watching my first GOP debate...and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!" As the evening went on, the craziness receded, and the demoralized comments we received stressed the mediocrity of the field rather than its wackiness.

But Kristol's discomfort was with his party's messengers, not its message. And for years, that message has been unchanged. On this Republican Animal Farm, some Americans are more equal than others.

That was clear during the 2008 election. Before Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) said - and then denied saying - "liberals hate real Americans," the sound bite was firmly established as a GOP talking point. A few days before, McCain spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer explained that northern Virginia was not the "real Virginia." GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin amplified on the point during an event in North Carolina:

"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."

To be sure, the Republicans' real Americans aren't Muslims. Long before Mitt Romney and Herman Cain first announced they would not appoint Muslim Americans to their cabinet, Republican leaders and their amen corner were calling for their profiling, internment and worse.

Continue reading »

As Talk Show Sunday bores the heck out of me with its meandering madness, here's something that's sure to brighten your day.

Think Progress:

Marriage equality becomes legal in New York today as hundreds of gay and lesbian couples prepare to tie the knot — the first, Kitty Lambert and Cheryle Rudd, taking their vows just seconds after midnight in Niagara Falls. In New York City, all 823 same-sex and opposite-sex couples who entered a special lottery have “won” the chance to the tie the knot in one of the five boroughs and officials “from more than a dozen cities and towns from Buffalo to Brookhaven said they would open their offices to issue marriage licenses on Sunday, and more than 100 judges across the state have volunteered to officiate at the couples’ weddings on the spot.”

NY 1 reports on the story of Phyllis Siegal, 76, and Connie Kopelov, 84, who have been together for 23 years and become the first same-sex couple to legally marry in the city. “It was just so amazing. It’s, it’s, it’s the only way I can describe it,” Siegal said. “I lost my breath and a few tears and it’s indescribable.”

"I now pronounce you married." Words to be cherished if that is your choice.

Because I did some work on the 3 LGBT-specific ballot initiative campaigns last November in Maine, Washington State, and Kalamazoo, MI, some of my friends and colleagues have been asking what's on the ballot this fall that directly impacts LGBT people. I checked around and fortunately, there's little in the way of domestic partnership ordinances, constitutional amendments, non-discrimination ordinances, and so forth (with the exception of this inclusive non-discrmination ordinance in Bowling Green, OH).

But I've been meaning to do a piece on what is at stake, because there is a lot in terms of candidates that affect the trajectory of LGBT rights. There are multiple important contests, but from where I stand, key races include:

• Steve Pougnet, the Mayor of Palm Springs, California, who besides being a strong progressive, would be the first openly gay married dad elected to Congress (he and his partner have two adorable young children). He's also running against the odious Mary Bono Mack, whose veneer of moderation was finally shredded by her vote against DADT repeal, refusal to take a stance on Prop 8, refusal to co-sponsor or commit to voting for repeal of DOMA and passage of ENDA. More on Pougnet and that race can be found via this tag at my home blog, OpenLeft.com.
• Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer, who as I've written about here and here at C&L, were one of just 14 Senators to oppose DOMA and are outspoken advocates on LGBT rights generally, going back to Boxer's work on HIV/AIDS funding in the early 1980s when few in Congress would touch what was then called "gay cancer".
• New York State Senate races, where in my home state we fell 8 votes short of enshrining equality for same-sex couples last winter. Among the 8 "no" votes, two have fallen in Democratic primaries to pro-equality Assemblymen, and there are multiple other general election races coming up where we would pick up pro-equality votes or defend them. My colleague Paul at Gay City News has a great summary here.
• Iowa, where 3 judges who ruled in favor of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples are on the ballot. National Organization for Marriage is launching a bus tour and has dumped millions into defeating them to send a message. One Iowa is doing key work on this race.
• Five gubernatorial races, the first being in California, as the winner there may serious impact in terms of whether the case has "standing" at the 9th Circuit- an issue that could bring the whole case down. The other three are states where it is very likely that equality supporters have the votes to enact major legislation- the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Rhode Island and Minnesota, and the recently-vetoed civil unions law in Hawaii. The latter two are where especially strong progressives Mark Dayton and Neil Abercrombie are the Democratic nominees. Last, Maine is important, where Libby Mitchell is the Democratic nominee and the opponent most likely to win if anyone but her does is terrible on LGBT equality. Since a new marriage bill would need to re-pass the Legislature and either be signed or not vetoed in light of last November's election, Libby's race is crucial.
• And finally is Kamala Harris (who I especially want to highlight), who is running for Attorney General of California and, along with Eric Schneiderman in my home state of New York, is one of two extremely strong, die-hard progressive Attorney General candidates to run this year.

Aside from hearing excellent things about Kamala from folks I trust over at Calitics and in various California progressive circles, I first was introduced to and wrote about Kamala over at Prop 8 Trial Tracker, a blog I sometimes guest on, when she and Stephanie Miller appeared in a CNN debate on same-sex marriage around the Prop 8 decision news (videos can be found in this post). What impressed me so much is how Kamala gets it as a straight ally- understands how to talk about equality, fundamental fairness, and what the law really says. She came at it like a seasoned pro who had been doing LGBT advocacy for years. There are a million people who could have taken her spot in that debate, and there are few I would have traded for Kamala.

Brave New Films, in partnership with PowerPAC, put together this great video below summarizing Kamala's commitment to equality and why her race is so important. Check it out.

Cross-posted at my home blog, OpenLeft.com

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional. Chris Hayes anchored Rachel Maddow's show and led off with this segment and interview with Martha Coakley.

We begin tonight with breaking news out of Massachusetts. A federal judge ruled that the federal government's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro decided that the defense of marriage act violates the fundamental principles of this nation.

With that, the judge made advocates of marriage equality very happy. One of the rulings involved seven couples and three widowers, all of whom who had been ineligible for the federal benefits that come with being lawfully wed thanks to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. That law required the federal government to ignore for federal purposes any marriage not between a man and women.

Same-sex wedded couples have no access to family health insurance, no social security survivor benefits, no joint filing of federal taxes.

There are two salient things about the ruling. The judge granted the plaintiffs what's known as summary judgment. Both sides filed their arguments and the judge decided he didn't need to hear another word.

The remarkable part of the ruling is the reason for it. In addition to ruling that DOMA violated the equal protection clause, he also invoked the Tenth Amendment, which Chris Hayes points out as the "holy grail" of conservative thought:

Judge Tauro saying the rationale strains credulity. Judge Tauro ruled that a key part of the bill violated a couple's right to equal protection. Judge Tauro also ruled for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, saying the federal government wrongly forced it to discriminate, writing "the federal government, by enforcing DOMA encroaches on the province of the state and offends the Tenth Amendment.

The tenth amendment is the "don't tread on me" amendment. It's the one conservatives are using to repeal health reform. It's Texas governor Rick Perry's favorite battle cry. Now, today, the Tenth Amendment means gay couples are one step closer to being treated equally in this country. Don't tread on them either.

I believe the Obama administration concurred with the judge's ruling, which is why the President issued his executive order protecting the rights of gay couples with regard to health care and ordered benefits extended to same-sex partners.

It does, however, place the DOJ in a weird position. Since the DOJ is responsible for enforcing the laws on the books, they're going to have to appeal this judge's ruling, even if the opinion inside the administration is that the judge was right. This is their duty under the law, and it carries the risk that this case will go to the Supreme Court for a final resolution. When it's appealed, don't assume the administration is against the ruling simply because DOJ is doing its job.

If it reaches the Supreme Court and Elena Kagan is confirmed, it affirms the wisdom of her refusal to answer the question about DOMA's constitutionality. Had she answered that question, she would have had to recuse herself from any proceedings that related to it, which would have left an unbalanced court to decide the case.

In any event, this is a landmark decision which sets a much faster pace for the eventual repeal of DOMA.

Instaputz: GOP misses Matlock, grumbles

A plain blog about politics: Will pre-passage extreme rhetoric have any effect at all on post passage impressions?

Right Wing Watch: Inexplicably, this guy is portrayed as a 'moderate' but he's really just another gay -hating, creationism-loving, extremist

The Political Carnival: Taxpayers are spending more than $40,000 per month on office space, staff, cell phones and a leased SUV for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, even as he works as a lobbyist for private corporations and foreign governments.

The Poor Man Institute: What about sunny Somalia?

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Hacktakular Cohen on sexism…The Flying Noon outdoes herself...Worst WaPo columnists of the zeros...Drum Roll, please...Moonie Times goes out with a joke...RIP Editor & Publisher...Your head will explode...Tucker Carlson scoop...Mainstream priorities...Oil and Vinegar!...Thomas Frank is right...Iraq Today...

All day long MSNBC has had on one pundit after another using the election in NY-23 as their springboard to make the case that the Dems are weak. There hasn't been a Democrat elected in that seat for more years than I've been alive, but that doesn't seem to enter into the equation.

The real story, though, is the fighting going on within the GOP. Rudy Giuliani was on with Chuck Todd and saying that the GOP will never win national elections if they never win in NY and California and so there needs to be a more inclusive Republican party. NY-23 didn't pan out that way for Rudy and he had to figure a way to lighten the blow. He said that Scozzafava was really a liberal and implied that he told Newt not to back her. He said the GOP needs moderates in the party, but they have to be 80% with them on issues and 20% against.

Of course Chuck Todd either couldn't be bothered to check Scozzafava's voting record and history on issues or decided to give Rudy the floor with no opposition because Scozzafava is not 80% liberal and 20% conservative, as Giuliani claimed.

The reality is this: When people say “don’t judge a book by its cover”, you should take their advice. The “cover” on Scozzafava was that she was this progressive Republican because she was backed by the WFP, supported a woman’s right to choose and has been a supporter of marriage equality. But the “book” tells the whole story (as it usually does). Scozzafava has a few positions that are more liberal (on abortion and marriage equality) but most of her positions are, at best, moderate-to-conservative. More often than not, however, she is a conservative.

This race is interesting to watch just to see the Villagers scurry around and try to make it a national story, but at least they could take the time and get their facts straight.

Duncan writes:

Tip Of The Spear

I'm not sure if the teabaggers will have much success in purifying their party, but it'll be interesting to see how the Villagers will react. My guess is they'll portray them as just folks exercising their patriotic duties, unlike those dirty fucking hippie traitors who ran a primary against the greatest man in America, Joe Lieberman.

The cable shows are covering these races as if the outcome will determine if Obama should step down as the president.

And very predictably, as the results come in, Doug Hoffman is claiming that ACORN is stealing the election.

At a short press availability in his campaign office here, NY-23 Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman said that a GOTV volunteer’s tires had been slashed, and all but blamed Democrats for the dirty trick. “There are reports that they’re bringing in the troops and they’re bringing in ACORN,” said Hoffman. “I think the Democrats are doing anything they possibly can to steal this election away from the 23rd district.”

--

Update: Anton Troianovski of the Wall Street Journal followed up with the Plattsburgh police on this, and was told that the volunteer actually damaged his tire on a broken bottle. I asked Hoffman campaign manager Dan Tripp about this–he said he had no comment because the campaign had not heard this yet.

They will blame ACORN for everything. Digby sees this through the prism of her brilliance.

I just hope that all the major networks and newspapers assign a special reporter to look into these accusations by the teabaggers' darling. Certainly Fox will be running with them and everyone knows that the mainstream press has been remiss by failing to follow up on such important Fox investigations.

It's actually a smart move. Since Fox has intimidated the pants off of the other news organizations, they will bend over backwards to be "fair and balanced" thus lending credence to the ACORN meme.

I just hope they don't end up accidentally arresting Hoffman's African American staffer in their zeal to reveal the ACORNs in the woodpile.

Even with cognitive dissonance this striking, they still think they've got a right to withhold civil rights from a whole segment of the population:

Maggie Gallagher's disdain for Marriage Equality New York board president Cathy Marino-Thomas was palpable. The feeling, we're guessing, was mutual. The two shared the stage at Hofstra University's “Day of Dialogue," and even outside the confines of a 30-second spot, Gallagher was still trafficking in misinformation. And eye rolls.

We do appreciate the debate over whether our "intolerance" for bigotry is, by definition, hate — of the very same variety we call out and despise daily on this website. That's Gallagher's position: By labeling Prop 8 supporters as advocates of hatred, we're being intolerant ourselves, showing no respect for a difference in viewpoints.

But what Maggie does not, and may never understand is the difference between agreeing to disagree, and actively endorsing discrimination against an entire group of people. For that, we cannot be tolerant. [..]

But here's the soundbite we're holding on to, as Maggie addresses Marino-Thomas: "[Your marriage] may be better, but it's not a marriage. … It's probably better than my marriage to hear you talk about it. I wouldn't talk about my marriage in such glowing terms."

It's so sad that someone who cannot speak well of their own marriage feels it's their right to fight to keep others from having that legal union.

On a related note, it's not a serious move so much as a political statement, but here in California, someone has decided to fight a real threat to the sanctity of marriage: the ability to divorce:

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen today authorized the backer of an initiative that would ban divorce to begin collecting signatures to put the proposed constitutional amendment before voters.

John Marcotte now has until March 22, 2010, to collect 694,354 signatures of registered voters in order to get the measure on the ballot next year. The proposal would change the California Constitution to "eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California."[..]:

ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings.

While I obviously don't want my rights taken away (not that I'm planning on divorcing my husband, mind you. He's stuck with me.), I do appreciate the sentiment behind it. My gay uncle's marriage does not harm my marriage, threatens no one else's relationship and it's a ludicrous argument to claim it does. However, the ease in which we may end marriages (one-third of all first marriages end within 10 years, according to the CDC) certainly does. If these wingnuts want to hold up marriage as the foundation of society, then put up or shut up.

(on loan from the Courage Campaign in Maine)

The Yes on 1 campaign just issued a "red alert" last night, raising their ad buy by $25,000 today.

I'm here in the No on 1 campaign boiler room (nerve center) and our coffers are dry after having invested in a field campaign to protect marriage equality second to none. We need to raise $50k on ActBlue today to counter their ad buy and expand our online ad buy to match their expansion. Jesse Connolly the No on 1 campaign manager just sent out an email to their list about it:

I wasn't going to come to you to ask for money again. We've asked so much, and you've dug deep and really come through.

Honestly, I wouldn't take my time away from managing our Get Out The Vote operation to send this email if it wasn't really important.

[snip]

With the money we have now, we simply can't counter their arguments on TV.

You and I have both invested a lot in this campaign. I won't-- I can't-- let them win this because we couldn't come up with the last $25,000 $50,000 in the final 36 hours.

We can't let Yes on 1 win the airtime war with their misleading, and factually inaccurate ads.

We can't let Yes on 1 lie to Maine voters about schools and teachers and children and same-sex couples in Maine.

We need to stand up and match every one of their lies with an ad of our own, that explains that marriage equality won't do anything to families but protect all of them.

And I need you to help. Can you come through one last time and give what you can to help us finish this campaign with a win?

Not much more I can add to that. We wouldn't be asking if we didn't really need it. I would be writing a "please help us make calls" blog post and we would be sending GOTV emails, not asking you for money.

I know the Blue America community has dug deep, but can you do it once again? We are 0-30 on marriage equality races. We can win this one, but we need your help.

Philly2Philly: This post is from June, but we thought the White House needed a reminder that Fox News won the right to LIE TO THE PUBLIC in a 2003 appellate court decision.

Gin and Tacos: Wall Street is Too Clever by Half.

Race Wire: “Progressive” cities aren’t red or blue, but another color entirely: white.

If you haven't heard Philip Spooner's wonderful speech on marriage equality yet, don't miss it.

Tom Dispatch: We can win in Afghanistan with 10 years of $5 billion a month. No, really.