The reaction to the George Zimmerman verdict was all too predictable. The Outrage Machine was queued and ready to go, no matter what the verdict.
Those looking for “justice” (in the grand sense of right vs wrong) are angry. A self-appointed vigilante and cop wannabe went looking for trouble and when he found more trouble than he was looking for, his solution was a gun. Had Zimmerman followed any of the basic rules of neighborhood watch (no weapons, clearly marked clothing, cooperate with law enforcement) Trayvon Martin would be alive today and no one would know about this pathetic little dough-boy who, according to his trainer, had so few physical skills he could barely clinch a fist. But he had his gun, and with it a false sense of physical courage and a warped sense of entitlement.
However, the legal system is not set up to discern right from wrong. It will deliver “justice” in only the narrowest terms of criminal liability, a liability that is strictly constrained by specific statute, rules of evidence, and burden of proof. Those constraints are what protects us all from show trials, kangaroo courts, and oppressive and whimsical government power. In that sense, the system worked. The prosecution failed to meet its burden. The self-appointed neighborhood protector and the nemesis of fucking punks everywhere goes free. Get that dough-boy a cape and a movie deal.
But the people taking to the streets in outrage, I have a few questions.
If you are pissed off with the verdict, did you want a show trial/kangaroo court? If the outcome of the proceedings are pre-ordained, it is not really a trial, is it? Shall we dispense with the rules, proceedings and the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”? What happens if you ever find yourself in the dock?
If you have determined on your own, without benefit of a trial, that Zimmerman is guilty, are you not as guilty as Zimmerman himself for taking the law into your own hands? Vigilantism for me, but not for thee.
We accept election results that we do not like—this is what saves us from revolution every election cycle. We need to accept jury verdicts that we do not like–this will save us from mob rule.
Short of that, the people in the streets must be honest with themselves and the rest of us. You are interested in revenge, not justice.
The decisions of the Supreme Court on marriage equality have sent the right wing to the edge of the apocalypse. Listening to this crowd, one would think that this is the end of all we hold dear—including the Republic, the American way of life, the Constitution, and any notion we might have had about our fundamental freedoms.
Over at Concerned Women for America, they are reaching for the smelling salts. Mario Diaz opines on the Court’s decision not to uphold California’s Proposition 8:
The Court’s opinion is just as significant as a decision on the merits would have been, if not more, as they struck a heavy blow at Democracy itself. The bottom line is that the vote of the millions of Californians who voted to preserve marriage as the union between one man and one woman was invalidated. The will of the people is, once again, frustrated by unelected judges.
Wherever Mr. Diaz got his legal training, he must have missed the Marbury vs. Madison, judicial review business, to say nothing of the long held legal principal of standing. Since the opponent of Proposition 8 could not demonstrate how they would be harmed by its demise, other than basic bigoted animus towards gay people, they had no business in court to begin with.
And then there is poor Peggy Nance, the chief ramrod for Concerned Women for America. In her near-hysteria, she proclaims the end of representative democracy as the Supreme Court loses credibility:
In Hollingsworth, the Proposition 8 case, five Justices have just given effective veto power to a few privileged individuals over the more than seven million Californians who voted to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman. In doing so, they destroy the initiative measure process, the principal purpose of which is to override the actions or inactions of elected representatives who are not listening to ‘we the people.’ Now it is in the hands of those who do not want the law to defend it. Even the liberal Supreme Court of California had ruled in favor of standing for the Proposition 8 proponents. Think about that. The Supreme Courts stands to the left of the California Supreme Court.
The horror. It gets worse:
While the justices sit in their high chairs, these decisions will have very real-life consequences for American families, especially as it relates to our religious liberties. Those who hold a Biblical view of marriage can expect much persecution from the government in the years to come. In addition the thirty-eight states that have affirmed the traditional definition of marriage can expect to be dragged into future courts. The Justices have thrust us into another life-long battle for religious freedom and a bitter dispute for truth, just as they did with Roe.
Throw the Christians to the lions!
Neither Mario nor Peggy seemed to have such alarm over the Supreme Court gutting the Voter Rights Act just the day before. Overturning the will of the people and judicial activism are evil only when you do not get your way, apparently.
The people of the National Organization for Marriage are flummoxed by the fact that the Supreme Court would rule against 52% of the California voters who passed Prop 8 in the first place. It seems they want to live in an America where civil liberties of minorities are put to popular referenda. An America where Jim Crow would still be the law of the land in the old Confederacy.
And of course, we have the self-appointed spokesmen for the Divine. Leaving aside the thorny question of if presuming to speak for the Divine is blasphemy itself, they have other problems.
Mike Huckabee: “Jesus wept”. Really Mike? How do you know this? The voices in your head tell you this, or was it Jesus Himself? Jesus was so concerned about homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular, that He never spoke a single word of it in the New Testament. I guess he was leaving it for 21st Century Pharisees to put words in His mouth.
Do you think Jesus wept when Mathew Sheppard was tied to a barbed wire fence and beaten to death for nothing more than being gay? I do not recall you having anything sanctimonious to say about that, Mike. But its gay marriage that breaks Jesus’ heart?
No roundup of the loony bin would be complete without checking in with Bryan Fischer. As usual, he does not disappoint. Speaking with Mat Staver of Liberty “University” (aka the Falwall College of Preachin’ and Prayin’) that Christians will be second class citizens and will suffer discrimination.
Bryan also says that the Supreme Court is “Supreme Court doing to us (presumably Christians) what the Nazis did to the Jews.
Right. How does that feel? So the intellectual construct is that unless they can single out a group for discrimination, they will be second class citizens! Down the rabbit hole we go!
Can someone text me when right-wing religious fanatics are carted off to the death camps? I’ll pop the corn.
Apparently, God has anointed His slate of Republican candidates for statewide office in Virginia later this year. And he could not have selected a more attractive bunch—especially if you believe that God is against women, gays, science or thinking people in general.
Starting with the top of the ticket, there is the charismatic golden boy of Republican politics, Ken Cuccinelli, candidate for Governor. Governor Bob “Ultrasound” McDonnell will be a hard act the follow, but I have no doubt that Cuccinnelli is up to the task.
Cuccinelli is not only fundamentally against science in general, but seems peeved at the precepts of academic freedom. In fact, he is not above attempting to intimidate academics who do not hew to the “approved” world view, especially on climate change. Catholic Church, meet Galileo. Taliban, meet anyone who has ever read a book, or had an unorthodox thought
The Republican brand is marketed as a “small government” philosophy. Cuccinelli talks as big as anyone on the limited government jihad.
But Ken has a curious definition of limited government, especially when it comes to certain social issues that have gotten under his skin. He wants a small government, but a government large enough to regulate and monitor the private sex lives of Virginia’s citizens and requiring teenagers to report to their parents whenever they seek information on STDs. He also advises school administrators to confiscate and search student’s cell phones on the mere suspicion of sexting, and he wants universities to exclude from their anti-discrimination policies sexual orientation and gender identity.
And everyone knows that global warming is a hoax. That is, except for all scientists who are not fringe crackpots, and Ken Cuccinelli.
On women’s issues, he has a near perfect record. He was one of three AGs in the entire country to oppose the Violence Against Women Act. He opposes abortion even in the case of rape, incest, or to preserve the life of the mother. He is against funding for Planned Parenthood, which would cut off access to vital health care for thousands of poor women. And then there is the famous flip-flop on medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking legal abortion services (he apparently changed his mind when he realized what this issue would do to his national aspirations. But we know what he believes). War on women? What war on women?
A true small government libertarian who has an approach to governance that could have been written by Mullah Omar himself.
Moving down the ticket, there is the theocrat Bishop Jackson, the Republican choice for Lieutenant Governor. According to Bishop Jackson, Planned Parenthood is worse than the Ku Klux Klan (presumably because the Klan never offered mammograms or screening for cervical cancer. Or something.
Bishop Jackson has big, loud opinions and he does not seemed burdened by evidence, or what most of us would call “facts”. Some of his pearls of wisdom include the “Muslim sensibilities” of President Obama, the President’s “Communist and collectivist way of thinking”, and the “direct connection” between homosexuality and pedophilia. I guess if the good Bishop says it, it must be true! Evidence and science be damned! Who needs facts when you have belief?
The lollapalooza of weapons grade stupidity is his belief that the unamended version of the Constitution was an anti-slavery manifesto. Especially the part that counts African American slaves as 3/5’s of a person. Maybe he took history instruction from Michelle Bachman because he certainly did not learn that as a student at Harvard.
And gays are “ikky”.
Saving the best for last. By best, I mean worst. Completing the lunatic trifecta, there is the candidate for Attorney General, Mark Obenshain. Mr. Obenshain is noted mostly for introducing a bill in the Virginia legislature that would have required women to report miscarriages to the police. Or go to prison.
There is nothing to add to this. Res ipsa loquitur.
So there you have your slate of candidates. God approved. Evangelical approved. Taliban approved. Set your watches back a hundred years.
Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.
–François, duc de La Rochefoucauld. (1613–1680)
Over the last few months, Republicans have shown plenty of vice, not much virtue, but enough homage to choke a horse. By now, this should not surprise anyone. What is surprising is how transparent and shameless they are.
Unless you have been through a tornado, it is almost impossible to imagine what the citizens of Moore, Oklahoma are facing. We expect the elected representatives of the region to do their jobs and lobby for Federal assistance to help relieve the suffering and help the community get back on its feet. This is our tradition as Americans, and we have done this for a long time, and we should always do it.
The Senators from Oklahoma, Inhofe and Coburn, are at the front of the line to get aid for their state. But not too long ago, when a natural disaster devastated the Northeast, both of these Senators voted against the bill to provide relief to the blue states.
Senator Inhofe was especially breath-taking in his naked, and frankly pathetic attempt to justify his own hypocrisy, by claiming that Oklahoma relief would be different than Sandy relief.
Really, Senator? The only difference in the two situations is that one involves relief for your state, the other involves relief for someone else’s state. Perhaps we should have a law that stipulates that if you vote against disaster relief for others, you are ineligible for disaster relief for yourself.
Senator Coburn, on the other hand, has for some time working diligently to defund FEMA.
I wonder if Senator Coburn is advocating fully funded FEMA for Oklahoma, and defunded FEMA for everyone else.
While we are on the subject of Sandy relief, there is my favorite Senator, Ted “Tail Gunner” Cruz, who even has the good fortune of bearing a physical resemblance to Joe McCarthy.
It comes as no surprise that Tail Gunner opposed the bill to provide disaster relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy.
But a few weeks later, he was all for the Feds assisting the victims of an explosion in a fertilizer factory.
This hypocrisy is compounded by the fact that the explosion in Texas was not a natural disaster, but one born of man-made negligence, greed and good ‘ole private enterprise. Free markets and individual accountability anyone?
When an earthquake devastated Haiti, Reverend (and I use the term loosely) Pat Robertson said it was because 19th Century Haitians made a pact with the devil.
Although we have not heard from the good Reverend on the latest weather disaster in Oklahoma, a couple of years ago, he said that tornadoes happen because Christians did not pray enough. Or something. Not that it was God’s judgment for red state bible belters for being intolerant and hateful assholes. Of course not. Pray harder because the all powerful, all knowing Big Sky Daddy can’t hear you.
Stephan Fincher (R-TN) and Doug Malfa (R-CA) are both eloquent in their crusade to cut funding for food stamps. But both receive millions in Federal subsidies to support their privately owned farms.
Federal subsides for the poor are an affront to civilization, but Federal subsidies to the already rich are in the vital national interest. Especially if the “already rich” is you.
Hypocrisy is flooding out of the right wing like hot gasses flowing from Krakatoa. To paraphrase Lily Tomlin—so much homage, it’s hard to keep up.
So one more thing about the blowhards who think that their freedom is defined only by the number of firearms they possess, and who proclaim loudly that someday they have to use those firearms against the tyrannical Federal government:
Freedom loving citizens! Here are your defenders!
![1euohh.jpg]](https://bigdogdancer.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/1euohh-jpg.jpeg)
And here’s who they will be up against:
Anyone taking bets on how this ends?
This, from our friends at Wonkette:
The words shouted by John Wilkes Booth he as crashed to the stage of Ford’s theatre, just seconds after he put a bullet in the head of the 16th President of the United States…
Thus, always to tyrants.
We hear a lot of intemperate talk about resisting government tyranny, which is the rationale often put forward by the gun lobby, their NRA stooges, and the rubes they manipulate, for resisting any gun safety regulation. In fact, the solution to gun violence in 21st century America is more guns! They way they have carefully analyzed current events, is that when life in the United States becomes so unbearable, they will be able to take up arms and…do what? The what is never really made clear, as these geniuses cannot seem to think more than one move at a time. But I am sure they have more in mind than parading around brandishing their weapons trying to intimidate a gathering of mothers.
This comes to mind now because the NRA has wrapped up it’s convention, complete with fat guys with pony tails and bleeding Obama and ex-wife target mannequins. But the most interesting and disturbing thing about this gathering, was the unveiling of the new NRA president, James Porter, who strode on to the national stage spewing outrage, paranoia, spiced with no small amount of delusion. And plenty of talk about the patriotic folk resisting government tyranny.
On the subject of tyranny, Gentile Jim had this to say :
And I am one who still feels very strongly that that is our greatest charges (sic) that we could have today is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm, so when they have to fight for their country, they’re ready to do it.
Also when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they’re ready to do it. Also when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it.
Of course, this is the guy who refers to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. Nothing about slavery was aggressive, was it Jimbo? Take a moment and Google the term “Slave Breaker” and then see if you can prattle on about the “War of Northern Aggression”. And who was it that fired the first shot of the War of Northern Aggression? Oh, that’s right—South Carolina patriots firing on Fort Sumter. But I digress.
Some of this is simply empty hot air and tall talk-good for making pointy headed liberals like me roll their eyes at cocktail parties. But if this is the crazy train, its getting crowded. In a recent poll, 44% of Republicans believe that an armed revolution may be necessary in the near future to protect their liberties. And we thought that Sharon Angle and her 2nd Amendment remedies was nuts.
So, I have some questions. First of all, what is it exactly that has these dim bulbs so lit up that they would be willing to take up arms against the United States and its tyrannical ways? Is it because Obama is a Socialist/Nazi/Commie/Kenyan? Or is it because of the Affordable Care Act? Or perhaps that most of their fellow citizens believe that people should pass a background check before they are allowed to purchase a firearm? Is it the overbearing Federal government that makes sure that air travel is safe, water is drinkable, drugs are effective, and our food supply does not poison us?
Tyrants!
Second question: When your little revolution comes and its time for you to put the tyrants up against the wall, what exactly will that look like? Is there some secret code, or maybe a Bat-signal in the sky that alerts all the Patriots to gather their arms and…go where? Do what? Or will it be more like the last stand of the Branch Davidians in Waco? How did that work out for David Koresh? Or will it be one-off and lone acts of terror, like little Timmy McVeigh? Bombing children in pre-schools in defense of liberty? Really?
Now, I have a suggestion for the “fight the tyranny of the government” crowd. I know this will come as a surprise, but there is more to the Constitution than the Second Amendment. Check out Article 3, Section 3.
For extra credit, consider what the beloved Founders thought of your idea that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow an enraged citizenry to fight the tyrannical government by force of arms. Google “Shay’s Rebellion” and the “Whisky Rebellion”. It should be a fun read for you. And although not a Founder, you should consider what Andrew Jackson proposed to do with the South Carolina nullifiers.
And if you keep moving through history, you will find that anytime some nut bag wanted to take this theory of yours and turn it into action, it did not end well (Harpers Ferry, the Civil War, the Haymarket riots, Sacco and Venzetti, Symbionese Liberation Army, etc.). Even the 19th Century Utah Mormons (a self-reliant and resilient bunch if there ever was one) decided it was time for God to change His mind about polygamy rather than face the prospect of an armed conflict with the Federal government. Good luck, loonies—but we know how this ends.
So grab your guns—but please do not attempt to protect my liberties. I will count on democratic institutions, rule of law, independent judiciary and a free press. And let’s not forget overly militarized law enforcement and flying killer robots. Semi-literate fat guys with pony tails and AR-15s—either get busy with your armed rebellion or shut the fuck up. We are tired of hearing about it.
On March 28th of this year, an organization called Moms Demand Action held a rally in Indianapolis to call for common-sense gun regulation (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/28/armed-protesters-show-up-to-counter-indianapolis-gun-control-rally/). Predictably, there was a small contingent of counter-protesters, because, after all, this is Indiana. No news there.
However, what was noteworthy is that the counter protesters came to the rally packing heat. They made a point of being ostentatiously armed with assault rifles and hand guns. Not that they were overtly threatening (that probably would have gotten them a free night in the Marion County jail), but they were just there to parade around brandishing their weapons. Because, you know, moms were there.
It is hard to know what exactly these guys were thinking, since they were not videotaped saying anything especially coherent. It looked to this writer that it was simple and naked intimidation. There was noise about no one taking their guns away, but that is hard to reconcile with the fact that the moms, nor anyone else, were advocating firearms confiscation. The resulting optics were terrible—angry young armed white men up against unarmed and peaceful mothers. Unless you are a gun control advocate, in which case the optics were a gift from Heaven. Peace-loving moms (we all have one) being confronted by armed, braying and hooting nincompoops. The very left-wing definition of gun nuts. Way to play to stereotype, fellas.
Did they think they needed the guns as back-up to discuss the issue with a bunch of mothers? Let’s mark that down for weak.
Did they think they needed the guns because they thought the mothers would kick their asses or make them clean up their rooms? Let’s mark that down for fearful.
Did they think that the brandishing of their weapons would bolster the logical coherence of their argument or point of view? Let’s mark that down for stupid.
Let’s face it. This tactic is the refuge of the weak, fearful, and stupid. As in “I will win this political argument because…I have a gun and you don’t”. It is not too far removed from “I will have the cash in your wallet because…I have a gun and you don’t”. Guns are used to intimidate far more than they are used to kill.
There is something quite chilling and creepy about the close parallels this behavior has to spousal abuse. As in the wife-beater who decides that the opportune time to “clean” his gun is during an argument with his wife. For an overview of the research on the links between domestic violence and firearms, see http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/research/domestic_violence_and_guns.html. Also, see http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/Guns.pdf
Fascinating, and sad, are the reactions of the gun zealots. Here are a few examples from http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34834#comments:
FatCircles0311 Says:
Sorry that freedom scares you lady. Oh wait, no I’m not.
Seeing a bunch of women hyperventilating and asking for big papa government to save them is pretty hilarious.
Fen Says:
I’m thankful for people who think this has anything to do with hunting.
Its like they slapped an “I AM AN IDIOT” sign on there (sic) forehead.
Saves me time.
NHSparky Says:
What percentage of these mommy’s little snowflakes will end up as socially-deviant miscreants versus those who were raised in pro-2A homes? These are probably the same people who hate dodgeball (sic), want everyone to get trophies, and otherwise insulate their precious progeny from the harsh fucking realities of life until Junior is shoved out into the REAL world and gets eaten alive when it’s not as he was told it would be.
I’d be curious to see if there were any stats on that.
And what did these women do to warrant such disrespect and derision? They were exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech, peaceably assemble and seek redress of grievances. But mostly, they had the nerve to disagree with men packing heat.
The Republican National Committee, to their credit, attempted to dissect the Republican lack of performance in the last election and come up with a prescription to avert a repeat performance (The full document can be found at http://growthopp.gop.com/default.aspx).
Although the document has some common-sense advice (“don’t be offensive to minorities”), it is largely an exercise in turd polishing and wholly delusional about the root cause of the GOP’s collapse in 2012. Although it might be helpful at the margins not to be so aggressively stupid and condescending, it is mostly unhelpful because it is largely delusional. As long as the party remains in control of the radicals, especially in the primaries–a process that gave us spectacular candidates such as Newt “Moon Colony” Gingrich, Rick “Church Lady” Santorum, Herman “Beki-Beki-Beki-Stan-Stan” Cain, Ron “Abolish the Fed” Paul and of course, Mitt “47%” Romney. Reasonable and thoughtful Republicans such as Jon Huntsman never had a chance as long as the radicals made sure that the debates and the primaries would be played out in Tin Foil Hat land. As long as Republicans insist on learning the wrong lessons, we can look forward to the 2017 version of this same document. Should be a great read.
But back to the RNC’s prescription for repair. The RNC has attempted to target groups that fled the GOP like the plague and what can be done to lure, at least some of them, back. The problem is that the prescription has nothing to do with the illness. The polish being applied is in great conflict of the actual policies being pushed by the radicals in the party, especially at the State level. This especially ironic in that the RNC document has high praise for Republican governors:
Republican governors are America’s reformers in chief. They continue to deliver on conservative promises of reducing the size of government while making people’s lives better. They routinely win a much larger share of the minority vote than GOP presidential candidates, demonstrating an appeal that goes beyond the base of the Party.
It is time for Republicans on the Federal level to learn from successful Republicans on the state level. It is time to smartly change course, modernize the Party, and learn once again how to appeal to more people, including those who share some but not all of our conservative principles.
But the policies that are turning off the very groups that they would like to woo are being carried out by the radicals at the State level. This is the first of a series that will look at the divergence of the PR polish with the turds of those policies. Today’s edition: Hispanics.
The Polish:
Hispanic Americans hear that the GOP doesn’t want them in the United States, they won’t pay attention to our next sentence. It doesn’t matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; Hispanics think that we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies. In essence, Hispanic voters tell us our Party’s position on immigration has become a litmus test, measuring whether we are meeting them with a welcome mat or a closed door.
The Turd:
Arizona, Jan Brewer and “Papers Please” law, as well as similar laws throughout the old Confederacy, all passed by Republican legislators and signed by Republican governors. While they are at it, they need to do something about Sherriff Joe Arpaio, who is currently under Federal investigation for abusing prisoners (mostly Hispanic, of course).
There are a variety of loose cannons rolling around the Republican decks, like the Alaska Representative referring to Hispanics as “wetbacks” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/don-young-wetbacks_n_2976351.html?utm_hp_ref=politics).
The Republicans are very cozy with contributions from the for-profit prison industry in the South and Southwest, where locking up Hispanics is a profit center (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289, and http://d1lj51l9p3qzy9.cloudfront.net/handle/10207/bitstreams/6001.pdf).
On health care and budget deficits, the Republicans are chronically out of step with the Hispanic electorate. (for the entire analysis from which I quote, see: http://www.laopinion.com/Consistent-in-general-Latino-voters-opinions-vary&template=voto2012#.UVceyr9uGFJ.)
House Republicans keep repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), in fact take an odd pride in this doomed effort, much like the pride the South takes in the mythology of the Lost Cause of the old Confederacy. Yet, the reality with Hispanics
…with regard to maintaining or revoking the Affordable Healthcare Act, 61% of Latinos nationally support it and it goes even higher in several key states: 72% in Colorado and 63% in Nevada and Ohio. By contrast, in Florida, another state that will be crucial in this election, that figure drops to 51%, in Arizona to 54% and Texas to 58%.
Also interesting is the difference between men and women on whether to keep this current health care law. While both sexes support its permanence, this figure is 64% among Latino male voters and 58% among Latino female voters. Meanwhile, 27% of the Latino women voters surveyed believe that the law should be abolished, a position supported by 23% of Latino men. However, 66% of the Catholic Latino voters surveyed support the act while only 21% prefer its annulment.
The Republican insistence on addressing the budget deficit by spending cuts alone is out of step with the Hispanic electorate:
The idea of just addressing the deficit through spending cuts advocated by Republicans was favored by 12% nationally, 15% in Nevada and Texas, 14% in Arizona and Florida, but only by 11% in Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina.
As Republicans at the State level continue their assault on access to legal and safe abortion medical services, they are ignoring this prevailing attitude with Hispanics (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/latinos-endorse-legal-abortion/):
Big majorities of Latinos across the country and other voters agreed that abortion should be legal, including nearly equal shares of men and women, according to exit polling.
Exit poll results found that about two-thirds of Hispanics (66%) said that abortion should be legal while 28% disagreed. Among all voters, a somewhat smaller majority (59%) would allow legal abortions while 37% were opposed.
There is no gender gap on views on abortion among Hispanics or among all voters, according to national exit polling. About two-thirds of men (64%) and Latino women (67%) would permit legal abortion, as would 58% of all male voters nationally and 60% of women.
The list goes on. 59% of Hispanics support marriage equality (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/majority-of-latinos-support-state-recognition-of-gay-marriage/). The House Republicans are spending over a million tax-payer dollars to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
69% of Hispanics support stricter gun laws (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr038-11.shtml). All the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against gun reform legislation. Ted Cruz embarrassed himself by trying to pull a cheap high school debater’s trick on Senator Feinstein in committee hearing which backfired completely.
The Republican efforts to restrict access to voting (aimed, no surprise, at Democratic constituencies) could disenfranchise 10 million Hispanic citizens:
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/us-usa-campaign-hispanics-idUSBRE88N01I20120924). The message is we want you, we just don’t want you to vote.
Republicans such as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz can put an Hispanic face on these fundamentally tin-eared and anti-Hispanic policies. But so far, this just looks like part of the polish. They can shine this thing up to a bright gleam, but it still smells.
One of the most surprising and quite unnecessary blunders of the Obama administration is to make a modern day folk hero of Rand Paul. Paul, a dyspeptic ophthalmologist from Bowling Green, Kentucky with rather sketchy professional certifications, is now the junior Senator from that great state, a state, by the way, that once tried to legislate the value of Pi to be exactly 3.14. If one wanted to be snarky, one could observe that in Kentucky, there are no circles—only squares.
By trying to be cagey about drone policy and procedures, especially with regard to killing American citizens without due process, Obama managed to create a serious political issue where none existed before. Obama’s initial answers to legitimate questions (“we haven’t killed any Americans on American soil yet”) were unnerving and very Cheney-esque. Surprisingly, there was not much outrage from my fellow lefties.
Rand Paul to the rescue. Seriously.
Paul mounted a 13-hour filibuster of the administration’s nominee for head of the CIA and vowed to keep talking until he (and the rest of us) got a straight answer from the Nobel Peace Prize winner. Finally, he got his answer when the laureate admitted that he did not possess the legal authority to kill Americans on American soil without Constitutional process. I am not sure I feel better.
However, this is not where the story ends. By not being transparent and straight-forward about a serious issue about which every American should be deeply concerned, Obama has managed to transform a back-woods political punch line into a genuine political force—just one small step from sainthood.
Although I am thankful that Paul stepped up and demanded the answers that we deserve, I am deeply disappointed in the leftward-leaning Senators who were asleep at the switch. Especially my representatives in the California delegation. Senators Boxer and Feinstein: did you not think this was important?
But before we elevate the Honorable Mr. Paul to sainthood, let’s recall some things from his record:
- Paul is on record as supporting the idea that people who attend “radical” speeches should be imprisoned (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/?mobile=nc). This is not likely to get accolades from the ACLU.
- Paul has some hazy and befuddled opinions of the Civil Rights Act (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/what-did-rand-paul-really-say-on-maddow-last-night.php?ref=fpa).
- He favors property rights over the Americans with Disabilities Act (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/rand-paul-on-npr-disabilities-act-goes-too-far.php).
- Although a champion of private property rights, and local home rule, this Kentuckian opposed the “Ground Zero Mosque” in New York (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/rand-paul-muslims-should-give-to-911-victims-fund-instead-of-whining-about-cordoba.php). There is a word for this, and I think the word is…”hypocrite”.
- And lastly, he seems to have a pretty broad streak of misogyny, having voted against the Violence Against Women Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act (http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/117285/rand-paul/68/womens-issues#.UT-muaVuGFI).
Sainthood? Folk hero? His filibuster rendered a valuable national service. But now, we would like the Honorable Mr. Paul to sit down and shut up.
bigdogdancer 