Political update for February, 2012

Ah, religion. It is back. Back as a divisive force in our presidential election. It’s not all Newt Gingrich’s fault or Barack Obama’s or even Rick Perry’s, but they all tried and contributed. It’s just one of those things that is going to happen in predominantly free countries from time to time. But, there is one reason we handle this better than any other country. We have a first amendment which has possibly more than anything else allowed us to get along with each other despite religious differences which have in so many other countries raged out of hand.

First, my overall perspective on religion presented blessedly briefly. Faith in a deity or afterlife is not for me. Never has been. The most that can be said is that I make no pretense of understanding First Cause (as if anyone can), and that is a puzzler, but one never made simpler for me by the concept of God. I have been surrounded by religious people my whole life, mostly Christians and Jews, but I’ve known a handful of Hindus, Muslims, Christian scientists, atheists, agnostics, Mormons, etc.. What I find (and, some religious leaders too) is that religion does not seem to make someone a better person in terms of what we commonly think of as morality (in terms of lying, cheating, violence, taking advantage, blah, blah, blah), but I have come to learn that as well as being a divisive and even destructive force (both individually and societally), religion can also be a beneficial and unifying force, if come to voluntarily, and not under duress, and is filled with the spirit of toleration.

For the most part, this spirit of toleration imbues our society, whatever some people will tell you. Even very religious people are often extremely open to other views. Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life has found (with a huge 35,000 person sample) that those who claim association with most religious groups, actually have a wide range of religious beliefs, some which are far from the orthodoxy of their own chosen faith.

For example, a large majority of Americans affiliated with some faith or another belong believe that other religions can lead to eternal life. That includes over 80% of Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, but over 66% of Protestants (including 57% of evangelicals), 72% of Greek and Russian Orthodox and 79% of Catholics. Only the relatively small majority of Mormons do not so believe and a large majority of Jehovah’s witnesses. To the contrary, even a majority of American Muslims believe other religions may lead to eternal life. Christians are, of course, by far the largest group, just shy of 80% of the population. Over 1 out of 5 Christians believe in reincarnation and/or astrology, neither of which is acceptable to most of their religious doctrines.

Very similar numbers are reached when asked if there was more than one way to interpret their religion.

Despite the cries of a few, and the muted cries of many more who listen to them, there is no war on religion in America. Here are the real statistics, from Pew. 92% of the population believes in God. Even a higher number (94%) of unaffiliated religious people do. An astonishing 21% of atheists are actually not atheists at all – BECAUSE THEY ACKNOWLEDGE BELIEVING IN GOD. An even higher number (55%) of agnostics say they believe in God. More, 10% of atheists pray WEEKLY and 18% of agnostics do to. Sorry if that seems to make no sense. Since those two groups make up only a tiny percentage of Americans (3-4% total), and so many of them actually believe in God and are in the wrong category – where is this alleged war on religion supposed to be coming from?

And, despite the best efforts of Messrs. Gingrich and Perry (and others), only 14% of Americans believe that religion is the main influence on their politics compared to 13% for education, 19% by what the see/read in the media and 34% by their personal experience.  Of course, many of them may be wrong because other questions show that religion seems to have quite a strong effect on beliefs. For example, 64% of evangelicals, 68% of Mormons and 61% of Mormons believe that homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged while only 15% of Jews, 12% of Buddhists and 14% of atheists believe it. Those numbers are not likely random results.

Religious toleration of other people’s beliefs has existed throughout history. But, so has intolerance and butchering or enslaving them. The first amendment of our constitution, derived from enlightenment principles of individual freedom of conscience and propelled by the American idea that government should keep out of religion, is one of the main reasons we have avoided religious wars. I’ve been hearing too much from conservative candidates how they will shred the first amendment (though, of course, they don’t put it that way at all). Herman Cain, for instance, argued that any American-Muslim cabinet member he appointed would be required to take an oath of allegiance. Apparently, he is thinking that instead of picking some well vetted, experienced person for the job, he might choose someone dressed a bit like the late Osama bin Laden and wearing a bomb belt. He also is forgetting that all cabinet members take an oath of office. He’s also forgetting, and this is the biggee, that to single out Muslims to take an oath (presuming others didn’t), would obviously violate the first amendment.

Both Cain and Gingrich argued for a moratorium on mosque building. Do I even need to show why this violates the first amendment? Yet, no doubt it helped both in their campaigns. It would not have helped had either reached a general election. In fact, I believe it would have hurt immensely with the most important group right now – the group without a group – independents.

Most recently, a new issue has reached public awareness. The administration has issued regulations which would require religious organizations doing business (say, as a hospital) which provide insurance coverage for employees, to make certain they provide things like free pre-natal testing and contraceptives. The Catholic Church has protested mightily, as this is against their religious teachings.

Apparently, only two pundits (I’ve appointed myself a pundit – what are the requirements anyway? Dick Morris is a pundit, for crying out loud, and he is wrong about almost everything) have correctly assessed this issue - me and Ann Coulter. There are differences between the two of us, though. She helped fuel this religious dispute nonsense by writing that ideologies she does not agree with are religious in nature. But, here is the insurance problem in a nutshell, and we do agree on that. This insurance issue should not be a religious freedom issue at all. It is just a freedom issue, period - amen.

Let me expand a bit. The Catholic Church, and any religious group, for that matter, is entitled to believe whatever it is that they choose to believe. No one doubts that. Despite the first amendment, there are a smattering of ways that our courts have determined it is okay for government to give religion an advantage. For example, Sunday blue laws, that is, forcing businesses to close on that day, have been upheld (McGowan v. Maryland [1961]). Tax breaks for religious groups has been allowed as well (Walz v. Comm’n of the City of New York). I oppose those decisions, but that is the law.

The government is not allowed to establish religion – the other strand of the first amendment – either. Sometimes the two clauses don’t work smoothly together and there must be some play around the joints, as Justice Kennedy described the interpretation of conflicting clauses in his Senate confirmation hearing. One such problem arises when an otherwise neutral law is passed (that is, it applies not just to a religious group) that conflicts with a religion’s beliefs. The general rule is that – too bad on the religion. It must obey the same rules as everyone else.  But, there have been exceptions, and it is difficult to tell if this will fit in with it. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Scalia wrote for the majority that religious belief cannot allow every person to become a law unto themselves and cited laws against polygamy, child labor, Sunday blue laws, registering for selective services or paying social security taxes. I think that should be the decision here, but it is too dense a thicket to chop through at this early date without a lot of research I am not prepared to make right now. But, I can have an opinion, and that is that the Catholic Church’s theology is not a defense. If it is a defense to the law, then the general public and perhaps especially conservatives, will have to take a step back in its criticism of a certain New Jersey judge a few years back, who excused a husband’s violence against his wife, because he had done it in accord with his Islamic beliefs. Now who would want to accept that as a sensible decision? No one, and it was reversed on appeal. Yet, isn't that analogous to what the church is saying in this situation?

Despite all of that, I do believe the Catholic Church should be freed of this requirement (not yet in effect), but I think everyone should. On the most basic level, the federal government (I think not even the state government – but others would reasonably disagree), should not be telling a business what insurance they need to provide for their employees. On a constitutional level, the power that the federal government has afforded to itself on the basis of a now longstanding interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, allows it to intervene in virtually anything that they can assert is commerce and interstate in nature – and that is not hard to do.

The Supreme Court has intervened to say - too far, a few times in recent memory, but it has to be a really long stretch for it to do it. Obviously, under this interpretation of the constitution, it is easy to reach insurance issues. The Supreme Court will determine later this year whether the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare by its detractors, can mandate the purchase of insurance policies, which may provide a clue as to where it might go in a case brought by the Catholic Church. 

Without any hope on my part that the broad interpretation of the Interstate commerce clause be greatly scaled down, I can suggest an alternative – that it be limited to laws in which it can be shown that federal regulation or intervention is needed to prevent a state from impinging on interstate commerce or discriminating on out of state commerce (and there are many cases like that). Just because an industry is found in more than one state or does business in more than one state should not be a reason either. That does not mean every federal law we have would go away as there are other avenues for the federal government to regulate – e.g., national defense, navigation, monetary issues, due process or equal protection, those liberties now know as fundamental rights, and so on. But, there is no need for federal laws about insurance (as long as it is non-discriminatory) and we should be free to make our own decisions about what insurance coverage we want for employees.

As I write this, Rick Santorum has surged in the polls, and there are those who believe that he will beat Mitt Romney for the nomination. I am not overly confident about Romney's chances, but still believe that he will survive and prevail as he has done against Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich challenges. However, even if he bests Santorum, he will still likely face one greater challenge. At some point either Gingrich or Santorum might drop out, and the supporters of either of those candidates will gravitate overwhelming to the other - not Romney. No one can be sure if Romney can survive that, but he must to win the nomination.

How has Santorum managed to suddenly corral all this new support? Mostly, it is just by still being around when many Republicans realized that Newt Gingrich would be more divisive than he would be unifying among them. But, he was well suited for the lead at this point, even if temporarily, because of his religious bent, with which he started and is ending his campaign (for a time he claimed his message was mostly economic, but I have trouble seeing that - he is a big government guy - and is aimed at getting the vote of the cultural or religious right. One way he has done it is by jumping on the insurance regulation issue, which he has repeatedly mentioned.

But, yesterday, he seemed to cross another threshold, signaling to an audience about religion in a way that turned me off big time. I think it will have the same effect on other independents too and maybe even some fiscal conservatives. Speaking on the administration’s environmental policies, he said: “It's not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible -- a different theology.”

This is where Ann Coulter comes in again as she popularized the idea, at least in recent times, that liberal ideology is actually a religion. It is a very popular notion on the right. My own appreciation of it, as I’ve written before, is that both the left and right enjoy certain canards which are not based on fact, but they believe it nevertheless without the necessity of argument. You can compare them to religion, but I cannot go the full analogy, because unlike with the central idea of most religion – the existence of a deity and creation as his/her/its product based on faith – you can combat many if not most of the ideological myths with facts and reason.

Santorum had to spend sometime backpedaling from this – claiming he was speaking about environmental policy and not the president’s faith. He might have been. I am not quick to read code words, but I think that's what it is here, especially after he received cheers for what he said.

If Santorum is successful in winning the nomination, I cannot see him being equally successful in the general election. His beliefs as to contraceptives and gays, for example, are too far outside of the mainstream as to be successful anywhere outside of evangelical or other very religious politics, where it is popular. Our country does not look for or vote for politicians who put religion in the forefront of their campaign. Even the issue of contraceptives has changed in my lifetime. Back in the 60s and 70s, conservatives might have been dead set against contraceptives, and some still are. But, many of them use them themselves and have used them. Many conservatives now say it is no issue at all. Even one of Santorum’s spokesmen the other day was surprised to learn on a television show that Santorum was anti-contraceptive.

I say, not for the first or last time, I would like Obama defeated. But, that does not mean I want just anyone to replace him. I know I don’t want Gingrich, who is up there in John Kerry territory concerning politicians I do not want to see be president. If he was the Republican candidate I would go third-party. Ron Paul is, of course, okay with me as is Romney, the only one I think could win a general election (I’d like to imagine Paul could win if given the chance, but I really doubt it). I do not think Santorum could win and I’m not sure I would want him to either. I actually like the guy personally. There are many people in this world I like who I disagree with politically. Doesn’t mean they are not good people or I will hold it against them. If you listen to his story, it is actually very appealing. But, that doesn’t mean he should be president. And anyone who engages in this war on religion or Christianity or anything of like kind, is not going to be getting my vote either.

And, that also means Mr. Romney, you have to be careful too, as far as I'm concerned. But, whoever is the Republican nominee, they should remember that while candidates must evince a belief in God, no president in the United States has ever won running on a primarily religious platform.

Iowa and whatnot

Some brief thoughts on the caucus. As I said the other day, I predict Romney to win, but I’m wobbly. I forget if I said, but I expect Paul to be second and then Santorum. All I’m really saying by this is that I agree with the conventional wisdom, as most professionals are going with those three in some order, even though I usually say they don’t know what they are talking about. But, I don’t have any information myself from an unlikely source or any insight which might make me think they are wrong. Romney and Paul have the best machines there, reaching back to their last run for 2008. No one would be surprised, of course, if Paul come in first, as he has the most enthusiastic supporters and is polling right behind Romney. Caucus’s are very hard to read though as they talk and make speeches at their meetings first and try to sway each other, and nearly half who are likely to attend have said they are undecided right up to today. Polling Iowans isn’t the same thing as polling the caucuses. But, I think we will all be shocked if Perry or Bachmann or Gingrich crack the top 3.

It has been an interesting process, highlighted by the theme of “Anyone but Romney” as one after another candidate has been thrust into the spotlight briefly, only for everyone to realize that they are just not acceptable either because of scandal – Cain; snafus and deer caught in the headlights moments – Perry; just not being up to snuff – Bachmann; baggage and wobbly personality – Gingrich (he may have been ready to explode in anger today calling Romney a liar, but kept his cool). I don’t even know how to describe Trump, who, in my opinion, embarrassed himself and his party with his birther nonsense, even if some conservatives still believe it. Last, of course, Santorum is thrown forward, though no one, not even the most religious pro-life Iowan seemed to think he had any possible chance until a few days ago when Gingrich – not surprisingly in my opinion – self destructed (though the Super Pac supporting Romney is given the credit by politicos). It would be interesting as Santorum has been to South Carolina, where there isn’t a recent enough poll, more than any of the others. If he wins South Carolina, he could actually win this thing – as strange as it seems. Romney would not go quietly as this is probably his last shot and he would probably take it right to the convention. Republicans divvy up the vote, unlike the Democrats, where it is winner take all. I personally like Santorum, though I am put off by his anti-homosexual rhetoric; I don’t care about his pro-life position (no one else seems to care much either), and he is certainly as qualified as anyone in terms of knowledge and policy education.

What I don’t think he could do, though, is win a general election. In fact, I think he would get smushed. But, I really think any of them would get smushed other than Romney, and, he will of course have a tough time of it, like even the best candidate.

Romney is so interesting. I did not like him four years ago. He is probably the same person, but he now comes across as unflappable and friendly and presidential in a way none of the others do. He is the only one who might win tonight and not have the White House smile. Last time I likened him to a used car salesman. He is too smooth for that now, but he reminds me as someone who would keep driving if he ran you down, but phone 911 while he attended to his affairs.

You know what I like? Gingrich and Perry have both gotten a little choked up on the campaign trail and no one seems to mind. Having gotten choked up speaking publicly myself more than once (even on trial once – but, fortunately, it worked), I like the development. Our leaders cry, even icons for manliness like Churchill and Patton and Hillary Clinton (okay, cheap joke, but she would laugh herself at it). And the media has finally gotten used to it, unlike say, when Edmund Muskie’s career ended in 1972 when he teared up while defending his wife.

Will Iowa, which has more often than not proved itself irrelevant to the actual nomination of a candidate, continue to be important? It does play a role in winnowing the field and it is fun the way they do it there, making the candidates play the game because the media wants them there shaking hands and serving food. Even Ron Paul, no hand shaker or food server, made frequent visits and competes too. I think it will be as big in 2016.

One media point tonight before they start counting votes. I put on MSNBC, which rendered itself important to watch in the 2008 election thanks to Olbermann – now gone – and Fox, to watch the pre-caucus show. You can’t help but notice how good looking the Fox women are, even the ones in their 40s. These women are also very accomplished for the most part, but you have to wonder how many of them got where they are at least in part because of their looks, not to mention having famous or connected parents. Just concentrating on looks, I made this short list, which might be an understatement.”

Shannon Bream, Miss Virginia, 1990; Miss Florida, 1995 and competed in Miss America and Miss USA.

Gretchen Carlson, Miss America, 1990
Jenna Lee – Wikipedia – According to Wikipedia, Lee had a photo spread in Cosmo in 2009 and was ranked number 75 “on the Ask Men list of Top 99 Women of the World which came out in October 2009.”
Arthel Neville, Days of our Lives actress
Kimberly Guilfoyle, Macy’s catalogue model
Lauren Green, Miss Minnesota, 1984; Miss America, third runner up, 1985
Courtney Friel, television show hostess
and, even if they don’t have the technical creds -
Megyn Kelly and Heather Nauert are just gorgeous
 
Call me a male chauvinist pig, and forget politics for the moment, but given the opportunity to watch Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC or Megyn Kelly on Fox – yeah, I think I know who most men would pick. No wonder Fox runs over CNN and MSNBC on ratings every single month, every year.

Last -

Is there any Sherlock Holmes fan who is not secretly tickled that a dead body was found on a royal estate and is not hoping there is some mystery about it?

In the same vein, my American compatriots, can you admit you would not be gratified if an Iranian vessel took a shot at one of our naval ships in the Straights of Hormuz and we blew it out of the water? No? Sure, and you probably want us to believe you don’t like watching the women on Fox either.

Political update for December, 2010

First, I will engage in audacious self praise and say, now with the election results final, I didn’t do so bad on my predictions. I thought the Republicans would end up with 48 Senate seats. They won 47 (Bear called that precisely). It’s obvious where I went wrong. I did not think that Harry Reid would pull out Nevada, despite his off the wall opponent (and yeah, any candidate who hints at violent revolution is off the wall to me). The polls were probably more off there than anywhere else. Admittedly, the Senate was fairly easy to pick relative to the House, and although some believed the Republicans might take the other house, it did not seem likely to me. As to the House of Representatives, I predicted a 62 seat pick up. The final tally was 63. Now, I didn’t pretend I went through each race individually. I just analyzed professional political scientists and poll numbers and decided what I thought reasonably likely given my appreciation of the public sentiment. It’s the same way that I pick stocks and horses, but usually with less success than I had here. Out of the 435 seats available, getting within one was pretty good. Dick Morris, who gets to write a column despite what a bad predictor he is (he thought the 2008 Republican nominee would be Condaleeza Rice,) guessed about a 100 seat pick up. Bear faired much worse on the House, predicting a 42 seat pick up. This will teach the political world to take me lightly.

2012

Four years ago, that is two years before the 2008 election, I was able to go through a list of candidates for the Republican and Democrat nominations here, and give my opinion as to how it would work out for each of them with a fair degree of accuracy (although, I did not think Barack Obama would win. I did think Ms. Clinton would edge him out and Senator McCain her).

It is not the same this time around. For one thing, the Democrats have an incumbent who will run again (will cover a possible primary challenge later) and the Republican field is just smaller at this time. I’ll take them first.

Here’s my two year out call for the nominee in descending order.

1. Mitt Romney

2. Sarah Palin

3. Mike Huckabee

4. Tim Pawlenty

5. Chris Christie

6. Mitch Daniels

7. Newt Gingrich

First – I know this is not exactly genius. There are no outliers like Mike Huckabee (when I wrote about them in 2006 Mike Huckabee and even Barack Obama were virtually unknown to the general public).

I don’t see Mike Huckabee giving a serious try this time. We may see him testing the waters – who in his position would not. He reminds me a bit this time of Fred Thompson last time around – too comfortable in the entertainment world and just not enough fire in the belly.

Newt Gingrich will always tease, but I don’t see him even declaring. As bright and interesting a speaker as he is, I think many feel the same way as I do about him – too divisive. Plus, remember, he lost his last race for the House of Representatives.

Let me lump 4-6, Pawlenty, Christie and Daniels, governors of Minnesota, New Jersey and Indiana, respectively, together. They are in my mind the best choices of those whose names are among the usual suspects – executives who show a dislike for the culture wars and who have an eye towards fixing their own state’s budget problems. They are grown ups. Given a choice between them and Barack Obama, I would likely vote for any one of them. It comes down to this – spender versus reducer. But, they don’t stand a chance, except possibly as VP choices for Sarah Palin, were she the nominee, to give her ticket some appearance of that all important gravitas (she might not, though, as she seems dedicated to the Rush Limbaugh approach oriented on values and beliefs, not competency). Here’s why they couldn’t win themselves. They are kind of boring and they are fiscal guys, not value guys. No offense, but they aren’t going to get anyone excited. If Romney is the nominee, it is less likely they would have a chance as he might feel that he should pick a southerner or westerner. Anyway, I am ruling them out for a nomination and Christie and Daniels have already indicated that they are not running. But, there names are still bounced around. Pawlenty is still thinking about it, but he just doesn’t have the juice. He could not win one caucus or primary, possibly not even in his own state. I could have listed Bobby Jindal, Louisiana’s governor with these three, but he’s said he’s not running at all, and interest in him has long died down (one boring speech and boom).

Which leaves us with two. I’ve given my opinion of Sarah Palin before, and I have it down to a science. She was badly mauled by the media in 2008. Most of it was untrue and some of it vicious. Liberal women in particular seemed willing to believe the worst about her, regardless of proof, and she made them see red. One accusation was that she remained silent while someone screamed out “Death to Obama”. Some claimed they heard she led a chant. Of course, as that was a threat against a presidential candidate, the Secret Service investigated, starting with the reporter who claimed he heard it. They interviewed those who were around him in the audience. None of them heard anything like it. Other claims – she wanted women to who were raped to have to pay for the rape kits (she did have a police chief who tried it when she was mayor but he was stopped). Accused of ethics violations while governor, she was cleared shortly before the election. She had a shorter campaign than Barack Obama, Joe Biden or John McCain, but, during the time she was running she spoke more clearly than any of the other three more experienced men. And despite her recent North/South Korea goof, she made less gaffes than they did too.

However, no matter how it is spun, her interview with Katie Couric showed her glaring weakness. She doesn’t know much about the substance of national or foreign affairs, and she doesn’t seem to care to learn. Her decision to be interviewed since the election only by friendly journalists (mostly Fox) may help her with her base, but it can’t help her with independents (no liberal is going to vote for her, anyway). Until she can do an interview with the mainstream press, particularly on television, she is not going to win a general election. She might have to also give a more plausible reason for quitting as governor. I can think of a few, but she has to say them, be sincere, and persuade others she is sincere.

But, that doesn’t mean she couldn’t win the nomination. Rush Limbaugh, certainly the most respected voice among the right has been beating the tom tom that Sarah Palin can win without independents and moderates and that the right should be relentlessly attacking the left because they are going to win. While I think it is probably suicidal for the right to nominate her (unless Barack Obama has some kind of ethical or other meltdown and couldn’t win against a Kardashian sister) she could certainly win Iowa and South Carolina (two of the three earliest contests) and elsewhere in the South. I doubt she could win in New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney is well known, but this still puts her in the driver’s seat and he must take it from her uphill against the ridiculous expectations game our weird system of primaries and caucuses plays when someone wins Iowa.

No doubt, if she runs, she will excite her base more than anyone since Ronald Reagan. It has been known for years that Republicans care far less about academic success or the trappings of intellect than Democrats in their presidential candidates. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were known for their intellectual prowess whereas the President Bushes and Ronald Reagan were not - whether or not it was true. She fits in that mold. Republicans/conservatives trust that she will do what they want her to do without a lot of messy over thinking about it. Keep taxes low, support Israel, talk about God, cut the budget, and so on. This might seem facetious but I don’t think many conservatives would be upset if she would just listen to Rush Limbaugh every day and go along with his ideas.

But, in the end, I don’t think the result would be much different than the polls tell us now. She would lose to President Obama by a large margin. It would take a miracle for her to sell herself to independents, particularly as she doesn’t seem to care much about doing it.

So, Mitt Romney. His two biggest problems, other than Ms. Palin, are Rush Limbaugh and his push for a rock solid conservative, and . . . John McCain. The senator from Arizona got the nomination last time for two reasons – Mike Huckabee seemed to be running interference for him, splitting the religious votes that might have gone towards Governor Romney and at some point, enough Republicans thought that going more moderate would be a good idea. And, other than the collapse of the economy under a Republican’s watch, Bush fatigue and his own miserable campaign, there might be a President McCain now. But, he lost, which gives impetus to the Limbaugh/Palin school of thought - run a real conservative and damn the torpedos. Despite the governor’s desire to be seen as a conservative, many Republicans don’t believe him, particularly given his association with the Massachusetts’ health care plan, which is similar to the federal one in some aspects and has proved a disaster economically there, and his prior pro-gay, pro-choice positions when he was running for office in Massachusetts. Personally, I have a visceral reaction to him as a stereotypical used car salesperson – I don’t trust him. His attempt to pretend to be a hunter a few years back fell as flat as when John Kerry tried.

Still, if he can find a way to win the primary, he has the best chance to beat the president. Polls show he does the best against him of all the potential nominees, while Sarah Palin gets blown away by him. You’d think that would be obvious to conservatives, but just let someone say it to them and watch them accuse even other Republicans of being RINOs. How many times do I have to say it – partisanship makes everyone a little crazy.

Okay, now for the Democrats, which will be a lot shorter. Recently, with the president showing he is willing to work with Republicans, liberals are outraged. This is not only foolish on their part economically, as their plans for greater entitlements and stimulus strike me as similar to pouring water on a drowning man, but also unfair. President Obama has pursued the liberal agenda with great success, even at the cost of the House of Representatives and the loss of his own popularity. The public might not have liked it so much, but his base should be overjoyed.

So, already we hear the drumbeat for a primary opponent, which at least will bring glee to the right. Nothing could be worse for the Democrats than a primary fight, which would undoubtedly weaken their party. Even the thought of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama going into an undecided convention pulled their party apart for a while. But, partisan liberals see no clearer than partisan conservatives.

Besides, who would it be? I know my conservative friends have had a wet dream that Hillary Clinton, filled with ambition and thoughts of revenge, would challenge him. That seems to remain a dream. Besides, she stands in everyone’s perception to the right of President Obama. The people who are unhappy on the left are standing to his left. What would the point of having her challenge him be?

Who’s left? John Kerry? Howard Dean? Pardon me while I laugh hysterically. Did I say yet that partisanship makes everyone a little crazy?

Wikileaks

I presume you know what Wikileaks is and who Julian Assange is. If not, Google or Wikipedia it.

I can’t speak for other countries, but I am not sure exactly how the United States would successfully prosecute Julian Assange. For one thing, to prosecute someone, you need a crime. There are no common law federal crimes, so it has to be a statutory crime. There are two choices I see right now (please keep in mind he is not a U.S. citizen, so treason is not available).

First, though, let me say that even if Mr. Assange is very much against the United States interest, even if he hopes bin Laden blows us to kingdom come, we should not prosecute him unless he has broken a valid law. Sure, there can be a kangaroo court, but there shouldn’t be. If we do that, then maybe we are slowly becoming the totalitarians we so criticize.

One possibility is the 1917 Espionage Act, which was last amended in 1970. Although it was used to imprison and convict men and women during WWI, it was a gross abuse of power by the government, and, in many people’s opinions, a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. It has been twice amended and I am not going into an analysis here of whether it is constitutional. Probably in a later post if he is indicted here. The other possibility I know of – and there may be others – is a statute (18 U.S.C. 793) which forbids even someone who gets specific defense information in their hands to dispose of it contrary to the law.

As for his arrest in Britain without bail  just so that it can be determined if he should go back to Sweden to face sex crime charges, those sex crime charges seem more than a little flimsy. Apparently, and these are the facts I heard – correct me if you think they are wrong - he had sex with a woman who had recently gone out of her way to meet him and bring him home. They had sex. The next day she had a party for him and his friends and she referred electronically to him and them as the “coolest people in the world”. Then, shortly afterwards, he had sex with a friend whose apartment he was staying at. They had sex. Later, the two women learned about each other. Now both claim he molested them, one by having sex with her in her sleep (after they had sex wide awake, mind you) and the other for supposedly pinning her down with his weight (and, of course, that was before she referred to him as one of the coolest people in the world, which makes you wonder - is she just referring to the missionary position?)

Now, even though he has surrendered himself in Britain, he is held without bail. I don’t know British law, but I believe the right to bail is basically the same as here where we generally have a constitutional right. Could be wrong though.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like the guy and think he is misguided. But, I’m not sure at all he’s committed any crime, and he shouldn’t be convicted of pissing off governments without a real crime. That’s too fascist for me.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Reviewing an earlier post I see that I had previously misunderstood DADT, which I thought had been brought about by presidential order. I think President Obama used to believe that too, based on what he said (why I believed it). But, now that I am paying attention I see it comes from a federal act.

I am a little dismayed that my favorite politician (though he dims in my appreciation over time), John McCain is at the forefront of prolonging DADT, which I believe is wrong in several dimensions.

It should be remembered that a federal trial court has already declared the law unconstitutional on 1st amendment and equal protection grounds (which, at the federal level, would have to be found implied in the due process clause) and that it is now before the Supreme Court in an appeal to be heard this year.

Why am I against DADT? I did give consideration for a while that the military is a very different creature from other federal departments, and that has been recognized since the founding. But, given that many other nations have managed to do this without big problems (there are always problems), that even our cousins in England and Australia have managed to do it (Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has testified that his counterparts in those two countries told him that after all the fuss, when it happened, it went down smoothly), I can’t imagine why our troops should be thought less disciplined or less tolerant.

And, of course, we know that gays are serving in the military. The poll the Pentagon took of service men and women showed that while many of them had a problem with open homosexuality, those who knew they were serving with a gay man overwhelmingly had no problem with it. One special forces member reported on a gay man he was serving with – paraphrasing – he was big, mean and killed a lot of bad guys. No problem. I have no doubt Senator McCain and other Senators and Congressmen who want to prolong DADT have no answer for this, as they continue to ignore that part of the poll whenever they speak.

One of the myths about this proposed change is that the military will be distracted by bizarre gay behavior. But, there are already gays in the military – where is this behavior? Where is it in other countries? Everyone in the military is going to have to follow the military code regardless of whether DADT exists, straight or gay.

Many conservatives who oppose this claim feel that it has to be this way because of the special mission of the military – and they are offended that they are called homophobes. I have looked to see if there was a poll correlating those for DADT with those against gay marriage and can't find one. So, sure, I’m speculating, but want to bet it is a really, really strong correlation? I say that with confidence because everyone I personally know who has a position, they are either pro or con on both issues - no split decisions.

Time to end this nonsense. It’s the 21st century. Homosexuality is no longer a crime. Many have come out of the closet and the ones I know well are decent hardworking people who don’t deserve to be discriminated against. And, it is discrimination. And it is homophobia.

I frequently read on an online site I frequent, TownHall.com, that God disapproves of homosexuality, often followed by a Bible citation. Yet, despite all the arguments I have been in on that site, no one, not one single person, has ever responded to my question as to whether they also approve of stoning adulterers, which is also mentioned in the Bible.

Today the Senate said no to a vote, so the debate will likely be over at least for a few years as it would never pass with the House in Republican control. And, of course, it may stay that way a while.

Israel/Palestine

Just a brief comment here on this thorniest of issues. Once again, another president who hoped to solve this problem bites the dust. The administration acknowledges that it will no longer try to get Israel to stop building in disputed territories. And, as the Palestinians won’t negotiate until that happens . . . at least for now, that means more violence, more poverty, more deaths down the road.

While some Israel supporters might smile at that and say, What us worry? – We are on top - I suggest that someday, the smile will be wiped from their face, and that unless a political solution will be had, the little country that has survived so much will cease to be one day.