“I believe that one day either the people or the courts will recognize gay marriage.”
- Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger – an opponent of Prop. 8 - commenting on Tuesday’s California Supreme Court’s ruling
This Tuesday, the California State Supreme Court ruled Proposition 8 was an amendment, and not a revision to the California State constitution, and upheld its provisions. Prop 8 is the voter approved initiative that defines a legal marriage as something that can only occur between a man and a woman. At the same time the Court recognized 18,000 same sex marriages that had taken place before Proposition 8 was passed.
The Supreme Court was not ruling on whether same sex marriage should be legal – they did that several years ago – but only if Prop 8 was a revision of the California State constitution or simply an amendment. If it were a revision, it would have required a higher standard for passage than a simple majority vote on a ballot initiative and it would be void. Over the years, the California Supreme Court has declared only two ballot initiatives revisions and not amendments to the constitution. So what happened Tuesday was not a surprise.
Members of the “straight marriage only” crowd are very happy. They feel they have defended a key institution from further corrosion. Speaking for myself, a heterosexual partner in a successful long-term marriage, my marriage has never been in danger because gay members of my family have married, my neighbors have married, or that five states allow same sex marriage. It would be a weak marriage indeed if that were the case.
The straight marriage only crowd, also says marriage was created by the deity for people to procreate and start a family – something that many same sex couples are unable to do. That defines marriage as an act that is unique because of sex. If you can have sex in a certain way, that can have a certain result, then you can be married. If not, then you can’t.
This view is, in itself a threat to the institution, because it ignores what marriage really is. The defining characteristics of marriage is a commitment through love two people make to each other, to bond and build a life together. Such a commitment, takes love, understanding, support, patience, and so much more. To say that two people of the same gender cannot achieve this bond is absurd.
The good news is Prop 8 seems to have been some sort of tipping point. When people nationwide saw the massive protests after Prop 8 passed, they saw their neighbors, coworkers, daughters, sons, sisters and brothers. They saw their best friends growing up, or people they had been to school with. They saw elderly couples who had been together for decades and decades, middle aged couples who were raising families, and couples who wanted the right to visit each other in the hospital.
These protests gave a human face to the issue for people who didn’t live near big gay communities. They didn’t see the freaks the far right had warned them about, who wanted to recruit their children and marry sheep (an argument against gay rights that you do hear). Instead they saw average people denied a right not because of anything they had done, but simply for being who they were. It was no accident that after those protests, support for marriage equality rose in California, to the point that in December of 2008, Prop 8 would have been soundly defeated.
Another error that the straight marriage only crowd makes, is confusing a sacrament with a civil act. A sacrament is a religious action conferred on the faithful – like communion, baptism, or Bar Mitzvah. The straight marriage only crowd says they are defending the sanctity of this sacrament. That may be so – if their churches are beginning to recognize same sex marriage. The rights and privileges of the sacrament of marriage are defined by each church according to its doctrine.
But marriage is also an act of civil law. Marriage in civil law confers rights and benefits that have nothing to do with partaking in the holy sacrament of marriage. One can have a legal marriage without the sacrament, but you can’t have a legal marriage without the civil act. Many couples go to the court house (or Vegas) to get married, and never step inside a church.
As “None” continues to become the fastest growing religious preference in America, the sacramental aspect of marriage becomes less relevant for people. If you believe that marriage is a sacrament that can only be conferred on a heterosexual couple, then join a church with that doctrine; just don’t make that doctrine the law of the land.
The Governor is right. It will only be a matter of time before marriage equality is California law. It is likely that there will be another ballot measure affirming marriage equality on the June 2010 primary ballot. If current trends hold that measure will pass. Then California will be able to stand with other states, and defend the right of two people, regardless of gender, to legally pledge their lives to each other in a commitment of love.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Nancy Pelosi and the War on Torture
“And Speaker Pelosi has, at times, objected to activities that were approved by the president. Those activities were changed as a result of her objection . . .
House Minority Leader John Boehner on CNN’s State of the Union 05/17/2009
J. Dennis Hastert, (R. Ill), Speaker of the House of Representatives; Richard K. Armey, (R. Tex.), Majority Leader; Tom DeLay, (R. Texas), Majority Whip; Richard A. Gephardt, (D. Mo), Minority Leader; Nancy Pelosi, (D. Ca) Minority Whip.
That was the leadership in the House of Representatives at the time of the now infamous CIA briefing on enhanced interrogation techniques.
To listen to the Republicans you would think that Nancy Pelosi was in the Speaker’s chair in 2002 and had a lot of clout. “If she knew about the torture and objected, she should have said something then!” they cry. Others have intimated that by not voicing any objections she was an accessory to the crime of torture.
Lost in all this discussion are one or two important points.
In the House of Representatives, the rule of the majority Party (in 2002 the Republicans) over the minority Party (in 2002 the Democrats), is nearly absolute. At the time of the briefings, Pelosi had been a Minority Whip for less than a year. As a Minority Whip she had very little standing outside the Democratic Congressional Caucus. Any objections she would have made to CIA torture techniques, would have been ignored.
The current Minority Leader, John Boehner (R.OH), knows this. He currently operates under rules that are just as draconian for the minority Party as they were in 2002. He has no options to stop anything he doesn’t like. In 2002, Pelosi was even more junior in party leadership than he is. He is fully aware that even if she were told what was going on and she did object, that it wouldn’t have made any difference.
I am struck that people like Hastert, Armey and DeLay have not come rushing forward to back the CIA assertions that they told the Congressional Leadership what they were up to. After all, if the CIA briefed a junior member of the minority party’s leadership on the enhanced interrogation techniques being used, they would have briefed the full House Leadership, as well.
Hastert, Armey and DeLay are not ones to miss an opportunity to jump on Democrats with both feet. Their silence validates Speaker Pelosi’s story. If the CIA told her what they were doing, they would have told them as well. If that happened Hastert, Armey and DeLay, would be crowing that fact from the roof tops.
Also lost in the fray, is a more important point. It is not important when a minor member of the minority leadership knew about torture. It is more important to know who authorized that torture and why. The Republicans have done a great job of shifting the question of Cheney’s involvement and the poor legal reasoning supporting it, to what then Minority Whip Pelosi was told about water boarding.
Focusing on Speaker Pelosi is pure misdirection. We need to get back to the real issue here. Did Cheney push torture as a means to establish a connection between Iraq and 9/11? What was actually done? Who signed off on it?
The Republicans cannot on one hand say that torture is ok, and that it is not a crime, and on the other hand accuse Pelosi of complicity because she didn’t stand up to it. If they want to investigate what Pelosi knew and why she was silent, then they should investigate Hastert, Delay and Armey as well as Pelosi and Gephardt.
Finally, why does Obama want to move forward and leave all the questions about torture in the past? I think it is because powerful Democrats were involved. If everyone who was involved in allowing torture to move forward was investigated, if everyone who knew and didn’t say anything was exposed, most of the current power structure in Washington would be compromised.
For example, current Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was a Republican member of the same subcommittee as Pelosi in 2002-2003 and would have been briefed at the same time on the same things. So was Ellen Tauscher, who is now nominated for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.
In the Senate former Senator Bob Graham has talked about the briefings he did and did not receive as a member of the Senate Intelligence committee. Others on his committee who would have been briefed were Diane Feinstein, (D. Ca); Carl Levin, (D. Mich); John D. Rockefeller IV, (D. W.Va); Richard Durbin, (D. Ill); and Evan Bayh, (D. Ind). Compromise this group and the Democrats in the Senate are decimated.
Lost on the Democrats is the fact that this is not just about catching the Republicans doing wrong, this is about the US Government morally failing in a spectacular manner.
We are on a slippery slope here. Our government has set aside a group of people that it is ok to abuse. It is OK to dehumanize them, demonize them and turn them into “others.” Right now it is easy to draw a circle around these “others.” After all, when you say “terror suspect” what group comes to mind? Certainly not unemployed, white ex-military like Timothy McVeigh.
At some point that circle will widen and include new “others” for “good reasons of national security.” How soon will it be before we start picking up Hispanics in border states and torture them for information about the drug cartel wars in Northern Mexico?
Is this scenario farfetched?
Look how even mainstream media like CNN and Lou Dobbs are quick to paint all Hispanics as illegal immigrants. It is a short step from this, to assume they will know something about the drug cartels, and short step from that, to torture them for the information.
The best way to take care of a hard task is to do it and get it done. We will not be able to put the issues of torture behind us until we investigate them and hold all the major players accountable. If we don’t take the painful steps now to lance and drain this infection on the body politic, it will continue to spread and poison us all.
House Minority Leader John Boehner on CNN’s State of the Union 05/17/2009
J. Dennis Hastert, (R. Ill), Speaker of the House of Representatives; Richard K. Armey, (R. Tex.), Majority Leader; Tom DeLay, (R. Texas), Majority Whip; Richard A. Gephardt, (D. Mo), Minority Leader; Nancy Pelosi, (D. Ca) Minority Whip.
That was the leadership in the House of Representatives at the time of the now infamous CIA briefing on enhanced interrogation techniques.
To listen to the Republicans you would think that Nancy Pelosi was in the Speaker’s chair in 2002 and had a lot of clout. “If she knew about the torture and objected, she should have said something then!” they cry. Others have intimated that by not voicing any objections she was an accessory to the crime of torture.
Lost in all this discussion are one or two important points.
In the House of Representatives, the rule of the majority Party (in 2002 the Republicans) over the minority Party (in 2002 the Democrats), is nearly absolute. At the time of the briefings, Pelosi had been a Minority Whip for less than a year. As a Minority Whip she had very little standing outside the Democratic Congressional Caucus. Any objections she would have made to CIA torture techniques, would have been ignored.
The current Minority Leader, John Boehner (R.OH), knows this. He currently operates under rules that are just as draconian for the minority Party as they were in 2002. He has no options to stop anything he doesn’t like. In 2002, Pelosi was even more junior in party leadership than he is. He is fully aware that even if she were told what was going on and she did object, that it wouldn’t have made any difference.
I am struck that people like Hastert, Armey and DeLay have not come rushing forward to back the CIA assertions that they told the Congressional Leadership what they were up to. After all, if the CIA briefed a junior member of the minority party’s leadership on the enhanced interrogation techniques being used, they would have briefed the full House Leadership, as well.
Hastert, Armey and DeLay are not ones to miss an opportunity to jump on Democrats with both feet. Their silence validates Speaker Pelosi’s story. If the CIA told her what they were doing, they would have told them as well. If that happened Hastert, Armey and DeLay, would be crowing that fact from the roof tops.
Also lost in the fray, is a more important point. It is not important when a minor member of the minority leadership knew about torture. It is more important to know who authorized that torture and why. The Republicans have done a great job of shifting the question of Cheney’s involvement and the poor legal reasoning supporting it, to what then Minority Whip Pelosi was told about water boarding.
Focusing on Speaker Pelosi is pure misdirection. We need to get back to the real issue here. Did Cheney push torture as a means to establish a connection between Iraq and 9/11? What was actually done? Who signed off on it?
The Republicans cannot on one hand say that torture is ok, and that it is not a crime, and on the other hand accuse Pelosi of complicity because she didn’t stand up to it. If they want to investigate what Pelosi knew and why she was silent, then they should investigate Hastert, Delay and Armey as well as Pelosi and Gephardt.
Finally, why does Obama want to move forward and leave all the questions about torture in the past? I think it is because powerful Democrats were involved. If everyone who was involved in allowing torture to move forward was investigated, if everyone who knew and didn’t say anything was exposed, most of the current power structure in Washington would be compromised.
For example, current Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was a Republican member of the same subcommittee as Pelosi in 2002-2003 and would have been briefed at the same time on the same things. So was Ellen Tauscher, who is now nominated for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.
In the Senate former Senator Bob Graham has talked about the briefings he did and did not receive as a member of the Senate Intelligence committee. Others on his committee who would have been briefed were Diane Feinstein, (D. Ca); Carl Levin, (D. Mich); John D. Rockefeller IV, (D. W.Va); Richard Durbin, (D. Ill); and Evan Bayh, (D. Ind). Compromise this group and the Democrats in the Senate are decimated.
Lost on the Democrats is the fact that this is not just about catching the Republicans doing wrong, this is about the US Government morally failing in a spectacular manner.
We are on a slippery slope here. Our government has set aside a group of people that it is ok to abuse. It is OK to dehumanize them, demonize them and turn them into “others.” Right now it is easy to draw a circle around these “others.” After all, when you say “terror suspect” what group comes to mind? Certainly not unemployed, white ex-military like Timothy McVeigh.
At some point that circle will widen and include new “others” for “good reasons of national security.” How soon will it be before we start picking up Hispanics in border states and torture them for information about the drug cartel wars in Northern Mexico?
Is this scenario farfetched?
Look how even mainstream media like CNN and Lou Dobbs are quick to paint all Hispanics as illegal immigrants. It is a short step from this, to assume they will know something about the drug cartels, and short step from that, to torture them for the information.
The best way to take care of a hard task is to do it and get it done. We will not be able to put the issues of torture behind us until we investigate them and hold all the major players accountable. If we don’t take the painful steps now to lance and drain this infection on the body politic, it will continue to spread and poison us all.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Who are the Republicans?
"Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican."
- Former Vice-President Dick Cheney on Face the Nation
So what is a Republican?
Watching the Republicans try and answer this question is like watching a group of people setting off for a snipe hunt. Off they go, intent on catching something that they have never seen, don’t know doesn’t exist.
In the past the Republicans had three strong pillars of doctrine. Those doctrines were, a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom. Each doctrine was implemented by one or two core strategies. The strategies supporting defense were standup to the Russians and grow the military. The strategy for fiscal responsibility was cut taxes and rein in spending to eliminate the deficit. Personal freedom would be achieved by keeping government regulation on business at a minimum and keeping government from interfering in our personal lives.
If you believed in one or two these doctrines and supported their strategies – you were a Republican. Thus a Margaret Chase Smith could serve in the Senate at the same time as Richard Nixon. Ron Paul and Dick Cheney could also be in the party together. Ronald Reagan and Nelson Rockefeller could be Governors at the same time.
Since 1980 the Republican Party has systematically abandoned the strategies supporting each one of their doctrines. The result is the party has lost all trust and credibility with voters. They view Republicans with the same tired cynicism as family members of the drunk who pledges reform and temperance just before starting the next bender.
Whether it is high deficits and economic ruin that a supposedly fiscally conservative party created; the disaster of Katrina from the party of small government; or the hard line social conservatism from the party of personal freedom; or how support for a strong national defense has turned into support for torture, Republicans have totally compromised their beliefs.
As a result, the base of the party is shrinking. Now the average Republican is a white, southern, male, over 60 and less likely to have finished college. (This is also the same demographic as talk radio listeners). Mike Huckabee said that if the Republicans weren’t careful they would become a party of older white men, sipping their drinks and smoking cigars in their country club, wondering what happened. If things did not change, Gov Huckabee said, the Party would become as relevant as the Whigs. Gov. Huckabee was right except that they would be less likely to be smoking a cigar and having a drink than nursing a beer and a cigarette in a the bar across the street.
The Republican’s best strategy would be to welcome a wider variety of moderate voters. Instead, they proudly push away the very voters they will need to win. For example Former VP Cheney – a man with as many deferments as Gen. Colin Powel had stars – and Rush Limbaugh have tried to run Powel out of the party.
Party leaders have done little to stand up to Rush and Cheney.
Watching Republican after Republican, grovel before Rush, hurts them because it makes them look weak. Americans wonder, if Republicans can’t stand up to a radio bully, who has never held public office or served his country, whose approval ratings are less than Bush ’43 how can they stand up to the Russian, Korean or Iranian bullies?
The party seems firmly in the grip of the extremists. Faced with worldwide economic collapse the Republicans argued that Herbert Hoover was right and that FDR had little to do with ending the great Depression. They rushed to support another round of tax cuts–even in the face of data that proves that dollars spent by the government have an economic impact five times greater than a tax cut dollar.
“Tea Party” protestors condemned Obama as a high tax “socialist” on the same day those same protestors began to benefit from the largest middle class tax cut in a generation. Many of them, I am sure stopped on their way home to cash their extra $250 Social Security payment – funded by the same socialist stimulus package.
Americans are not stupid. They recognize hypocrisy when they see it. They respond to leadership that they see as authentic and in their best interests. To succeed Republicans need to step back and quietly lead by example. Rather than listening tours with softball questions, Republicans are going to have to demonstrate by their actions, that they have the ability, plan and policy to govern.
They will have to show that they care enough to put Nation before Party. To regain the voter’s trust someone will have to stand up to Rush, and Cheney and the crazy wing of the party. Until that happens all the listening tours in all pizza parlors in the Washington area won’t change the perception that Republicans as the party of economic disaster, torture and intolerance.
- Former Vice-President Dick Cheney on Face the Nation
So what is a Republican?
Watching the Republicans try and answer this question is like watching a group of people setting off for a snipe hunt. Off they go, intent on catching something that they have never seen, don’t know doesn’t exist.
In the past the Republicans had three strong pillars of doctrine. Those doctrines were, a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom. Each doctrine was implemented by one or two core strategies. The strategies supporting defense were standup to the Russians and grow the military. The strategy for fiscal responsibility was cut taxes and rein in spending to eliminate the deficit. Personal freedom would be achieved by keeping government regulation on business at a minimum and keeping government from interfering in our personal lives.
If you believed in one or two these doctrines and supported their strategies – you were a Republican. Thus a Margaret Chase Smith could serve in the Senate at the same time as Richard Nixon. Ron Paul and Dick Cheney could also be in the party together. Ronald Reagan and Nelson Rockefeller could be Governors at the same time.
Since 1980 the Republican Party has systematically abandoned the strategies supporting each one of their doctrines. The result is the party has lost all trust and credibility with voters. They view Republicans with the same tired cynicism as family members of the drunk who pledges reform and temperance just before starting the next bender.
Whether it is high deficits and economic ruin that a supposedly fiscally conservative party created; the disaster of Katrina from the party of small government; or the hard line social conservatism from the party of personal freedom; or how support for a strong national defense has turned into support for torture, Republicans have totally compromised their beliefs.
As a result, the base of the party is shrinking. Now the average Republican is a white, southern, male, over 60 and less likely to have finished college. (This is also the same demographic as talk radio listeners). Mike Huckabee said that if the Republicans weren’t careful they would become a party of older white men, sipping their drinks and smoking cigars in their country club, wondering what happened. If things did not change, Gov Huckabee said, the Party would become as relevant as the Whigs. Gov. Huckabee was right except that they would be less likely to be smoking a cigar and having a drink than nursing a beer and a cigarette in a the bar across the street.
The Republican’s best strategy would be to welcome a wider variety of moderate voters. Instead, they proudly push away the very voters they will need to win. For example Former VP Cheney – a man with as many deferments as Gen. Colin Powel had stars – and Rush Limbaugh have tried to run Powel out of the party.
Party leaders have done little to stand up to Rush and Cheney.
Watching Republican after Republican, grovel before Rush, hurts them because it makes them look weak. Americans wonder, if Republicans can’t stand up to a radio bully, who has never held public office or served his country, whose approval ratings are less than Bush ’43 how can they stand up to the Russian, Korean or Iranian bullies?
The party seems firmly in the grip of the extremists. Faced with worldwide economic collapse the Republicans argued that Herbert Hoover was right and that FDR had little to do with ending the great Depression. They rushed to support another round of tax cuts–even in the face of data that proves that dollars spent by the government have an economic impact five times greater than a tax cut dollar.
“Tea Party” protestors condemned Obama as a high tax “socialist” on the same day those same protestors began to benefit from the largest middle class tax cut in a generation. Many of them, I am sure stopped on their way home to cash their extra $250 Social Security payment – funded by the same socialist stimulus package.
Americans are not stupid. They recognize hypocrisy when they see it. They respond to leadership that they see as authentic and in their best interests. To succeed Republicans need to step back and quietly lead by example. Rather than listening tours with softball questions, Republicans are going to have to demonstrate by their actions, that they have the ability, plan and policy to govern.
They will have to show that they care enough to put Nation before Party. To regain the voter’s trust someone will have to stand up to Rush, and Cheney and the crazy wing of the party. Until that happens all the listening tours in all pizza parlors in the Washington area won’t change the perception that Republicans as the party of economic disaster, torture and intolerance.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Justice Souter and the Republican Brand
“Do you really believe that we lost 18-to-34-year-olds by 19 percent, or we lost Hispanic voters, because we are not conservative enough? No. This is a ridiculous line of thought. The truth is we lost young people because our Republican brand is tainted."
-- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) April 29, 2009 in the New York Times.
These trends, the increase of Hispanics both as part of the population and their increasing tendency to register as Democrats and the commitment of young people to the Democratic Party philosophy have been in place for a long time. The Republicans studiously ignored these trends. The Democrats built on them.
McCain thought Palin would peel off women voters from Obama. That didn’t happen. Women saw Palin’s selection as the raw pandering that it was. Not having learned, the Republican picked Michael Steele to lead them, even though he was manifestly unqualified for the job.
After a turbulent few months some Republican power brokers are giving an open assessment of Steele. Former Iowa Republican Congressman Jim Nussle was honest when asked whether Steele could lead the party. In the April 29, edition of the Des Moines Register, Nussel said “I don't think we've found that [a leader] yet in Michael or anybody else yet for the party, so we're going to have to struggle through that for a while."
Maybe, just maybe they are beginning to understand their predicament.
The Republicans have launched another effort to rebrand themselves. The “National Council for a New America” launched its efforts with a letter to Republican supporters that did not mention such hot button issues as abortion and gay marriage. The group is described by Republican Whip Eric Cantor as a forum for “all inclusive debate and wide-open policy discussion.” Sen. McCain describes it as “Not a contract with America but a conversation with America.”
As Politico.Com pointed out, (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21957.html), the Council’s advisory board members are part of the party’s new establishment, and include Gov. Jindal, Gov. Barbour and Mitt Romney. The group’s goal is to attract like-minded Democrats to the Republican Party with fresh and new ideas. Their first event is a listening tour that starts in a pizza parlor.
But just as the Republican’s efforts to begin to rebrand themselves and change how voters view them, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announces his retirement. Nothing kicks red meat Conservatives (and Liberals) into high gear harder and faster than a Supreme Court vacancy.
Justice Souter has been described as a “Judge’s Judge” writing clear, meticulously researched opinions, with an eye on how his decisions will actually be implemented. But, for years Justice Souter has been the bête noir of the hard Republican right. Even though Bush 41 marketed him as conservative pro-lifer, he turned out to be a reasonable moderate. Conservative felt betrayed.
How the Republicans handle their opposition to Obama’s pick will do much to define voter’s view of the party. Some on the right have already started to read from their standard ideological cue cards. The Judicial Confirmation Network issued a statement that said in part: “The current Supreme Court is a liberal, judicial activist court. If Obama holds to his campaign promise to appoint a Justice who rules based on her own ‘deepest values’ and what's in her own ‘heart’ – instead of what is in the Constitution and laws — he will be the first American President who has made lawlessness an explicit standard for Supreme Court Justices.”
Such shrill negativity will simply reinforce the voter’s view of the Republicans as the party of “no” and mindless, reflexive partisanship. If however, Republicans support a qualified moderate choice, they will go a long way to changing people’s perceptions of them. The Democrats showed voters they valued competency over ideology when they voted for Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. While they conceded that they disagreed with their views no one questioned their abilities. It is hard to see the Republican making a similar concession for an equally competent centrist or liberal nominee.
The battle to replace Justice Souter gives the Republicans a high profile opportunity to change people’s views of the Party. If the opposition to President Obama’s nominee becomes shrill and partisan, it will take more than position papers and listening tours in pizza parlors to woo voters back. The negative opinion of young first time voter’s of the Republican Party – voters whose views on social issues are more tolerant than those of the Republican right - will harden. It will reinforce the perception other voters that the Republican Party is the party of an out of touch elite.
If that happens, the Republicans will lose these voters for a generation and will spend a long time out of power and wandering in the wilderness.
-- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) April 29, 2009 in the New York Times.
These trends, the increase of Hispanics both as part of the population and their increasing tendency to register as Democrats and the commitment of young people to the Democratic Party philosophy have been in place for a long time. The Republicans studiously ignored these trends. The Democrats built on them.
McCain thought Palin would peel off women voters from Obama. That didn’t happen. Women saw Palin’s selection as the raw pandering that it was. Not having learned, the Republican picked Michael Steele to lead them, even though he was manifestly unqualified for the job.
After a turbulent few months some Republican power brokers are giving an open assessment of Steele. Former Iowa Republican Congressman Jim Nussle was honest when asked whether Steele could lead the party. In the April 29, edition of the Des Moines Register, Nussel said “I don't think we've found that [a leader] yet in Michael or anybody else yet for the party, so we're going to have to struggle through that for a while."
Maybe, just maybe they are beginning to understand their predicament.
The Republicans have launched another effort to rebrand themselves. The “National Council for a New America” launched its efforts with a letter to Republican supporters that did not mention such hot button issues as abortion and gay marriage. The group is described by Republican Whip Eric Cantor as a forum for “all inclusive debate and wide-open policy discussion.” Sen. McCain describes it as “Not a contract with America but a conversation with America.”
As Politico.Com pointed out, (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21957.html), the Council’s advisory board members are part of the party’s new establishment, and include Gov. Jindal, Gov. Barbour and Mitt Romney. The group’s goal is to attract like-minded Democrats to the Republican Party with fresh and new ideas. Their first event is a listening tour that starts in a pizza parlor.
But just as the Republican’s efforts to begin to rebrand themselves and change how voters view them, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announces his retirement. Nothing kicks red meat Conservatives (and Liberals) into high gear harder and faster than a Supreme Court vacancy.
Justice Souter has been described as a “Judge’s Judge” writing clear, meticulously researched opinions, with an eye on how his decisions will actually be implemented. But, for years Justice Souter has been the bête noir of the hard Republican right. Even though Bush 41 marketed him as conservative pro-lifer, he turned out to be a reasonable moderate. Conservative felt betrayed.
How the Republicans handle their opposition to Obama’s pick will do much to define voter’s view of the party. Some on the right have already started to read from their standard ideological cue cards. The Judicial Confirmation Network issued a statement that said in part: “The current Supreme Court is a liberal, judicial activist court. If Obama holds to his campaign promise to appoint a Justice who rules based on her own ‘deepest values’ and what's in her own ‘heart’ – instead of what is in the Constitution and laws — he will be the first American President who has made lawlessness an explicit standard for Supreme Court Justices.”
Such shrill negativity will simply reinforce the voter’s view of the Republicans as the party of “no” and mindless, reflexive partisanship. If however, Republicans support a qualified moderate choice, they will go a long way to changing people’s perceptions of them. The Democrats showed voters they valued competency over ideology when they voted for Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. While they conceded that they disagreed with their views no one questioned their abilities. It is hard to see the Republican making a similar concession for an equally competent centrist or liberal nominee.
The battle to replace Justice Souter gives the Republicans a high profile opportunity to change people’s views of the Party. If the opposition to President Obama’s nominee becomes shrill and partisan, it will take more than position papers and listening tours in pizza parlors to woo voters back. The negative opinion of young first time voter’s of the Republican Party – voters whose views on social issues are more tolerant than those of the Republican right - will harden. It will reinforce the perception other voters that the Republican Party is the party of an out of touch elite.
If that happens, the Republicans will lose these voters for a generation and will spend a long time out of power and wandering in the wilderness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)