Mark Meckler on Chuck DeVore and the California Tea Parties

I heard Mark Meckler speak at the recent OC GOP Central Committee meeting. Interestingly, Meckler's interviewed at the San Francisco Chronicle, "3 Questions: Mark Meckler, Tea Party Patriots":

Q: What is the state of the Tea Party movement in California?

A: It is incredibly strong. In our organization alone we have over 162 organized chapters. It is incredibly well organized. People are working together all across the state. So I think it is a powerful and dynamic force.

Q: Do you have an opinion of Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, a Republican who is running for U.S. Senate and has actively courted Tea Partiers?

A: I can't speak for the organization. But on a personal level - and it's not an endorsement - I like Chuck. He's got a good solid legislative history. He's easy to judge if you want to know what he stands for. If you look at what happened in Massachusetts, I think he has the wind at his back and I think he should win.

Hat Tip: Teri Peters.

Another Reason to Hang Out With Robert Stacy McCain!

I've already already reported on picking up some freelance tricks of the trade when hanging with Robert Stacy McCain, but I guess there's more to that Southern Charm than previously noted:

One more reason why the dude deserves those awesome gonzo awards!!

The Rich Are Different...

That's the first thing that came to mind when reading this story of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt: Money's going to make them happier after their split. It turns out that Brad Pitt's purchased the mansion right next door to the couple's current residence (for "£800,000"). That sure makes things a lot easier. One thing about being married with children, at least as I've always thought about it, is that marital difficulties should always be considered in the context of the kids. That is, if things get so bad that you're thinking about walking, think twice, because a split is going to seriously impair the well-being and development of the little ones (both my wife and I are kids of divorce). But just think: If you were so damn pissed at your spouse, but could afford to buy another home next door, there goes the "kids excuse" for staying together. Of course, this raises all kinds of other problems for the no-divorce arguments of the sacrosanct marriage vows ("forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto him as long as you both shall live"...). And in that sense, the rich are really different. Perhaps there's a set of values for traditional people of modest means (and concern for their kids) and a second set of values for traditional people of exceptional means (and concern for their kids). In other words, the rich are different: They have a lot more money.

RELATED: "The Rich Are Different."

What's the Best Punchline in 'Conan Obama'?

I have a feeling this piece from Professor David Michael Green will get a lot of play today, although being published at Common Dreams I'm surprised folks feel compelled to identify the author as a leftie.

Anyway, I propose this passage as the best of the bunch:

The obvious solution, of course [to your utter failure of leadership], would be a sharp turn to the left. Go where the real solutions are. Fight the good fight. Call liars ‘liars' and thieves ‘thieves'. Do the people's business. Become their advocate against the monsters bleeding them dry. Create jobs. Build infrastructure. Do real national health care. End the wars. Dramatically slash military spending. Produce actual educational reform. Launch a massive green energy/jobs program. Get serious about global warming. Kick ass on campaign finance reform. Fight for gay rights. Restore the New Deal era regulatory framework and expand it. Restore a fair taxation structure. Rewrite trade agreements that undermine American jobs. Rebuild unions. Fill the spate of vacancies in the federal judiciary, and load those seats up with progressives. Rally the public to demand that Congress act on your agenda. Humiliate the regressives in and out of the GOP for their abysmal sell-out policies.

Actually, reading over this essay once more I'm not sure if I find it all that funny. Rather than a parody of the president's failures (which are oh-so real), it's a parody of the hardline left's secular demonology. Still good for a laugh, but more insightful for its inside-baseball look at the Jane Hamsherite ideology of the neo-Stalinist contingent of today's Democratic Party.

That said, I'd give the guy a thumbs up for a least putting on a happy face while eating crow. Sure, Obama's a total failure, but considering the sub-par (socialist) sculpter's clay he had to work with, no doubt things are turning out exactly as to be expected.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum. See also Moe Lane's version, "Which Should Be the Takeaway Quote to This Anti-Obama Screed?"

Obama Approval and Disapproval at 47 Percent...

Instead of giving some big analysis of how wrong Frank Rich is at his latest New York Times column, I'm simply going to post the link to Gallup's daily presidential tracking poll, along with Weasel Zippers' entry, "Good News: Gallup Daily Poll Has Obama Approval And Disapproval at 47%....":

Also worth a look is Newsbusters, "When Bush Plummets in Polls, It's News - Obama, Not So Much."

But here's Frank Rich, in any case, "After the Massachusetts Massacre." It's not the most hysterically screeching rant Rich has ever penned. But he's still spinning in all the wrong directions (and blaming the banks ain't going get the administration off the hook). All danger signs point to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As I said earlier, "Bye Bye Obama." That's the message, plain and simple. Wait 'till November. It'll be interesting to see what Frank Rich has to say at that time ...

Charles Johnson's Downfall

I gotta tell ya: These Downfall spoofs are still pretty good despite dozens of iterations. I laughed -- LAUGHED!! -- at "My lips are still sore from kissing his butt," with the mental visuals of King Charles brown-nosing Markos Moultisas a bit much!

Anyway, from Pamela, "Sunday NY Times Magazine Profiles the Notorious ex Biggie S.M.A.L.L. Little Green Balls":

Chuckie is getting mainstream coverage when his influence and his traffic are guttersnipe low. But when Johnson was masquerading as a rational and decent voice with a circulation of 120,000 unique visitors a day, no one in big media ever paid him any mind. But since he has turned coat and transformed himself into a website of hate and smears, the left comes knocking like a sailor who just got paid.

Ain't it the truth!

I haven't actually read the Times' piece, but apparently it's not nearly as fawning as the LA Times' disappointing essay a couple of weeks ago. Look for an update sometime tomorrow, after I've had a chance to read through things ...

It's Hard Out There...

There's a whole lot that I want to write about today. It takes time, of course, to read through what others have written, and then to think about something new and different to say. That's what's happening on this New York Times piece on Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, "Right-Wing Flame War!" There are quite a few responses at Memeorandum, and I'm going to spend some time looking over these later. Meanwhile, I thought I'd share this bleg I found at HillBuzz, "Help Keep This Site Alive," plus the follow-up essay, which has some of the background, "Thank You For Your Support."

I'm not quite sure if extreme flamewars are the best fundraising cause (especially since Haiti's in the news, not to mention R.S. McCain's ongoing tip-jar needs), but the content of these is worth highlighting:

We just wanted to take this moment to thank all of you for your solid support in what’s been a difficult week here.

Most especially, we want to thank Cynthia Yockey for being such a big sister to us and getting the word out on what the Left, in the form of Daily Kos, the Democratic Underground, and Moveon.org, was doing to attack and defame us. Michelle Malkin, Conservatives4Palin, Riehlworld, Instapundit, LegalInsurrection, and many other sites we enjoy came right to our side and said, clearly, that when the Left attacks people using the Alinsky playbook, moderates, conservatives, and independents will not sit idly by and allow them to get away with it.

All of the attacks originated, from what we can tell, at a site called StupidPumas.com. We never heard of this site before this weekend, but it appears to be in business for the sole purpose of going after PUMA sites and people like Darragh Murphy and Will Bowers personally. We find it interesting that whoever runs StupidPumas does so anonymously, while simultaneously attacking people like Murphy, Bowers, and ourselves, libeling, defaming, and maligning us, but not stepping into the light and revealing who they are themselves.

We’d appreciate any information you can find revealing exactly who these people at StupidPumas.com are, so that we can begin legal proceedings against them. This site attacked one of us personally, called him a racist, and sought to destroy his livelihood here in Chicago. This site was picked up in a coordinated effort by Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and Moveon.org, instanteously, with calls to commit physical violence against us. The Left used StupidPumas to launch its attack, then used the rest of the Leftist sphere to echo and amplify it.

This is classic Alinsky.

If we sit back and don’t do anything about this, and let the Left get away with doing this to us, then what’s to stop them from doing it to others as well? The Left’s favorite tactic is calling someone a RAAACIST, but they don’t realize that the American public is waking up to this trick. The more people who stand up to these trolls and prosecute them, the less effective they will be.

This attack cost one of us a few contract, freelance jobs — so, in that respect, StupidPumas was successful. They took money out of our pockets and hurt a small businessman. But, as we understand it, that action amounts to tortious interference with a contract, whereby a third party (StupidPumas) costs an individual employment, and is thus liable for those damages.

Whoever runs StupidPumas, and whoever they work for in the Left, is going to get a wakeup call, let us assure you.

There was much debate here at Buzzquarters on what we should say or not say about any of this. But, honestly, the damage is already done. StupidPumas, Daily Kos, Moveon.org, DemocraticUnderground, and their flunkie sites are defaming us, costing us employment, libeling us, and literally taking food off the table here. Why shouldn’t we publicly stand up to them, and use this as an example to teach all of you how you can fight back against the Left when the Left’s stormtroopers and brown shirts come for you.

And, more likely than not, if you continue to oppose the socialist takeover of this country and the reckless, naive, and dangerous policies of the current president, then the Left will at some point in the future come for you too.

I've been getting back up to speed on blogging this week, and normally I like to see all sides in the debate. Stupid Pumas has this post up now, and perhaps that's some insight: "Darra$h:Bigot." That post link to Booman, who in turn is pissed at Corrente ... So, I guess it's intra-ideological wars that have taken over leftists, not unlike what's happened on the right: Purity tests everywhere.

As for HillBuzz, well, I know what it's like to have your livelihood threatened. E.D. Kain's not much different from Daily Kos, DU, and MoveOn in that respect. I can say though, that it's hard out there for a blogger. And not everything that happens is justiciable, especially libelous attacks. I'm definitely having more respect for those who insist on blogging pseudonymously. But my advice is don't be counting on a lot of help from others. It's nice if the heavyweight bloggers throw some support, but most of us can't count on it.

We Can Do This!!

I'll be honest: I generally don't post comedic rants against conservatives because they're generally not balanced with attacks on leftists. True, I have posted Janeane Garofalo's disturbed ravings for the sheer spectacle of the events. But I've never posted Jon Stewart videos. For one thing, I simply don't watch him. Secondly, though, when students come to class and ask if I'd seen Jon Stewart's show last night, I get the weird feeling that not only is the youth generation getting their information in wholly different ways than I am (and thus I'm on a different planet), but that the game's rigged: Virtually nothing that I have to say, little of the deeper contextual and historical knowledge that I have to impart, is likely to sink into my students' minds, so hiply influenced by the popular culture. But Stewart's good, so I should at least be open-minded. And I'll certainly be more open to such openness if Stewart continues to take down the likes of Keith Olbermann with such cutting comedic aplomb. You gotta love this:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Dan Riehl uses the Stewart clip to get a jab in at Glenn Beck, who also stepped way over the line in his showcase acts featuring Scott Brown. I'm not quite there yet (I'm still trying to cling to the idea that somehow Beck really is on our side). But I have to admit Beck really bungled things. As Richard at Three Beers Later argues:

Glenn, you don't tell obscene jokes about a bride at her own wedding unless you're drunk. You don't compare Scott Brown, a true candidate of the people, who knocked off a Senate seat owned by a genuine woman killing misogynist, to philanderer who impeded the murder investigation of his mistress, on Brown's election day, unless your judgment is similarly impaired.

Ya fucked up. Learn it, love it, own it, because the left is going to be throwing it back in all our faces for years... as in "Well, Glenn Beck said... "

And that's an outstanding prediction, by the way (one that Dan Riehl also made). It turns out that Gail Collins spoke to Keith Olbermann, who in a quasi-apology, justified his anti-Scott Brown screeds with reference right wing pundits who are allegedly way worse, and surprise!, especially Glenn Beck:

On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann called Scott Brown, the senator-elect from Massachusetts, “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”

Yipes. It was a Senate race, not the Battle of Hastings.

“In the personal scheme of things, I went too far. In the broad scheme of things, this was a blip on the radar,” said Olbermann, in a telephone interview, citing the multitudinous cases when right-wing talk-show hosts have said much worse. Given the fact that Glenn Beck has already claimed that Brown could wind up “with a dead intern,” I believe he may have a point.

Yeah, Glenn, you f***ed up. Never. Ever. Give. Radical. Leftists. An. Easy. Way. Out. ... NEVER.

Dan Riehl has more, "Glenn Beck Makes the NY Times."

The March for Life 2010

The photo's from my friend Matt at St. Blogustine,"My First MARCH FOR LIFE in Washington D. C."

Be sure to check Matt's essays and additional photos (he met Carl Cameron of Fox News just as he was heading out for the day).

Also, from my friend Jill, "MSM coverage of the March for Life 2010":

Interesting that it was Russia Today of all things that produced the best news story I could find on the 2010 March for Life...

Interestingly, at the time of posting, a Google search shows none of the top newspapers, LAT, NYT, WaPo, etc., with search query results. (Ooops ... Actually, I do see a piece at WaPo, at the "Religion" section, "Thousands march in D.C. demonstration against abortion." NYT is AWOL.)

Teen Sexting

From Neo-Neocon, "Sexting: Another reason I'm Glad I'm Not the Parent of a Teenager Today":

Technology marches on, and teenagers are in the vanguard.

With the ubiquity of cell phones that take pictures that can almost instantaneously be sent to friends, coupled with the driving force of sex in newly-pubescent bodies, we have a recipe for the disaster that can result from the practice known as “sexting.”

I may be behind the times, not having a teenager myself at this point, and having raised mine in the dinosaur days before people commonly had cell phones. But this news story alerted me to the fact that it’s not at all unusual for teenage girls to send nude or seminude photos to teenage boys in a sort of advertisement of their wares. Sometimes these pictures are then freely passed around by the proud recipients for all and sundry to ogle. In the case described in the article, the teenage girls were actually charged with child pornography for sending their own photos to three boys, who were also charged.

This seems far too Draconian, but it’s an understandable effort to stop the practice. Good luck, I say; I don’t think it will work. The temptation is too great, and the tools too readily available ...

More at the link.

I can't say the same as Neo-Neocon. My oldest boy turns 14 this week. He'll be freshman in high school in September. My wife and I just made my son take a girl off his MySpace account because she'd lied about her age (claimed to be 18) and she was making lewd hand signs in her profile pic (tonguing a "peace sign" -- and my son didn't know what that meant).

So, yeah, I can relate to Neo's post, although having young kids in this age of hyper-technology can also be fun. (He's really hip with the iPod thing, for example ... I don't even have one.)

P.S. I talked to my son about this and he's said that the counselor has consulted students about texting, and he says he's never received a "sext message" from one of his girlfriends.

Scott Brown Won Big on National Security

From Professor Charles Lipson, at the Chicago Tribune, "Taxes, Terrorism and the Massachusetts Upset":

In his upset Senate victory Tuesday, Brown emphasized two big issues overlooked by most political analysts: taxes and terrorism. Massachusetts voters ranked them as the third and fourth most important issues, behind only health care and the economy, according to a Rasmussen poll. Democratic challenger Martha Coakley actually did reasonably well among voters on health care and the economy. Brown's overwhelming victory came from voters who wanted lower taxes, stronger national security and a tougher stance on terror.

Those who considered taxes their top priority favored Brown 6-to-1 (87 percent for Brown). As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama understood that issue and promised not to raise "one penny of taxes" on the middle class. Unfortunately, he also promised health care reform would be self-financing, a feat that requires significant new revenues. These costs come on top of a large stimulus package and mounting deficits. Clearly, the public is worried, and Brown capitalized on it.

He also won big on national security: 67 percent to Coakley's 29 percent. Two themes stand out. One is that President Obama's efforts to befriend old enemies yielded little and conveyed a sense of weakness and equivocation. Iran is still building its nuclear capacity, insulting the U.S. and killing protesters. Venezuela is still nationalizing its economy and rallying the Latin American left. Russia is still bullying its neighbors and declining into a thuggish autocracy. North Korea is still North Korea. Obama's biggest foreign policy initiative, his conciliatory speech in Cairo, had little impact in the Muslim world.

With so few successes, the Obama administration must now re-evaluate its generous, multilateral diplomacy toward adversaries. That, at least, is one message from Massachusetts.

RTWT at the link.

Obama's New Start

From Business Week, "Obama's Year Two: Time to Start Over":

After a tough first year, the President's economic agenda and standing will be challenged again in 2010 by soaring joblessness, ugly budget deficits, and Obama fatigue among independent voters

As President Barack Obama was preparing for a major policy speech on the economy in December, he erupted at his economic team. Budget Director Peter Orszag argued in a White House meeting that more emphasis should be put on reducing the deficit, while chief economist Christina Romer led a contingent advocating for a greater short-term focus on jobs. They were familiar refrains, and Obama was frustrated. "Why are we having this meeting again, the same discussion?" participants quoted him as saying. Welcome to year two, Mr. President. It won't require the same high-wire act as year one, when Depression 2.0 was staved off with a jumbo stimulus package, massive cash injections into the battered banking system, and bailouts of the auto industry. Instead, as he prepares to deliver his State of the Union address on Jan. 27 and his budget on Feb. 1, Obama has to clean up the damage done by the now-ended Great Recession: the budget deficits on the government's books and the sliding job market his aides were arguing over. Only after that will he be able to turn his full attention to his long-term "change" agenda.

For Obama, 2010 will be a year of finding 10% solutions. Last year's $1.4 trillion budget deficit is nearly 10% of the economy, and the unemployment rate is also stuck at 10%. And here's the dilemma: Cut the budget deficit by raising taxes or reducing spending and you risk slowing down the economy and pushing up unemployment. Spur job creation through tax credits for new hires or infrastructure spending and you blow out the budget.

"He's got a needle to thread," says John Podesta, an Obama confidant and head of the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank. "He wants to try to get as much as he can done in 2010 on the economy while paying attention to the long-term debt problems of the country."

That job got a whole lot harder with Republican Scott Brown's surprise victory in the recent Massachusetts special election, robbing Obama's Democrats of their super-majority in the Senate and threatening the President's health-care overhaul push. The setback left Democrats questioning Obama's decision to focus most of the party's energy on health care, rather than focusing more on jobs and the economy. Now, with independent voters souring on Obama, vulnerable lawmakers are likely to be reluctant about casting votes on other controversial issues such as caps on carbon emissions, tax reform, and a revamp of entitlement programs ahead of November's midterm elections. The White House may have to pare this year's legislative wish list.
Obama, who frequently invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s "fierce urgency of now" mantra during the Presidential campaign, doesn't have time to waste. The longer unemployment remains high, the more likely it is that discouraged job-seekers will drop out of the labor force. Government borrowing and debt, meanwhile, have reached "very worrisome" levels, says former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, risking a rise in long-term interest rates.

The President and his economic team have been brainstorming for months over how to solve the budget and job deficits and still move ahead with his broader economic agenda. One proposal: tapping the $700 billion bank bailout fund to help small business owners get credit. Another would lower the principal amount on underwater home loans, in which a house's value is less than the balance due.

More at the link.

Video Hat Tip: Nice Deb.

Jessica Simpson in Santa Monica!

New Jessica Simpson pics, from The Superficial:

Here's hoping she doesn't go all Heidi Montag on us!

P.S. Theo Spark's "Bedtime Totty" is too hot!

Saving Kiki, Saving Hope

John Humphrys, at London's Daily Mail, takes a step back from the sensationalism of the telegenic rescue of Kiki, the beautiful boy, rescued in Haiti, whose wide arms and wide smile are unforgettable. See, "Kiki, the Icon of Hope in the Rubble":

No Hollywood director could have improved on the scene that was splashed across the pages of this and just about every other newspaper 24 hours ago.

No reader could have turned the page without pausing, smiling, perhaps even shedding a tear.

That one photograph summed up the horror and - yes - the hope of what has befallen Haiti.

Check the link for the rest. As Humphrys notes:

If there is one image that stays in our minds when the world's attention has moved on from Haiti it will surely be this one. But why?

Why should it not be the picture of another Haitian child who also survived the earthquake?

Well, for one thing everybody's looking for the heroic angle, and the marketable one as well. And it's definitely a professional accomplishment as well (see the Times of London, "Photographer Matthew McDermott Describes Moment of Haitian Boy’s Rescue.") But I hate to see too many corks popped when there's still so much pain.

In any case, compare and contrast the same story as told by CNN in New York and a Kenyan network in Africa. We want everyone to be safe, and God save the Haitian people. But lets continue with, when we can, the humble restraint in the American press:

More from the Daily Mail, "Haiti in Hope and Despair: The Boy Craving a Hug After a Week Buried Alive and the Schoolgirl Killed by Police for Looting."

Abandoning Obama?

I just checked Andrew Sullivan's Sitemeter. Oh sure, I know he's still a big name blogger, but I'm curious to see his traffic stats given his latest meltdown over Scott Brown's election. What kind of demand is there for these really freaked screeds against the voters in MA? (Sully peaked in the early afternoon at just over 14 thousand visitors for the 1:00 o'clock hour, and he's thus gettin' well over 150,000 visitors for the day.) He's got a post up at the moment, "Now Fight!" (a Google link is here), and the least I can say is the guy's never boring:

The seismic events of the last few days ends, in some respects, the phony war of the first year of Obama's presidency. As is the case in truly fracturing democracies, the opposition simply does not and cannot accept the fact that it is out of power. The incoherence of the opposition to Obama - that he is both Jimmy Carter and Adolf Hitler, as Stephen Colbert pointed out last night - reveals the irrationality of the hate. It began immediately on the FNC/RNC right. And the ferocity of the campaign against Obama, the sheer dickishness of the GOP and its acolytes, the total oppositionism to everything he has done and indeed anything he might do... suggests that any hope for some kind of cooperation from this rump is impossible.

But the truth is that these forces have also been so passionate, so extreme, and so energized that in a country reeling from a recession, the narrative - a false, paranoid, nutty narrative - has taken root in the minds of some independents. Obama, under-estimating the extremism of his opponents, has focused on actually addressing the problems we face. And the rest of us, crucially, have sat back and watched and complained and carped when we didn't get everything we want. We can keep on carping if we want to. But it seems to me that continuing that - as HuffPo et al. appear to be doing - is objectively siding with the forces of profound reaction right now.

Don't get me wrong. Criticism is still vital. I'm not going to give up on advocating marriage equality or a carbon tax, rather than cap and trade, or for an independent investigation of Bush era war crimes. I think pushing Obama to a more populist position on banks is well and good. But given the alternative, I am going to step up my support of this president in the face of what he is confronting, even when he is not exactly doing everything I want. In my view, you should too.

There's more at the post, but I didn't link it (check Google if you want more of Sullivan's wallowing). Still, I'm intrigued at this notion that independent voters have been brainwashed with all this "false, paranoid, nutty" talk -- but apparently not so much during the 2008 during election, when conservatives foretold precisely how bad this administration would be. (Couldn't be economic issues and the ObamaCare boondoggle, right Andrew?)

Anyway, not everyone's so quick to double-down on their support for the president. Barack Obama was a phenemonon in 2008, but it's amazing the kind of Icarus effect he's having. Nowadays, if you don't toe the line of your most partisan cadres at the base, you could end up losing them all together in a mass pathology of anger and rejection. We saw this already with Jane Hamsher (who was willing to enter into some truly bizarre alliances to defeat healthcare without the public option), but when Paul Krugman starts to question allegiances, then something's really up. See, "He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For":

... I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

If you read Krugman in 2009, especially his "letter" to the new president last January, then you can appreciate how significant the left's disenchantment has become.

More here, from Greg Sargent, "SEIU Chief: If Dems Pass Scaled-Down Health Bill, Labor Will Have Trouble Staying 'Focused On National Politics'" (via Memeorandum). And, from Hot Air, "SEIU Warns Obama: If ObamaCare Doesn’t Pass, We Might Not Be There for the Midterms."

Man, Ayla Brown is Tall!

Via Saberpoint, I just happened to notice this R.S. McCain interview with Ayla Brown. That woman is tall. Whoo hoo!! Be sure to read Stogie's comments:

Last time I wrote about height issues I got in a little trouble, but this time I blame Stogie!

See, At 5' 6½", George Stephanopoulos Debuts at Good Morning America - UPDATED!!"

RELATED: Ayla Brown Acknowledges It: She Voted for Kerry (via Memeorandum).

Bye Bye Obama

No doubt at least a couple of readers have been looking for some big awesome analysis here on the Massachusetts election and its implications for politics and policy going forward. Indeed, Kathy MacGinn used to visit here looking for some big picture analysis only to find pictures of big, busty, beautiful women, LOL! Sorry to disappoint, but it's been a big week at my college, and I've had a pretty bad cold, which is unusual for me. The weather of course has been a major preoccupation, and I've been concerned about my wife and kids out in the elements. We're all safe, and things should be settling down this next week as my school schedule and new-semester-bustle mellows out a bit. And after one more storm today and tomorrow, we should have some calm over the weekend before another front moves in next week. My prayers go out to all.

In any case, I've been meaning to say something significant since at least Wednesday, especially after seeing this post at The Monkey Cage, "The Effect of the MA Special Election." As Joshua Tucker notes there: "The 1993 Canadian Elections this was not." And of course it wasn't, especially since that was a national election for control of the Canadian Parliament (and we had just one seat in the Senate in play on the 19th). Although untold numbers on the radical left can't bring themselves to admit it, Scott Brown's election was a referendum first and foremost on good government at the national level in American politics -- and thus, by primary implication, the election (of a Republican in the Massachusetts Senate seat) was a repudiation of the national Democratic majority under President Barack Obama's leadership:

All kinds of leftist contortions are being made to argue that the Democratic-left hasn't worked hard enough or hasn't been bold enough in pushing its agenda in Washington. That's pure bull, of course, and such halucinations are not isolated to the extreme fringes of the netroots left. Checking Memeorandum right now shows Paul Krugman's essay leading the board, "Do the Right Thing." From the sound of Krugman's piece you'd think that it's just institutional roadblocks holding up ObamaCare. He argues that "Ladies and gentlemen, the nation is waiting. Stop whining, and do what needs to be done." But the nation is not in fact "waiting" -- not for ObamaCare, at least. Gallup shows this morning that Americans are frustrated by the long grind of healthcare reform, and they believe it's been a distraction. With respect to Scott Brown's election, the administration and the Democrats in Congress should take a holistic look at the state of U.S. politics, policy, and popular opinion:

President Obama has indicated he would like Congress to hold off on healthcare reform until Brown is seated, which is consistent with the public's wishes to suspend work on the bill. But the public is also not convinced that healthcare should be the top priority for the government at this time and endorses finding alternatives that can gain Republican support, which the bill under consideration has not received. Americans may therefore prefer a longer pause on the issue -- one that stretches well beyond the time Brown is seated.

And if you want to get a good idea of Democratic disrespect for public opinion, and hence for the message of the special election, see the posts by Steve Benen, Greg Sargent, and Booman (which deserves a response in and of itself).

What the GOP has now is momentum -- extremely powerful momentum -- and that's the real message of January 19th.

So with that, I'll hold off on more comment until later, but I'll leave folks with an analysis from across the Atlantic. See Der Speigel, "The World Bids Farewell to Obama":

US President Barack Obama suffered a painful defeat in Massachusetts on Tuesday. With mid-term elections looming, it means that Obama will have to fundamentally re-think his political course. German commentators say it is the end of hope.

The end of hope means "nope."

Cartoon Credit: The Blog Prof.

ADDED: Dan Riehl links!

And Would You Cry if I Told You That I Lied ... And Would You Say Goodbye?

Time to lighten it up around here with some drivin' rock from my youth. Please enjoy Bachman-Turner Overdrive, "Let it Ride":

Also, from my good friend Anton, "Sunday Music – The Stranger." Plus, Theo Spark, "Thursday Totty ..."

Debating Gay Marriage

There's been a little debate at my last night's, "Cindy McCain Shills for No on H8 (and Meghan Too)." Actually, some of the comments are not really addressing my arguments, or by now they've moved past them to emotionalism. So, as I've done this before, I'll simply repost some articles I've blogged earlier.

From David Blankenhorn, "Protecting Marriage to Protect Children":

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

And from Susan Shell, "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage":

When considering the institution of marriage, a useful comparison exists between how society addresses the beginning and end of human life. Like death, our relation to which is shaped and challenged but not effaced by modern technologies, generation defines our human nature, both in obvious ways and in ways difficult to fathom fully. As long as this is so, there is a special place for marriage understood as it has always been understood. That is to say, there is a need for society to recognize that human generation and its claims are an irreducible feature of the human experience.

Like the rites and practices surrounding death, marriage invests a powerful, universally shared experience with the norms and purposes of a given society. Even when couples do not "marry," as is increasingly becoming the case in parts of western Europe, they still form socially recognized partnerships that constitute a kind of marriage. If marriage in a formal sense is abolished, it will not disappear, but it will no longer perform this task so well.

A similar constraint applies to death. A society could abolish "funerals" as heretofore understood and simply call them "parties," or allow individuals to define them as they wish. Were the "liberationist" exaltation of individual choice pushed to its logical conclusion, would not a public definition of "funeral" as a rite in honor of the dead appear just as invidious as a public definition of "marriage" as an enduring sexual partnership between a man and woman? If it is discriminatory to deny gay couples the right to "marry," is it not equally unfair to deny living individuals the right to attend their own "funerals"? If it makes individuals happy, some would reply, what is the harm? Only that a society without the means of formally acknowledging, through marriage, the fact of generation, like one without the means of formally acknowledging, through funeral rites, the fact of death, seems impoverished in the most basic of human terms.

Like generation, death has a "public face" so obvious that we hardly think of it. The state issues death certificates and otherwise defines death legally. It recognizes funeral attendance as a legal excuse in certain contexts, such as jury duty. It also regulates the treatment of corpses, which may not merely be disposed of like any ordinary animal waste. Many states afford funeral corteges special privileges not enjoyed by ordinary motorists. Funeral parlors are strictly regulated, and there are limits on the purchase and destruction of cemeteries that do not apply to ordinary real estate. In short, there are a number of ways in which a liberal democratic government, as a matter of course, both acknowledges "death" and limits the funereal rites and practices of particular sects and individuals. I cannot call a party in my honor my "funeral" and expect the same public respect and deference afforded genuine rites for the dead. And it would be a grim society indeed that allowed people to treat the dead any old which way--as human lampshades, for example.

Once one grants that the link between marriage and generation may approach, in its universality and solemn significance, the link between funereal practices and death, the question of gay marriage appears in a new light. It is not that marriages are necessarily devoted to the having and rearing of children, nor that infertility need be an impediment to marriage (as is still the case for some religious groups). This country has never legally insisted that the existence of marriage depends upon "consummation" in a potentially procreative act. It is, rather, that marriage, in all the diversity of its forms, draws on a model of partnership rooted in human generation. But for that fact, marriages would be indistinguishable from partnerships of a variety of kinds. The peculiar intimacy, reciprocity, and relative permanence of marriage reflect a genealogy that is more than merely historical.

See also, Vinegar and Honey, "Flabbergasted!"

Heavy Rain Closes Colleges in Long Beach

It was a torrential downpour when I ran out from my office building yesterday to head home from work. I had parked by the athletic facilities, and thus after pulling my car out I drove south on Faculty toward Conant, and then right over to Lakewood Boulevard south, which is my normal route in the afternoon. Perhaps I should have thought twice about it (although at the moment it was raining so hard I doubted an alternative route would have been better). Lakewood was totally flooded and I thought some of the cars might stall from the high water -- mine included. Police had set up a detour at the Lakewood Boulevard and Spring Street intersection, and I traveled east on Spring to Bellflower Boulevard to the 405 southbound. And to my surprise, not a car was on the freeway when I pulled up around the on-ramp. No doubt the 405 was flooded not too far up the road northbound, and the traffic on the other side of the freeway was backed up. When I got home, ABC 7 was showing clips of the Lakewood Boulevard undercrossing (which goes literally under the Long Beach Airport) totally flooded out with mud and debris:

Unlike Long Beach State, where the semester doesn't start until next week, my college is open for classes. Here's the message at the LBCC website as I logged on from my kitchen laptop to write this post:

Thursday January 21, 2010, 4:30 p.m.

Tonight’s weather forecast for Long Beach predicts more rainfall, but at this time, both LAC and PCC campuses are scheduled to remain open for evening classes. We will notify you immediately if there are any changes via email and updates on the LBCC home page.

Please continue to exercise caution when walking around/within campuses, as the walkways and floors may be slippery.

Eloy O. Oakley,
Superintendent-President

Thanks to Dana at Common Sense Political Thought, who asked if my house was dry. That's an affirmative. But it's gnarlier around here than I can remember for a long time.

Check KABC-TV Los Angeles for updates on the Southern California storms.