Archives for 2008

In the comments to John’s post, I commented that I would never forgive Bob Barr for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Coincidentally, my partner just came home with the lastest issue of Southern Voice, an Atlanta area gay newspaper, and Bob Barr is on the cover. If elected president, he’d repeal a part of the law:

In a June 2 interview with Southern Voice, Barr, who served in Congress from 1995-2003, delineated between two sections of DOMA: a full faith and credit clause that protects the rights of each state to implement its own definition of marriage, and a section that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman under federal law.

“This [second part] was intended to apply to federal programs, such as survivor benefits, Social Security [and others],” he said.

Barr said it is the second part of DOMA he would work to repeal if elected president.

“Over the years and over the last year since I’ve been more active in the Libertarian Party, I’ve talked with a number of individuals, including members of Outright Libertarians [a gay Libertarian group], and have come to view the second part as having been used as a club, or the tail wagging the dog,” Barr said. “It has become in effect a national definition of marriage. This is not what I intended.”

Barr called that portion of DOMA a “mistake” during a May 25 speech to the Libertarian Party’s national convention. The speech is currently posted on YouTube. […]

“As I mentioned to you all last night, and I reiterate here today — standing before you, looking you in the eye — the Defense of Marriage Act, insofar as it provided the federal government a club to club down the rights of law-abiding, American citizens, has been abused, misused and should be repealed. And I will work to repeal that.”

I do agree with John that he’s not as batshit crazy as the most liberal people make him out to be. Still, I know a lot of gay conservatives, as you might imagine. My goal is to convince them, if they’re not going to vote for Obama, to at least support Bob Barr. While I disagree with him on many issues, I really do believe Bob Barr is a decent person – I mean, the guy worked for the ACLU on privacy issues – which I know we’re all about here. He’s the perfect example of what happens to people when their entire focus is on getting re-elected. When he doesn’t have to do that anymore, he can say what he means and mean what he says.

It seems to me that, what Barr is advocating is the rights of the states to decide what constitutes marriage. I’m ok with that. Well, I’m not ok with states that decide I’m not included, but I accept their right to decide. What he is now advocating is that the Federal government recognize a marriage if a state sanctions it (at least that’s what I think he means). So, if I got married in Massachusetts, for example, the Federal government would have to recognize it. I would be all for that. In fact, if I could vote, and if I thought Barr had a chance, I would vote for him for that reason alone. I married an American in Canada in 2002. My life would be so much simpler.

Slogan for the Barr campaign: Bob Barr – Not as Nutty as John McCain – and he can remember what he said yesterday.

(I’ll use the “Other” category when I talk about icky gay stuff.)

Bob Barr, Part IIPost + Comments (50)

In his own words:

For years, I served as a federal prosecutor and member of the House of Representatives defending the federal pursuit of the drug prohibition.

Today, I can reflect on my efforts and see no progress in stopping the widespread use of drugs. I’ll even argue that America’s drug problem is larger today than it was when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase, “War on Drugs,” in 1972.

America’s drug problem is only compounded by the vast amounts of money directed at this ongoing battle. In 2005, more than $12 billion dollars was spent on federal drug enforcement efforts while another $30 billion was spent to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders.

The result of spending all of those taxpayer’s dollars? We now have a huge incarceration tab for non-violent drug offenders and, at most, a 30% interception rate of hard drugs. We are also now plagued with the meth labs that are popping up like poisonous mushrooms across the country.

While it is clear the War on Drugs has been a failure, it is not enough to simply acknowledge that reality. We need to look for solutions that deal with the drug problem without costly and intrusive government agencies, and instead allow for private industry and organizations to put forward solutions that address the real problems.

I am not sure what exactly Bob Barr will have to do to atone for all his sins in the eyes of the more liberal readers here, but I will note that Barr has been making a lot of sense the past few years. This libertarian thing has done him a lot of good.

Bob Barr: War on Drugs = Epic FailPost + Comments (79)

Via the Carpetbagger, it seems that the Clinton campaign debt is record-breaking, and it is not clear how it can be paid off:

With her campaign now officially suspended, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is confronting still another challenge: whittling down what is believed to be the largest presidential campaign debt in history.

Besides the $11.4 million of her own money that Mrs. Clinton lent her campaign, she had about $9.5 million in unpaid bills to vendors at the end of April, according to her most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission.

It is unclear how much debt she will ultimately report, because the campaign is still adding up the figures for May, which it must file to the commission by June 20. But Mo Elleithee, a campaign spokesman, said, “We don’t expect the debt number to look significantly different than it did on our last report.”

Should we set up an ActBlue account to try to offset some of the debt, or will that not go to retiring the debt? Does anyone know? If it does, maybe if we start an ActBlue account, perhaps others will follow. It certainly seems like Clinton has been acting in very good faith, and we should as well. If anyone can definitively state that money donated today will pay down her debt, I will set one up ASAP.

I can’t believe I am contemplating fund-raising for the Clinton campaign.

Retiring the DebtPost + Comments (179)

Appears to be the new McCain meme, and I doubt it will do any real damage. When he left office, Carter’s approval rating was 34%, which an astute observer would note is higher than our current lame duck.

It really says something about how truly bad the Bush administration has been when most people think of Jimmy Carter’s administration and think to themselves, “Double digit inflation, misery index, hostage crisis, oil shocks, a threatening Soviet Union, etc.,” and then think “Still better than Bush.”

Obama As CarterPost + Comments (107)

Interesting:

Leading Democratic fundraisers predict that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will raise hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few months if he opts out of public financing and begins raising money for the general election.

Specifically, they say Obama could raise $100 million in June and could attract 2.5 million to 3 million new donors to his campaign.

These fundraisers say Obama could increase his fundraising dramatically because of three factors: a boost of enthusiasm among Obama donors following his clinching of the nomination; the migration of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) donors to his camp; and the mobilization of big Democratic donors who have given little so far this year.

Record-breaking projections give Obama strong incentive to pass up $85 million in public funds that his opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has said he would accept.

First, help make it happen:

Second, how does John McCain get to opt out of the system that he adores without paying a political price? I guess ignoring campaign finance laws he thinks should apply to everyone else is “Change he can believe in,” but shouldn’t he at least get some bad press out of it?

100 Million Dollar ManPost + Comments (30)

This is the second time I have seen an iteration of a phrase while describing the Obama campaign, so I thought it was worth mentioning. Last night in a piece by Publius, Hilzoy commented:

I think there are genuine issues about age that deserve a thoughtful exploration. Certainly Reagan seemed to me, by his second term, to have signs of memory problems, and it’s very much worth asking whether that’s a risk we ought to run. That said, I think that a Presidential campaign is just not going to produce any such thoughtful exploration of the issues. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama raises them in the most thoughtful, nuanced way possible, that would be wholly lost.

What would not be lost is the thought: Obama is beating up on McCain. Also, the thought: this is a new kind of politics?

At Lawyers, Guns, and Money, something very similar:

Anyone who thought that Obama’s promise to bring a new kind of politics to the 2008 campaign meant a passive, ‘sweetness and light’ approach received a rude awakening as he repeatedly laid into McCain’s inconsistent positions and ill-thought out campaign promises, particularly on the economy…

In fairness, Hilzoy was discussing the age issue (and comments here– AMAZING! Say her name and she appears!), something the Obama campaign has not brought up, and should not, as there is no need to raise that as an issue. The age issue will raise itself, as it already has in the past few days with McCain’s inability to remember what he has said in a speech and his inability to remember who leads Germany. Again, the age issue will raise itself every time the public sees John McCain standing next to Barack Obama and listens to their contrasting speeches. In the Simpsons, the writers do not need to put the words “Old and out of touch” in cartoon graphics with an arrow pointing at Abe Simpson for viewers to get the message. In Grumpy Old Men, Burgess Meredith’s character was not perceived as old because he wore t-shirts that said “I am as old as dirt.” The same will be the case in the general election. Democrats do not need to point out John McCain is old- he will do that plenty well himself. Democrats would be wise to remember that, as it would be the “same old” kind of politics that Hilzoy is warning us about.

Having said that, I certainly hope that liberals and Democrats do not try to rein in the Obama campaign, because what happened yesterday in North Carolina was a masterpiece of political theater, and it was a devastating critique of not only the Bush administration but the potential third Bush administration as carried out by John McCain. As to it being a “new” kind of politics, let me highlight one section of the speech, the most “full-throated” portion, if you will:

As I’ve said before, John McCain is an American hero whose military service we honor. He can also legitimately tout moments of independents from his party, and on some issues, such as earmark reform and climate change, he and I share goals, even if we may differ on how to get there.

But when it comes to the economy, John McCain and I have a fundamentally different vision of where to take the country. Because for all his talk of independence, the centerpiece of his economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush’s policies. He says we’ve made “great progress” in our economy these past eight years. He calls himself a fiscal conservative and on the campaign trail he’s passionate critic of government spending, and yet he has no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and a permanent occupation of Iraq – policies that have left our children with a mountain of debt.

George Bush’s policies have taken us from a projected $5.6 trillion dollar surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration to massive deficits and nearly four trillion dollars in new debt today. We were promised a fiscal conservative. Instead, we got the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history. And now John McCain wants to give us another. Well we’ve been there once, and we’re not going back. It’s time to move this country forward.

That is not a personal attack. That is not the same old Washington blame game. That is a laying out of facts from the Democratic perspective, a necessary contrast and much needed attempt to define the John McCain economic policy. Another snippet:

John McCain takes great pride in saying that he’s a fiscal conservative, and he’s already signaled that he will try to define me with the same old tax-and-spend label that his side has been throwing around for decades. But let’s look at the facts.

John McCain once said that he couldn’t vote for the Bush tax breaks in good conscience because they were too skewed to the wealthiest Americans. Later, he said it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a time of war because we simply couldn’t afford them. Well, nothing’s changed about the war, but something’s certainly changed about John McCain, because these same Bush tax cuts are now his central economic policy. Not only that, but he is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive. His policy will spend nearly $2 trillion on tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone, a company that just recorded the highest profits in history.

Again, that is not a personal attack. That is simply a recitation of facts, and a framing that does not endear the Republican party with the average voter. One more piece:

Now, contrary to what John McCain may say, every single proposal that I’ve made in this campaign is paid for – because I believe in pay-as-you-go. Senator McCain is right that there’s waste in government, and I intend to root it out as President. But his suggestion that the earmark reforms that we’re both interested in implementing will somehow make up for his enormous tax giveaway indicates that John McCain was right when he said that he doesn’t understand the economy as well as he should. Either that or he’s hoping you just won’t notice. Whatever it is, it’s not the kind of change we need in Washington right now.

Even as someone who does not agree with every Obama campaign economic policy (windfall taxes, for example), this is a new kind of politics, at least for Democrats. A Democrat forcefully engaging the Republican party, rather than mincing words, cowering in the corner and allowing the fringe to define him, is a new kind of politics.

And it is one you should embrace. Forcefully and confidently defining yourself and what you believe in, while defining your opponent and his ideas is not “dirty politics,” it is politics. Obama did not launch into numerous attacks on John McCain the person, he didn’t raise questions as to whether McCain is in league with the terrorists, he attacked McCain on the issues, over his ideas and his policies. Again, that is not dirty politics, although it is a “new kind” of politics for a party that too often has let the opponent frame the debate with the esoteric hope that “the people are smarter than that” and “will see through the Republican attacks.” Rather than worrying about the Obama campaign, Democrats should be cheering what happened yesterday. It was the first time I remember a Democrat forcefully engaging Republican ideas, explaining why they are wrong, and providing an alternate vision.

A “New” PoliticsPost + Comments (72)