Mark my words: Michael Steele will be the greatest boon for Democrats since Sarah Palin.
There was underlying concerns we had become too regionalized and the party needed to reach beyond our comfort" zones, he said, citing defeats in such states as Virginia and North Carolina. "We need messengers to really capture that region - young, Hispanic, black, a cross section ... We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.
I don't remember the comedian I saw on TV when I was a kid who, in a fantastically original formulation, said something like, "White folks say 'I hope he doesn't,' but black folks say, 'I wish he would!.'"
I cannot believe the Bush Administration is over. I've been close to weeping all day. This must be what liberation from incarceration or divorce from an abusive spouse feels like.
When will this country grow to realize the extent to which its level of discourse and degree of perfection as a union suffer for the overmuch respect it pays to religious charlatans like Rick Warren? These people have made entire careers, indeed lives, upon the principle that confounding the gullible and exploiting the credulous for immense amounts of money are worthwhile goals and, in fact, do not require adherence to the same standards to which one holds those people.
Warren's church does not admit homosexuals-- whom he compares to child molesters-- for membership, and, in fact, has a program meant to cure them of that affliction (no, not H.I.V. but G.A.Y.). Of course, we remember Ted Haggard-- who was discovered to have solicited sex and methamphetamine from a male prostitute-- undergoing three weeks of counseling after which he was pronounced "completely heterosexual" by one of the four pastors administering this treatment. And people bought it. Because: if you believe that a snake can speak and that a woman can conceive a child without insemination by a man, you can be made to believe anything at all, so long as the right people are saying it to you.
I think it is useful (always) to recall Christopher Hitchens' eulogy of Jerry Falwell on Anderson Cooper's show, the day after the fat crook's death:
It's good to see religious figures coming under fire for something other than doing apparently irreligious things like engaging in drug usage and prostitution. What so nice about this case is that the pastor is not drawing vitriol for having done something that goes against what he preaches, but by preaching the thing at all.
Proposition 8, which it was a hideous assault on the movement toward progress for equality rights in the United States, at least had the inspiring consequence (along with the just-off-of-serendipitously timed release of Milk) of bringing new energy to the gay community and its advocates across the country. John Stewart here grills former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (who has already visited Iowa in anticipation of a 2012 Presidential run, which he'll gear up for by hosting his own show on Fox News) on gay marriage.
I cannot stand Stewart's argument that because homosexuality is not a choice, it is therefore protected by the Constitution. The reality is that even if it were a choice, it would be protected by the Constitution. Our country's legal basis for equal protection under the law isn't reliant upon a maxim of "protecting only the things that nature bestows upon people, rather than lifestyles in which they freely choose to engage." Just the opposite: the basis is maximizing equality, freedom and justice, so that people can make any choice they want, as long as no one is harmed. Every word in the lexicon bears redefining if the result is a legal system where, absent harm done to others, everyone is free to do whatever s/he wants, where everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law and unhindered access to equal rights, where justice is administered to all people without lapses in standard. Can we please leave behind the lifestyle/nature argument, if not because the science is conclusively in on the matter (and Stewart is exactly right about the findings) then because it is completely irrelevant to the legal matter at hand.
Barack Obama appears, at face value, to be one of the few politicians who have real moral integrity. I wish to assert that face value is the deepest value at which he appears that way. I am speaking of the basic function of administering justice that is prosecuting criminals, particularly criminals who have committed the most heinous crimes. Such crimes include torture.
"If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated.” Obama said on the campaign trail, quickly adding, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."
Is Barack Obama’s concern for the now twice-defeated Republicans’ perceptions of his actions greater than his commitment to justice? Is appears so. Here is Keith Olbermann interviewing retired Gen. Paul Eaton the other day. Eaton was one of the group of retired generals who called on the Bush Administration to stop its practices of torture (The relevant section begins at about the 5:40 mark).
Here, Eaton uses the common line that we, as a nation, must look forward, not backward, that we must move on from the traumas of the past, that this is about preventing such future crimes rather than assigning culpability for recent ones.
“We are a very forward looking organization, but we believe that an examination of the past would be helpful. How did we get here? We had one of the retired generals liken it to a Class A or a Serious Accident investigation where you’re not looking for culpability; you’re looking for, ‘How did the accident happen? How did it unfold?’ And when we know that path, we will be better prepared to deal with future wars and future challenges.”
The problem is that the first step toward moving on from the traumas of the past is: by ensuring that justice is done.
If my father is beaten to within an inch of his life and has all he owns stolen, I do not want a legal standard that tells me to look forward, not backward. If my lover is raped on the streets at night, I don’t want a legal standard that tells me I must move on from the traumas of the past. If, when I have any, my children are kidnapped an murdered, I don’t want a legal standard that tells me it is unimportant to prosecute those criminals, since we are working to prevent further kidnappings and murders.
I don’t want a country whose guiding legal principles are moving on and looking ahead; I want a country whose guiding legal principles are doing justice and upholding laws.
Barack Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review. I cannot think of a more egregious abdication of the principles of that education, a more egregious betrayal of the oath he will take on 20 January ("I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.") than bypassing the opportunity to enact justice upon perpetrators of the most heinous of crimes.
Everyone is fond of bringing up South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but the analogy is completely wrong. In that case, the majority people had finally achieved power and, seeing that the crime was too systemic, too societal reasonably to prosecute, decided instead to forgive, pending admission from the culprits. This would be something completely different: members of a government asking other members of a government to say what happened, probably in vain, with no consequences, for a crime whose culprits are clear and identifiable. To make the analogy work, we would have to turn over the country to the victims of torture and they would need voluntarily to offer Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Yoo and Gonzales indemnity. Of course, we know they are not choosing to offer indemnity, but rather revenge, per this article, to which Olbermann refers in the above interview.
Those who do not bring up the TRC, bring up the 9/11 Commission, saying that the American people deserve the truth and the facts. The problem here is that the truth and the facts are pretty well known. For more on them, see the Academy Award-winning documentary Taxi to the Darkside.
I understand that the Supreme Court would never find the culprits guilty of their crimes. Let that be on their hands, though. Obama and Holder need only prosecute, even in a losing case, to absolve themselves before history, law and the creator they each believe in.
