Any job worth doing is worth doing fast

The race continues to determine which party can solve the nation's complex intelligence foibles the fastest - ah, I mean - best. They're the same thing, right?

The Hill reported yesterday on the latest in a series of one-upmanship, this time from the Senate Democrats. Minority Leader Tom Dashle (D-SD) called for an intelligence reform bill to be prepared by September 1, a date that coincidentally falls in the middle of the Republican National Convention.

Republicans and Democrats originally dropped the ball on this important issue, but they're now positioning themselves to drop the ball again by pushing legislation as fast as they can to meet the demand from 9/11 families.

Intelligence reform is clearly an important issue, but election year politics may make it a joke by rushing the legislative process in search of political points. They need only look across the river to Congress' Virginia neighbors to see where legislating without considering the consequences can get you.

Related Posts:
Virginia's shotgun legislating strategies

They're equally as bad, see?

Frustrating Democratic efforts at making a distinction in a sometimes-hard-to-find-the-difference Presidential race, Nevada Republicans put forth a volley this week against Kerry's voting record on the locally-hated Yucca Mountain Project. The Kerry team has told Nevadans that he's behind them in their fight to stop the nation's nuclear waste from being shipped to the battleground state, but his voting record seems to indicate otherwise.

Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison provides a well-researched analysis of the western squabble. She points out that Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Kerry's #1 fan in the state, called the so-called "Screw Nevada" bill "an act of naked and unprovoked aggression." Kerry voted for it.

Reid says now, however, that the bill was "just a study."

Nevada Republicans aren't trying to gain the edge on this issue; that edge fell out from under them when the Bush Administration named Yucca as site for the repository. They're hoping, however, to take away any perceived edge the Kerry team may have on the issue in the battleground state.

Unfortunately for undecided Nevadans, their wedge-issue deciding point may have been taken out from under them. They'll be forced to do their homework. Or roll the dice.

Is this thing on?

Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards last night gave what

>pundits are calling a populist speech to delegates Wednesday night, revamping the famous "two Americas" talk he gave to countless audiences while running for the top slot on the ticket. The speech was well received, but one section wasn't as well received as it appeared Edwards was hoping.

"We are going to keep and protect the tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans," Edwards declared, pausing very briefly for applause that didn't materialize. He got back on message mere moments later, however, when the crowd applauded his promise to, "roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," and close corporate loopholes.

While the notion of keeping the Bush-backed tax breaks may fly well with rank-and-file Democrats and undecideds, it's clear that the delegates don't think the same way.

Off the top, this either means that A) the delegates are in favor of higher taxes, or B) they see the tax cuts as a Bush-owned venture that they just can't bring themselves to applaud. My money's on the latter.

They love to hate Fox

On Tuesday, the Democrats welcomed actor Benjamin McKenzie to the podium to energize the youth vote. As the alpha-heartthrob of the impossibly gorgeous and opulent cast of The O.C., he was well received by the delegates - especially those under 30 who actually knew who he was.

Problem was, it was a schizophrenic moment for the Democrats. Not 24 hours prior, the delegates jeered and booed when convention organizers asked them to position themselves for the official convention photo. The offending direction? Turn toward the digital clock, next to the (gasp!) Fox 25 sign.

While I'm quite sure their vexation was actually directed toward the conservative-leaning Fox News Channel, the delegates inadvertently took out their anger on the affiliate who delivers McKenzie and the rest of The O.C. to Boston.

The delegates might want to consider the possibility that not everything with the word "Fox" in it is all bad.

Remember, you're a Senator, too

A lot of noise is being made over the recently-released 9/11 Report, which slid off the presses just in time for Congress to depart for its annual August recess. Critics - including the families of 9/11 victims - are questioning the lack of immediate response from both parties. At the outset, Republicans and Democrats alike seemed to indicate that the commission's report would need to be digested and considered before action could be taken.

Neither party handled the issue well at first; once the backlash began, however, so did the jockeying for position. Much to the dismay of House Democrats, Republican leadership beat them to the punch by announcing a series of Homeland Security Committee hearings starting August 16. Not to be outdone, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced the Democrats would be caucusing six days earlier, in order to get a jumpstart on saving the nation from future terrorist attacks.

In stump speeches today, John Kerry jumped on the bandwagon, criticizing President Bush for failing to act on the report immediately after its release. Slate's Mickey Kaus quotes Kerry saying that, as President, he "would have immediately said to the commission, yes, we're going to implement those recommendations." While I'm not doubting that he might have, he might be forgetting something.

While it's clear that some of the Commission's recommendations can be carried out within the regulatory power of the Administration, some of the most talked about recommendations - including the creation of a unifying umbrella for the intelligence community under cabinet-level National Intelligence Director - require Congressional action. As a United States Senator, Kerry could act on this directly.

While he's clearly busy with his nominating convention this week, perhaps he'll whip up his Senate staff to write that bill over the weekend.

It's morning again in stem-cellia

Ron Reagan, Jr. gave a completely non-political speech last night. At the Democratic National Convention. In which he asked people to vote for John Kerry. Yes, in Reagan's own words, he was "not here to make a political speech."

Perhaps in reverence to his mother and late father, Reagan didn't take the DNC's stage to give a "rah rah" speech for the presumptive Democratic nominee, but it was political nonetheless.

His speech was an impassioned (albeit sometimes technical) plea for the importance of stem cell research, but was directed mostly to the folks outside the Fleet Center walls - a tailor-made talk for moderates who have diabetics, Parkinson's or Alzheimer's patients in their family circle, and who someday hope for a cure.

Reagan didn't mention Kerry by name, but asked delegates and the at-home audience to "cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research" come November. His message to the moderates, between the lines: if you agree with me, vote Kerry.

GOP will "invite" bloggers

The GOP jumped on the blogger bandwagon this week, inviting a first wave of 20 bloggers to be credentialed for the September convention. Salon.com reports that the Republicans invited "those [bloggers] who we believe are moderate in their tone," rather than intitiate an application process like that conducted by Democratic Convention organizers.

While the names of the invitees haven't been made public yet, the blogger opinions will fly once it is. On its face, an "invite only" credential process doesn't exactly exude an air of fairness, and even some high-profile bloggers are sure to be left out.

There's no requirement that the Republicans had to be fair, though; Lord knows the blogosphere isn't.

Clinton's fireproofing

Former President Bill Clinton kicked off the DNC's Convention in Boston last night with a masterfully insulated speech, energizing Democrats and most likely frustrating war room Republicans. While the Republicans will no doubt find many points of attack in the former President's speech, Clinton was able to cut some attacks off at the knees.

In his speech, Clinton thanked Republicans for "my tax cut," deflating any GOP hopes that he might try to give a "joe everyman" speech, on which they would have jumped faster than anyone could utter "book deal." The former president went on to criticize Republicans for protecting his tax cut at any cost - specifically those costs, he said, that led to "withholding promised funding to the Leave No Child Behind Act," cutting veterans' health care, and reduced funding for job training programs.

On the issue of the war, Clinton pointed out that, like Bush and Cheney, he could have gone to Vietnam and didn't, while Senator Kerry did. The implication, of course, being that Kerry is a stronger leader for doing so - even to the point where Clinton belittled his own service in the National Guard.

Pundits on both sides immediately categorized the speech as a strong one. In all reality, it was hard not to. The former President's speech was eloquent in its insulation - vetted skillfully to eliminate the obvious Clinton attack points, leaving Republicans to respond to the issues, rather than the man.

Even the Republican war room machine, DemsExtremeMakeover.com, found little to attack Clinton on, settling instead to point out (in all caps) that while the former President's Monday speech was positive, "Bill Clinton Attacked President Bush [Sunday]."

Republicans at glass podiums...

Today marked the kick-off of both the Democratic National Convention and the GOP response, highlighted by a website called DemsExtremeMakeover.com. The website is one component of a response campaign engineered by the Republican National Committee, aimed at revealing what the RNC views as the mainstreaming of the Democratic Party during the public convention.

While their site is not surprisingly full of campaign propaganda (it will likely get more rhetorical as the convention continues) it also seems to be a glass house full of stones to be thrown. Five weeks from now, the Republicans are planning the same type of convention (and likely, the Democrats are planning the same countermeasures) designed to moderate the public view of the party. The majority of the RNC's prime time lineup is overwhelmingly moderate - much to the distress of the party's right wing.

GOP leadership is clearly counting on the fact that the five weeks between conventions will give them enough time to rebuild their glass house.

Related Posts:
The GOP finds that old tyme religion
Independent voters get two conventions this year
Uh oh, they might have figured it out

Dems score big on blogs

With the Democratic Convention granting press credentials to bloggers for the first time, the blogopshere is chock-full of tales of wonderment. This morning's "Blogger Breakfast" has been covered by several blogs and cross-linked like crazy. (That said, the cross-links begin here.)

The BurntOrangeReport covers the event extensively, and Wonkette has been buzzing all day, not so much about the convention itself, but about her fellow bloggers and the novelty of blogging with credentials. The Wall Street Journal published a partial listing of the credentialed bloggers in today's edition - the featured folks range in age from 16 to 59, and in political affiliation from centrist to leftist, with one Republican outlier.

It's a big win for the DNC - they'll net post after positive post about how progressively wonderful they are for inviting bloggers into the press tent, and all they really had to give up was a little Fleet Center real estate and an (apparently finicky) wireless hub.

While the Boston bloggers enjoy being fawned upon by the DNC (and becoming the story themselves for a change), DA will stay camped out here in D.C. Quiet, quiet, D.C.

Maybe Andrew will call me for drinks.

Spin it to win it?

Responding to a columnist's characterization of DNC Chief Terry McAuliffe as one of the "Most Dangerous People in America," the DNC big wig sat down with gay newsmagazine the Advocate for an interview to clear the air. His talking points were rather restrictive, however.

McAuliffe reiterated his nominee's position that marriage is between a man and a woman, a view shared by running mate John Edwards. However, in response to the very pointed question of whether a Kerry/Edwards Administration would support (as Edwards does) the federal government providing marriage benefits to couples in Massachusetts (where same-sex marriage is now legal), McAuliffe dodged. "I think we have to leave it up to the states," answered the DNC Chief. Huh?

Interviewer Fred Kuhr pressed on, asking:

But does the Democratic Party support the federal government recognizing legal marriages between same-sex couples now that Massachusetts has decided that such marriages are legal?
John Kerry’s point right now is to leave it up to the states, let the states decide. I don’t want this election to come down to issues where Republicans try to divide Americans, and that’s what they’re trying to do with this issue. You’ve got to ask members of the GLBT community to look at the issues that this party has fought for for their community versus the Republicans. The Federal Marriage Amendment is dead in the [Senate] for now, but what happens after the election, we’ll just have to wait and see.

Right. So, on the issue of the whether the federal government should acknowledge the states' decisions on marriage, the Democratic position is to... let the states decide? Talking points are fine, but the DNC should at least make sure their spin makes sense.

Court stripping surprisingly not as sexy as it sounds

The House passed a controversial bill last week that would prohibit any federal court inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court from hearing cases challenging the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA was passed originally to protect states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; its constitutionality, however, has been widely questioned.

Opponents to the bill rightly raised concerns that this type of legislation could become "boiler plate" bill language, included in controversial measures to ensure the courts couldn't touch Congress' actions. It's a dangerous precedent, and it raises serious questions about the framers' intent vis-a-vis the separation of powers.

If Congress begins to dictate which of their laws can and can not be questioned, the people ultimately lose. I don't think anyone would argue that the courts are fallible - Republicans lately agree wholeheartedly - but for Congress to declare itself infallible isn't the right fix.

The GOP needs to remember that someday they might need the help of the courts to decide something in their favor. The fact that it might be their precedent that strips that option away, however, likely won't stop them from being the first to cry foul.

O'Reilly, heal thyself

Bill O'Reilly hosted Mike Rogers, half of the Capitol Hill "outing" duo, on his show this week and chastised him for his campaign, saying that "somebody's personal sex life should have nothing to do with any kind of a policy."

The Chicago Tribune points out that later in the show, however, O'Reilly made reference to a member of the Massachusetts Supreme Court as "the lesbian judge on the Supreme Court." While the Justice in question denies this characterization, an O'Reilly spokesperson said his claim is made based on "more than one independent source."

While it's good to see O'Reilly opposing the outing of Capitol Hill staffers, it's unclear where exactly his personal logic diverts, allowing him to do essentially the same.

Related Posts:
Dude, how gay is the environment? Am I right?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
Out, damn staffer, out!

Quiere Kerry

Despite strong efforts by the GOP stretching back half a decade, a new poll suggests that Hispanic support of the Bush Administration is failing. While both parties have very actively pursued the Hispanic vote, Republicans have made the outreach effort a true investment in the future of the party.

Republicans can't be happy about these numbers, but even conservative Hispanics warned them; National Review contributor Raul Damas wrote two years ago that the GOP's strategy wasn't up to snuff. Four years ago, the GOP's voter registration drives were largely successful and Bush received 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 - what went wrong?

The Bush Administration has worked hard to push Hispanic-focused issues - going as far as to propose an immigration reform plan that even his own party conservatives couldn't swallow. The Post survey, however, says that Hispanics "give Bush lower approval ratings than the overall population does," and support Kerry 2 to 1 over the President.

According to the poll, they disagree with him on the war and the economy, and are shaky on education. They give Bush slightly more support for his immigration stances, but aren't completely supportive by any means.

What all this says - and the Post agrees - is that Hispanics aren't a solid voting bloc - okay, neither is any other ethnic group. What it also says, however, is that if Bush's support is slipping from his 2000 figures, perhaps the GOP hasn't been reaching out as successfully as they thought.

What Cho Problem?

Word is coming out that a scheduled performance by comedienne Margaret Cho during the Democratic National Convention has been cancelled amidst worries from the Human Rights Campaign that her raunchy humor would provide too much fodder for Republicans.

The DNC hasn't shied away from Cho in the past, and has actually teamed up with her recently to publicize a petition opposing the FMA. That effort, however, was aimed only at gay democrats; the HRC and DNC might have figured Cho would be too much for public consumption.

Speaking of gay democrats, it appears the National Stonewall Democrats - whose Convention kicks off today - have joined the "Vote No on Cho" movement. While their website has removed reference to Cho's "headliner" performance (here's how it appeared yesterday), they're clearly still banking on the fact that Cho's name will bring in the site traffic; her name appears 29 times in white-on-white text at the bottom of the convention schedule page.

Terror in disguise

WomensWallStreet.com writer Annie Jacobsen has created some interest with the horrific tale of her recent Northwest Airlines flight from Detroit to L.A. with her husband, son, and 14 apparently small-bladdered Syrian musicians. The tale recounts her terrified trip as she and her husband watched the Syrians - gasp - nod at each other, congregate and talk while waiting (repeatedly) for the bathrooms, and were at first nice to her, then later rude to her. I've never met Ms. Jacobsen, so I'm not sure if this a phenomenon that might occur in the normal course of knowing her or not.

Salon.com writer Patrick Smith lambastes her story quite thoroughly, charging Jacobsen with spreading racist paranoia across the Internet. He has some good points, but even Smith admits it's not hard to see where Ms. Jacobsen is coming from.

Jacobsen’s excruciatingly detailed recounting of her flight, as well as her inexplicable use of quotes around every instance of the word “anxious,” obscures the overall question presented by her piece. Is it possible for the Transportation Security Administration to be colorblind in their efforts to protect Americans in flight? Not likely.

Smith’s counter-argument, however, is that passengers who are busy taking census of the racial makeup of each flight and creating theories, rather than relaxing with “The Prince and Me” like everyone else, are only making things harder for the TSA.

He's probably on to something there.

The GOP finds that olde tyme religion

Curiously following pressure from religious conservatives, the RNC is announcing additional speakers for their September affair to remember. While it's not yet clear whether or not they'll get prime-time speaking slots, Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) are among the new announcements; coincidentally, both have busied themselves lately by spearheading the Senate marriage battle - a policy push designed to reel in the party's right wing.

While the RNC will likely defend the new announcements by saying they were planned all along, one certainly wonders why they didn't even hint about the upcoming (and prominent) speakers list when conservatives first started making noises over two weeks ago.

Related Posts:
Independent voters get two conventions this year
Uh oh, they might have figured it out

Local control, or local controllers?

Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) has indicated she will not be bringing her District of Columbia marriage definition amendment to the floor today as the House considers DC's appropriations bill. CQ Today (sub. req.) reports that while the bill was brought up under an open rule - allowing any number of amendments within certain boundaries - Davis' chief of staff has said the Congresswoman isn't yet ready to introduce the measure.

Perhaps the Congresswoman remembered her campaign mantra of local control. According to Davis' campaign website, Davis is "an advocate of a smaller, less intrusive government," as well as a supporter of "returning more power and flexibility to parents and localities." To be fair, she was specifically referring to education policies, but the "local control" mantra is a common theme throughout her biography.

This contradiction between the party platform of local control and strict regulation of the District has never been a problem for Republican lawmakers. Current GOP backed prohibitions run the gambit from one that prevents District leaders from enacting a long-standing needle exchange program to a much more onerous one that forbids the use of federal or local funds to seek Congressional representation for currently unrepresented District denizens.

Fans of local controlling shouldn't worry, though. Republican leadership has said that Davis can "do whatever she wants," and she'll bring forth the measure again in September.

Next stop, Hollywood Squares

CNN reported yesterday that Linda Ronstadt was escorted out of the Aladdin Casino after dedicating "Desperado" to filmmaker Michael Moore for his film Fahrenheit 9/11. Rondstadt was performing a one-night-only gig at the Las Vegas Strip Casino.

Without a doubt, it's the Aladdin's choice whether or not to showcase the singer in the future, but if the Aladdin is typical of the type of venue Ronstadt can get, maybe she should have thought twice before espousing her political views. Madonna or the Dixie Chicks can get away with alienating audiences and still be largely successful. If you're on the b-list casino circuit, not so much.

Considering one-quarter of the audience walked out after the dedication, "Don't Know Much" might have been a more popular song choice.

Let's get creative (yeah, yeah, yeah)

Following in the footsteps of the failed FMA vote, conservative Republicans are looking for other options to hold the interest of their conservative right wing. The Hill reported last week that the GOP Leadership in the House is considering several new proposals. Among these is a proposal to strip the authority of federal courts over the issue of same sex marriage, with the hope of protecting the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits states from being forced to recognize marriages from other states.

What the Hill doesn't address is the fact that such a proposal could also take away the potential for federal courts to overrule state court actions granting such marriages, a judicial tactic attempted by Massachusetts conservatives following that state's Supreme Court ruling granting same sex marriage.

While conservatives haven't seen much success in that tactic, they're banking on the fact that closing the door will do more good than any potential help it would be to them were it left open. House Republicans like the tactic so much, actually, that they're already planning other bills to strip federal jurisdiction over the Pledge of Allegiance and, when the time is right, perhaps abortion; late last month, Professor Martin H. Redish testified before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution that it is "virtually impossible to say definitively what the outer limits of this congressional power actually are." That ringing endorsement of their omnipotence should excite the right-wingers.

It's not good policy for either party to attempt to dictate where Congress is and is not fallible; while the marriage jurisdiction proposal, like the FMA, will likely see a quick demise, the Republicans should take a look at the precedent they're setting and ask themselves if they would look forward to being on the other end of it.

Related Posts:
Success, failure and the FMA
Platform for Propaganda
Some of these kids are not like the others
Congratulations! It's a... net gain?

Frist says 55 would be super keen

The Hill reports today that Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is hoping for 55 Republicans in the Senate following the 2006 elections, noting that with rule and precedent changes in the upper house, the new "real" majority is 60.

While the desire is certainly admirable, reality seems to indicate it's a) not likely, and b) even if it happens, Frist's track record on keeping his boys and girls in line isn't stellar of late. With an increasing number of moderates in the Senate, Frist will have to also hope that his party's right-wing makes good on their promise to target Republicans who just aren't Republican enough.

The Governator channels his SNL parody

Democrats are crying foul on Governor Schwarzenegger's characterization of Democratic state legislators as "girlie men." While it's not hard to argue that the remarks were sexist, some state legislators seem to be rushing to the aid of gay stereotypes by calling the comment homophobic.

California State Senator Sheila Kuehl said that the Governor's comments were "blatant homophobia," according to CNN. The openly-lesbian lawmaker went further, saying that "it uses an image that is associated with gay men in an insulting way."

I'm guessing Kevin Nealon and Dana Carvey might disagree. The Governor pulled the line from their skit on Saturday Night Live about two foreign-born body builders, in which both of them used the term "girlie men" quite loosely.

Whether or not the comedic duo meant it in a gay-bashing sense (I'm voting a strong "no" on that one), it was even further from clear that the Governor was making those implications. That is, until Democrats made it for him.

All in all, I'd say one of the surest ways to break down these stereotypes is for activist groups and individuals to stop automatically assuming it's about them.

Now, women are a different story. Go forth and be offended.

Success, failure, and the FMA

The Federal Marriage Amendment went down in flames (several potential puns not intended) last Wednesday, but was successful in propagating a barrage of blame/credit for its demise. The American Family Association, through its media watchdog arm OneMillionMoms.com, sent an e-missive (hosted by DA) last night to its membership, asking them to call Senator Daschle today, noting that he "was the one person who held the liberals together to filibuster the Federal Marriage Amendment, thus keeping the American people from having a vote in this matter."

Certainly an interesting theory. The inside ballgame tells a different story, however.

Daschle was opposed to the FMA - that much the AFA got right. But their version of events is rife with spin. Early last week, Democrats agreed to an "up or down" vote on the FMA, as long as there were no amendments. One might think this was an easy ask, since the Republicans wrote the bill in the first place.

Not so, said the Republicans - they needed two amendments to their bill: one would strike the second sentence of the proposed Constitutional addition; the second would have restored it.

A little explanation is clearly needed.

Moderate Republicans like Gordon Smith (R-OR) wanted to have the opportunity to "soften" the FMA by removing language that prevented the U.S. or any State Constitution from being "construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred" on any couple save those of the opposite sex. Legal scholars were split (along party lines), but many believed the second line would invalidate existing civil union or domestic partnership laws nationwide - one step too far, from the moderate perspective.

Conservatives and party leadership wanted a vote on the FMA as written, however, so while they agreed to a vote on Smith's redaction, they coupled it with a vote to restore the language, just in case.

So why didn't party leaders tell moderates where to shove it and just agree to the Democratic offer to vote on the amendment directly? Therein lies the rub.

The vote last Wednesday was, in plain English, a vote on whether or not to end debate and consider the bill on the floor. The procedural vote was an easier sell to moderates; they can personally spin that their vote was simply a vote to allow the important debate, rather than a vote to amend the Constitution. Very simply, GOP leaders could get more votes in favor of a procedural vote, protecting them from an embarrassing failure on a pure FMA vote.

Whether they avoided the embarrassment is questionable, however - the final vote put them twelve votes behind the procedural requirement - but a full 19 votes below the required 2/3 to advance a Constitutional Amendment.

Related Posts:
Platform for Propaganda
Some of these kids are not like the others
Congratulations! It's a... net gain?

Look at our (mandated) rainbow!

While perusing the Democratic Convention website, I ran across this link to an article touting the diversity of this year's Democratic Convention. The portion of the article posted on the DNC's site reads:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Minorities will be represented in record numbers among the delegates to this month's Democratic National Convention in Boston, convention organizers said Wednesday.

How great is that? Now, those visitors who visit the full article will find a more complete reporting on the why.

It's no secret the Democratic Party has mandated that each state develop a plan to ensure diversity. These plans set "goals" for participation through a broad list of categories including gender, race, ethnicity, and in some states, sexual orientation. The national party is quick to note that these are goals - not quotas - but that's not always the way it plays out at the state level.

In many states, these "goals" become "slots" to be filled and many times, the badges are handed to people who best fit into one of these slots. No state wants to be known for having a majority-white or majority-male delegation - and goals are made to be achieved, right?

While the Republican Convention will look far less diverse than their Democratic counterparts, the minority representatives who are there will at least know that they're not filling a slot.

Independent voters get two conventions this year

Not to be out done by Republicans when it comes to Convention headliners that appeal to the center, the Kerry Campaign leaked the fact that a Reagan will take the spotlight during this month's Democratic Convention in Boston. Ron Reagan, Jr., CNN reports, will address the convention on the issue of stem cell research; Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox were reportedly A) unavailable or B) not the son of a conservative icon (nyah, nyah Republicans we'd like to see you top this.)

The unnamed Kerry adviser who sprung the leak indicated that this speech shows that the Democratic Party "won't put ideology in front of sound science and let politics get in the way of what is best for the American people." It apparently also shows that all of the actual policy experts in the area of stem cell research were either A) unavailable or B) not the son of a conservative icon (nyah, nyah Republicans we'd like to see you top this.)

The Republicans are left (pun intended) hoping their "we're moderate, really" line-up of Rudy Giuliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will be sufficient to counter the Democratic volley. Sources in the party responded to the Reagan, Jr. announcement by saying they're not surprised a liberal is addressing the Convention, pointing out that Democratic Senator Zell Miller will be addressing the GOP gathering, which "would resonate more with independents" than Reagan, according to CNN.

With no offense intended to the Democratic (but just barely) Georgian, unless he changes his last name to Clinton in the next two months, he won't exactly have the same big-name draw as the gipper's boy.

Related Posts:
Uh oh, they might have figured it out
Is it really stealing the spotlight when it's offered?

Virginia is not for Sunday lovers

Governor Mark Warner called the Virginia Legislature into a special session set for next Tuesday to address the "day of rest" snafu. While he's right in doing it, the Washington Post mentions, in their last paragraph, the complete lack of interest from religious activists in the resolution of this issue.

Ironically, during a time when most religious activists are popping their political barometers over marriage and sodomy laws, the same activists don't seem to be overly concerned with the laws governing a person's ability to worship on the Sabbath in accordance with strict Biblical interpretations. Then again, the Sabbath is mentioned five chapters after sodomy - perhaps they got so riled up, they forgot to keep reading?

Virginia's Reverend Jerry Falwell, however, called the "day of rest" requirement "totally impractical" for businesses in modern times. Now, if business is the keyword, what about all those wedding planners in Massachusetts?

Dude, how gay is the environment? Am I right?

The previously mentioned outing campaign on Capitol Hill has claimed its first victim, according to Roll Call's Heard on the Hill.

Well, by "victim," they mean someone's been outed. And, to be fair, by "outed" they mean activists pointed out that this staffer was a Metro Weekly coverboy a few years ago. Okay, so he wasn't exactly the poster boy for California Closets in the first place.

Even while my previous posts on this issue criticized the campaign as McCarthy-esque, I had at least harbored hope that the targets of their campaign would be high-level staffers who are negatively affecting the interests of civil rights advocates. So, who is this first victim? He's a staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which uber-conservative Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is chair. Whether the staffer is high-level or not, the EPW Committee isn't exactly a hotbed for civil rights legislation of any kind.

According to Roll Call, Republican sources have indicated that "the EPW staffer is not in danger of losing his job over the controversy." While that's good news, that nagging question still remains: what exactly was gained?

Related Posts:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
Out, damn staffer, out!

Uh oh, they might have figured it out

The Hill reports today that GOP conservatives are experiencing heartburn over their lack of public representation in the upcoming national convention, citing top-billing for centrist Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani.

Conservative Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) told The Hill, “I am astonished that in an election year that is routinely described as a “base election” there will be no prime-time speakers who will give voice to the traditional moral values that bring millions of our voters to the polls.” And therein lies the GOP strategist's not-so-little secret: they'll support right-wing policies to bring in "the base," but when it comes to the very public image of the party, they'd rather put some mainstream folks on the frontlines.

RNC spokesman Leonardo Alcivar noted that the party picked moderates in order to show the "strengths and breadth of the Republican party." Current Congressman and former RNC Chief Tom Cole went a step further, saying that the delegates "want this to be what the president wants it to be."

Huh. So even George W. doesn't want wingers at the podium?

I'm not sure it could be much clearer to the right-wing: you've got your marriage amendment and abortion policies, now please be quiet before someone hears you.

Related Posts:
Is it really stealing the spotlight when it's offered?

Platform for Propaganda

Strategizing has begun in earnest on a planned same-sex marriage vote in the Senate next week. Roll Call reports that Republicans are working on a whip count, specifically focusing on 10 on-the-fence Republicans who could lean either way.

No one disputes that the impetus behind the vote is to get Democrats "on the record" as supporters of gay marriage, ostensibely inferred from their "yea" vote on the Senate floor next week. But on the other end, Republicans are telling their own that they should support the procedural cloture vote "even though you may not support [the Federal Marriage Amendment] at the end," according to Senator Trent Lott (R-MS).

I'm not sure Lott cleared that theory, however, with his very pro-FMA colleague Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), who noted "you can call it a procedural vote, but it is a vote as to whether you believe that marriage should be protected."

Either the cloture vote means something, or it doesn't, right? Not quite. Republicans are betting on the fact that the American people A) don't know and B) don't care what the difference between the procedural cloture motion and the "real" vote is. A safe bet, for sure.

The boys and girls across the aisle are responding with a little twist of their own, however, as Democratic sources tell Roll Call that they're considering dropping their objections to an up-or-down vote on the FMA. This would essentially remove the "safety" of a cloture motion for moderate Republicans who aren't sure they want to be on the record supporting the measure.

Don't worry, though: in the end, both parties will be more than happy to tell us all what, exactly, the vote meant.

Related Posts:
Some of these kids are not like the others
Congratulations! It's a... net gain?

Some of these kids are not like the others...

The Campaign to Protect the Constitution ran a full page ad in Roll Call this morning to oppose the impending vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment - which wouldn't be all that interesting if it weren't for the seven Presidential children and one presidential grandchild attached to it.

Ron Reagan, Jr., Jack, Chip, Jeff & Amy Carter, Lynda Johnson Robb, Luci Baines Johnson, and Anna Eleanor Roosevelt joined together to oppose the amendment, albeit sans their many of their most noteworthy counterparts, including Jeb, George, Chelsea, Jenna and Barbara. Then again, one of them has made his feelings known in other ways.

Ron Reagan is certainly the headliner for this well placed effort; with all due respect to the rest of the kids, many of them must have seen this ad as a great opportunity to remind the public that they're... well, not dead.

Lame! Duck! Session!

Roll Call this morning is already adding up the remaining legislative days, subtracting the weekends, dividing by campaign hours, and applying the theory of pessimisity to the remainder of the 108th Congress. They're editorializing today that by best estimates, the 108th will be back after the elections for a lame duck session to deal with any remaining spending bills.

The scoreboard doesn't look too good, though, and they have a valid point. Roll Call points out that the House has sent four appropriations bills to the Senate and have passed three more out of committee. The Senate, in contrast, has passed one (the Defense Approps bill; during a war, it's hard not to) and has cleared one additional spending bill out of committee. Appropriations bills, however, must originate in the House, so it's not odd for them to be ahead of the Senate at this point.

To look at the Senate schedule, however, one might think that Bill Frist has forgotten that he's no longer at the helm of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The Majority Leader/Electoral Cheerleader has blocked out this week for nominations and tort reform - there's a political jab embedded in both issues for the newly minted Democratic VP candidate; next week, a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which will force Democrats to go "on the record" on the divisive issue of gay marriage.

It looks as if appropriations will not see major momentum until after the August recess and the party conventions, as CQ Today reports that Appropriations Cardinal Ted Stevens (R-AK) has flatly rejected the idea of an omnibus package before the Senate leaves town for August.

On the optimistic side, perhaps Frist and the Senate Republicans will get all their election year posturing out of the way in July, leaving September free and clear to consider, pass, conference on, pass again and send the remaining twelve appropriations bills to the White House before everyone needs to leave town for electioneering.

Oh, wait. Now I think I see where Roll Call's pessimism comes from.

Related Posts:
Edwards is the man, tort reform is the issue

Blah, blah, unity. Now, can we get back to Edwards?

I bet John McCain wishes he had enjoyed this much attention four years ago when he was vying for the top spot himself. Regardless, the media, and now the Republicans, can't stop thinking about the Arizona Senator. The GOP is jumping up and down to remind people that Kerry's "first choice" for a running mate was a stalwart GOPer, and Kerry's VP searchmeister Jim Johnson is busy downplaying the role McCain played in the search.

This morning, Johnson told CNN's Bill Hemmer that there was "a lot of interest in the concept of a unity ticket," but that they never got to a serious stage, and that Edwards was the only offer made.

This has got to die down soon, right? Although maybe if everyone stopped writing about it, that would help. Eh. Forget I said anything.

Related Posts:
Oh wait, now we love that story...
They hope, oh how they hope...

Oh wait, now we love that story!

The Bush Campaign quickly went from hating the buzz over a mythical Kerry/McCain ticket to soaping up and bathing in it. The New York Times reports the Bush Campaign, and Republicans nationwide, are spinning the Edwards pick as "Kerry's second choice." This adds yet more fuel to the "why the hell did Kerry leak this in the first place?" fire.

Until the Kerry Camp leaked info about a Kerry-McCain talk (see related link below), the bipartisan ticket talk had been largely dismissed as a ratings-hungry media fantasy. Now, it's fodder for Republicans to opine that even Kerry's first choice for America is a Republican.

Related Posts:
They hope oh how they hope...

Edwards is the man, tort reform is the issue

Kerry's pick of John Edwards for Vice couldn't have come at a better time for Senate Republicans, as the Upper House takes on tort reform legislation this week.

The Democrats have threatened amendments to the legislation, including everything from a minimum wage hike to a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Regardless of the amendments, or even the legislation's chances of passing (slim), the forum is likely to be a perfect opportunity for Senate Republicans to go on the offensive about those bad, bad, trial lawyers. And what are the chances they're going to pass up the opportunity to remind the C-SPAN viewing public of the Senate's most prominent trial lawyer, Johnny Edwards? (also slim.)

Good point. But, uhm, next time, could we work on the phrasing?

Would-be-but-isn't candidate Jack Ryan responded recently to the folks who demanded his divorce records. ABC News noted that "Ryan, 44, defended himself, telling ABC News' John Stossel, 'I think we need more people going to Washington, D.C., who want to engage in marital relations with their wives. I think that's a good thing for this country, not a bad thing.'"

Okay. Regardless of the fact that I'm feeling pretty good about the headline of my original post (see below) on this subject, it was meant as a ludicrous joke. The fact that this is Ryan's defense is pretty weak. As I said before, he shouldn't have had to face this in the first place (the Kerry Campaign agrees, I believe), but is this really the best line he could come up with to address the situation?

I can't help but agree with Ryan - Washington's political denizens don't have a good reputation for fidelity, but it's not a good day in DC when "sex club life" masquerades as "north" on the moral compass.

Related Posts:
At least it was his wife, I guess.

The pause that refreshes, locates you, then reads your diary.

If I had a nickel for every time the military was threatened by the Coca-Cola Corporation... hmm, well, I'd just have the one nickel.

Nonetheless, CNN reports that thanks to a Coke promotion involving global positioning chips and cell phones built into prize-winning coke cans, the military has asked that all personnel examine their cans prior to bringing them in to classified briefings, just in case the insurgents at Coca Cola are listening.

Personally, I think they're going a little overboard, but then again, the military is quite good at that, so why deny them?

EXCLUSIVE TO DEVIL'S ADVOCACY: Reports are surfacing that Coke knows when you are sleeping, and knows when you're awake; reportedly, it knows when you've been bad or good, so you'd better be good (for goodness sake).

Specifically, whose lobbyists screwed up again?

As a sidenote to the Virginia debacle, the National Federation of Independent Business wrote a letter to Virginia legislators clearly laying out who was to blame for the snafu (because apparently someone asked?).

The letter notes that "nobody caught this -- not the legislator who sponsored the bill, not the legislators who voted for the bill . . . not the governor who signed the bill and none of the lobbyists who watch for such bad bills," the letter said, according to the Washington Post's story.

One would assume NFIB was staring scornfully at itself in a mirror as they wrote this; if I were the one whose paycheck depended on defending NFIB's interests in Richmond, I might be updating my resume right about now.

Related posts:
Virginia's shotgun legislating strategies

Virginia's shotgun legislating strategies

The Commonwealth of Virginia has accidentally reinstated so-called "blue laws" which allow an employee to demand either Saturday or Sunday off as a "day of rest," fueling fears that "stores, airlines, hospitals and factories might be forced to shut down on weekends," according to the Post.

The Commonwealth is reviewing its options to delay the enforcement of the law, which includes the possibility of a special session of the Legislature. The accidental reinstatement stems from Senate Bill 659, which eliminated "four out-of-state provisions of the blue laws," which force businesses to close up shop on Sundays. The near-unanimously removed provisions, however, also included exemptions for the enforcement of the blue-laws.

This popular yet unknowingly broad law could prove to have been a trend in Virginia's most recent legislative session. Activists are already protesting the enforcement of a sweeping law passed this year that would prohibit "civil unions, partnership contracts, or other arrangements" that "bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage," according to The Advocate.

I'm no lawyer (just the first on a long list of things I'm not), but it seems to me that a law essentially aimed at invalidating a wide range of contracts between two men or two women might, just might have some unintended consequences. I'm predicting more on that later.

They like him, they really, really like him.

Conservative groups in Oregon are backing their boy Nader all the way to November. And by that, let's be clear that we mean November 1. Because on November 2, they've got a date with George. CNN (along with others) is reporting that a group known as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is calling shenanigans on the phone banking done by two right-wing groups to encourage their members to support Nader's bid to get on the ballot in the Beaver State.

Apparently, CREW thinks that the right-wing groups' phone calls should amount to in-kind contributions (of the illegal variety) to Nader. It's certainly an interesting way to look at it, though; if intentions count for anything, though, perhaps the Federal Elections Commission should take it one step further and consider the calls an illegal in-kind donation to Bush.