Colbert on Palin

2010 February 9
Leave a comment
tags: , , , , , ,
by nseaver

It’s hard to resist good satire (and yes, Colbert is satire, Limbaugh is not).  One of his funnier and more on-point segments.

from → News, Politics, Sarah Palin, TV, republicans

Gibbs on Palin

2010 February 9
Leave a comment
tags: , , , ,
by nseaver

Awesome–because if she responds (most likely on Facebook) she has to acknowledge to her legion of followers that she had notes on her hands during a Q&A and during the speech in which she mocked Obama for using teleprompters (note the photo to the left that shows her convention speech).

from → Politics, Sarah Palin, republicans

Best Super Bowl Ad of the Year

2010 February 7
1 Comment
tags: , , , ,
by nseaver

We all watch the ads during the Superbowl for a good laugh.  This year had some great ads, but my hands down favorite ad was from Google.  It’s not often that an ad can give you a chill, but even in a loud crowded bar this one shone through.

Apparently, this wasn’t even a new ad.  Second place (and yes, almost 100% just because it’s Betty White)?

Let me know which was your favorite.

from → Advertising

Duncan on Don’t Ask

2010 February 3
Leave a comment
tags: , , , , , ,
by nseaver
Rep. Duncan Hunter was interviewed on NPR explaining his opposition to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  The thing that no opponent has made clear is how there is a new danger posed to straight soldiers by the repeal when it’s universally acknowledged they are already serving with gay men and women.  Th commonly made argument that shared bunks and showers would make them targets of sexual attacks.  Allowing soldiers to serve openly won’t turn them into rapists.  And if you don’t think they are implying rape, please tell me why they use the terminology “forced intimacy” instead of close quarters, or serving together 24/7, or any other host of descriptions that aren’t so unnatural and such loaded terms.

Key Q&A:

BLOCK: But Congressman Hunter, wouldnt you agree that there are gays and lesbians serving in the military right now, they just are not open about their orientation. So the problems that you raise presumably would be problems already. They are in the barracks already. They are in the showers already.

Rep. HUNTER: No, but they arent open about it, like you just said. Its like if you want to work for NPR, you dont go to work and on the first day
say, hey, I want everybody to know that Im gay. You probably dont care one way or the other as long as they, you know, get their particular job done. I think the military is the same way. Thats why dont ask, dont tell works.

from → Don't Ask Don't Tell, Gay Rights, Military, News, Politics

Family Research Council on Criminalizing Homosexuality

2010 February 3
Leave a comment
tags: , , , , , , , ,
by nseaver

In quite an exchange on last night’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, Audrey Sarvis, of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) debated Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell with Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council. Sarvis hangs Sprigg out to dry, but at one points advocates criminalizing homosexuality in civilian life as well. Surprisingly, he does admit that people don’t choose to have “same-sex attractions.”  Sprigg simply faults them for acting on the these feelings.  The problem here is that Sprigg frames this as about attraction, not emotion or love.  However, his admitting that this is not a choice is a quite something to me and leaves a bigger hole in the logic than he starts with.  While everyone should watch the full clip below, I’ve also included a short version pulling out this highlight.

Full clip:

from → DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Gay Rights, Military, News, Politics

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t See Much Movement

2010 February 2
2 Comments
tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
by nseaver

Really quite frustrating.  Before I get to the recap of the day and week, I just want to make one note on the politics and integrity of this issue.

Democrats allow themselves to be cast as weak on security every election cycle.  Sure, Hillary Clinton runs as a hawkish democrat who refuses to set a deadline for withdrawl, but no matter what, we’re all cast as weak on defense simply because we’re not in the NRA and think that maybe we should engage in talks before we engage in bombing (an oversimplification, but not by that much).  Here, once again, we’re casting ourselves as weak on military issues.  This may not be as significant as starting a war, but President Obama is also the Commander in Chief.  So he should command.  And everyone else in the armed forces should follow that lead, just like they promised.  Why are we looking for approval on a policy change that most people agree with?

Do we think some republicans will use this to their advantage come November?  Sure, if swift, just action were taken now and DADT were repealed, some candidates might face the issue in their reelections.  But frankly, punting it a year down the road just means that instead of the campaign attacks asking why did you support this “radical liberal agenda,”  it will be a legitimate issue of future legislative action.  It will be a campaign promise of (and for) the homophobes rather than a settled piece of policy that is just one more vote that has come and gone.

Barring any truly momentous events,  the 2010 election will be about jobs and the economy.  If President Obama were to announce today that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would not be enforced until Congress passed its repeal, soldiers would not stand up and leave the armed forces (and anyone who thinks they’re loyalty is that superficial, please stand up).  Further, there won’t be some mad rush of men and women in the armed forces coming out and putting on their rainbow camo.  They’d continue to do their jobs, and they wouldn’t have to hide.  They could openly talk about what most of their colleagues probably know.  The partners and husbands and wives of those soldiers could finally speak out about what they go through on a day to day basis and get the support that straight husbands and wives receive.  This doesn’t require a lot of political capital–especially if done through the Defense budget.  What it does require is an little bit of courage.

Now, an update for those who haven’t been following closely.

  • Today the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing, featuring Secretary of Defense Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen.  Mullen’s opening remarks that he personally supports the repeal are below.

    “We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals, and ours as institutions

  • Based on the previous remarks of Sen. McCain, he should be open to voting for the repeal.
  • Carl Levin gets a bit weak-kneed, thinking maybe a pause is better than repeal.
  • The Pentagon is starting a year long commission, headed by  Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Army Gen. Carter Ham to look at how to “safely incorporate” openly gay soldiers into the armed forces.  There is also a 45-day review to look at ways to reduce discharges (citing third-party outings as a situation that could be reduced).  More from the AP here.
  • Republicans are turning on Secretary Gates (that’s right, the Bush appointee), calling him an activist Secretary of Defense?

    Republicans on the panel accused Mr. Gates of usurping Congressional prerogatives by suggesting that the Pentagon commission would study how, not whether, to implement a repeal of the ban.

    “Your statement obviously is one which is clearly biased, without the view of Congress being taken into consideration,” said Sen. McCain, accusing the defense chief of trying to repeal the law “by fiat.”

More to come, but I’ll leave you with a few statements:

Statement from the Service Members Defense League.

We strongly applaud Sec. Gates supporting the President’s view that DADT needs to go. It’s a matter of when and how, he said, not if. We also strongly applaud Chairman Mullen who unambiguously personally supported gays and lesbians serving openly. The top military brass of the United States just laid out a roadmap for full repeal.

The statement of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Contact: Bethany Lesser (202) 224-3873

GILLIBRAND STATEMENT FOR SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING ON “DON’T ASK DON’T TELL”

First Congressional Hearing Since Discriminatory Policy Was Established 17 Years Ago

Gillibrand Helping Lead  the Charge in the Senate to Immediately Repeal the Policy

Washington, D.C. – Today, as the Senate Armed Service Committee holds the first hearing on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy since it was first established 17 years ago, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand issued the following statement. Senator Gillibrand is helping lead  the charge in the Senate to repeal the unjust, harmful policy that undercuts the civil rights of some of America’s bravest men and women, and weakens America’s national security.

read more…

from → Barack Obama, DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Gay Rights, John McCain, Military, News, Politics, armed services, republicans

The Way Politics Should Be

2010 January 30
Leave a comment
tags: , , , , ,
by nseaver

Definitely worth a watch–even if it’s an hour.  This strikes me as such a rare thing–a President of one party walking into a room full of the other party and taking questions for over an hour.  I find it really refreshing to hear an open exchange of ideas and a willingness to stand and address the questions without a filter and in front of a global audience.  While many of the overarching messages were about the tone of the debate, there were some quite interesting policy discussions as well.

A few highlights:

On the stimulus and compromising in legislation

A lighter moment to the serious issue of hyper-partisan politics limiting the ability to come together and find real solutions:

from → Barack Obama, News, Politics, republicans

State of the Union Review

2010 January 28
Leave a comment
tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
by nseaver

In my (humble opinion), I found this a fascinating speech (full text after this post).  Really great in many ways, but parts struck me as quite odd.  I feel a bit like Obama took a card from the Joe Wilson book, coming off his perch for moments to take some political shots.  Most notably, after describing tax cuts with no reaction from the Republicans, he called out Republicans for not standing.  Several other jokes were cracked that struck me as much more casual than I expect at such a ceremonial occasion.  That said, I found some parts phenomenal.

One striking moment was when Obama tackled the recent Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and called out what he saw as a bad decision.  I’m not sure to the precedent of telling the Court they are wrong to their face, but it seemed really unexpected (and Justice Alito seemed to agree–CNN saying he said “No, that’s not true”).

That said, I loved his introduction,

It’s tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable – that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history’s call.

As he continued, I loved the way he framed the need to address global warming.  It also seems to have been off script or a last minute addition, as it’s not in the prepared remarks.  He nicely shift it from a science discussion (while saying it was nearly irrefutable) to an issue of jobs.  Paraphrasing, he said that ‘Even if you doubt the overwhelming science behind it, you can’t doubt that the nation that has the leading clean energy economy will lead the global economy.’

Health care was fascinating, and seemed to me to be a very honest plea to not walk away.  I think he could have more effectively laid out the exact things that reform would do for families.  He did to some extent, but I don’t think he did it enough. Pre-existing conditions seem to me to be something no one could oppose–especially when given some of the absurd reasons insurance companies find.  This should have been fleshed out a bit more so that people could have understood the details, not the messy process.

He obviously drove home the jobs issue and I think did a pretty good job of explaining what has been done so far to slow the bleeding, so to speak.

On the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I think we got a solid shout out that will provide a needed boost and sent a clear signal to the leadership of the armed forces from the Commander-in-Chief.  It certainly wasn’t a necessary, and there was interestingly quite a vocal response in support.  I fear the sentence before may be lost, but he also highlighted the success of hate crimes legislation–an often overlooked success that is shared among many parties.

We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.

Finally, jumping back to the issue of the partisanship.  I maintain that some of the digs could have been left out, as this passage quite effectively summed it up.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

Your thoughts?

from → Barack Obama, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Gay Rights, Hate Crimes Legislation, News, Politics, economy, republicans

The President’s Remarks

2010 January 27
1 Comment
tags: , , , ,
by nseaver

As prepared:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

January 27, 2010

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

The State of the Union

Wednesday, January 27, 2009

Washington, DC

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For two hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It’s tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable – that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history’s call. read more…

from → Barack Obama, News, Politics

Prop 8 Update: January 27

2010 January 27
Leave a comment
tags: , , , ,
by nseaver

Defenders of Prop 8 today called their second and final “expert” witness.  Here are a few key passages caught by Brian Leubitz at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker:

  • “I’m simply repeating things that they say.”
  • “These are not my own conclusions.”
  • “I’m a transmitter here of findings of these eminent scholars.”
  • “Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.”
  • “Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.”
  • “Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”

Remarkably unconvincing argument against marriage equality.

from → California, Gay Rights, Marriage Equality, News, Politics

« Older Entries