Homodox

A Question Not Asked And Redemption

The Senate voted to end the ban on allowing people with HIV into the United States.  Chief among those responsible are Senators Kerry and Smith.  In 1996, John Kerry was in a close battle for re-election with then Gov. William Weld.  I had voted for Weld twice in 1990 and 1994.  John Kerry during that year voted to continue the ban on allowing HIV people into the U.S.  I intended to vote against him.  Not only for that, but Gov. Weld was a republican who was pro-gay and we needed more of those types of republicans to be rewarded.

I was walking in the AIDS Action Committee's annual AIDS walk with my friend, John.  As we turned onto Memorial Drive, there was Senator Kerry shaking hands.  I told John I was going to ask about that vote and John, said no, you can't do that, it's impolite.  So I said nothing, shook his hand and kept walking (this is as close as I've ever come to a presidential, real or potential).  Later on, John apologized and said I should have said something.  Moment lost.

So, Sen. Kerry, better late than never.  I guess now that his dreams of the White House are over, he can be the liberal lion senator for the rest of his life.  

A Drop in the Bucket

Mitt Romney, erstwhile governor of my home state and presidential candidate will not ask for help in retiring his $45 million debt.  You or I will never what it's like to have $45 million let alone squander it on a failed presidential run.  However, according to this estimate, Mitt is worth $350 million.  So his debt is but 12.8% of his net worth.  OK.  The latest net worth estimate for the average American is from 2002 and was released in April 2008.  That amount is $58,905.00.  So, let's say that in 2008 it's more like $60,000.  12.8% of that is $7,714.28.  So, if you took your credit card and paid for a luxury cruise for two or 1/2 a new car, it's the same hurt that Mitt Romney is feeling.  Just thought you should know.

No Cells In This Poll

Salon has an article that points out that folks (like me) who only have cell phones and no landline, do not get polled for the presidential race.  They go on to guess that this is usually younger people (not me) who tend to support Barack Obama (like me, again).

The 2004 presidential election exit poll conducted by the National Election Pool found that 7.1 percent of all voters in that election were cellphone-only. Recent data indicates that the percentage could be twice as high in 2008.

The question is where does this group primarily live.  Even if this group is heavily tilted to Obama, if they predominantly live on the west coast and the northeast, who cares?  Those areas are already gimmes for Obama.  It only matters if this group has significant numbers in the swing states such Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, etc. That where the race will be won or lost.

UPDATE:  Kevin Drum points out that cell-only users favor Obama over McCain 61 to 32.

The Blame-Less President

One of the hideous aspects of the four-year cycle of presidential elections is that the opposition party not only salivates over the prospect of regaining the White House, but they also cherish the thought of reeking vengeance on the other party.  It's not enough to change policies, but to show how utterly the other party was wrong and make them pay.

Senator Obama has been running under a banner of change, but what does that really mean?  How do we  change politics?  Partly, if you consider the position of Andrew Sullivan, it would be an end to the liberal v. conservative lines that began during the Vietnam War.  However, what if Sen. Obama, as president, refuses to affix blame for problems that exist on the other guys.  What if he says on January 20, 2009, here are the problems we face, now we have to fix them.  We start here and we move forward.  Wouldn't that be a change?

The problem with that, is that some on the left will not be happy until they see Dick Cheney hanging by his heels in Lafayette Square Park.  So too, in the recent FISA vote, the left is not happy because Sen. Obama voted for telecom immunity.  Why blame these companies for something a president asked them to do?  Why not pass legislation (when in power) to say it can never happen again?

Is Senator Obama moving to the center for the general election?  Possibly.  It seemed to me during the early stages of the primary that he was more centrist that most of the candidates including Senator Clinton.  His healthcare proposals were much more centrist than the liberal mandate of "make everyone get health insurance."  

We consider FDR a great president and with good reason.  He and Churchill saved the world from fascism.  FDR also allowed the internment of Japanese-Americans and did nothing for civil rights in order to hold power with the Dixiecrats.  Great leaders have to triage what they can do.  Priorities are made and not everything gets done.  If a President Obama gets us health care and puts us on a solid road to energy independence with environmental awareness for global warming, he'll go down as a great president for future generations.  But the entire liberal agenda will not get accomplished.

Constitutional Amendments

In May, PrawfsBlawg asked what the next constitutional amendment would be:

It's been 37 years since the last contemporaneously proposed and ratified constitutional amendment (I'm setting the aside the 27th Amendment, with it's tortured 200-year history).  There have been only two comparably long periods in our history without an amendment, the 61-year period between the 12th and the 13th Amendments, and the 43-year period between the 15th and the 16th Amendment.   It strikes me as most unlikely that we will have another amendment by 2014, so in six years we will be in the second-longest period in our history without an amendment.

I have three proposed constitutional amendments, none of which will be adopted in my lifetime.  

Continue reading "Constitutional Amendments" »

In the desperate for good polling news category, we have this report which states: McCain is cleaning up more than 3 to 1 among voters who think the country is headed in the right direction.

According to the latest polls, only 25% of the country thinks we're heading in the right direction.  So McCain is winning 75% of 25% or 18.75% of the population.   I'm sure Obama is shaking in his boots.  The rest of the article notes other such categories of large leads over small demographics.

In the ongoing fight for equal rights for the GLBT community, we still have those in our community who actively fight against us.  Michelangelo Signorile points out Arthur Finkelstein as an example.  So too, the Washington Blade has a piece on the GLBT's never-ending fawning over Sen. Clinton as Diva-in-Chief.  Add to that Florida's Governor Christ, who is apparently gay, and is getting married quickly so he can be considered for the republican vice presidential slot with John McCain.  And wait, there's more:  the latest constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman is being sponsored by Idaho Sen. Larry Craig and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter.  The former is closeted and the latter frequents prostitutes.

So as we head into election 2008, we still have the closeted republicans working against us.

The blogosphere will be alive with opinions on the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision today which affirmed Heller v. DC (in lay terms, the second amendment means you get to own a gun).  No one bought the militia semantic argument.  Well, at least Anthony Kennedy didn't buy it and he's Mr. Swing Vote.

Evan Thomas has a piece in Newsweek on the hole in both Obama's and McCain's resume.  Neither has run a business.  George W. Bush is the first and only president to have an MBA (from Harvard, no less).  I think we can safely say that a business leader as president did not work out too well.

CEOs do not make good governmental leaders.  In politics, it's about compromise; weighing your battles; influence, etc. CEOs have a vision and they implement it.  No matter what.  They are, in short, tyrants, whereas presidents, who have very little real power, cannot be tyrannical.  This is why this CEO president bent so many rules.  Signing statements, torture, executive privilege, running rough shod over the Bill of Rights.  All those rules got in his way of executing his vision.  Bush never understood that those provisions are there for a reason.  He merely saw them as impediments.  

So, I say: thank goodness, neither candidate is a businessman (or woman).  Been there, done that.

Andrew Sullivan has a post up today on Obama v. the Successful.  If Obama does win the election and implements his policies, people earning more than $250,000.00 will have a bigger tax bill.  The question is how many of those people voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004?  I'm guessing a great majority.  This is a question for Ezra Klein or Matt Yglesias to take up with their prowess for numbers and data.  So, if a majority of high income earners voted for Bush, they enabled the policies that he implemented.  So, if Obama needs to save Social Security and other programs by tax hikes, isn't he holding the voters responsible for their own  decisions?  As Sullivan points out, Bush just borrowed money from the Chinese rather than raising taxes.  You can spin that as "no new taxes" but it's really just delayed taxes.  The next president will need to clean up the fiscal mess of the last eight years.  Shouldn't the people responsible for voting for the republicans pay a higher share than the rest of us?

Grasping At Straws

In the desperate for good polling news category, we have this report which states: McCain is cleaning up more than 3 to 1 among voters who think the country is headed in the right direction.

According to the latest polls, only 25% of the country thinks we're heading in the right direction.  So McCain is winning 75% of 25% or 18.75% of the population.   I'm sure Obama is shaking in his boots.  The rest of the article notes other such categories of large leads over small demographics.

Gay Uncle Toms

In the ongoing fight for equal rights for the GLBT community, we still have those in our community who actively fight against us.  Michelangelo Signorile points out Arthur Finkelstein as an example.  So too, the Washington Blade has a piece on the GLBT's never-ending fawning over Sen. Clinton as Diva-in-Chief.  Add to that Florida's Governor Christ, who is apparently gay, and is getting married quickly so he can be considered for the republican vice presidential slot with John McCain.  And wait, there's more:  the latest constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman is being sponsored by Idaho Sen. Larry Craig and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter.  The former is closeted and the latter frequents prostitutes.

So as we head into election 2008, we still have the closeted republicans working against us.

Heller Decided; Guns For Everyone

The blogosphere will be alive with opinions on the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision today which affirmed Heller v. DC (in lay terms, the second amendment means you get to own a gun).  No one bought the militia semantic argument.  Well, at least Anthony Kennedy didn't buy it and he's Mr. Swing Vote.

No More CEO Presidents Please

Evan Thomas has a piece in Newsweek on the hole in both Obama's and McCain's resume.  Neither has run a business.  George W. Bush is the first and only president to have an MBA (from Harvard, no less).  I think we can safely say that a business leader as president did not work out too well.

CEOs do not make good governmental leaders.  In politics, it's about compromise; weighing your battles; influence, etc. CEOs have a vision and they implement it.  No matter what.  They are, in short, tyrants, whereas presidents, who have very little real power, cannot be tyrannical.  This is why this CEO president bent so many rules.  Signing statements, torture, executive privilege, running rough shod over the Bill of Rights.  All those rules got in his way of executing his vision.  Bush never understood that those provisions are there for a reason.  He merely saw them as impediments.  

So, I say: thank goodness, neither candidate is a businessman (or woman).  Been there, done that.

Successful or Responsible

Andrew Sullivan has a post up today on Obama v. the Successful.  If Obama does win the election and implements his policies, people earning more than $250,000.00 will have a bigger tax bill.  The question is how many of those people voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004?  I'm guessing a great majority.  This is a question for Ezra Klein or Matt Yglesias to take up with their prowess for numbers and data.  So, if a majority of high income earners voted for Bush, they enabled the policies that he implemented.  So, if Obama needs to save Social Security and other programs by tax hikes, isn't he holding the voters responsible for their own  decisions?  As Sullivan points out, Bush just borrowed money from the Chinese rather than raising taxes.  You can spin that as "no new taxes" but it's really just delayed taxes.  The next president will need to clean up the fiscal mess of the last eight years.  Shouldn't the people responsible for voting for the republicans pay a higher share than the rest of us?