One question I had in mind in the 2008 campaign was to wonder what upside, if any, there really was in Barack Obama saying he’s opposed to gay marriage. Would anyone for whom stopping gay marriage is a vote-deciding issue really think he could afford to be indifferent to the Obama/McCain choice on this score? Wasn’t there a clearly relevant difference in judicial picks? Along these lines, I don’t quite see what either Joe Biden or Barack Obama is achieving by playing footsie with the idea that their views are “evolving” and likely to change in the future.
One thing Biden’s right about, though, is that marriage equality is essentially inevitable. I think the smart/cynical thing for politicians to do is get on the right side of history. And it’s also the right thing to do. How convenient!
By Climate Guest Blogger on Dec 24, 2010 at 5:45 pm
It’s been too long in coming, but today Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is repealing a sneak attack on millions of acres of pristine public lands in the West launched by his Bush administration predecessor Gale Norton. CAPAF’s Tom Kenworthy has the story in this cross-post.
In a lamentable tenure that included corruption and ethics scandals, attacks on scientific integrity, and a campaign to turn federal lands into a playground for the oil and gas industry, Norton’s backroom “no more wilderness” deal with a Utah Governor in 2003 was among her most egregious betrayals of the public trust. In it Norton repudiated the Bureau of Land Management’s long accepted authority to protect public lands possessing characteristics that would qualify them as wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act.
It’s Christmas Eve here in Mexico, but a couple more links on William Jacobsen. I second what Scott Lemieux has to say and especially these remarks from Ta-Nehisi Coates:
That of course leads us to the second point–that there is an outbreak of liberal bloggers claiming Barbour is a racist. A google search of “Barbour is a racist” is instructive. It does not reveal a single liberal blog of real note making that case. On the contrary it reveals a raft of sites either arguing that Barbour isn’t a racist, or arguing why it’s not relevant. Unable to deal with the actual arguments made by Matt here, for instance, and evidently generally ignorant of the basic facts of American history, Jacobson simply strawmans and changes the subject.
Regrettably, this is basically the accepted tactic of many conservatives when talking about race. It happens so often that, in most cases, it’s not even worth noting. But Jacobson is a professor at one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in this country. I can’t for the life of me imagine how someone rises to such heights and, evidently, never acquires an understanding of the rudiments of American history, nor an ethic of honest debate.
The whole question of which people are or are not racists is a bit of a red herring. People do stuff. That stuff is open to criticism. Different people respond to that criticism in different ways. Life goes on. The specter of “racist”-calling liberals exists almost entirely in the heads of conservatives.
In October, the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery unveiled a new exhibit, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture”, which explored gender and sexual identity in American culture. Four weeks later, the conservative CNS News released a report complaining about some of the artwork, including a video exhibit that showed ants on top of an image of Jesus, meant to symbolize the suffering of an AIDS victim. Soon thereafter, the right-wing backlash began.
As ThinkProgress detailed last month, conservatives were up in arms against what the Catholic League called an “assault on the sensibilities of Christians.” Many on the right called for a congressional probe into the museum’s funding, including Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) and incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). The day after CNS News’s report, the Smithsonian decided to remove the video in question.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) fired another volley this week in the war against the Smithsonian. During an interview on the right-wing radio program Wallbuilders Live!, Forbes and host Rick Green agreed that funding for the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery was unconstitutional because, as they allege, the Constitution “only gives Congress the power to protect an artist’s creation, not to actually fund it”:
GREEN: We’ve been talking about how Article I, Section 8 only gives Congress the power to protect an artist’s creation, not to actually fund it. So Congressman Forbes, what do you think?
FORBES: I think that’s a great point. As you know, the Founders envisioned us just creating an environment where we were empowering artists to use their talents and their creations, and we were having individuals reach out and raise those funds on their own and not involve the government in doing that. We’ve come so far away from the original intent about constitutional mandate and I think it’s time we get back to it.
GREEN: Yeah, seems like if you did it that way where Congress was protecting their rights in terms of being able to do it and in terms of protecting their proprietary creations, but then the market would decide whether or not the money would there to do something. I can’t imagine folks like this – this trash that gets out there – being funded by the market. Maybe it would be, but at least it wouldn’t be my tax dollars, you know what I mean?
FORBES: Well I think you’re right Rick. We see that over and over again when we get these left-wing radio shows and these left-wing TV programs, and you just look at the viewing audience and where it is. They’re always subsidized, if they’re not subsidized by the federal government, it’s somebody who has that kind of agenda. And every single time, their ratings are very, very low and their viewing audience is very, very low. So as you mentioned, in the marketplace of ideas, this is just not the kind of thing that would be very acceptable, and I think you wouldn’t see it coming in a private sector venue.
Listen here:
Though Forbes is up in arms about federal funding being used to pay the Smithsonian’s budget, ThinkProgress’s Tanya Somanader makes an important point: “While 55 percent of the Smithsonian budget is federally funded, those funds are only used to pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff. Museum exhibits are funded solely by private donations, including ‘Hide/Seek.’”
Still, Forbes is simply adding his voice to the growing chorus of conservatives — including Ginni Thomas, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), and failed Senate nominees Joe Miller, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, and John Raese — who simply declare any policy they disagree with “unconstitutional.”
As Atrios says, the problem with lot occupancy rules isn’t that there’s something terrible about backyards (or front yards or side yards or rows of bushes in front of buildings or what have you) it’s just that land is a valuable commodity. Think about something else. I like television. And most Americans like television. If we had a rule mandating that every new housing unit include a television, it’s not like people would be sobbing in the streets saying “oh noes, this television is ruining my life.” Most people would just watch TV and some minority of cranks would maybe smash TVs in back alleys or whatever.
But this would still be a stupid policy and inefficient allocation of televisions! In a world where TVs are not mandatory, most people buy TVs. Some buy expensive ones, some buy cheap ones, many households own several, and some households own none. Lawns should be just like that, available to those who want to pay the market price, but not cross-subsidized through arbitrary rules. There’s no collective action problem posed by contemplating a world in which most houses include some green space many do not. There’s no adverse selection issue. There’s nothing.
Christmas came early for gay rights advocates when Congress repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy last week, and President Obama signed it into law on Wednesday. The administration’s comments since the bill-signing, however, are providing even more hopeful signs that full equality will continue to make progress in the United States.
In a press conference on Wednesday, President Obama sounded a hopeful tone on LGBT rights. Though he has maintained that he favors civil unions but opposes same-sex marriage, Obama told reporters that his views on the subject “are constantly evolving” and it is an issue he will “continue to wrestle with going forward.” In an interview with The Advocate, Obama said he “strongly supports” repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which permits states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state. He also called on Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination against employees due to their sexual orientation.
Now, Vice President Biden is moving the administration’s stance even further. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos this morning, Biden declared that gay marriage is inevitable in the United States:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You cited earlier that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the president signed that. In his press conference afterward, he also dealt with the issue of gay marriage. It was remarkable, he actually said that his position was evolving, this is something he really struggles with. Where are you on that these days?
BIDEN: I think the country is evolving. I think there’s an inevitability for a national consensus on gay marriage. That is my view. But this is the president’s policy. But it is evolving. I think the country is evolving. I remember the first time he met with the Joint Chiefs, I was with him. He said, “gentleman, I want you to prepare now. I want to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And so he prepared the ground so that it was so widely accepted as it is today by the military. And I think the same thing is happening across the country with regard to the issue of marriage.
Watch it (beginning at 5:36):
Biden’s belief that the country is evolving on same-sex marriage is backed up by the polls. Political statistician Nate Silver crunched the numbers and found that approval of gay marriage is shifting at an “accelerated pace.” Indeed, a CNN poll in August found an outright majority of Americans support same-sex marriage (though most polls find support currently in the mid-40s).
Many pundits view Obama and Biden’s recent comments on gay rights as the administration preparing for an eventual about-face on same-sex marriage. Politico’s Jonathan Martin tweeted on Wednesday, “Obama on gay marriage: ‘I struggle with this.’ Does anyone doubt that if he wins 2nd term, he’ll eventually flip?” Similarly, Stephanopoulos argued after Obama’s press conference, “[gay marriage] is something that he’s clearly laying the groundwork to move on.”
Christmas came early for gay rights advocates when Congress repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy last week, and President Obama signed it into law on Wednesday. The administration’s comments since the bill-signing, however, are providing even more hopeful signs that full equality will continue to make progress in the United States.
In a press conference on Wednesday, President Obama sounded a hopeful tone on LGBT rights. Though he has maintained that he favors civil unions but opposes same-sex marriage, Obama told reporters that his views on the subject “are constantly evolving” and it is an issue he will “continue to wrestle with going forward.” In an interview with The Advocate, Obama said he “strongly supports” repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which permits states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state. He also called on Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination against employees due to their sexual orientation.
Now, Vice President Biden is moving the administration’s stance even further. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos this morning, Biden declared that gay marriage is inevitable in the United States:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You cited earlier that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the president signed that. In his press conference afterward, he also dealt with the issue of gay marriage. It was remarkable, he actually said that his position was evolving, this is something he really struggles with. Where are you on that these days?
BIDEN: I think the country is evolving. I think there’s an inevitability for a national consensus on gay marriage. That is my view. But this is the president’s policy. But it is evolving. I think the country is evolving. I remember the first time he met with the Joint Chiefs, I was with him. He said, “gentleman, I want you to prepare now. I want to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And so he prepared the ground so that it was so widely accepted as it is today by the military. And I think the same thing is happening across the country with regard to the issue of marriage.
Watch it (beginning at 5:36):
Biden’s belief that the country is evolving on same-sex marriage is backed up by the polls. Political statistician Nate Silver crunched the numbers and found that approval of gay marriage is shifting at an “accelerated pace.” Indeed, a CNN poll in August found an outright majority of Americans support same-sex marriage (though most polls find support currently in the mid-40s).
Many pundits view Obama and Biden’s recent comments on gay rights as the administration preparing for an eventual about-face on same-sex marriage. Politico’s Jonathan Martin tweeted on Wednesday, “Obama on gay marriage: ‘I struggle with this.’ Does anyone doubt that if he wins 2nd term, he’ll eventually flip?” Similarly, Stephanopoulos argued after Obama’s press conference, “[gay marriage] is something that he’s clearly laying the groundwork to move on.”
This year that dynamic turned pathological. There were, it turned out, quite a few issues that both sides really did want to address, but party discipline simply trumped everything. It wasn’t just one thing that got held up, it was nearly everything. Republicans didn’t want to hand Democrats a victory on DADT or New START or even a food safety bill, and Democrats were too cowardly to press for progressive tax legislation.
So we finally reached the nonsensical point at which both sides wanted to get things done but the upcoming election allowed none of it to move forward. Even though all of this stuff had supermajority support (hell, New START turned out to have the support of 71 senators), the only time it could get done was during a lame duck session.
The problem here, is that once we waited for the lame duck and wound up accomplishing all the legislative stuff that did in fact have substantial Republican support, all the press suddenly turned into how Obama was a “comeback kid” who was “winning” during the lame duck. Every fear that Bob Corker might have had six months ago about voting on Obama’s side of any bill was essentially vindicated. You could just as easily describe the lame duck session as a huge win for Olympia Snowe. After all, unlike Obama she got her way on START and DADT but also got her way on DREAM and one way to describe the tax cut compromise is really that she got Obama to shift to her position on taxes and got Mitch McConnell to give her cover on her right flank on unemployment insurance and ARRA extensions. But nobody is talking about how Olympia Snowe is the “comeback Senator” who, after 12 months of ineffectual moderation, succeeded in making the world turn on her pivotal status.
And yet congress just isn’t set up to function as a parliamentary body. If the passage of legislation per se is deemed a victory for the president, then it’s necessarily going to become an agonizing process to pass or repeal any kind of laws.
As productive as the 111th Congress was at passing large, important pieces of legislation, it was also a Congress that witnessed “more procedural obstruction under both parties than at any previous time in the past century.” One of the greatest victims of Republican obstruction has been the nominations process. A whole host of President Obama’s qualified nominees have been stalled for inexplicable reasons. Yesterday, the White House announced it would renominate one key member from that list:
President Barack Obama will renominate Peter Diamond to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, a White House official said Thursday, a day after the Senate left town without voting on the nomination.
But when the next Congress convenes in 2011, Mr. Diamond could find it even harder to win backing from the Senate, where Republicans will have five more seats than they do now.
Peter Diamond, a 70-year old MIT Professor of Economics, is of course notable because, subsequent to his nomination, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. Republicans, led by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), have ludicrously argued that Diamond isn’t qualified to sit on the Fed Board.
After Diamond was awarded the Nobel, the Senate Banking Committee approved his nomination for a second time, but Shelby continued to object, forcing Diamond’s nomination to languish at the close of this last Congress.The Senate’s inaction leaves one opening on the Fed and “deprives Chairman Ben S. Bernanke of intellectual support in Fed debates over his efforts to reduce unemployment through an expansion of record monetary stimulus.”
The absurdity surrounding Diamond’s process highlights the urgent need for reform of Senate rules and procedure. As ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser wrote, “The reason for this [obstruction] is because dissenting senators can force the Senate to waste hours or even days effectively doing nothing in order to pass a single bill or confirm a single nominee.”
Fortunately, the entire returning Democratic caucus has signed onto an effort to make the Senate procedural process more responsive and efficient. “Such a move could come at the start of next Congress, shortly after the Senate returns on January 5th.” The success of Diamond’s nomination may hinge on what happens on that day.
It’s been too long in coming, but today Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is repealing a sneak attack on millions of acres of pristine public lands in the West launched by his Bush administration predecessor Gale Norton. CAPAF’s 
As 
