Musing's musings

How the Freepers see America

Via Joe. My. God., here's how the Freepers (hell, no, I'm not linking to that sewer) see America.

Unfortunately for their ability to get a good night's sleep for the next few years, this is how that map ought to look, courtesy of the New York Times.

Worse still, also from the Times, is this map, showing the change from 2004 to 2008. Counties that went more Democratic in 2008 are colored in blue (with the shading indicating how big the shift was), and counties that went more Republican in 2008 are colored in red.

No matter how you slice it, the Republican Party is in disarray. It's losing members right and left, its approval ratings are in the toilet (and swirling the bottom with the rest of the turds), and no one can readily identify the person who's in charge. Even Tom DeLay, hardly known for being either a liberal or for sugar-coating unpleasant truths, admits that the GOP is wandering aimlessly in the desert. I don't agree with him that Obama's situation, politically or otherwise, is "dire," but the rest of his analysis is spot-on. The Party of No knows only how to win steal elections, smear opponents, and oppose progress. When it comes to actually running the country, formulating policy, or articulating a new idea, they're as hopeless as newborn babes. They haven't had a new idea in a generation, and the voting public has finally caught on to the fact that the ones they do have don't work--and never have.

It is certainly within the realm of possibility that the Republicans will manage to turn this shit parade around. They may even manage to do it in time for the 2012 presidential elections, though I'd lay long odds against both eventualities. The bigger issue, as I see it, is what (or who) will replace the Republicans when they either disappear from the scene or find themselves marginalized for the next little while. If we continue our historical pattern, another party will emerge to take the Republicans' place. Perhaps a better solution, however, would be the emergence of several parties--all across the political spectrum.

The dominance of our political dialogue by the Republicans and the Democrats has, I believe, weakened our nation and artificially polarized our society. Worse, it inclines us to think in paired binaries: left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, and the like. The real world, on the other hand, is colored largely in shades of grey, and admits of far more complexity than most voters would probably find comfortable. There are plenty of good ideas that don't easily fit into the available pigeonholes in American politics, and I, for one, would like to see them find vehicles whereby they might be expressed--and, God willing, put into action. We'll never have a better time to experiment, so why not take the plunge?

Now that's what I call class

I was dismayed (but not surprised) when the crowd broke out in boos and derision when, during his concession speech, John McCain mentioned Barack Obama. I contrast that with the cheers (admittedly, more of the "golf clap" variety than the full-throated roar that greeted Obama when he walked out onto the stage in Grant Park) that came when President-Elect Obama mentioned McCain in his victory speech.

I can't help but think that those catcalls were a legacy of the mean-spirited campaign that McCain ran, and the politics of fear that has been the Republicans' mainstay for lo! these many years. I would love it if they were to be erased over the next four years. But I'm not betting on it.

Our long national nightmare is finally over

MSNBC has just called the election for Barack Obama. And I'm kicking back with a bottle of Korbel brut.

Let there be no question in anyone's mind: Obama will not be a perfect president. He will not be a liberal. He will certainly not be a socialist. He will not be able to accomplish everything he said he wanted to or promised to do.

But there is no doubt that a President Obama will do at least slightly better than President Bush has managed in his eight years. (Not, of course, that that's anything to brag about, when the standard for comparison is the Worst. President. Ever.)

And for the first time in two years, we can all wake up tomorrow to a world without campaign advertisements, flyers, robocalls, e-mails, and what have you. Enjoy the solace: it will be depressingly brief, I'm sure.

I. Did. It.

Got up early this morning and rushed to get out, hoping to get to my polling place before it got too crowded. I pulled in just before 7 a.m.--and they were already parking on the grass. Fortunately, instead of the three precincts that usually vote at my polling place, there were only two--so there wasn't much of a wait. Though given that nearly all of the voting "booths" allocated for my precinct were in use when I finally got my ballot, I think I can confidently predict that the place will be hopping once more people get on the move. There were a number of cars waiting to turn in as I was trying to get out to get to work. Methinks we're going to see record turnout this year. About bloody time, too!

If you haven't already, go out and VOTE!

Just. Do. It.

Via Bryan comes this suggestion for something to put on your agenda for tomorrow:

I'm more than ready for this endless mess of an election season endurance match to be over. I am confident that the American people will be voting to move the country in a new direction--but I don't care whether you, gentle reader, are part of that movement for change or whether you're voting for the status quo. The important thing is that you do vote.Why is that important? Because, first and foremost, it's your civic duty and an important responsibility, if you're a citizen. Secondly, if you don't vote, you really don't have any business griping about the kind of government you get or what "those idiots in Washington" are doing. To put it more succinctly, if you don't vote in '08, you can't whine in '09.

On a practical note, while there is certainly reason to be concerned about the possibility of vote tampering, vote suppression, and other kind of electoral dirty tricks. But there's one absolutely, 100% guaranteed method of making sure your vote isn't counted--and that's not to cast it in the first place.

And don't just vote for the top of the ticket. There's plenty of stuff going on down-ticket: every seat in the House of Representatives is up for grabs, and a third of the seats in the Senate. There are all manner of local races, ballot initiatives, constitutional amendments, and other things to sort through. (If you're in California, please vote "NO" on Prop. 8; if you're in Arizona, please vote "NO" on Prop. 102; if you're in Florida, please vote "NO" on Amendment 2; if you're in Illinois, please vote "NO" on the Constitutional Convention; if you're in Colorado, please vote "NO" on Amendment 48; if you're in South Dakota, please vote "NO" on Measure 11... You get the point.)

Whom to pick?

Assuming, as seems likely from all the recent polling, that Barack Obama wins election to the presidency in 10 days' time, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is going to have a hard choice to make not long thereafter. Pursuant to the Seventeenth Amendment, the Illinois General Assembly (10 ILCS 5/25-8) requires the governor to make a temporary appointment when a vacancy occurs in the office of U.S. Senator from Illinois. The governor's appointee serves until "the next election of representatives in Congress"--which, in Obama's case, would be until the expiration of his current term, which still has two years left to run.

It's not likely to be an easy pick to make. Blagojevich is not well-liked even (perhaps especially) among the leaders of the Illinois Democratic Party. He is currently under investigation at both the state and federal levels for corruption, leaving open the very real possibility that he may not finish his second term in office. As of yesterday, Blagojevich's approval rating stood at 13%--five points less than the Worst. President. Ever., and on a rough par with Congress as a whole.

All of that is important, because it will, I believe, make it far more difficult for the governor to do what is often done in situations like these and appoint a friend or significant contributor to the post. In fact, I think the harder choice for Blagojevich to make is going to be which of his many detractors and political enemies he should exile to Washington for the next two years. I have a few ideas on that front below the fold.

Nice business you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.

So desperate are the foes of marriage equality in California that Project Marriage, the umbrella coalition of groups trying to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-gender marriages has resorted to blackmail to get businesses to donate money to "protect marriage":

Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state's largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.

ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."

The letter was signed by four members of the group's executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com. A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published.

Now, I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV. But I'm pretty sure that's blackmail, extortion, and criminal conspiracy. Maybe all three. I have absolutely no doubt that the letter (and the campaign to inject discrimination into California's constitution that it's intended to support) is merely the latest disgusting spectacle put on by a dying breed of haters who simply can't adapt themselves to the fact that the world is changing in ways that they don't like or understand. The individuals who signed that letter, and everyone associated with writing it or sending it out, should be hugely ashamed of themselves. And the lawyer should probably be disbarred for even lending his name to this pathetic attempt to coerce businesses into donating to his cause. He, at least, should know better.

I have to say, too, that the IRS should take a very long, very careful look at the participation of the LDS Church in this campaign. Everything I've heard suggests that they're the major movers and shakers--and providing the majority of the money--for the project. It's not exactly clear to me why people from Utah have any business trying to tell people who live in a different state and who do not subscribe to their faith how they should have to live their lives. But it seems reasonably clear to me that the activities of the LDS Church in pushing to overturn the ruling of the California Supreme Court are uncomfortably close to the line that circumscribes what churches and other charitable organizations are legally permitted to do in the political realm.

And really, that's what this campaign boils down to: attempting to foist religious beliefs on others who do not share them, and attempting to write religiously based discrimination into government policy. The former is reprehensible both morally and legally. The latter is just plain unconstitutional. The Mormons (and the Catholics, and any other flavor of religion that is opposed to recognizing same-gender marriages) have every right to believe as they do. But they can't make everybody else follow suit. They should all shut up and go home, and let Californians take care of themselves. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, all things considered.

Oh, not again!

Fans of the Saint Louis Blues should be very, very afraid. The Blues will be playing at home tonight against the Los Angeles Kings. They've had a pretty good start to their season (they're 4-1 right now). But Sarah Palin will be dropping the ceremonial puck at the start of this game, just as she did October 11 in Philadelphia at the Flyers' opener. The Flyers lost that game to New York. And they've lost every game they've played since then. Fans in Philadelphia are already calling it "Sarah's Curse."

Palin may or may not have a deleterious effect on a team's performance after appearing in their barn. But as far as I'm concerned, she has no business being there except as a fan. As Adam Proteau observed on his blog for The Hockey News, hockey shouldn't be used as a political backdrop. And, like Adam, I'd be saying the same thing if it were Joe Biden or Barack Obama dropping the ceremonial puck:

Philadelphia Flyers owner Ed Snider makes it very difficult to root for his team. And I’m the guy who picked them to win the Eastern Conference this season.

Listen, I don’t give a tinker’s damn if he supports Sarah Palin on his own time. Stars owner Tom Hicks did just that, and that’s well within his rights. But for Snider to foist his views on his fan base the way he did Saturday night, to openly bang the drum of politicians while they’re still running for office, to associate the NHL with one particular ideology, is beyond nauseating and will go down in history as a black mark on his ownership for the rest of time.

Even as a business decision, it makes no sense. Does Snider and the NHL wish to completely alienate the millions of people who think the current Republican ticket is an affront to the intelligence level of women and voters? And what about his and the league’s employees who aren’t for creationism in schools or endless war or the erosion of the constitution or forcing rape victims to pay for their rape kits?

I wonder if Proteau will write a similar column excoriating Blues owner Dave Checketts? He should. And throw Gary Bettman, the NHL commissioner, a brickbat or two as well. Anybody that wants to can buy a ticket (assuming one's available) and watch a hockey game from the arena. But politicians, at least when the campaign is still ongoing, have no business being associated with hockey (or any other sport) in any other way.

That's in very poor taste

The headline of an article published online yesterday at Le Monde (linked article is in French, but I'll translate the pertinent bits in a bit) reports that Larry Flynt wants to "provoke Republicans with an X-rated film about Sarah Palin." The article begins as follows:

Larry Flynt has never hesitated to put his two cents into American politics. The head of the Hustler group, which includes pornographic movies as well as casinos and seductive magazines, is known to be close to the Democratic Party, but above all as an antagonist to the conservative Christian right. Consequently, it came as no surprise to anyone that, after the nomination of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, Flynt, who sees himself as an apostle of freedom of expression, wanted to make an X-rated film, not very subtly entitled "Who's Nailin' Paylin?," including a representation of the governor of Alaska.

The First Amendment gives Larry Flynt the right to make whatever kinds of movies he wants, to call them whatever he wants, and to cast in them anyone he wants and whose fees he can afford. And there are certainly plenty of reasons to mock Sarah Palin--from her galactic ignorance of, well, everything, to the $150,000 the Republican National Committee spent to put lipstick on this particular pig of a candidate.

But making a pornographic movie featuring (presumably) an actress picked for her resemblance to Palin? That's the kind of slime the Republicans are famous for, and we Democrats shouldn't emulate them in that. Leaving aside the question of whether or not pornography is automatically degrading to women, the intent here is pretty clearly to degrade Mrs. Palin. I think she does a fine job of degrading herself whenever she deigns to appear on television and starts talking--and Larry Flynn should just let her hoist herself on her own petard. No need to throw her an anchor, she's carrying plenty of her own.

Imagine the reaction we'd have had if some sleazy Republican porn producer (and I'm sure there are a few of them out there) had decided to make a porno involving Hillary Clinton. We shouldn't be any less outraged at the idea of one featuring a Palin clone.

Michael's unofficial, unscientific tracking poll

Since I needed to go to the store yesterday afternoon, and since I needed to swing by my mom's house, I bundled up warmly and headed out. As I was driving, I got to thinking about how I've often said, these last few weeks, that I've been seeing a lot more Obama/Biden signs around here than I have McCain/Palin signs. That's been my subjective impression as I've driven around the area since campaign signs started going up in earnest a month or so ago, but I figured it might not be a bad idea to get some actual data. So I counted the signs as I drove back to my place.

Covering a distance of approximately 15 miles (with slightly more rural roads than urban streets, including 5.5 miles along a major state highway--where, interestingly, I saw not a single sign for either presidential candidate), I counted a total of 20 Obama/Biden signs to 13 McCain/Palin signs. I counted signs, not houses displaying them: since some houses displayed multiple signs (and one house I passed had signs for both Obama and McCain in its front yard--must make for interesting conversations over the dinner table there!), these numbers may be slightly skewed. On the other hand, unlike the Nickelodeon kiddie poll that had the screaming queen in the fedora wetting himself with anticipation the other day, at least my non-random and unscientific poll probably counted adults who can actually vote.

I tried to count up signs for the congressional race here in IL-14 too, but I just couldn't keep up with the numbers in my head. Maybe I'll do that one another time. I do seem to recall seeing more signs for the congressional races (both state and national) than for the top-of-ticket races--especially on houses where signs for Republican candidates were displayed.

Still and all, considering that Bush won this county 52-47 in 2004, I think it's an encouraging sign that Obama is up by about 7 points signs. That's a 3:2 margin of victory, assuming those numbers hold up in a couple of weeks.