Son of Timatollah

Wow. Here we are with my candidate for POTUS having won the election. It think it's a great decision on the part of the electorate. The situation with its challenges makes it an opportune time to approach long-standing issues.

But beyond the moment last Tuesday when the networks called it for Obama, I haven't had much occasion to celebrate. There's more to life than the Presidential election, and some of my time and treasure recently were put into the No on 2 campaign. I wish I had done more.

We got thumped. I don't know any other way to put it. I'm sure there are good signs in the numbers relative to where we were several years ago, but with the amendment approved, we have to swing 20% of the electorate if we are to reverse this at the polls. I was hopeful that the 60% threshold we approved several years ago would serve as an adequate block to this kind of nonsense, but 62% voted for the amendment.

I'm really kind of stymied about this. Friends and family don't seem to appreciate the degree to which having people vote on whether you're a complete citizen or not is repugnant in the first place, and distressing when they vote that, no, you're not. I know friends in California and Arizona understand.

California's getting all the news. The results there were similarly ugly, since their process only required a 50%+1 approval, they got beat by a smaller margin but with the same result.

I'm unsure how to proceed. The thoughtful part of me says we have to engage the opposition at all levels, from right-wing talk-radio personalities to everyday churchgoers who'd call me "an abomination." I'm very skeptical that yelling at them or protesting their churches is useful, but I remain very curious about true civil disobedience in the form of obstructing the ability of people to secure marriage licenses. I have to learn some history of the Civil Rights movement. Maybe it's time to hunker down and plan strategy rather than discussing tactics.

One things folks don't seem to get is that while there are clearly deep and substantive distinctions between the insults imposed on black people and those on LGBT people, when it comes to marriage—mixed-race or same-sex—the language of those opposed is the same. I recall hearing my sweet old uncle, Richard Gaertner of Chicago, say on seeing a mixed-race couple one day in the early 1970s, "See, Timmy. Isn't that disgusting?"

Luckily I had already decided for reasons I may never understand that it wasn't. I can only hope that others have already decided that my love for Mack isn't disgusting. That it's something to be cherished and celebrated, the same as any other two people's love for each other is.

Labels: 2008, election, gay marriage, no on 2, presidential, same-sex marriage

Did this Saturday night at the LA Times site.



Yeah, I'm an optimist. Sue me.

I know; I know. I'm probably wrong about Georgia and South Carolina. We'll see.

Labels: 2008, election, presidential

I worked Precinct 305 in Volusia County (my precinct in Debary—the local Methodist church) for No on 2 this morning. When I got there (late: about 7:30 a.m. when the polls had opened at 7:00) there was a line around the building, something I've never seen before here (but we only moved here in summer of 2005). The local candidates for mayor and council were at the street, with signs and banners, but no one else was working at the solicitation-limit line for anything, so I positioned myself there and proceeded to greet voters with a cheery "Good morning. Hope you'll vote 'No' on Amendment 2."

It went very well. Of course, the Amendment has its supporters, with recent polls showing it gathering more that 50% support, but not the required 60%, but most folks were pleasant enough back. There was one very tight-lipped woman who got out of an SUV with a "McCain-Palin" sticker on it who gave me a hard look, but I just smiled back at her. And there was an older woman who asked me incredulously how I could encourage anyone to vote "No" on Amendment 2, proceeded to tell me that I probably didn't believe in the Bible, and went off muttering "The Bible says it's an abomination." I really wanted to tell her that she was a good example of God having hardened someone's heart, but just asked her to "please reconsider."

There was quite a bit of good feedback, though, from the young straight couple with their toddler daughter who assured me they were against it, to the woman who told me after voting that she was so glad I was there explaining what the amendment really was to voters and asking them to vote "No."

I look at it like this: First, if I don't ask, why should voters vote the way I want them to. Second, if they're on my side and I ask them, it strengthens their desire to vote the way both of us already think they should. Third, if they're not on my side, it shows them that I'm standing up for my position, not theirs, and in a statistical sense, that's got to work to the advantage of my position. Fourth, my being there when there's not someone from the other side ought to demoralize and sow doubt among the measure's proponents; at least, I hope it did.

I couldn't stay all day: Had to get to work. But I'm glad I took the time. I hadn't done poll work like that in years (1978, I think, for the DEM ticket and the local congressional candidate in TN-7).

Labels: 2008, election, no on 2

Let's get real: There's no way the American people will return to power the candidates of the party that has screwed things up so badly over the last eight years. That would be "fool me three times" territory, and "fool me twice" has hurt too badly.

But you have to vote to make that so.

So if you haven't voted already, get out there and vote, and TURN THE RASCALS OUT! And of course vote NO on Amendment 2 (Florida), Proposition 8 (California), or Proposition 102 (Arizona). Just say no to hatefulness.

As for my GOP friends, just think of it as the tough love your party needs to get itself back in line with the nation.

You've let a cadre of extreme right-wing religious folk take over the party. But instead of trending back to the center, you're giving what might as well now be expressed as the Palin wing (previously the GWB wing) way too much credibility and power within your own ranks. Cede total control to them, and your next ass whooping will be far worse than what you're going to experience today, and today's going to be pretty bad for you.

Since the kind of self-righteousness displayed by Palin's and GWB's fans doesn't exactly lead to reflection and self-correction, I expect the GOP may be in for a generation or more of repeated ass whoopings and electoral disappointments, especially with the increased lack of clout for the rich folks resulting from world-wide financial and economic distress. Couldn't happen to a sweeter crowd (either the self-righteous religious or the rich folk who handed them the keys to power) or be better timed to ensure that the party that actually works for the broader swatch of people (that's the big-D Democratic Party, folks) gets a real chance to run things for long enough to make things happen.

Labels: 2008, democratic, election, no on 102, no on 2, no on 8, republican

1992: Andrew (my ex) and I waited an hour and a half in Boston's South End (just across the street from where we lived) to vote for Bill Clinton. It wasn't going to change the outcome in Massachusetts: it was just important.

1980: We were at Rick Champion's, and when Tom Holzemer told Rick that he'd voted for Reagan, I thought Rick was gonna die of disappointment. I understood the impulse, even as I'd argued for and worked for Carter. Many of today's McCain supporters are fixing to understand tomorrow how many of us Carter supporters felt that night.

1972: Sarah Palin, you might know in 2012 just how George McGovern felt. Was it worth having?

Labels: election, presidential

Addendum: Joe.My.God. reports here that the anchorwhatzit is married to a GOP strategist. Good grief.

Labels: biden, election, i'm ashamed to live in their market, moron newscaster, presidential

Labels: election, obama, presidential

From the New Yorker, here:

I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

Labels: david, election, presidential, sedaris, undecided

Maybe you've seen this.

Let the record reflect that Barack Obama made the approach to John McCain tonight.

As the two shared the Senate floor tonight for the first time since they won their party nominations, Obama stood chatting with Democrats on his side of the aisle, and McCain stood on the Republican side of the aisle.

So Obama crossed over into enemy territory.

He walked over to where McCain was chatting with Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida and Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. And he stretched out his arm and offered his hand to McCain.

McCain shook it, but with a “go away” look that no one could miss. He tried his best not to even look at Obama.

Finally, with a tight smile, McCain managed a greeting: “Good to see you.”

Obama got the message. He shook hands with Martinez and Lieberman — both of whom greeted him more warmly — and quickly beat a retreat back to the Democratic side.

Or maybe you noticed how rude McCain was toward Obama in the debate last Friday night.

I have my own hypothesis about why McCain is acting like search a jerk. First, I assume he's not really that big of a jerk. I assume this has to do with him (McCain) knowing how tenuous his hold on a certain cohort of voters is. That cohort is the crazy religious right.

The crazy religious right, brought back into the McCain fold by his choice of Governor Palin for his running mate, is likely the continuing source of those "Obama's a Muslim" e-mails. Those folks really believe that Obama has some secret plan to turn the US over the those who want to destroy us. Since Obama is "the other," by being black, it's easy for them, a largely white group, to try to turn Obama into "the other who wants to kill us." The idea that a US Senator in public view and running for President for the last N years and winning the nomination of America's oldest political party is some secret agent for our enemies is laughable, but people of good will sometimes believe laughable things.

So, by my thinking, if McCain treats Obama civilly, he cuts the legs out from under this idea that is believed by a goodly number of his recently-brought-back-on-board supporters. If he's going to keep those good-intentioned-but-easily-snookered people in his camp, he has to treat Obama like shit.

Just a theory. Not sure how to test it.

Labels: election, explained, mccain, obama, palin, presidential, religious right, rudeness

I don't begrudge the McCains' their wealth. Good for them! But I know who I think will better consider the interests of ordinary folks when going through "what's good for the country?" thoughts.

Stolen from Joe. My. God., but who knows where he go it from.

Labels: election, mccain, obama, president, wealth

Labels: election, obama, president

(1) Our Dems had a great convention. Mrs. Obama's speech was great. Senator Clinton's speech was great. President Clinton's speech was great. Senator Biden's speech was pretty good. Al Gore's speech was great. Senator Obama's speech was excellent.

My gut feeling had been all along that Senator Obama was comfortable with his role as his own happy hatchet man, and he played it perfectly. It was Reagan vs. Carter with the parties swapped. (I know many of my Dem friends still hate Reagan, but I still believe we all ought to learn from his ability to capture the good will of a goodly-sized majority of the American people behind his agenda, whether we agreed with his agenda.)

Of course, as a gay man, I regret that Senator Obama choose not to speak more forcefully for the rights of LGBT folk, even as he affirmed what, for some, remains a revolutionary concept, that our relationships ought to be respected. But, I don't want him to lose the election because of support for us, either.

(2) Senator McCain's nomination of Governor Palin ought to point out what an arrogant nutcase the Senator is. Or "becomes" if that suits your narrative better. The man doesn't have the right constitution to be President of the United States of America. I'm nearly certain that if you rounded up all the other POWs from the Vietnam era, you could find somewhere between five and fifty who would be better suited to the job of POTUS than McCain. And he has the balls to keep reminding people that he was a POW. He wasn't alone in that situation, and I look forward to some number of former POWs of the North Vietnamese reminding us of McCain's innate lack of good judgment, and, even, character.

(3) If Governor Palin had the judgment and temperament to be President, which the Vice President ought to have, then she would have rejected Senator McCain's offer, telling him, "You've got to be kidding?" That she didn't is face-value evidence of her not being suited for the position. And one doesn't even have to raise the degree to which McCain's offering her the position in hopes of bringing Senator Clinton's supporters to his side is insulting.

(4) Experience?

None of the candidates for executive positions have Federal executive experience, and Governor Palin's experience as governor as Alaska is hardly evidence for her being able to manage the Federal bureaucracy. Being a Senator may expose one to the workings of the Federal government, but it doesn't give one experience in managing that beyond the broad scope of helping pass laws.

(5) As none of the candidates have experience in the Federal executive, I turn to judgment and temperment as a discriminator between the candidates for President. It wouldn't surprise me if you, the reader, did, too. In those dimensions, Senator Obama is, and I use this word with a great deal of caution and reluctance, obviously the better candidate, regardless of one's Party affiliation.

(6) The chicken-sans-head activity of the GOP with a major hurricane bearing down on the Louisiana coast is laughable. There's not one whit of evidence that the GOP has learned any lesson except "try better to get away with being totally clueless about what to do" when it comes to disaster management, than they did when Katrina struck. GWB can go avoid the GOP convention by being at FEMA headquarters for photo ops all he wants. but there's no real reason to believe that they GOP has developed any greater empathy or concern for poor folk in harm's way than they had in the fall of 2005.

(7) There remains no evidence that the candidate who manages the campaign best, who expresses opinions in the most bellicose manner, or who appears to be "toughest" will make a good President. Consider again GWB.

Now I don't want to take away from Obama's managing a superbly run campaign, but neither that nor his ability to bitch slap Senator McCain (which I expect he'll be surprisingly (to the GOP commentariat) good at), or vice-versa, is evidence that he—or Senator McCain, should it turn out that he's better at that game (something I don't expect)—would make a great President, including as Commander in Chief. Again, let's turn back to temperment and judgment.

(8) When the hell will the left and Dems get their own network? MSNBC doesn't count, since GE is unreliable as a source of funding for left-of-center politicking. Back in the day (much of the 19th century into the first half of the 20th), it was common procedure for the party—or the executive of that party—to have a house-organ publication. In this day and age that means cable news network. Where is the sustainable response to Fixed (Fox) News?

Labels: 2008, al, biden, clinton, election, fox, gore, mccain, network, obama, politics, president, senator, vice-president

Mrs. Clinton makes it official. She's staying in with the expectation that someone will kill Obama. From the New York Post, here:

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

I hate to admit it that I thought it, but this is what came to me one day earlier this week as reason for her staying in: Waiting for someone to shoot Obama.

Questions remain: Are the Clinton's are sufficiently evil enough to get someone to do it or sufficiently competent to get away with it?

This might be the foot-in-mouth to nail-in-coffin moment for the Hillary campaign.

Labels: 2008, assassination, barack, clinton, election, hillary, kennedy, obama, presidential, rfk, robert

A note from my brother, Dan, in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, that left me feeling very proud.

At the time I was born and during the time I grew up, America was undisputed as the leader of the free world and was the greatest country on this earth. Feeble challenges by the Soviet Union only served to unify us as nation that believed in itself.

Somehow, someone or some group began to divide us into a nation of factions.

I believe very deeply that the platforms that have been put forward by the Democratic party are the correct ones.

I believe that we are all created equal. I believe in free speech. Even though I have been a hunter and gun owner must all my life, I believe in gun control, and I believe that Americans have no need for assault rifles or automatic pistols. I believe that the government does indeed know best in some instances and has every right to control certain aspects of out lives.

I have led a wonderful and blessed life. I grew up in a different time. I am not afraid of the future. I am not afraid to vote for a black man for president. I am not afraid for my president to sit down and talk to world leaders we do not agree with. In fact, I believe it is the only way we can possibly solve our differences.

I hope and pray that I am correct and that the Democrats that I have so much faith in will take their responsibility seriously and unite to fight those in the government who are there only to serve their own special interests.

I am proud to be your brother and I am proud that you fight for what you believe in!
I hope to see you soon!

Labels: democratic, election, party

Today is voting day in Florida.

If you are a Florida resident, a registered Democratic Party member, and haven't already voted early or by absentee ballot, please vote today for Barack Obama.

Thank you.

Labels: election, florida, obama, presidential

Dahlia Lithwick, here, at Slate:

[T]here’s something about last week’s spectacle of Bill Clinton crashing through South Carolina like the guy poised to drag her back to his cave by the hair that reminds us that Hillary has some stuff to work out in her marriage before she works it out with the rest of us.

Matthew Yglesias, here, from his blog at the Atlantic:

After all this time being told by the Clinton campaign that Barack Obama is some kind of closet Reagan-worshipping right-winger, it's a bit confusing to be told that he's the second coming of Jesse Jackson, too.

Bill Clinton, quoted here, at Ghost in the Machine:

If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other's trying to get you to think; if one is appealing to your fears, and the other is appealing to your hopes—it seems to me you ought to vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

Barrack Obama, in his victory speech (full text here, at the campaign website):

The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.

It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.

But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us change isn’t possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change can’t happen.

When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don’t tell me we can’t change.

Yes we can change.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can seize our future.

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:

Yes. We. Can.

Labels: election, obama, politics, presidential, south carolina