Virginia's governorship race

Only two states elect governors in the immediate post-Presidential-election years: New Jersey and Virginia. While New Jersey is likely to be a rout (some polls put Chris Christie more than 30 points ahead of his Democratic opponent!), Virginia is going to be close, if appearances bear out. And it's a terrible dilemma for Virginia's voters.

Virginia Republicans have held their convention and picked Ken Cuccinelli, the current attorney general. The main reason they had a convention, rather than a primary, is that moderate lieutenant governor Bill Bolling might have won a primary, and diehard conservatives wanted to ensure Cuccinelli's nomination. While I applaud some things Cuccinelli has done, like fighting Obamacare, he is a strong “social conservative,” and I thing the Republicans will only be a constructive force in this country if they abandon “social conservatism.”

But then I look at the Democrats. They haven't had their primary yet, but Terry McAuliffe seems to have no serious challengers. (In fact, he has no challengers, period! Nobody else has filed for that primary.) And McAuliffe is best known for heading Bill Clinton's re-election campaign. He's strongly allied with the whole Clinton family — he was a big supporter of Hillary Clinton's bid for the 2008 Democratic nomination. That alone hurts him in my eyes.

If I were a Virginia voter, I'd be stumped. Cuccinelli is more extreme than I'd like, and McAuliffe is actually fairly moderate for a Democrat. But I'd hate to see any Democrat win in an election where it might be construed for support for the Obama Presidency — and to the extent it's not so construed, it helps set things up for Hillary in 2016.

A lull in the posting rate

I've not been posting much lately — only once a week or less often. And I notice that most of my favorite blogs, like Dennis Sanders' “Big Tent Revue” and Tom Bowler's “Libertarian Leanings,” have also slacked off. I wonder if this is because Barack Obama's Presidency is going to last till 2017, and nothing we say can change that? (And of course, even Congressional elections are 1½ years away.)

Next month, the Supreme Court will probably issue its decisions on Hollingsworth v. Perry (the California Prop. 8 case) and United States v. Windsor (the case challenging the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act”). I will certainly post comments on these decisions once we know what they are. But until then it is mere speculation. I know how I would rule. On Windsor, it is clear to me that DOMA is unconstitutional, because it conflicts with the Tenth Amendment-based right of States to define “marriage.” On Hollingsworth, my feeling is more nuanced. Because of that Tenth Amendment argument, it is not appropriate to declare same-sex marriage legal everywhere in the 50 States. Appeal to the precedent of Loving v. Virginia is attractive, and probably if there were more than 11 states with same-sex marriage on the books, would make sense. But clearly there is not a nationwide consensus on this issue. I think, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, however, the precedent I would follow is Romer v. Evans. Basically, to take away rights that people already have is unconstitutional, and this is what Prop. 8 did. And on this basis, the Court would, in my opinion, be right to invalidate Prop. 8, while not forcing those states without laws authorizing same-sex marriage on the books to institute it.

But this is my position. i cannot get inside the heads of the nine Supreme Court justices. So I cannot comment on their decision until they issue it, probably next month.

It's rather amazing

It should not be too surprising that the way the media cover a political story depends on their own political orientation. But how severely it does is amazing. There were three different stories about the Obama administration's actions that monopolized the headlines in recent weeks: The IRS' interference with “Tea Party” groups (but not similarly situated groups on the left) in their quest for tax-exempt status, the harassment of the Associated Press, and the Government's attempts to mischaracterize the Benghazi attacks in order to minimize its security weaknesses. In each case, papers such as the Washington Post and New York Times took the positions that there was really no scandal, that the only thing wrong was that Republicans in the Congress were making it one. Their attitude was that “Watergate” was a real scandal; this was nothing even resembling it. Well, to my way of thinking, if there is any reason to say that the two things were qualitatively different, it was the opposite. “Watergate” was nothing but a couple of overly zealous people doing a burglary attempt on the Democrats. yet it forced a President to resign — a far better president, I believe, than the current occupant of the White House. At Benghazi, four Americans died, including a highly respected ambassador, because of lax security precautions; nobody died from “Watergate.” The IRS business could legitimately be characterized, as was “Watergate,” as a few overly zealous people trying to help the political chances of the President. But in “Watergate” it only involved the offices of the Democrats, and hardly prevented them from doing their business. The IRS actually held up the tax-exempt status of some of these organizations so long that they folded! And as for the AP — well, freedom of the press is what one part of the First Amendment is all about; it's considered one of our primary liberties. The left-wing press says it's ridiculous to compare these scandals to “Watergate”; I think, if anything, they, especially taken together, make “Watergate” look like small potatoes.

The Kermit Gosnell decision

Kermit Gosnell has been convicted of murder. And the anti-abortion (or as they would have it, “pro-life”) people are happy with the results. But in fact, the Gosnell verdict was totally in conformity with what I, who oppose them, have maintained. A viable fetus is a real person. Some of these babies were, in fact, already born, not just “viable.”

My reply to the anti-abortion crowd has always been “if this is a baby, deliver it, then see if you can keep it alive.” In this case, several deliveries had been done, and then the babies were killed. So obviously, what Kermit Gosnell did was murder, under my own definition. And I agree with the verdict. But this says nothing about Roe v. Wade. Gosnell's attorney tried to invoke Roe, ut the jury didn't buy it. And I think that no appeals court would, either.

More progress on the "marriage equality" front

In the last few days, Rhode Island and Delaware have passed marriage equality bills. Of course, this makes it even more the case that geography is the big divide. Nearly all the states north and east of the Potomac now have marriage equality (calling the District of Columbia a “state,” which for this purpose it in effect is). Just south of the Potomac you have states like Virginia and North Carolina, which have shown open hostility to the concept. And heading westward, most states haven't really done anything one way or the other. (Iowa has, and Illinois is probably about to, institute same-sex marriage. Colorado just started civil unions, which ultimately seems to lead to marriage, as it did in the state that invented the concept of civil union, Vermont. And the big one, California, is the subject of the big Hollingsworth v. Perry case, which the Supreme Court will rule on, probably in a month or so, so supporters of marriage equality are awaiting this decision with bated breath. (Of course, the Court might rule on Hollingsworth v. Perry in a way that brings about marriage equality nationwide. I doubt that they will. I don't think it's time for a ruling like Loving v. Virginia involving sex instead of race, yet.)

Why Matt Lewis could never be a liberal, and my own (general) agreement

Today I saw a post by columnist Matt K. Lewis of The Week's site, entitled “Why I could never be a liberal.” And, although I don't consider myself a “true conservative,” I align myself with conservatives on enough important issues that I estimate my position as more conservative than not. And much of what Lewis said resonates with me.

He begins with a comment, just below the title, but above the column itself:

I get in fights with my fellow conservatives all the time. But I'm not about to switch sides.

I'm not about to quote the entire column (please follow the link if you want to read it) but there are specific points he makes that I would echo:

…though my friends on the activist Right may sometimes drive me nuts, I've never ever entertained the thought of going over to the dark side of the Left. David Brock might have garnered a lot of attention and publicity by switching sides, but for me, the Left is never an option.

This isn't just because I believe conservatism will lead to a more prosperous and virtuous society, but also because — in the unlikely event either side were to obtain carte blanche authority — the Left scares me more than the Right.

There's no shortage of examples. Melissa Harris-Perry, for instance, recently revealed a terrifying tenet of the Left, which says our children belong to the collective, not to parents or families. As I wrote, this sentiment was so feared by George Orwell that he included it in both 1984 and Animal Farm. I should have also mentioned Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

Look at extremists abroad: From Stalin to Castro to Chavez, some on the Left have consistently displayed not just a tolerance for heavy-handed authoritarian regimes (as the Right has admittedly sometimes also done) but also an admiration of them.

In recent weeks, some on the Left have mourned the death of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, even while cheering the death of Britain's Margaret Thatcher. And a similar sentiment was on full display when Jay-Z and Beyonce, perhaps naively, enjoyed Cuban hospitality — without noticing the dissidents or the gulags they conveniently avoided on their vacation.

I will skip a couple of paragraphs, with which I don't really agree, about liberals' disregard for the Divine and about abortion, and resume with his next paragraph:

We live in a fallen world. I do not expect any party — or any ideology, for that matter — to have all the answers. I don't put my faith in politics. There will be no utopia on earth. We cannot immanentize the eschaton.

Neither side of the political spectrum has all the answers — and both sides have fringe elements they'd rather not highlight, as well as moments in history they'd rather leave unspoken.

I've probably had more public fights with my friends on the Right than with my adversaries on the Left in recent years. This is probably natural. As Anthony Trollope wrote, "The apostle of Christianity and the infidel can meet without a chance of a quarrel; but it is never safe to bring together two men who differ about a saint or a surplice."

I get in fights with my fellow conservatives all the time. Immigration is but one example. But still, for me, the Left is never an option.

There are specific points where I differ with Lewis. But by and large, I approve this column.

The Kermit Gosnell case

Self-styled “right to life” advocates have been bewailing the lack of media coverage of the trial of Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell. They accuse pro-abortion media of suppressing it because of their own biases. The only thing is — the trial is going on, local authorities have charged Gosnell with murder, and even under the standards of Roe v. Wade, if Gosnell is found to have done what he is accused of doing, he will be convicted of murder and possibly put to death. So it is not an instance of the issue they would like to feature, the justifiability of Roe v. Wade. The point is that Dr. Gosnell is accused of ending the lives of babies, already delivered and likely to have survived if the acts in question had not been performed by Dr. Gosnell and his staff. Even if you have the most thoroughly pro-choice mindset, once it passes the threshold of viability, it is not a mere fetus but an independent human being.

There is a question, about which responsible citizens can disagree, as to when the existence of a new human being begins. “Pro-life” people may claim that it is at the moment a sperm unites with an egg, but I've discussed how fallacious I believe this is. It is clear to me that, until a fetus has reached the point where it can be delivered and would survive without being attached to a placenta, it is simply a piece of parasitic tissue in the mother's body, not an independent human being. Where Dr. Gosnell betrayed his oath as a doctor of medicine is that he took the lives of those who, by this criterion, were independent human beings. This has nothing to do with the morality of abortion in general, nor with whether Roe v. Wade is good law — under the Roe decision Dr. Gosnell went too far! So there is no reason to bring up this case in discussions of Roe or abortion in general.

And the NRA wins again

The Senate has refused to pass the Toomey/Manchin gun control law. It was pretty weak to begin with, but we might have gotten something. But too many people are too conscious of the NRA's demands.

Obviously, as long as we have the Second Amendment in our Constitution — and it's not going to be possible to repeal it, though I wish it had never been incorporated into the Bill of Rights in the first place — there are people who are going to claim that being free to shoot at anyone is a “right” as precious as freedom of speech, press, and religion. Nobody thinks of our right to live without the fear that someone will shoot at us (even accidentally)! The NRA seems to believe that law-abiding people will use guns responsibly. Law-abiding people, by and large, don't even own guns, or know how to fire them!

I have no legitimate reason to kill someone, and thus I have no legitimate use for a gun. Nor does anyone else, outside the police and military.

For once, I agree with President Obama — but we can't simply retire those lawmakers who voted against gun control as he would like, because the alternative is lawmakers whose positions on so many other issues are so evil that they cannot be considered worthy of election. So I don't know how this problem can be solved.

Margaret Thatcher

Yesterday, Margaret Thatcher died at age 87. While I normally talk in thid blog about our own country's political leaders, Baroness Thatcher's service as Prime Minister deserves more than my usual degree of attention. Britain had been in decline; with her accession, it became an important and reliable ally, which we could rely on to work alongside us toward our common goals.

With some pride, I have to say that she was originally trained as a chemist (as was Angela Merkel of Germany). In this country, it seems lawyers dominate politics; it might be nice to find more people with a scientific background. (True, Thatcher became a lawyer eventually. But her first career was in chemistry.)

Chronologically, her Prime Ministry coincided in large part with Ronald Reagan's Presidency here. These two paragons of the Right, of course, found it easier to forge a tight alliance than peope on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum might. But even Labourite Tony Blair saw a need to keep the alliance together — of course, much of Blair's service coincided with Bill Clinton's Presidency, so again they were close.

But back to Thatcher. I believe that she was the greatest — in the sense of improving the strength of the British nation — prime minister since Winston Churchill, and not many could compare with him!

Vale, Baroness Thatcher.

Another GOP senator endorses gay marriage

A while ago, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio endorsed gay marriage, becoming the first sitting GOP senator to do so. He was just joined by Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois. This is an important development.

Until Portman, it seemed as though the Democrats had the monopoly on this side of the issue. And it took his son's coming out to convince Portman. Now with Kirk as the second one, the GOP is moving in the direction it ought to: getting rid of the dominance by “social conservatives” — a code word for “religious bigots trying to impose their views on others.” We even have the spectacle of Speaker of the House John Boehner hiring an attorney to defend DOMA before the Supreme Court, because the Obama Administration accepts its unconstitutionality!

The Republican Party is generally the party in favor of freedom of the individual. But because of the “social conservatives'” power, it has taken the wrong stance on issues like abortion, gay rights, and such. That two sitting GOP senators have decided to push against the “social conservatives” can only be praised. Hopefully, they will be joined by more. The GOP needs to stand up to the “social conservatives.”

Reports that seem to come from the Court

What I see in the reports on the two days of hearings seems to confirm what I've said about DOMA — there's a strong states' rights argument that DOMA is unconstitutional. The Prop. 8 news seems to be a bit less clear, but it looks as though there's a good chance that the Court will rule that the anti-gay side has no standing, or that the court should not have granted certiorari, and in that case the Ninth Circuit opinion will stand: Prop. 8 in California is unconstitutional, but the status quo will continue in at least most of the 49 other states (legal where it is, illegal where it's not currently legal). This will mean the pro-marriage-equality side will have to keep working where they haven't won, but there is a precedent that will say that wherever gay marriage has been approved, that action can't be reversed. Inexorably, gay marriage will become legal in more and more states.

If all this comes to pass, it's good for advocates of equality. Not perfect, but good.

The two gay marriage cases

Yesterday and today, the Supreme Court has been hearing arguments on two gay-marriage cases, two which in fact are quite different but both bearing on the future of gay marriage. Given that I was certain that last year the Court would find “Obamacare” unconstitutional, I have no credentials as a Court decision predictor, and so I will not try on these, but there are a number of points to be made.

If the court wanted to take a strict “states' rights” position, it would rule that California's Proposition 8 was properly enacted, ending gay marriage in California, but invalidate the “Defense of Marriage Act” as an infringement on the States' rught to define marriage — a Tenth Amendment based decision. So gay-marriage people would have, then, a split decision.

It is, of course, possible that the Court would follow the precedent of Loving v. Virginia, as Ted Olson would suggest, and grant gay marriage rights nationwide as a Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) right. I really don't expect this, but it would be a great day fopr gay couples if the Court did so

What could more likely happen, and was hinted at by at least two Justices, is that Hollingsworth v. Perry (originally called Perry v. Schwartzenegger and then Perry v. Brown: these changes can be quite confusing!) will not be decided at all; the Court will rule that the supporters of Prop. 8 have no standing to sue, gay marriages will resume in California as a result of a lower court decision, but the other 49 states will be unaffected.

Of course, we will not find out the decision for several months. The Court will do as it did in the Obamacare case, issuing its opinion in June rather than right away. So we are waiting while various analysts examine the questions the Justices asked to try to discern their thought processes.

Jonathan Chait, secular pope?

Yesterday I ran a post which in part referred to a critical column by Jonathan Chait in New York magazine. But in his column, he didn't only make an uncalled-for dig at Senator Rob Portman of Ohio; he also managed to bring in criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, recent candidate for the Vice-Presidency. He takes Ryan to task for saying, of universal health insurance, that it was “a new entitlement we didn’t even ask for.”

The construction was so telling — “we” meant the majority who have access to regular medical care and would rather not subsidize those who don’t.

It is Chait who doesn't seem to think that there are people around that he cannot imagine — not everyone who doesn't have health insurance is in that category because he can't get it; some want to take the risk because they are young and healthy, and would rather put the money somewhere else than in health insurance premiums. Others want to purchase bare-bones coverage for catastrophic illness only, because they figure they can afford normal medical expenses; of course “Obamacare” will not permit that.

Universal health insurance really isn't what we needed. What we need is to make health insurance obtainable for those who want it and cannot get it — not the same as all those who do not have it! But Chait thinks that, like the Pope according to Catholic doctrine, he is infallible — anyone who doesn't think the way he does is in error. If Ryan says that universal health insurance is “a new entitlement we didn’t even ask for” it is because he doesn't include all of us in that “we.” That's what Chait says, and that is, therefore, official doctrine. What claptrap!

Bipartisanship at last!

A few days ago I ran a post in which I was somewhat critical of Chad Griffin, the head of the Human Rights Campaign, for sending out an email praising President Obama for the administration's filing a brief before the Supreme Court, arguing that that a law denying gay and lesbian couples the ability to marry is unconstitutional. Mr. Griffin has, in my mind, remedied this to an extent. He sent out another e-mail, praising Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio for coming out for marriage equality. It has not been only Obama and the Democrats who have taken pro-equality stands; there are Republicans, who run more risk because of some conservatives' religiously-based bigotry, but have come out on the side of equality as well.

In Griffin's e-mail, he quotes Sen. Portman as saying, referring to his own son's coming out as gay:

It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have – to have a relationship like Jane [my wife] and I have had for over 26 years.

Nice to see the Republicans' being recognized too.

Chad Griffin is to be complimented. Not so Jonathan Chait, who uses the same bit of news to accuse Sen. Portman of selfishness in his New York Magazine column:

It’s pretty simple. Portman went along with his party’s opposition to gay marriage because it didn’t affect him. He thought about gay rights the way Paul Ryan thinks about health care. And he still obviously thinks about most issues the way Paul Ryan thinks about health care.

That Portman turns out to have a gay son is convenient for the gay-rights cause. But why should any of us come away from his conversion trusting that Portman is thinking on any issue about what’s good for all of us, rather than what’s good for himself and the people he knows?

Chait seems to think that there is an objective measure of “what’s good for all of us,” which is absolute nonsense. What is good for a landlord (increases in the rental values of property) is not good for a renter. What is good for an urbanite who has to buy his food (lower prices on agricultural products) is not good for a farmer who has to sell the products to a wholesaler. Very little is good for all of us. And so we must really decide on the basis of “what is good for [our]selves and the people [we] know.” All of us reason this way, not just Sen. Portman.

Maryland and the death penalty

The state of Maryland, where I currently have my home, is in the process of ending its death penalty. The House of Delegates today voted to do so; the Senate has already acted. Governor O'Malley is a death penalty opponent, so there is no chance he will do anything but sign it into law. And it will not make a practical difference, because Maryland has not executed many people in recent years. What it will say is that nobody's life is worth anything — if someone takes it in an act of murder, he will not be required to pay an equal penalty. My wife — who is against the death penalty — takes the position that if someone is wrongfully convicted and executed, as could have happened to Kirk Bloodsworth, it cannot be reversed. This is so, but if someone is murdered, that cannot be reversed either.

Maryland is making a mistake — but I can't do anything to prevent it. I guess we should change the state motto to “Maryland Welcomes Murderers.”

A new pope

The Catholic Church has chosen a new pope — and broken ground in many ways, though on the other side, shown how conservative they are. The new pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, to be known as Pope Francis, is the first non-European pope in nearly thirteen centuries. He is the first ever from Latin America, the first Jesuit, and of course, the name Francis has never been taken by any earlier pope. (Although some people have taken to calling him Francis I, apparently the correct thing is to call him just Francis until there is a Francis II. They did, however, refer to John Paul I before John Paul II became pope, but of course, that was only a 34-day reign.)

Yet for all that is new, ths pope is deeply conservative. Bergoglio has been as anti-gay as any Catholic clergyman around, having stated that same-sex marriage was the work of the devil and a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” Even gay adoption was in his eyes “discrimination against children.” His conservatism has been demonstrated in other ways. He has been associated wuth a group named “Communion and Liberation,” known to be very conservative.

So, despite the new ground broken by the Catholic Church, one can assume that under Pope Francis, it will still be the same in ways that really matter — anti-gay, anti-equality for women, sure of itself as the only true religion. One could perhaps have hoped for a different direction, but I would never have expected it; the previous pope, Benedict XVI, was moving them in a more conservative direction, and there seemed little likelihood of a change.

Cal Thomas returns to form

A bit over a week ago, I posted a message expressing my surprise at finding a column in the Washington Examiner by Cal Thomas with which I actually agreed. well, in Yesterday's Examiner I saw another column by him. And while it is not the very next column after the one I commented on last week (there was at least one more column between the two), I found it striking at just how much this column illustrated just how far apart Mr. Thomas and I are on most issues.

The subject of yesterday's column was, in large part, the improperly-named Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. He begins:

Given his track record on marital fidelity, former President Clinton is not the person I would consult about “committed, loving relationships.” Clinton used those words in a Washington Post op-ed last week, urging the Supreme Court to overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, which he signed into law.

In his column, Clinton said that 1996 “was a very different time.” No state recognized same-sex marriage and supporters of DOMA “believed that its passage ‘would diffuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.’” Clinton says he now supports same-sex marriage based on justice, equality and the Constitution.

Now, while the slap at former President Clinton's marital history is, I believe, not entirely gratuitous, it really is out of place here — the issue is not Clinton's sex life, but the right of other people, who may be far more deeply committed, to enter into a relationship that they wish recognized as a marriage. But Cal Thomas is being a smarty-pants here, and bringing up Clinton's history to add an ad hominem reason to come out on the other side of the question. Whatever you think of Bill Clinton's conduct, it shouldn't be the issue in this discussion.

Mr. Thomas actually mischaracterizes DOMA anyway — it is only for Federal purposes that DOMA “defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman” — each state in fact can, at present, define it in that way or any other. And in fact, later in the same column, Mr. Thomas actually says:

The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to marry. States, not the federal government, issue marriage licenses.

And this is a very important reason that DMA should be considered unconstitutional. But he continues:

Current laws restrict “underage” marriage, as well as polygamy. If same-sex marriage is approved, what's to stop polygamists from demanding legal protection and cultural acceptance? … So I ask, if “fairness” and “equality” are the standard, isn't it also “unfair” to “discriminate” against polygamists who wish to live in “loving” and “committed” relationships?

But while there is a case before the Supreme Court that addresses this issue — and I will get to that latter — DOMA does not have anything to do with whether a state should, or should not, permit any given couple (or set of more than two, if you bring in the question of polygamy) to marry. What DOMA says is that, even if a couple is married under the laws of the state of Massachusetts, the Federal Government will refuse to recognize that marriage if the two are both of the same sex. And that contravenes the usual Constitutional relationship between the states and Federal government. A simple Tenth Amendment argument makes DOMA unconstitutional.

Anyway, we aren't seeing suits to legalize polygamy, or “underage” marriage, and as recently as the 1950s, perhaps more recently (I haven't checked on when the law was changed) a 12-year-old girl (but not a boy!) could get married legally in one state. The charge that “if we legalize this, next we will be asked to legalize that,” is always raised when someone is opposed to the first one, but wants to try to scare people who are willing to permit it by bringing up the second, which he believes that fewer will accept. And that is a fallacious argument. If we legalize same-sex marriage, perhaps a movement will arise to legalize polygamy, but if you don't want to see polygamous marriages legalized, the time to oppose them is when that bill comes up. When we lowered the voting age to 18 from 21, people didn't complain that if we did that, soon we would have to lower it to 16, or 14, or 10, or even 7! Yet that's the same type of argument. What the proper voting age is can be debated — and I would be amenable to an age below 18, as I think that at 14, my political beliefs were already formed nearly fully — but the debate should center on what is the proper age, and not whether a lowering now leads to a further lowering later. And the same applies to expansion of who is allowed to marry legally.

Yes, I believe that same-sex marriage should be approved, but DOMA is not about that; it is about the Federal Government recognizing marriages that are already legal under state laws.

What Cal Thomas is really getting at, however, is contained in the next piece of his column:

Since we are rapidly discarding the rules for living and social order set down in a book found in most motel room drawers, what is to replace it? Opinion polls? Clever legal arguments? Fairness? What exactly does “fairness” mean and who decides what's fair? Many things may seem “unfair,” but not all can, or should, be addressed by courts.

Of course, the reference to “a book found in most motel room drawers” is to the Bible — what Thomas, of course, means is the Christian Bible, which has a number of books I do not recognize as scriptural, but let us not get into that debate here — and now we get into the First Amendment. There are people like Mr. Thomas who think that this amendment permits laws that are designed to impose the standards of one particular form of Christianity upon all of us, and clearly the purpose of this amendment was to prevent such laws. And I say “one particular form of Christianity” because, contrary to what Mr. Thomas may wish, there are churches that will perform same-sex marriages, so their clergy do not seem to think the Bible condemns them.

The Court is considering DOMA, and it is also considering the separate issue of whether states should be required to allow gay marriage. These are different issues. DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional because the Federal Government should not prevent a state's legal right to sanction a marriage from being recognized Federally. The other question is more nuanced. Ultimately, however, I think there is an equal-protection issue, and just as the Court held in Loving v. Virginia that people of different races should not be prevented from marrying, they ought to apply the same logic to people of the same sex. But there is a state's rights issue that points the other way. So this decision is less clear.

The worm has turned

Back at the end of last year, the Republicans found themselves in a bad spot. If they did nothing, the Bush tax cuts would all expire Jan. 1. Even President Obama wanted to preserve many of them, so there was bipartisan agreement that doing nothing was unacceptable. And thus, John Boehner and the House Republican caucus ended up surrendering too much to President Obama. There was no better choice.

Now, on the other hand, it is the President who is in the same pickle that the Republicans were in back then. If nobody does anything, the sequester kicks in — the spending cuts go beyond what the GOP wants, but certainly Obama gets none of the tax increases he wants. So the only compromise possible is for the President to give up on some of the tax increases. We are seeing his allies — Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the House Democrats — making wild statements to try to curry favor with the American people. But they cannot win — and President Obama knows it. Finally, he is talking with the GOP leaders in Congress — something he refused to do last December. My, how the worm has turned!

The perils of purism

Yeaterday I ran a post about a column by Cal Thomas in that day's Washington Examiner which surprised me in that I often disagree with Thomas' columns, but found that particular column to be totally in accordance with my thinking. Today I'm also posting about a column in the Examiner, but while I am just as much in agreement with today's column as I was with yesterday's, this time it causes no great surprise, because the column is by Noemie Emery, whose posts I usually find make a lot of sense to me. As it happens, it says much the same thing as a remark in Thomas' column in yesterday's paper:

If the Republican “tent” isn't large enough for Chris Christie, then it will resemble a pup tent for some time to come.

Emery's column is entitled, “Conservative crisis management.” At the beginning of the column, she says:

When in a hole, keep right on digging. That's the attitude of a number of movement conservatives, who, in reaction to last year's shellacking, seem to want to make certain they never climb out.

And, addressing those conservatives, she makes the point (emphasis mine):

…don't complain about Republicans running the Bushes, John McCain, Bob Dole and Mitt Romney, when you run Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan and Rick Santorum against them. If you want to win nominations, you might try running candidates. (And a better message might help matters, too.)

That's a powerful dig, but they deserve it. The fact is that most Americans are not far-right conservatives. If a conservative is to win their votes, he needs to be moderate enough to get the votes of people closer to the middle of the political spectrum, who would never support a Santorum. Which leads ino her next point:

check the urge to purge heretics, which died out long ago in most of the world. Movement conservatives now scourge their party's most popular governors. Yes, blue- and swing-state Republicans always enrage some conservatives; the problem is that conservatives need them if they want to become a national party. If they like to throw tantrums, they should keep on what they're doing. If not, they should throw them some slack.

Why? Andrew Cline explained this two years ago, just after Scott Brown, having thrilled conservatives by winning the seat of Ted Kennedy, enraged them with one of his first Senate votes. “Scott Brown does not represent the Republican National Committee in the United States Senate. He represents Massachusetts,” Cline said then, correctly. “If Scott Brown voted as though he were from Alabama, the voters of Massachusetts would send him there.”

The really important thing to note is what Emery says a little bit further along:

…Chris Christie, with his Ralph Kramden vibe, is the closest thing they are likely to get in New Jersey — and, though conservatives would prefer a Reagan conservative, in those states this is not in the cards. Christie and Bob McDonnell represent their blue and swing states, not Utah or Texas, and the alternatives to them are not stronger conservatives.

The alternative to Olympia Snowe isn't Ted Cruz, it's Angus King, who votes with the Democrats. The alternative to Scott Brown isn't Rand Paul, it's Elizabeth Warren. We have Obamacare now because of the Club for Growth and Pat Toomey, whose primary threat scared Arlen Specter back to the Democrats, where he became the 60th vote for Obamacare's passage.

In other words, the far right's insistence on purity has driven the center of American politics leftward, hardly a desirable goal from their point of view.

I wish Noemie Emery's words could be read by the people who keep insisting on ideological purity.

Cal Thomas, Chris Christie, and the CPAC

Usually, when I open my copy of the Washington Examiner and read Cal Thomas’ column, I find much to criticize. But today, when I read his column, I was surprised.

It began:

It's a safe bet that most conservative Republicans would rush to support a political leader with the following record, especially in a traditionally Democratic state:

Reversed a $2.2 billion deficit and brought it into balance without raising taxes, largely by reduced spending and eliminating wasteful and unaffordable programs, allowing for a projected fiscal 2014 budget surplus of $300 million.

Bipartisan pension and benefits reforms, saving the state $120 billion over 30 years.

Streamlining government by eliminating 5,200 government jobs.

Vetoing tax increase bills three times while cutting taxes for job creators.

Reforming the nation's oldest teacher tenure law by making it conditional on teacher performance in the classroom.

Reduced property tax increases to a 21-year low and capped them at a maximum 2 percent.

There's more, but shouldn't conservative Republicans be ecstatic by this record compiled by New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie?

Yes, Cal Thomas was singing the praises of one of my favorite Republicans, and taking the Conservative Political Action Conference to task for not inviting him to speak. Thomas was really making the case for Christie as exactly the kind of person the Republicans should be cultivating, using such language as:

… By not inviting him to speak, CPAC invites comparison with a pessimistic and hypercritical political environment of the past. If the Republican “tent” isn't large enough for Chris Christie, then it will resemble a pup tent for some time to come.

Republicans should be focused on deconstructing failed liberalism and styling their alternative in positive terms, not rejecting one of their own. Hating President Obama is not a policy. Intellectually defeating his policies is.

I often believe Cal Thomas is on the wrong side of issues. But not this time. I applaud his sense in calling for Republicans to recognize Gov. Christie’s accomplishments. Of course, I would be happy if he is the 2016 nominee. But just as conservative orthodoxy scuttled former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s attempt to be the GOP standard-bearer, I am afraid they may do the same with Christie. And it would be a shame.

President Obama, gay rights, and the sequester

Recently, Chad Griffin, the head of the Human Rights Campaign, sent out an email praising President Obama for the administration's filing a brief before the Supreme Court, arguing that that a law denying gay and lesbian couples the ability to marry is unconstitutional. Since HRC is basically a one-issue organization, focusing on gay rights, I suppose that Griffin was justified in sending this email; however, it would have been fairer if he had pointed out that the pro-gay-rights side is also getting support on the other side of the aisle: another brief was filed by a group supported by Clint Eastwood and Jon Huntsman, for example, and one of the two lead lawyers on the pro-gay-rights side is Theodore Olson. Griffin, however, made the email a hearty thank-you to a President whose commitment to gay rights is better to be characterized as more political than heartfelt. This is, after all, a President who could have ended “Don't ask, don't tell” by a stroke of his pen on Jan. 20, 2009; in fact he waited years to do so.

As for me, my attitude is “Sure, Mr. President, you're on the right side here, but you've been such a bad president with regard to other issues that this one act hardly balances it.” From insisting that no solution to the problems arising from the “sequester” is acceptable without raising taxes, to claiming the Senate was in “recess” when it really wasn't, in order to pack the NLRB with pro-union flacks, Pres. Obama has done so much that is bad for this country that he will not get off, in my eyes, just because he's done one thing right for a change.

A stupid, but unsurprising, move

A committee of the Maryland State Senate has approved a bill to repeal the death penalty in the state. And it is expected to pass the full Senate, and given Gov. Martin O'Malley's support, ultimately become law. It makes it clear that in Maryland, anyway, the life of a murder victim is worthless. A killer can take a life in an act of murder, and his own life will be spared.

I must say that I cannot see any justification for the repeal of the death penalty. A murderer who is allowed to live, even if found guilty, has been judged by the state as worth more than his victim, who was deprived of the rest of his life. But death penalty opponents are on a roll. I think they are stupid, but I can't reverse their gains.

Ben Carson, President Obama, and the National Prayer Breakfast

In today's Washington Examiner, I saw a column by Cal Thomas that really took me by surprise. It seems that at the National Prayer Breakfast, neurosurgeon Ben Carson said some things that were critical of President Obama. Now I think it is nice to see a prominent person of African-American origin willing to buck the Obama worship of most of his co-ethnics. And I would have thought that someone like Cal Thomas would feel the same, as Mr. Thomas is someone who likes Pres. Obama's policies, if anything, even less than I do. But Thomas's column was critical of Dr. Carson!

Apparently, Cal Thomas feels that the time and place were inappropriate for Dr. Carson to make his comments. I don't agree. Dr. Carson is a medical doctor. The practice of medicine has been complicated by “Obamacare.” If Dr. Carson feels as strongly about the effect Pres. Obama's policies have had on his profession, a time when the media are present is the best time to make this known — National Prayer Breakfast or not.

Recess appointments

In my last posting, I said that “as good as our Constitution is in so many ways, it has a few blemishes resulting from the fact that the world has changed in the 200+ years since its adoption, without the necessary amendments.” And one of those outdated provisions refers to the fact that, since it would be hard (given the state of transportation in the 1780s) to reconvene the Senate after it has adjourned and its members gone home, the President was given the power to make appointments which would normally require Senate confirmation, without that confirmation, during a recess of the Senate:

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. (Article II, Section 2, U. S. Constitution)

With the Congress in almost continuous session, it would appear that this clause would be almost defunct in its effect, except that Presidents have construed “recess” in a very generous way, considering relatively short periods when the Senate has closed up shop as recesses within the meaning of this clause — no President more than our incumbent, President Barack Obama. He has made a number of appointments during periods when the Senate had simply closed for the weekend — particularly, ones that might not pass the Senate's muster. He has particularly used this power to stack the National Labor Relations Board with pro-organized-labor appointees, destroying its ability to make impartial decisions.

But now the chickens have come home to roost.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has just ruled that some appointments made to the NLRB in January of last year were unconstitutional. And in that ruling, (Canning v. NLRB), the court specifically defined a recess:

…we hold that “the Recess” is limited to intersession recesses.

Now this is only a decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Obama Administration will surely appeal to the Supreme Court. But unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it is a powerful tool to rein the Obama Administration's attempt to do an end run around the Constitution's “advise and consent” clause. There were a number of interpretations current on what the “recess appointments” clause actually means, and the Court adopted the most restrictive one possible. It is surely to be hoped that this court's opinion will be sustained if and when appeal is made to the Supreme Court. Let us await their decision, with hope for the best.

I have to concede he is right

Pres. Obama has decided to make a strong pitch for gun control legislation, and to use executive orders to do whatever he can do without Congressional action. Sadly, this is one area where I cannot accept the congressional Republicans' position — they are as much in fealty to the NRA as the Democrats are to organized labor on the issues they consider important. So on this issue — gun control — I want the President to prevail.

I recognize that most of the measures being proposed would not have prevented the Newtown murders. Unfortunately, the only thing that might have done so would be unconstitutional: confiscation of all guns not in the hands of the police or military. And to make this constitutional requires an amendment that will never get through the process, repealing the Second Amendment. The problem is, as good as our Constitution is in so many ways, it has a few blemishes resulting from the fact that the world has changed in the 200+ years since its adoption, without the necessary amendments. Some things, like the provision authorizing Congress to issue “letters of marque and reprisal,” actually cause no problems — the Congress just doesn't exercise this power. But the Second Amendment is a terrible blemish. And one that will not go away, because there are actually people who think it is a source of liberty for our population. And these people are numerous enough to prevent its repeal.

I really do not know the solution. We have to live with the Second Amendment, and with it being there, we can't do what really needs to be done: to get rid of all these guns that threaten our people.

An NRA idea that I would actually support

I've generally thought that the National Rifle Association is diametrically opposed to everything that makes sense regarding guns. Yet one thing that they have advocated in the wake of the Connecticut shootings does make sense.

The NRA's president, Wayne LaPierre, has called for putting armed guards in the schools. While some pro-gun people have advocated arming teachers — which makes no sense, as teachers are by and large not trained marksmen — I could support the idea of armed guards. A school district in western Pennsylvania has hired armed guards for the schools — choosing retired Pennsylvania state policemen for the jobs. These are trained people, who know how to use guns, and who have had the policeman's training in judging when to use them and when it would be too dangerous.

My position has always been that guns should be taken out of the hands of ordinary people, but two groups need them: the military and the police. These armed guards are technically not police, but they are performing a police function. So I can have no objection to this idea.

Don't give Pres. Obama a victory by default

I've remarked before about Noemie Emery, a columnist for the Washington Examiner, whose columns I usually find very close to my own thinking, and in yesterday's paper she had another very good column. It's too long to quote in its entirety — please follow the link to read the whole column — but the main point is that, by fragmenting, the Republican Party is making it easier for President Barack Obama to foist his far-left agenda on the American people. She points out, for example:

In 2008, during the fiscal implosion, they took two weeks off from the campaign against him to engage in a tong war over the much-loathed Troubled Asset Relief Program that turned a difficult race into one already lost. Between 2010 and 2012, they threw away four seats in the Senate -- two to primaries, one to Todd Akin, and one when they drove Olympia Snowe out of politics. This gave us Obamacare, when a primary election threat drove Arlen Specter back to his old party, where he morphed from a critic to an ardent supporter of that much-despised and badly formed legislation.

In particular, one section of her column is particularly apropos:

…last week, Republicans turned the lame duck into a TARP rerun, capped by a half-baked attempt to dismember the speaker, which embarrassed both him and themselves. This is what happens when people decide that some on their side are really The Enemy and get distracted from those with whom they have much larger differences. So before they move even more down this dream-scene-for-Democrats road map, there are three facts they might think of and four things they should do.

Fact No. 1 is to realize a political party isn't a church nor a cult but a mechanism to get diverse people who share some things in common to work toward a common position of power that none could achieve on their own. Fact No. 2 is that unless you can convert your principles into actual policies, standing upon them does no one a favor. If you believe in your principles but can't convert others, you are not an asset. If you antagonize them, you and your principles are a real liability, and perhaps you should shut the hell up.

Fact No. 2 [she means 3] is that because no coalition big enough to win power can ever be pure or completely united, and no pure wing or segment can be big enough to win or rule on its own, it is in everyone's interest to cherish the mavericks. Each party needs members who vote with them sometimes. Conservatives dreamed of the day they could rid themselves of the Snowes, Lugars and Castles; that day has come, and they and their party are weaker than ever. Many conservatives would kill now to have those seats back.

Sometime soon, before the debt ceiling crisis writes a thrilling new chapter, Republicans should sit down together and try to agree on four things: to name the shared goals that they want to move forward; to decide what to do to in a practical manner (in the real world, not an imagined alternative); to find their best spokesmen, and have him (or her) speak for them all; and to remember exactly who their real enemies are — who, in the real world, are not themselves.

The Tea Party loves the Gadsden flag symbol, with its poised-to-strike rattler and "Don't Tread on Me" message, but there is another illustration of that era that it ought to note: Benjamin Franklin's cartoon of a snake, chopped into 13 small pieces, unable to make any threatening noises. Beneath it was Franklin's exhortation for unity among the 13 Colonies: "Join, or Die."

She is right on the nose there. There is another blog I like, which has been relatively inactive lately, called “Big Tent Revue.” The name, I presume, comes from the remark that the GOP should be a “big tent” under which people of differing opinions, but with some in common, can all find shelter. This is a good image. If the Republican Party tries to purify itself to become a single-dogma party, the Democrats will win by default on every issue. Let us try to prevent this.

A good idea, but not feasible

I saw a post last night on Vanity Fair magazine's site by Kurt Eichenwald, entitled “Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment.” Now I wish we could do just that. Most of what Eichenwald says makes a lot of sense to me. But the fact is, it has no chance of happening. There are too many gun nuts around who think the Second Amendment is as important as the First. There is no way a repealing amendment could get two thirds of each house of Congress and three fourths of the State legislatures to approve it — in fact, I doubt it could get simple majorities in both houses or even half of the State legislatures to approve it. So Eichenwald's column makes no sense. By pushing for something that has no chance of passing, he deflects the debate from where it needs to be — reducing the incidence of guns in a country whose Constitution has the Second Amendment in its text.

I don't disagree with Eichenwald that it would be better if we had no Second Amendment. But let us be practical. It would also be better if we had a Senate that did not give Montana the same two Senators as California. That is not going to change, and neither will the Second Amendment be repealed. Wishing for the impossible makes the possible less likely to happen.

Now what?

The “fiscal cliff” has now been averted, thanks to the professionalism of Vice President Joseph Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who are clearly the heroes of this drama. Now the question is, what next? Will Pres. Obama be even more emboldened, since he was able to fend off spending cuts with only a moderate upgrade from $250,000 to $400,000 in the threshold for the repeal of the Bush-era tax cuts? Or will the Tea Party be emboldened, since now they cannot be hung with the slander that they only want to help millionaires hold on to more of their money?

President Obama had said he would not negotiate on the debt ceiling raise. But he's accepted a compromise plan that does not raise the debt ceiling. He hardly has any cards left to play, now that the “fiscal cliff” compromise is passed and signed. He can bluster that he won't sign any bill that meets the needs Republican lawmakers have to reduce spending, but unlike the tax effects, he does not have the threat that he had built into the “fiscal cliff” issue — if the debt ceiling does not rise, there are provisions that such things as Social Security payments will continue to be made. What will happen? Who knows?

The "fiscal cliff" compromise

There are a lot of posts I see, from various liberal commentators, complaining that President Obama gave up too much. And there are a lot of posts I see on the other side, saying that the Republicans gave up too much. The fact that we see both of these means it's probably a good sign. There is still a necessary vote in the House of Representatives, of course, so it's not a done deal. But it's quite obvious that neither side can get all it wants. And I think that when both sides start off as far apart as they were, it can only be a good sign that both sides are unhappy.

There were a lot of issues, of course, that were not settled — kicking the can down the road a while. But with less of a time crunch, perhaps some compromise can be attained on these too — but even if not, the worst of the “fiscal cliff” crisis has been averted.

The only way a better solution could have been reached was if Mitt Romney had been elected to the Presidency. So under the circumstances, this was the best that could have been hoped for. And thanks to Vice-President Joseph Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for negotiating it.

The "Atruthful" Obama?

Tom Bowler's blog, “Libertarian Leanings,” has a new post, dated today, called “The ‘Atruthful’ Obama,” with some accurate things to say about our current President. It begins:

Amoral is defined this way:

1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

Substitute the words "truthful" and "untruthful" for "moral" and "immoral" in the definitions above, and you get a pretty good feel for Barack Obama's politics. For Obama, truth is completely irrelevant.

Benghazi is a good example. Five days after the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at the consulate in Libya, Obama ordered his UN ambassador Susan Rice to go out to all the Sunday news shows to blame their deaths on a Youtube video that was supposedly so insulting that it sparked rioting throughout the middle east. It was such an unlikely story, but it was one that fit in with Obama's image. His presidency by itself was supposed to cast a new and attractive light on America for the Muslim world to see. The planned terrorist attack destroyed that narrative. Benghazi was a protest.

Later on President Obama himself went to the UN where he repeated his protest story in a speech to the General Assembly. Then weeks later during a presidential debate against Mitt Romney he contradicted all that. To Romney's obvious bafflement, Obama said that he had called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror the day after it happened. Almost everybody was caught be surprise, except the debate moderator. In what looked to have been a beautifully choreographed move, Candy Crowley jumped into the debate to declare that, yes, it was true. She had specifically looked into it and she could confidently support what the president said. Time to move on to our next debate topic. Sorry, we really don't have time for more questions on this. Obama would not have to face questions on where the protest story came from.

Remarkably, Barack Obama went on to win the election. In the midst of the most dire economic circumstances we've experienced in the last half century, Obama managed to beat out the guy who made a fortune rescuing companies from their own dire economic circumstances and putting them back on their feet. If ever there was a man equipped to deal with the hardships facing our country, it was Mitt Romney. Yet the atruthful Obama beat Romney, the turnaround artist.

He did it without offering any kind of a plan to deal with the worst unemloyment in 30 years, or any plan to deal with the rest of our economic problems. After running trillion dollar deficits for four straight years, boosting the national debt from $10.6 trillion to more than $16 trillion, he managed to sucker just enough people into believing he would fix everything by taxes on 2% of American taxpayers. Arithmetic anyone?

Obama said what he had to say, himself and through surrogates.

He said that Romney and the Republicans were waging war on women because they didn't believe the Catholic Church should be forced, against Church doctrine, to pay for women's birth control. He said that Romney got rich destroying companies, not rescuing them. He said Romney was a felon, that he misrepresented his position on corporate filings to the SEC. He said Romeny was responsible for a woman's cancer death. Her husband lost his job when the company Romney rescued went under, long after the rescue and long after Romney's involvement. The woman died six years later.

No matter that there was no truth to any of it. Barack Obama said whatever would defeat Mitt Romney. And that's where we are now. America's rescue has been put on indefinite hold. Obama won.

In place of any expectation of economic growth we have a "fiscal cliff" before us. A confrontation between Obama and Republicans over spending and taxes looms. It was contrived by Obama because he thinks that any confrontation with Republicans is one that he will win it. He might. Obama will say whatever he has to say to do it. He said so.

There is more. Read it yourself.

Two Cabinet nominations

As soon as the Senate can confirm them, two new occupants will take over the two most important Cabinet positions: Seretaries of State and Defense. It would appear that President Obama originally thought that any African-American woman named Rice would be a shoo-in for Secretary of State. But Susan Rice, though one might think qualified — she has been Ambassador to the United Nations — is no Condoleezza. And her conduct in the face of the killing of our Ambassador and several others in Benghazi was so disgraceful that she was led to realize her chances were hopeless, and she begged off before her name was formally submitted to the Senate. The proposed nominee is John Kerry, the Massachusetts Senator and Presidential candidate of the Democrats in 2004. Although, to me, it seems like an overly partisan choice, Kerry seems to be popular among his fellow Senators and looks likely to be confirmed. Apparently the other Senators seem to think he will represent us well before the world. (And among Republicans, the chance that the resulting vacancy will be filled by Scott Brown seems a plus.)
The other position, Secretary of Defense, is more problematic. A former Senator, Chuck Hagel, is President Obama's choice. As a Republican, this even looks as though the President is making an attempt to reach out to the GOP. The problem is that Hagel, though a moderate on domestic affairs, has a record on foreign policy that shows him as quite hostile to Israel — some call him anti-Semitic, though at least one posting I saw says that calling him by that adjective goes farther than is justified. It does not matter whether Hagel is a true anti-Semite; he will not be confirmed, since the Senate is more sensitive to Israel policy than President Obama is. It is obvious that the President will have to come up with another name.

The Republicans and racial equality

I have seen a lot of online postings of columns from two Boston newspapers, the Herald and the Globe. The Herald is, apparently, the conservative paper in Boston, the Globe, which is owned by The New York Times, is very liberal. So it surprised me to see a post online of a column in the Globe by Jeff Jacoby, entitled A party that doesn't think with its skin. The gist of the article is to point out that the Republican Party, often criticized as racist by its opponents, is the one that is actually walking the walk on racial equality, as demonstrated by Gov. Nikki Haley's appointment of Tim Scott to the Senate. I would like to quote this column:

South Carolina's conservative Republican governor, Nikki Haley, is the daughter of Sikh immigrants from Punjab. US Representative Tim Scott of Charleston, a Tea Party hero who was raised in poverty by a divorced single mother, is South Carolina's first black Republican lawmaker in more than a century. To anyone who shares the ideals that animate modern conservatism — limited government, economic liberty, color-blind equality — it stands to reason that Haley and Scott are conservatives. And their Republican affiliation should surprise no one familiar with the GOP's long history as the party of minority civil rights.

But many people aren't familiar with that history. So relentlessly have liberal propagandists played the race card over the years that virtually anything conservatives or Republicans do — from opposing Obamacare to tweaking the president's fondness for golf — somehow gets twisted into proof of racial malice. So when Haley announced last week that she would appoint Scott to the US Senate seat being vacated by Jim DeMint, who is leaving to take a job at the Heritage Foundation, I indulged in a bit of preemptive snark.

“An Indian-American governor appoints an African-American to the US Senate,” I posted on Twitter. “Man, that lily-white GOP racism never ends, does it?”

On being sworn in, Scott will become the Senate's only sitting black member and the first from the South since the 1880s. Indeed he'll be just the seventh black senator in the nation's history; three of the others, including Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, were also Republican. Haley, meanwhile, is one of only two Indian-Americans ever elected governor (the other is Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, a fellow Republican). For anyone who esteems racial and ethnic diversity, this has to be a good-news story. Could even the most determined racial McCarthyists find reasons to decry Scott's appointment?

Of course they could.

“Tokens. That's all they are,” one Twitter user promptly replied to my tweet. Remarked another: “The man's race may be inconvenient for the Repubs, but he's a teabagger like them so they'll ignore it.” Twitter users elsewhere smeared Scott as an “Uncle Tom” and a “house Negro.”

In fairness, on Twitter anyone can pop off about anything. What about more serious venues?

Well, the NAACP — which used to be a serious organization — promptly let it be known that while it was glad to see “more integration” in Congress, it disliked Scott's “record of opposition to civil rights protection and advancing those real issues of concern of the … African-American community.” Does the NAACP really believe that Johnson opposes black civil rights? A ludicrous canard. Then again, so was its absurd resolution two years ago denouncing the Tea Party movement as a platform for “anti-Semites, racists and bigots.”

Writing Wednesday in The New York Times, University of Pennsylvania political scientist Adolph Reed Jr. was in a similar froth, slamming Scott because he doesn't think with his skin. “His politics, like those of the archconservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, are utterly at odds with the preferences of most black Americans.” Scott has no legitimate connection to “mainstream black politics,” Reed scoffed. He's just another “cynical token” — one more black Republican elected to Congress from a majority-white district.

It's an old story by now, this venomous lashing-out at blacks and other minorities who embrace conservative or Republican values. It especially infuriates the Democratic left to see the enthusiasm black conservatives inspire among Republicans. Far from celebrating the fact that minorities can demonstrate appeal across the political spectrum, the left whips out the race card. The rise of black Republican leaders, they say, is just a thin disguise for GOP racism. Yet if Republicans oppose a black Democratic leader, they call that racism too.

Perhaps historical guilt feelings explain this reflexive racial demagoguery. For a very long time the Democratic Party was a bulwark of American racism — it was the party that defended slavery; that fought the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments; that founded the Ku Klux Klan; that enacted Jim Crow segregation; that opposed anti-lynching laws. Could it be the psychological weight of such a record that leads so many Democrats and their allies today to promiscuously impute racism to their political opponents? Above all, to their black political opponents?

“I'm a black Republican,” Scott says serenely. “Some people think of that as zany — that a black person would be a conservative. But to me what is zany is any person — black, white, red, brown or yellow — not being a conservative.” If the accusation is that he doesn't think with his skin, Scott seems happy to plead guilty as charged.

I like this columnist. I'm just surprised that the Globe carries him.

Perhaps a compromise is possible

Well, Speaker John Boehner has indicated he is willing to accept a raise in tax rates on people with income over a million dollars. And President Barack Obama has raised his $250,000 figure to $400,000. There is still a gap there, and other aspects that are also going to be problems, but each side has given a little.

Perhaps by Dec. 31, a compromise will be achieved. I hope so. There is still a week and a half to go.

Newtown and abortion clinics - connected?

Amazingly, Gregory Kane has managed to take the Newtown killings and use them as a basis for a column about abortion. His column in yesterday's Washington Examiner was entitled “Culprit is society that devalues human life” and among the ridiculous analogies he made (addressed to President Obama, if you need to know who the “you” was supposed to mean) was:

On Friday, a gunman walked into the Connecticut elementary school and methodically, fatally shot 20 children and six adults.

He has been identified as 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who apparently killed himself after the shootings. Now imagine the following hypothetical situation:

Lanza isn't 20, but a 30-something surgeon who, five to 10 years ago, sucked those same 20 children down a tube while they were still in the womb.

Would we be talking about the slaughter of 20 innocent children? Or would Lanza receive praises from you and others like you for being an avid supporter of women's reproductive rights?

How anyone can consider the little bit of tissue inside a uterus of a pregnant woman — which, I concede, has the potential of becoming a human being — as the equivalent of a real living 6-year-old boy or girl is beyond my comprehension. People get over a miscarriage, which is, after all, the death of just such a bit of tissue in a uterus, in a way the parents of the Newtown children will never get over their children's deaths.

But Kane has to make such stupid analogies as an excuse for his anti-abortionism.

More on guns

The point was made today by someone on Meet the Press that one's opinion on guns is not so much dependent on your partisan affiliation as on where you are from. The speaker pointed out that he was from Wyoming, and opinions are quite different from those of an easterner. And in fact this is true -- Rudy Giuliani is no less a Republican than some of the strongest NRA-types, while the west elects pro-gun Democrats.

So how can we ever attain a consensus?

Obama's "revenge tax"

There is a blogger who calls himself "Publius" — because that was the pseudonym adopted by the three authors of the Federalist Papers, I assume — who has finally explained, in terms I can understand, President Obama's insistence on raising tax rates, even though it would hardly make a dent in the deficit. And it is so clearly correct that I would like simply to repeat it here.

I was having trouble understanding why President Obama has been clinging so fiercely to his demands to raise the top marginal tax rate to the Bill Clinton-era 39.6%. By most accounts — especially his own — Obama is a very intelligent man, and surrounds himself with very intelligent people. Surely these intelligentsia must know that raising the marginal tax rate 4.6% on those earning over $250,000 per year will do virtually nothing to erase the national debt or close the deficit, do nothing to ease the plight of the rapidly growing number of poor Americans, and do nothing to help Obama’s miserable economy — in fact it may make his miserable economy even worse.

So the question I was having trouble answering is this: if Obama and his minions know these simple, self-evident truths, why are they so hell bent on such a tax hike?

Obama claims that he has a mandate for the tax increase; it was a campaign pledge, and therefore he must meet it. But as I recall, he also made campaign pledges in 2008 to close Guantanamo Bay, to fix the economy with a huge stimulus, and pledged in 2009 to cut the deficit in half in his first four years — broken pledges all. Since these, and so many of Obama’s other prior pledges have been broken, honoring a campaign pledge cannot be the true reason for clinging to his tax hike. Moreover, pushing legislation forward because it was a campaign pledge merely begs the question: why was it a campaign pledge?

Offered here are some possible reasons why.

A primary reason for Obama's insistence on raising taxes is this: a bully bullies because he can. Obama and the intelligentsia know that if Obama stands pat on raising tax rates — and Republicans balk — he can simply blame a Republican House for going over the cliff, which is much more proximate and much more plausible than blaming Bush.

And if the Republicans balk, Obama can appear heroic by insisting in January 2013 that the House reduce tax rates on the middle class, while maintaining the higher tax rates then in place for the top bracket. Or, as has recently been proposed, Treasury Secretary Geitner might give the middle class a temporary tax break until new tax legislation is passed; a bit of a gamble if the tax rate that gets passed is higher than the temporary tax rate, as it would stick the middle class with an unwelcome tax bill in April.

Sticking it to Republicans is but a part of a bigger Obama agenda — revenge. In the hours before the 2012 election, Obama urged his followers, saying, “voting is the best revenge.” How unifying. Obama’s revenge includes slapping higher taxes on America’s most productive wage earners. Obama’s tax hike is consistent with his liberal belief that those who have succeeded have not had to play by the same same rules as those as those who have failed, have taken unfair advantage of the disadvantaged, and have gained unearned success at the expense of the unsuccessful. Such perceived unfairness must be avenged, and taxing the rich is, for those who voted for it and the president that urges it, the best revenge. For this reason, I refer to Obama’s fiscal cliff tax hike as the “Revenge Tax.”

Revenge is akin spiking the football, or rubbing salt in the wound, or issuing the middle finger salute. But revenge, like a winning vote, is temporary; it satisfies for a season only. Obama hopes to change America forever. There is thus an even bigger reason for his Revenge Tax than simple revenge.

And raising revenue, at least with his Revenge Tax alone, is not that bigger reason. Speaker Boehner has already offered $800 billion in new revenues by reducing or eliminating tax breaks — i.e., loopholes — for upper-income people. But this is a “non-starter” for Obama. Again, the question must be, why? And the answer must be that the Revenge Tax is not just about raising revenue.

I believe Obama’s refusal to accept revenue by closing tax loopholes as a proxy for the Revenge Tax, and his insistence on that tax is for this reason: closing tax loopholes is a one-time event. Raising taxes, however, can — and often does — beget raising more taxes.

Increasing the marginal rate to 39.6% won’t do any good. Everyone knows this. Thus, we can expect that once Obama gets his 39.6% tax rate, we will soon hear that it wasn’t enough, that to meet the country’s growing needs, we must make the evil rich pay still more. Perhaps $250,000 of income for the top tax bracket will be lowered to $200,000 or $175,000. This is especially more likely as the “soft bigotry of lowered expectations” takes hold. The definition of “rich” will slide down the curve, as Obama’s broken economy makes more and more people poor and fewer and fewer people rich.

Ergo, the real reason Obama clings to raising the tax rates is to set the stage for repeated, increasing, expansive tax increases, until America’s tax rates approach those of Obama’s Utopian society — Europe. Obama yearns for Europe’s unaffordable healthcare, the so-called universal healthcare system, and I believe also yearns for Europe’s lofty tax rates. Here is what America may look like in the years ahead, if Obama gets his Revenge Tax, and in the process opens the door to giving America a Euro-tax makeover:

Top Marginal Tax Rates

France	75<%/td>
Sweden	56.6<%/td>
Denmark	55.4<%/td>
Netherlands	52<%/td>
UK	50<%/td>
Belgium	50<%/td>
Austria	50<%/td>

The question, therefore, isn’t so much whether America will go over the fiscal cliff, but whether by avoiding that cliff, America will open the floodgates to European style taxation.

What's bad -- and good -- about Obamacare

Last night I attended a meeting of an organization with which I have been involved for over 25 years — one, in fact, that I helped to start. It has nothing to do with health care, but after the end of the meeting I got into a political discussion with the one perrson who is actually an employee of the organization, a woman who, in the course of the discussion, said that it was good that President Obama manipulated the Congress through parliamentary tricks in order to pass Obamacare after Scott Brown was specifically elected on a promise to prevent it — because she liked Obamacare.

At this point, we started discusssing Obamacare. Now in fact, I never said what I actually approved of in Obamacare; the only thing I was discussing was what was bad, and we had to leave the building so I never finished the discussion. But I would like to complete it here (and I intend to tell her to look at it!)

My main opposition to Obamacare as it was finally passed is to the mandatory features. I think it is a good thing to make it easier fo people to get health insurance — the facts that insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and that they have to keep children on parents' policies longer, are good. But instead of requiring people to have coverage and fining them if they do not, what should have been done is perhaps to subsidize its purchase (the insurance exchanges might well be a good thing if they are implemented correctly), and such things as to allow purchase of plans across state lines. It might even be that it should be detached from the employer contribution way it is mostly financed, so that you do not lose coverage when you leave a job, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

The thing I cannot accept is that you are not permitted to decide, on your own, whether you want coverage, and even what kind of coverage you can get. When it was decided that you must have health insurance, it was also decided that a Government official would decide what kind of coverage you need. If a single male wants to buy a policy that does not cover the costs of childbirth, he cannot. It's not just its requrements on the employer side — the requirement to cover contraception that Catholic institutions are protesting — the insured person has no freedom to determine the best policy for his own needs.

If it were up to me, a plan that would have made more sense would have been to require insurance companies to cover everyone who applied (no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, as in the actual Obamacare plan), but arrange things that all employers paid the money they now put up for health insurance into a pool similar to the one they pay for unemployment insurance, and use this money to subsidize health insurance so that policies become affordable by people who cannot afford to buy it now. If a person does not want to buy health insurance, he should be able to self-insure. If he wants to buy a policy with no coverage for conditions he expects never to need, let him. The insurance companies, in turn, need to be able to price policies like life insurance policies, based on actuarial considerations, so that younger people who do not need as much medical care can get their insurance more cheaply. The fear has been spread that the young will opt out and leave the insurance companies with only the older and sicker people, raising their costs. If young people are required to pay less, however, they will be encouraged to join. Younger people do buy life insurance, so this idea works.

The other thing people have clamed would be a problem is that if you ban denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, but allow people to start coverage at any time instead of requiring it at the beginning, they will first buy insurance when they are sick. The cure for that is to make it like the Medicare drug plan — if you can enroll but you don't, then when you do enroll it costs more than it otherwise would. Thai seems to work in the Medicare case — it would seem to work here as well.

Those are my thoughts.

Charlie Crist, Democrat?

It seems that former Republican Governor Charlie Crist of Florida has now become a Democrat. Given that he supported President Obama's re-election this year, I suppose this is not a big surprise. And I don't really know Crist well enough to say that he's made a mistake; perhaps he is actually closer to the Democrats on important issues than he is to the Republicans.

But it is troubling to see moderates leaving the Republicans and joining the Democrats. Perhaps it is a reaction to the fact that a right-wing extremism is becoming more dominant in the GOP. But it does not recognize the left-wing extremism that has come to dominate the Democratic Party.

I actually see people claiming that President Obama is a “moderate.” It is actually clear that he is no more a moderate than his opposite numbers in the GOP, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. His gyrations to put pro-union members on the National Labor Relations Board when he saw the Senate would not confirm them, his positions on such issues as the current “fiscal cliff” and the “Obamacare” disaster — all these make this clear. And it is not just President Obama. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leaders in the two houses of Congress, have staked out far-left positions. When Arlen Specter, who had almost lost a primary to a right-wing opponent in 2004, decided that he could not stay in the GOP because it was likely to defeat him in 2010 and nominate the same right-wing candidate that he had barely defeated six years earlier, he found out that the Democratic primary voters were no more inclined to support a moderate. He lost the Democratic primary, by a much larger margin than he had won the GOP primary in 2004.

Moderates who leave the GOP for the Democrats will, I'm afraid, find that their new party is no more congenial to them, or to the idea of moderation, than the GOP. They are more likely to pull the GOP toward moderation if they stay than to pull the Democrats toward moderation, since they will not have the status of anything but “newcomer” in the Domocratic Party.

I hate to see you go, Gov. Crist, but it was your decision to make, and I am not so sure ypu won't regret in in the long run.