The Spencerian

Glum Jobs Report: Bad Way to End the Week

by Benjamin J. Kirby

The United States added only 69,000 jobs last month, a dismal number that doesn't do a lot to help the chart the White House and the Obama Campaign would like you to be intimately familiar with.

In fact, look at the White House website, and it's pretty clear what they'd like us to be talking about this weekend: President Obama marking the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War and honoring the fallen on Memorial Day.

The subtext -- if I am to be believed -- would be the Tuesday piece in the New York Times on the Obama "kill list", and the president's tough-on-global-terror stance.  (As an aside, the president would probably like us all to forget his unfortunate "Polish death camps" phrase...  Hey, nobody's perfect.)

These jobs numbers are probably going to keep international affairs and war and peace from being front-and-center on the Sunday talk shows.  Republicans like Jeb Bush will certainly see to that. 

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told the House Budget Committee Friday morning that he fears the economy "is stalling again, and growing well below its historic potential."

The Republicans can make all the hay out of this that they care to -- and they will.  But I'm not so sure I'd want to wade into that fight so cavalierly if I'm Romney's budget and economic advisers.  the 69,000 are the fewest to be added in a year, but we're still adding jobs, and have been since Jeb's brother was president.  

How do you message that?  Obama's economic policies are working slowly... but still better than his Republican predecessor... that's why you should still give us a chance...?  

I'm not naive.  This election really is riding on an improved economy (I've said this before).  I know it has to be real improvement, tangible improvement -- an improvement that people really feel.  But take a look at that chart again.  I'm no economist, but if you look at the summer months, they tend to dip.  Can we expect a dip through this summer and another spike in job creation as we head into the fall election?  

It's short-term lousy news.  I suspect smarter folks than me at the Obama Campaign have their eye on something a bit longer-term.

Rick Scott Smack-Down: Justice Department Intervenes on Voter Roll Purge

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Bad day for our governor, the hospital grifter Rick Scott, here in Florida.

Great day for voters.

First, as I noted earlier, a U.S. District Judge threw out a chunk of the draconian election law Scott had championed.  Specifically, he tossed out the piece which essentially made it impossible for organizations to register voters.

Now, breaking news out of the Justice Department, via TPM:

The Justice Department sent a letter to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner Thursday evening demanding the state cease purging its voting rolls because the process it is using has not been cleared under the Voting Rights Act, TPM has learned.

DOJ also said that Florida’s voter roll purge violated the National Voter Registration Act, which stipulates that voter roll maintenance should have ceased 90 days before an election, which given Florida’s August 14 primary, meant May 16.

This is a big deal.

Scott had undertaken these measures as a brazen attempt to dampen Democratic turnout and help deliver Florida to Romney.  After all, let's remember what I like to call the Steve Schale statistic:

Add up 32 million Florida votes over the 5 Presidentials from 1992-2008 and less than 60,000 votes separate the two major political parties.

Scott knows that as well as any of us.  And he was going to use the illegal purge and his horrible election law to his advantage.  

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said the arc of the universe bends towards justice.  Well, tonight justice -- via the U.S. Department of Justice -- bent towards Florida.

Hallelujah.

Making the List: The Obama 'Kill List' and the Cold Face of Politics

by Benjamin J. Kirby

The only reason you read anything at all about the "secret" kill list on the front page of yesterday's New York Times is because the Obama Administration wanted us all to read about it.  It is equal parts horrifying, chilling, brutal, and even, at times, confusing.  For example:

...Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

In other words, if you happen to be an innocent but in the company of a target and a Predator drone blows you up, well, sorry 'bout that.  We'll just make a note of it here in the after-action report.  The good news is, we have the capacity to count the number of innocent civilians we kill with drone strikes.  The bad news is we haven't yet invented a drone that can bring you back to life.  

I'm not sure how anyone can look at the graphic which accompanied the really interesting Times piece and say that Obama has been a weak Commander-in-Chief.  Agree or disagree with the drone strikes or the "kill list," the man is certainly getting stuff done.  No "wolves" ad from the Republicans this time around.

From a political point of view, I am sure the Obama folks would love to talk about foreign policy, international affairs and national security all day and night between now and November, especially against a guy who called Russia "our number one geopolitical foe."

In-depth pieces like this set up an interesting -- and, I think, slanted in Obama's political favor --  discussion about those issues of national security.

So is it going to score points for Obama politically?  Maybe.  Quite probably.

However, I'd like to go on the record as saying I hate it.  I hate the idea of the President of the United States sitting in the Oval Office with secretive men looking at -- goddam -- "baseball cards" of terrorists or suspected terrorists and determining whether they live or die.   

I think what bothers me most is not so much the drone -- I get that these drones are a technological tour de force, a "new and improved" way of going to war.  As a father, I can appreciate that it is better to send an unmanned aerial vehicle into a danger zone instead of armies of young men and women who fight and die on bloody battlefields.  

What bothers me is the secrecy.  At least when our armies -- the actual human soldiers and sailors -- go to war, we know where they're going.  We know, more or less, who they're going to fight.  

The "kill list" is secret, hidden.  A few names have been given, after the fact, but they were mentioned in the Times story almost incidentally.  

Making the decision to go to war with a country is one thing.  When we go to war in the conventional way, we attack not just the army of the other country, we attack their economy, their infrastructure, and yes, even their people.  

Singling out individuals for killing alleviates vast collateral damage -- that, and saving the lives of our own warriors, is a very good thing.  But who are we killing?  Why?  We're told these are "imminent threats" but... what does that even mean?  

I don't know what drones mean for the future of warfare.  I'm not an expert on warfare, or the legal questions surrounding war and international affairs.  

I do know something about politics, and I know that if the American people feel safer, they will reward politicians who make them feel that way.  President Obama and this plan will almost assuredly make us feel safer.  And in a macabre way, maybe it should.  That's just cold political truth.

Like I said, I don't know a lot about making war.  But I suspect that what these drones do will make the truth around war itself even colder.

What is the Word: Heroes, Freedom and Memorial Day

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Some folks might say it would be in poor taste to write about something with even a twinge of political overtone on Memorial Day, but here we are.  

An MSNBC pundit named Chris Hayes said he felt "uncomfortable about the word 'hero'" as it relates to those who have fought and died in war.  Predictably, he was ripped backwards and forwards by conservative bloggers.  Predictably, he apologized a few hours later.

Although I took the point Mr. Hayes was trying to make -- if men and women who fight and die in any of the wars we start are always described as "heroes," without exception, then it gets easier to justify those wars -- I, too, was uncomfortable with how he got to his point.  The timing was pretty bad as well, obviously.  Really, Chris?  Memorial Day?

It is all an unfortunate distraction on a day when we should be remembering just what those soldiers, sailors and air men and women have fought and died for -- whether we agreed with the premise of the war or wars or not.  

I think Hayes would have been better served had he pointed out that the men and women who have died in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the jungles of Vietnam, the European Theater, the Pacific Theater, Korea, and all over the world have always died for an idea -- the idea of America.  We can agree or disagree all day about whether America is a perfect idea, or even always a good or just idea.  

But men and women who wear the uniform, as Hayes pointed out in his apology, do a lot more in service of that idea than TV pundits like him.  

Or half-assed bloggers like me.

Indeed, Hayes would have been even better served had he noted that the very freedoms -- the pillars supporting that idea of America soldiers fight and die for -- are under attack. 

You know, sometimes on days like Memorial Day, I think about those freedoms.  Voting, for example.  Voting is the literal embodiment of "freedom," actually.  So when a sitting governor -- that's right, the hospital grifter himself, Rick Scott -- throws hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of eligible voters off the rolls for no good reason, I get outraged.  

A TV pundit saying something out of line about men and women who serve in uniform on Memorial Day.  A Governor abusing his power to try and manipulate electoral outcomes in a presidential election year on Memorial Day.  They're both pretty disrespectful, and I am glad Hayes, who seemed to understand the gravity of his mistake on Memorial day, offered a sincere apology.

I wonder when we'll get a similar apology from Governor Scott.

Memorial Day 2012

Please have a safe and happy Memorial Day, friends and neighbors.

And let's not forget what the day is about.

A Tech Challenge for Policy Wonks: the Disability Employment App Challenge

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Did you know this?

Not only do people with disabilities have a significantly higher unemployment rate than the general population, they also have a much lower labor force participation rate. According to the most recent data from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (April 2012), people with disabilities had a 20.3% labor force participation rate compared to 69.1% for their non-disabled peers, and people with disabilities had an unemployment rate of 12.5% compared to 7.6% for their non-disabled peers. For minorities with disabilities, these disparities are even greater. This represents a significant loss of willing and able talent to the American workforce, a loss of income for people without jobs, and an economic loss to the American economy.

I didn't.  That's fairly shocking, don't you think?

I'm not an economist, but in a recession of this magnitude, shouldn't we be trying to get everyone back to work?  And as a political guy, wouldn't you think that the administration would be trying everything they could to make sure everyone who could work -- whether they're disabled, or minority, or anything?  

Turns out they are:

Here's more about this interesting, innovative challenge:

Your challenge is to use publicly available information, tools, resources, and employment data to build tools that promote the employment of people with disabilities.

Each submission should achieve at least one of the following goals:

Promote Recruitment Resources for Employers: These features should provide recruitment resources for employers to identify individuals with disabilities to hire by using tools such as Career One-Stops Centers, state Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, employment networks, educational institutions and programs, non-profit organizations, and private recruitment resources.

Develop Job Training and Skill-Building Tools for Job Seekers: These features should include vocational and workforce training resources, apprenticeship, internship, and mentorship resources, resume tips, as well as resources and tools related to “soft skills” (e.g., interview skills, etc.).

Facilitate Employment-Related Transportation Options: These features should use publically available resources to expand individuals with disabilities access to and knowledge of accessible employment-related transportation options.

Expand Web and Information Communication Technology (ICT) Accessibility: These features should use publicly available tools regarding website and ICT accessibility that will help employers improve their systems to be accessible to applicants with disabilities, as well as current employees.

Now, I'm a political hack.  I only wish I had the technical expertise to develop the kind of app they're looking for.  So go ahead, tech friends -- work on this.  You could win $5,000.

I should also say that the guy in the video, Seth Harris, who is the Deputy Secretary of Labor, was my very first political mentor.  He was also my first boss.  

He was the guy who found me in the middle of the Clinton/Gore Campaign in 1992 and put me to work in the transition office.  If it wasn't for Seth -- um, the Deputy Secretary, I should say -- none of this would exist.  Not my political background, not where I am and what I'm doing today, probably not the college degree, not the communications expertise.  Nothing.  None of it.  It's really not an exaggeration to say I owe him everything.  

I doubt you can count posting his video on my blog as payback.  But it's a start.

Get developing, app developers.

The Florida Progressive Coalition: An Appreciation

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Just a short post, but I couldn't let the evening pass without noting that Kenneth has evidently decided to no longer run the Florida Progressive Coalition and the blog which went along with it.

I contributed fairly irregularly to the FPC.  I am proud that two of my posts -- one from 2008 and one from 2009 -- are still two of the five most viewed FPC posts.

I thought the FPC blog served a great function, and I'm sorry to see that it will likely fade away after the 2012 Netroots Awards (which will likely fade away as well; at this point, I hope I don't win one, to maintain the purity of my winless streak).  

I doubt he'll get the recognition he deserves, but someone more important than me should thank Kenneth Quinnell for creating and running the whole thing.  It was a full-time job with no recognition and pretty much no pay.  For whatever it's worth to you, thanks, Kenneth. 

And They Will Attack From Subversive Positions

by Benjamin J. Kirby

It's going to be another quiet week -- my parents are in town to visit Finn, who is doing great, by the way (will have an update soon).  

But I couldn't let today pass without finally commenting on an op-ed I read the other day in the New York Times from former CNN anchor Campbell Brown.  In it, she criticized President Obama's commencement speech to the graduates of Barnard College (an all-women's college) as "condescending" to women, and his approach to women in general:

When I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years — most recently at the Barnard graduation — he has made reference to how women are smarter than men. It’s all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress. As I listen, I am always bracing for the old go-to cliché: “Behind every great man is a great woman.”

Some women are smarter than men and some aren’t. But to suggest to women that they deserve dominance instead of equality is at best a cheap applause line.

Ah, yes.  Cheap applause line.

Of course, sometimes when I listen to Campbell Brown she sounds like an underhanded, disingenuous liar.  From President Obama's speech:

We know that we’re better off when there are rules that stop big banks from making bad bets with other people’s money and -- (applause) -- when insurance companies aren’t allowed to drop your coverage when you need it most or charge women differently from men.  (Applause.)  Indeed, we know we are better off when women are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of American life -- whether it’s the salary you earn or the health decisions you make.  (Applause.)  

We know these things to be true.  We know that our challenges are eminently solvable.  The question is whether together, we can muster the will -- in our own lives, in our common institutions, in our politics -- to bring about the changes we need.  And I’m convinced your generation possesses that will.  And I believe that the women of this generation -- that all of you will help lead the way.  (Applause.)

Now, I recognize that’s a cheap applause line when you're giving a commencement at Barnard.  (Laughter.)  It’s the easy thing to say.  But it’s true.  It is -- in part, it is simple math.  Today, women are not just half this country; you’re half its workforce.  (Applause.)  More and more women are out-earning their husbands.  You’re more than half of our college graduates, and master’s graduates, and PhDs.  (Applause.)   So you’ve got us outnumbered.  (Laughter.)

After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world.

The bold is mine, but just so you get the idea.  The notion that the man courted a cheap applause line was not an original thought from Campbell Brown.  It was from President Obama.

For what it's worth, Media Matters does a better take-down that I've done or will do on this speech.  

But for me, this is a bit more than just a speech to women graduating from college, or a pretty poorly argued set of ideas from a news has-been.  This is about women and the role of women in our society -- and what the role of women in our society will be in the future.  

We can talk about the economic picture, jobs, or even international affairs all day and night with respect to this race and politics in this country.  But the hard truth is, issues facing women -- indeed, women themselves -- face a stark choice this election cycle.  

It's a choice between people cynical to have the spouse of the candidate say you're "struggling" in college when getting by means selling some stock.  If you don't think it's cynical, just ask that same spouse how she feels about being "attacked" for being a wealthy stay-at-home mom -- wealthy enough that she participates in a sport you'll have to Google to understand.  These folks aren't like you and me, and they do not care about you.

And if it is not Mitt Romney, it's the GOP -- the party which will nominate him to run for President in August.  This is the party of a governor who vetoes funding for a rape crisis center during Sexual Assault Awareness Month.  The same party that had a congressional hearing on contraception with only men at the witness table.  The same party apparently supported by classy (not so tech-savvy) guys like this one.

It is also the party of Dan Senor, a neo-con war-monger who helped cheer-lead us into Iraq during the disastrous W. years.  Now he's a Romney adviser.

Oh, and he's also married to Campbell Brown.  Though I suppose we should take some small comfort that Campbell thought to disclose this bit of news four paragraphs from the end of her piece:

(I should disclose here that my husband is an adviser to Mr. Romney; I have no involvement with any campaign, and have been an independent journalist throughout my career.) 

If you think the spouse of a senior adviser to a presidential campaign has "no involvement with any campaign," then you've sadly bought the most cynical piece they're selling.

Don't be too surprised.  It's the GOP, and the handful of links above are only the tip of the iceberg of evidence of how they treat women.  Senor gets his wife to do his hit piece in the New York Times?  Hey, when the first bill signed by the President upon taking office is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, you'll do anything to score cheap points.  

Anyway, there's the GOP choice.

And then there's this choice:

That's from the Obama Campaign, and it's fantastic.

The Birth of a Region: Tampa Bay Times and the Tampa Tribune

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Is the Tampa Bay Times going to by the Tampa Tribune?

Here's why I ask: turns out Berkshire Hathaway -- that's Warren Buffett's vaunted company -- bought up 63 newspapers from Media General today.

One Media General paper they didn't buy up?  The Tampa Tribune.

Now, I figure most folks wouldn't normally think that much about it, except that it's been pretty obvious -- starting with the name change -- that the former St. Petersburg Times (now Tampa Bay Times) is eyeing a move across the Bay.

And it's not just the name change.  

This tweet from Times political chief Adam Smith caught my eye:

  Adam Smith ‏@adamsmithtimes

Qstn for TpaBay: what does Tpa Trib do bettr thn TpaBayTimes? Where cn we improve? Email (asmith@tampabay.com), call 727-893-8241, or twt me

Really?  Since when is Adam Smith doing quality survey work for the Times?  Don't he and Al Ruechel have a candidate to interview? 

Anyway, to be fair, you'll want to read the piece from Eric Deggans (Times media critic) here.  Interesting that Paul Tash, the Times Chairman and CEO declined to comment on the purchase.  

State Senate Republican Armageddon Cage Match

by Benjamin J. Kirby

I know you're not supposed to laugh at the misfortune of others, but here I am.  It seems that Republican Senator Jack Latvala is considering getting into the State Senate race in the newly redrawn South Pinellas district, instead of the northern district.  The problem?  State Representative Jim Frishe, also a Republican, is already running for State Senate there.  And... 

...[d]espite speculation about Frishe switching to the North Pinellas district, he has little interest in that. "I don't have any plans to move. My wife has lived in her home, I guess, 40 years now," said Frishe. "I'm certainly not making any plans to do anything at this point other than run for the office I'm already running for."

So, why would Latvala set himself up for such a bruising primary?  

Because it's pretty clear that Representative Jeff Brandes (an independently wealthy Republican) is going to jump into the Senate race to challenge Frishe. 

Of course, the game you're watching is not really the game being played.  This is all about the Senate Leadership post, which Latvala is currently vying for against Senator John Thrasher.  From the article linked at the top:

Latvala is competing for the Senate presidency with state Sen. John Thrasher, R-Jacksonville.

If enough Thrasher allies win in 2012 — and Brandes is widely seen as one — Latvala could be out of luck for the leadership post. And Latvala, a popular and high-profile leader, would appear to be a stronger contender than the low-profile Frishe against Brandes, a member of the Cox Lumber family who could easily spend at least $1 million of his money on his campaign. Brandes is already airing TV ads for his state House re-election campaign. The deadline to qualify is June 8.

I don't think whether Brandes gets into the race is in question.  Just look at his latest TV ad:

Nice spot.  

Now, quick: find somewhere in the 30 seconds where he says he's running for State House.  Except for the required small-print legal language at the end near the bottom of the screen, you can't.  

That's no mistake.  

Smarter political watchers than me could argue that Senator Latvala is one of the most popular politicians in this area.  Representative Frishe is no slouch in this department, either, actually.  Jeff Brandes is something of a newcomer, but he's got a ton of cash in which to make up for any lacking name recognition in a larger district.  

So what happens?  

I don't know.  Quite frankly, I don't see Republicans as usually this ugly and public in their battles... at least not usually.  In a three-way race, I think you have to give the edge to the long-serving Latvala.  But I don't think it would be too pretty.

As a sort of aside, I'm not sure there's a Democrat in the race in the South Pinellas State Senate race.  If there is, I have no idea who it might be, and that's pretty depressing.  Worse, if Latvala flees the North District to run in the south, I'm not sure who might represent Democrats there, either (to be fair, I'm not sure I know who the Republican would be, either).  

Brandes will be leaving a race where a Democrat named Dwight Dudley just jumped in.  I don't doubt that Dudley would give him a tough fight.  Latvala will be tougher.

Whether or not Brandes gets in, whether or not Latvala runs in the south, these are very ugly and very public spats we're witnessing.  June 8 is the deadline to file in this race.  We'll see if the ugliness extends beyond that. 

Cappy's Pizza: Here's Your Sign

by Benjamin J. Kirby

There's a pizza place I've always wanted to try on 1st Avenue North in St. Petersburg -- Cappy's Pizza.  I'm a pizza nut, and though I am loyal to my neighbors at Fazio's, I'm not above trying something new when it comes to pizza.

As it happens, my friends Tony and Robin at Fazio's might not have anything to worry about now.

This story was reported a few days ago, but I've been thinking about it a lot.  After all, I have two kids now.  

It seems the owner of Cappy's put a sign up that said: "For the comfort and safety of everybody, if you allow your child to run, scream or misbehave, you will be asked to leave."

We don't go out a lot because, well, we have two kids -- one of them virtually brand-new.  And even before Finn was born, it's not easy taking a toddler out to eat.  It requires a lot of prep time, and no matter how prepared you might be, there's no guaranteeing she'll be in a good mood.  Besides, it's cheaper and usually more healthy for us to eat and home.  And Duncan, a great cook, likes making dinner.  

That being said, when we have gone out, Emmy is quite well-behaved.  Sure, she gets impatient and squirmy sometimes, but she's two.  It's going to happen.  There's never been any running, screaming, or "misbehaving," whatever that is.

Here's the deal: Scooter Gabel, the owner, could have said something very different.  He could have said, "For the comfort and safety of everybody, unruly customers will be asked to leave."

Or customers who are loud, or disruptive.  They serve beer and wine there.  What if some annoying drunk guy ruins my meal because he's "misbehaving".  Where's his sign?  [There may be one there, I don't know.]

He deliberately singled out children.  

Look, I don't think the guy actually meant to be divisive.  I think his sign is just worded really poorly.

Seems like a bad business decision -- especially since the place has toys everwhere.  I get it, the vintage toys are "art" or something (hasn't this guy seen the Toy Story trilogy?  Toys aren't meant to be played with... by children.).  Whatever.  

Okay, so why is this political?  It's not, really, except for the part about division.  

Check out the reaction from Clark Brooks here.  

Oh yeah, I hate 'em. I hate them and I'm sitting there, wishing with all my might that something terrible will happen to them. That's about as far as I'm taking my hatred though. Maybe I won't throw them into a deep fryer myself but if they happen to fall in there somehow, I'm not running to get help. Hey, my meal is ruined; I should be allowed to at least fantasize about something that I would enjoy. Remember the old saying about giving someone something to scream about? Doing an impression of a corndog qualifies.

More importantly, if they're your kids (biologically or otherwise), I hate you and I am sitting there hoping that something really bad happens to you. Because ultimately, it's not really their fault, is it? No, it's yours. So mostly you.

Well, that got him going. 

What's funny is, I don't disagree with Clark.  It's the kids who are genuine terrors who ruin the dining out experience for the rest of us.  Look, I hate the annoying, screaming kid as much as the next guy.

But signs like the one at Cappy's has a chilling effect on all parents (it certainly has for me and Duncan).  

We're about to be subjected to an entire summer of political division and probably a lot of hatred, mostly communicated through TV and radio ads.  There'll be a lot of us versus them, and this is reminiscent of that.  I don't think we need any more division than we'll already be having, thanks.  

Besides, I'm hungry for pizza.  

Gay Marriage: What Does This Mean?

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Between my original post on Obama's gay marriage comments, the follow-up post I had about Mustang Bobby's post, and Matt's provocative post from yesterday, I think we've covered the issue of gay marriage pretty well.

That said, I am really quite proud that Gulfport, my town, will be the first in Pinellas County to have a domestic partner registry:

For city council member Barbara Banno, the signing of an ordinance creating a domestic partner registry in Gulfport hits close to home.

She and her partner have been together for eight years. Six years ago, they got married in Toronto. Banno said they would have preferred to make their vows in Florida.

But the registry is a step toward more gay rights, Banno said Wednesday morning during the signing at City Hall.

It's just great news.

So good for the Gulfport City Council.  

I felt this was an appropriate way to close out our discussion of gay rights and gay marriage for now:

>

Leadership Lacking on Gay Marriage

by Matt Spence

I wanted to give this one time to settle before sharing my thoughts - mostly because my initial thoughts on the President's gay marriage "announcement" were not flattering and I was wondering if anyone else felt the way I did.  To be honest, I was quite surprised at the amount of positive reaction from gay leaders and progressives.  Even right here in this blog from my esteemed colleague Ben.  There has been all sorts of praise for the president's personal revelation that gay people are people too and that they love just as straight people love.  Hold on a second, because here's what he actually said:

"What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens."

Less than full citizens.  If the president truly agreed with that, he would not have hid behind states rights.  He would not have said that an issue of citizenship, civil rights really, should be decided at the state level.  No, it has become his stance that social policy is decided at the state level and that gay marriage is an issue of social policy.  (Boy, that should make some Reaganites quite happy...) 

The opinion that states should decide certainly does not match up with his friends and co-workers who see it as an issue of equality and civil rights.  The 14th Amendment is to the United States Constitution, is it not?  If he truly felt this was a civil rights issue, this might have been his stance.  Otherwise, it felt awfully political to me.  Say you're in favor personally in the hopes that your VP will shut up and your Secretary of Education will stick to education -- put it back on the states so that you don't have to actually stand for any policy that might come before you to sign or veto.  Although that may be different from Mitt Romney's opinion, it is no different from how Mitt Romney would govern - and that should give him, and plenty of others, reason to pause.   

Of course, North Carolina stepped up right away to expose the cop-out, exercising the President's stated opinion of state's rights and banning gay marriage.  That the President shared his "disappointment" with the public surely must have rung quite hollow with the gay residents of North Carolina.  I wonder if any of those personal friends and co-workers are from or have gay friends in North Carolina... and I wonder how they feel about the President's "support" today. 

Apparently the American public is quite cynical about it as well - according to a NY Times/CBS News poll, 67% believe that his statement was motivated by politics and not what he believes to be right.  I find this interesting for a few reasons, most of all because there is such a lack of faith in the President's own words about it.  This isn't just the echo chamber either - if that were so, the number would be closer to 1/2 than 2/3.  That extra 17% could pose a huge problem in November if the message is that Americans find the words that come out of his mouth to be no different or more trustworthy than any other politician.  To me, it reflects an undercurrent of doubt about the President's willingness to lead on a tough issue... and that is a killer.  People do not want to elect a Leader of the Free World who does not seem to be a leader. 

 

Many have attacked the President's leadership on this issue, saying that the Biden/Duncan combo forced him into it.  I think Ben's article (linked above) did a pretty good job of dispelling that theory.  I have to say that I do not disagree with the cynicism about the President's leadership, it is just that my cynicism is born of very different reasons.  In my opinion, for the President to be forced to say something everyone already believed to be your opinion because your loose-lipped VP spouted off again is nowhere near as damaging as failing to lead because you either 1) can't make up your mind about what legal rights gay people should have to marriage or 2) haven't "evolved" to the point where you believe that your personal opinion should be reflected in policy or 3) do not believe that gay marriage is a civil rights issue.  

 

None of those are good.  The ironic thing is this; it may just be that the President really does not agree with gay marriage as the law of the land - as he said but nobody believed - and that he has truly been reassessing his opinion.  Maybe he hasn't really worked through the policy implications of these new thoughts.  Maybe he hasn't "evolved" enough to see it as a civil rights issue.  But the electoral poison is that maybe, just maybe, on this issue he just won't lead.

Barking Up the Right Tree

by Benjamin J. Kirby

I don't do a lot of promoting of other bloggers here.  Maybe I should, but I don't.  

Tonight is an exception.  Stop reading this, and go read the Bark Bark Woof Woof piece on the Newsweek cover, "The First Gay President," about Obama and his remarks on same-sex marriage.

Newsweek is out (no pun intended) with a cover photo and essay by Andrew Sullivan that dubs President Obama as the "first gay president."

Sigh.

Both Newsweek and Mr. Sullivan are shorthanding the president's support of same-sex marriage by labeling him as gay. Except I'm not comfortable with the label -- not that there's anything wrong with it -- and the idea that supporting same-sex marriage and other civil rights for the LGBTQ community makes him gay. If that's the case, my parents and a lot of my family members are gay, too, which would come as both a surprise to them and their respective children and spouses. It would also apply to a number of people I know who are demonstrably straight. It's catchy, it sells magazines, and I'm sure the editors of Newsweek felt they had to come up with something to counter last week's Time magazine cover article on breastfeeding. (Oh, please, don't even go there.)

If there was just one blog in Florida, I'd hope it would be Bark Bark Woof Woof.  If there was just one blogger, I hope it would be Mustang Bobby.  

This post is exactly the kind of media criticism I love to read.  

The president did a good thing, a bold thing, a politically risky thing -- "bumpersticker journalism," as Bobby aptly describes it, doesn't help the issue.  In fact, it sort of dumbs it down.  

I sometimes feel a little out of place on certain issues.  As a straight, white, quasi-agnostic, middle-age guy, I find it difficult to articulate a practical, articulate position in a lot of cases.  President Obama said he supports same-sex marriage.  That's great -- so do I.  I doubt so many people care about what guy like me thinks about it.  Thank god for people like Bobby who have discussed issues around the gay rights movement with a refreshing pragmatism too rarely seen in the blogging world (and he indeed picked the perfect Quote of the Day earlier...).

That is not to say that Bobby is the "gay rights" blogger -- he's certainly not.  He has commented on the Republican race for the presidential nomination, and provided some of the best stuff out there.  He's got a film preview link, a quick post about the resurgence of whooping cough, and a tune from Booker T and the MGs.

And he posts a hell of a lot more frequently than I do, so there's that.  Make him a daily read, if you're not already.

One Love

by Benjamin J. Kirby

And so it happened this week: the President of the United States affirmed his support for same-sex marriage.  I happen to be particularly moved by President Obama's remarks regarding his decision as it relates to his personal friends and staff at the White House:

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens. 

Let me just say, this one for me has long been a sort of no-brainer.  Love is love.  The love between a man and a man or a woman and a woman does no more to diminish the love I -- a man -- have for my wife.  And, just for the record, it wasn't the love of same-sex couples that did in my first marriage, either.  

Sometimes the highest Executive Office in the land moves a little slower than our culture does, sadly.  

And in the end, we can't forget it is a political office, and an office obtained through political means.  Though this is really about love, it is inexorably intertwined with politics.  

You only need to go to North Carolina, where the people of that state, by a margin of 61 percent to 39 percent, voted to amend their state constitution to say, stupidly, "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state".

Nonsense.

An important aspect of politics is timing, and though there have been questions raised about the presidential timing in this regard, I happen to think it was a brilliant ploy (I'm dying to call it Chicago-style politics, which is exactly what I think it is, but I'll let that pass for now).  Indeed, the New York Times said outright that it was Vice President Biden's initial remarks that upended the timetable for this announcement.

Closer to home, Creative Loafing Tampa Bay chief David Warner (who is gay and in a committed, long-term relationship), was also surprised by the president's remarks, albeit happily so.

In D.C., a PR moron named Patrick Ruffini, who runs Engage DC, which employs the hapless Jordan Raynor (who I've picked on before), proffered one of the dumbest tweets I've ever read.  Ever.   

  @PatrickRuffini

Obama will come out for gay marriage. Instead of a grand triumphal moment it'll be because he was backed into a corner by his No. 2.

You shouldn't be allowed to work in Washington, D.C. if you're this goddam dumb.  

That's right, friends and neighbors: President Obama made a major announcement because his VP made a gaffe...  

Uh-huh.   

A better guess is that they wanted to roll this out over the course of the week, soft, starting with VP Biden who floated it early, and then lead into today with President Obama's interview with Robin Roberts.  It has dominated the news cycle, driven the attention away from soft jobs numbers, and will likely carry throughout the week (though I expect the brief analysis I heard earlier that the Obama Administration wants to get back to talking about the economy is probably true, too).  

I was also moved by the Andrew Sullivan's remarks on NPR, talking about the president's announcement.  He talked about a president "affirming humanity," and I thought that sounded just right.

The president and his team played a bit of a game with the timing.  Now Romney -- who, of course, came out against same-sex marriage -- is doing so simply because he's forced to take that position (whether he is really against it... well, who could know?).  And conservative operatives (like Ruffini) look skittish, off-message (Obama should, apparently, "thank Dick Cheney," according to another dumb tweet), and obsessed with inside-baseball timing and structure no one cares about.  

Though I am happy with this decision and this statement, I am a little sad it came later than it should have (though I must confess I respect a politician who can cop to an "evolving position" in a world where an unsustainable black-and-white politics is becoming the norm).  

I am hopeful that Democrats -- lead by President Obama -- will march into North Carolina for a convention in a few months, and perhaps now have the courage and will to defy that state to change their draconian mistake.  

And I am happy.  Happy that I can look at our gay and lesbian friends and not feel a twinge of guilt somewhere in the back of my mind for supporting President Obama because this was left undone.  

President Obama mentioned his children in the email the campaign sent around about it.  I'm glad he did, because I think about my kids, too.  Increasingly, it is with them in mind that I think about public policy, or even cultural issues.  Gay marriage is surely both.

This week President Obama supported gay marriage, and in doing so indeed "affirmed the humanity" of gay and lesbian people across the nation.  Of course, with his announcement, we will be able to look at our children and know he affirmed the humanity of us all.