Another War of Jenkins' Ear

Roy Moore, who is a former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, plans on setting up a 2012 presidential exploratory committee in mid-April.

CNN reports:

Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who garnered attention and lost his job after building a Ten Commandments monument outside Alabama’s judicial building, is considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination, his top aide confirmed to CNN.

[...]

An active member of the tea party movement, Moore received the All-American award from the Central Texas Tea Party in February.

Moore visited Iowa four times last summer, holding rallies against same-sex marriage in the state. Following his April announcement, Moore will travel to the three other key primary states: Nevada, South Carolina, and New Hampshire.

The CNN piece leaves out one substantial piece of Moore’s viciously anti-gay history though…

In 2002, Moore filed a concurring opinion in the case Ex Parte H.H.  In it, he called for stripping custody from a parent that engages in homosexual conduct (even if they are the biological parents):

I concur in the opinion of the majority that D.H., the mother of the minor children in this case, did not establish a change of circumstances sufficient to transfer custody to her from H.H., the father of the minor children. I write specially to state that the homosexual conduct of a parent — conduct involving a sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender — creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others.

Oh, and he also tossed in a little mention about his belief that the state can imprison and even execute homosexuals:

The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.

Back in February 2010, Moore spoke at the first ever Tea Party Convention – the same convention that Sarah Palin delivered the keynote to.

Moore’s expected entrance in the race also means that he could be debating in Fox News’ GOP primary debate, which is set for May.

via tonight’s Real Time:

The lesson, of course, is that if you say things like this that David Gregory will never not have you on his show.

After Sharing An Office For Only Two Days, This Grizzly Took His Own Life

On balance, I tend to avoid wading into the rhetorical cesspool that is a Sarah Palin speech.  But, one of Palin’s remarks at the American Fascism Rally (aka Tea Party Convention) struck me as noteworthy.

Criticizing the administration’s national security policies and specifically its handling of the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab case (alleged Christmas airplane bomber), Palin asserted:

“Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at grave risk because that’s not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this. They know we’re at war. And to win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.”

In this statement Palin provides a disturbing and if it wasn’t so self-destructive, pitiable portrait of the American Fascist worldview: sheer cowardice shamelessly draped in anti-constitutional jingoism.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tea Party. 912ers. “Patriots.”  They can call themselves whatever they like, but it doesn’t change the reality that they’re fascists.  If you look at what they advocate, it’s definitional fascism.  Unlike the corporate media – which is quick to point out extreme leftists – I’m actually going to call these teabaggers what they are: American Fascists.

With that being said, Sarah Palin is speaking tonight.  But, who else is speaking at this event?  Well, one speaker is a former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and current Alabama gubernatorial candidate – Roy Moore.

To put it mildly, Moore is a dangerous lunatic.

In 2002, Moore filed a concurring opinion in the case Ex Parte H.H.  In it, he called for stripping custody from a parent that engages in homosexual conduct (even if they are the biological parents):

I concur in the opinion of the majority that D.H., the mother of the minor children in this case, did not establish a change of circumstances sufficient to transfer custody to her from H.H., the father of the minor children. I write specially to state that the homosexual conduct of a parent — conduct involving a sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender — creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others.

Oh, and he also tossed in a little mention about his desire for the state to imprison and even execute homosexuals:

The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.

Of course Moore ranted about homosexuals in his Tea Party speech.  If you’re interested in what he said, you can read a summary here.  But, two takeaways from this.

1. That this man served at such a high level in our judicial system is shameful.
2. Why the fuck is Sarah Palin palling around with people that want to execute homosexuals and/or pull their children away from them? And, more importantly, why is her embrace of such hate being tolerated by the mainstream media – and by us.

What do you think?

I beat up on him the other day, but the Economist Democracy in America blog sticks up for Bobby Jindal, looks at his positive record on ethics and also his record on unemployment insurance. But the most interesting paragraph is last:

One other note about Mr Jindal, in light of the news of the day. His experience gives the lie to Sarah Palin’s implicit claim that liberal elitists and the mainstream media are set on personally destroying anybody who imperils the cozy, cliquish white-male old-money boy’s club. We hardly hear a peep about Mr Jindal’s personal life. I don’t even know if he has kids. Possibly because if he does he’s not always using them as props in glamorous photo shoots. We hear only a little about his remarkable religious experiences, but only a little, because he doesn’t generally refer to Jesus when he’s explaining his political beliefs or governing decisions. Had Ms Palin gone back to Alaska after the campaign and paid attention to governing the sideshow part of life would quickly have subsided. It’s like Dr Phil says, Ms Palin: you teach people how to treat you.

Obviously, Jindal was never a candidate for the vice presidency. But the point still stands – one does not have to be a fierce culture warrior who wears their entire life on their sleeve to succeed in politics. Jindal, despite sounding like Kenneth the Page in a silly sing song voice in his debut, can erase that with thoughtful speeches and debate appearances.

Ultimately, the only way to successfully govern as an executive is to actually govern. One can get by on charm and tenacity to the masses. Jindal is getting into the weeds and making decisions – some good, some bad. Palin is jumping ship early because it would be hard.

The conventional wisdom was always that she should put her head down and work hard. In this particular case, the conventional wisdom was right.

Palin resigned to spend the week watching Obama in Russia.

We've Isolated the Mark Halperin Isotope

The Halperin Half Life: In any given Mark Halperin blog post, half of what he writes will be wrong. Of what remains, half of that will be half as bad. One can apply this principle ad infinitum.

Let’s take today’s list: “9 pieces of ‘analysis’ about Sarah Palin’s decision that are flat-out totally wrong”

First, the half that are wrong.

1. This means she can’t run for president in 2012.
4. This means she is definitely running in 2012.
9. Palin’s ambition is limited to electoral politics.
8. Palin’s rhetoric about the politics of personal destruction was not heartfelt.
7. Palin made the decision not to run for re-election all of the sudden.

In this particular instance, it’s strawmen that Halperin constructs. In order: No one is saying Palin can’t run in 2012. Some are guessing that she won’t run, but anyone can run. Al Sharpton ran. Pat Robertson ran. Pat Buchanan ran. Gary Bauer ran. Anyone can run. But conversely, no one thinks that she’s definitely running either – hell, Andrea Michell reported she’s leaving politics. The point is, no one knows. Also, no one thinks Palin simply wants to be elected to a series of posts and that will be all for her. Similarly, no one thinks Palin wasn’t legitimately upset about attacks and perceived attacks. Not even the most feisty die hard liberal thinks that. (They’d differ on whether the attacks were legitimate or even attacks, but not at the sincerity of Palin’s reaction). And lastly, no one thinks Palin just randomly decided to not run for reelection. Indeed, it would have surprised everyone if she had run again.

So, according to the theory, half of what is left should be about half-right:

2. She would have been a stronger candidate for 2012 if she had stayed in office.
6. Until today, Palin was well positioned to run in 2012.

These are half-right. The first is right that what she would have done in office would not have changed opinions much, but the underlying reality is that she had a major uphill battle to fight to win a coalition that could get her elected. This doesn’t help in any general election fight. In fact, it hurts – or rather, emphasizes the negatives that already existed. Similarly, Palin was already well positioned for a primary fight in 2012, but not for a general election one. This doesn’t change that one bit, and Halperin can hide behind the generalization.

So, according to the theory, half of what is left should be just more than half-right:

3. Republican primary and caucus voters in 2012 will care if she served out her term or not.

Certainly, her base will not. But surely some serious thinkers will find that her resual to get serious and know the issues – see Krauthammer, Charles – will care. And that will trickle down to less populist elements of the voter base.

Finally, according to the theory, half of what is left – one item- should be mostly right:

5. Making the announcement on the Friday of a holiday weekend was really stupid.

Halperin is suggesting this was not stupid timing. It wasn’t. And you know why it wasn’t? Because really dumb things leak on holiday weekends, when no one is around to hear or read about it. In short, Halperin in this point – lodged right in the middle – undermined everything else he wrote.

Truly a Halperin Half Life.

A Farewell to Platitudes

She’s resigning from office at the end of the month. Jim Geraghty and David Shuster agree that her national political career is over.

Look, we’re going to take some time to think this over, but instinctively, it doesn’t make political sense. It’s hard to imagine how she can run for office after resigning. Maybe more information will come out – who knows. But if this is the end of the Palin national political saga – as if definitely possible – it will have made for the strangest rise and fall since possibly Theodore Frelinghuysen. (Although Frelinghuysen clearly had more respect for educational institutions.)

After al, the only place worse for national politics than Alaska is, of course, New Jersey.

Hopefully, Palin can keep an eye to make sure Putin isn’t coming over the Alaskan horizon in her spare time.

Edit: The award for the worst framing goes to the New York Times and Mitchell Blumenthal, who wrote “Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska announced Thursday that she would step down by the end of the month and not seek a second term as governor, allowing her to seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012.”

Her term was expiring in a year. She could have run for President by just not running again – like Tim Pawlenty. Blumenthal circles back to the issue later and suggests it might be easier for her to travel without being a governor, but that seems unlikely. As many have said recently – most notably Charles Krauthammer – what Palin needs to to come across as thoughtful and an expert, not to travel imminently. If she’s doing this to travel more, she’s just digging a deeper hole.

A few die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters turned to Sarah Palin when Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination and John McCain picked the Alaska Governor as his running mate.  A new poll indicates that if any are hoping Palin exacts revenge on Obama, that they might be in for a case of deja vu:

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 10-14 among 1,502 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that impressions of Sarah Palin have not changed much since the presidential campaign. Palin continues to be a divisive figure among the general public, with about as many saying they have an unfavorable impression (44%) as a favorable view (45%) of the Alaska governor.

Palin is still popular among Republicans, and has to be the odds on favorite to be the 2012 nominee. But the nomination is going to come down to Palin versus someone else – just like the Democratic nomination was always going to, with Hillary Clinton having locked in that first spot. The second spot was mostly between Obama and Edwards, and Obama’s win in Iowa gave it to him – Edwards’ support collapsed there after.

The question now is who is Palin going to face eventually. Right now, the favorite for that spot has to be Mitt Romney. Take Romney’s keener political instincts, better fundraising history, primary experience, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he took the nomination. There’s a lot of other dark shots, but the GOP doesn’t have a long history of turning to dark shots, and none of the others have really distinguished themselves so far.

In the 2008 GOP primary, the nomination essentially was decided in Florida, when McCain edged out Romney. If it wasn’t in Florida but was in a stronger Romney area, it’s possible Romney could have won (but doubtful – the timing of the primaries really favored McCain). So assuming it comes down to Palin and Romney, the key will be where they have a showdown and what their respective strengths are. We’ll be discussing that over the next couple of years – no reason to cover everything now.

You ever get the feeling that Kerry thinks his audience are illiterate serfs?

The Bay State senator was telling a group of business and civic leaders in town at his invitation about the “bizarre’’ tale of how South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford had “disappeared for four days’’ and claimed to be hiking along the Appalachian Trail, but no one was really certain of his whereabouts.

“Too bad,’’ Kerry said, “if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.’’

His last botched joke cost him any chance at running for the presidency in 2008. This one is painful to read. “You know, Sarah Palin”? Come on. I think your audience knows what you’re saying when you say governor of Alaska.

Thank god, though. This is the first interesting turn the Sanford saga has taken. Second if you count the naked hiking rumor.