Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

Said Max Cleland today

Said Max Cleland today: "For Saxby Chambliss, who got out of going to Vietnam because of a trick knee, to attack John Kerry as weak on the defense of our nation is like a mackerel in the moonlight that both shines and stinks."

Yes, that's the Saxby Chambliss who went down and dirty against Cleland back in 2002. And now the Bush campaign is sending him out against John Kerry.

What else is there to say? Bring it on. This time we're ready to fight back.

As probably comes as

As probably comes as no surprise, I've gotten quite a lot of email in response to last night's post on the gay marriage issue.

Some of those responses seemed to me to miss the thrust of the post, since it was intended more as a critique of what has been my position on this issue than a statement of that position.

Yet I'd rather not try to interpret what I wrote. Some, or rather most, of the posts I write on TPM are intended as arguments. Sometimes they're closely reasoned, or flippant or polemical; but in every case I am making a specific argument, a specific point. Others, like the one from last night, are more like thinking out loud. I'm trying to present an honest reflection of my thinking, or my wrestling with an issue, rather than a deliberate argument.

In any case, this is all a long way of saying, take it as you will.

One other point.

Many readers have written in to say that the real answer to this controversy is simply to get the state out of the marriage business, with all its trappings of sanctity and traditionalism. The state should only be in the business of issuing value-neutral marriage licenses -- perhaps called civil unions for gays and straights. And then individuals can decide what sort of religious ritual they want to add on, or whether they just want a civil ceremony.

The underlying argument here is that our present notion of marriage is really an improper tangling together of church and state. And the sooner they're untangled, the better.

Part of me agrees with this proposition. But we're fooling ourselves if we think this gets us out of the political thicket. That sort of change would be a radical break from past practice and it is profoundly secular in outlook.

I think there is little way of getting around the nub of this issue. Our current laws announce, and are based upon, a clear value judgment: that unions between a man and a woman are both different from and better than unions between members of the same gender.

[ed. note: I don't like making interlinear comments like this. But some people have apparently read the above graf as my saying that I think heterosexual unions are 'better'. To this I can only say, please read more carefully. I am noting the value judgment embodied in our law, which I believe is indisputable.]

You can't get around that uncomfortable fact. To get the state out of the marriage business would simply take the state from its current position in favor of heterosexual unions to one of agnosticism, a grand 'no comment.'

I think that might be a good solution. But let's not imagine that the people who oppose gay marriage or gay rights generally aren't going to have any problem with that. And thus the politics of it remains largely the same, though perhaps slightly more palatable to one slice of the electorate.

In any case, there's no escaping how revolutionary this moment is in the way we order the state's relationship to the most intimate aspects of our lives. And the inescapable fact that the status quo means the continued denigration of committed same-sex relationships is why I'm reconsidering my position of supporting civil unions rather than gay marriage outright.

Here are some letters I received in response to last night's post ...

Josh,

I'm 62 years old and grew up in Missouri. When I married my first wife, who as Japanese American, we had to do so in another state. At that time it was against Missouri state law for interracial marriages to take place. Times change.

40 years later the pain of that state-sanctioned inequality, which made some couples second-class citizens, still stirs an old, deep-felt resentment. While I'm not gay, I certainly have sympathy for the state-sanctioned unfairness that gay couples endure and believe that in another 40 years (probably much sooner) gay marriages will be a simple, accepted fact of life.

John

[New Email]

I've been reading your website for several weeks now and have enjoyed it.

I appreciate your article on Gay Marriage and understand your feelings about it. I do not want to debate the subject with you, we are clearly on the same side.

I just want you to know that my partner and I were married at city hall on Thursday this week. We waiting in line for about 9 hours and were prepared to camp out on the side walk overnight if we had to. In line behind us were two women who had driven 27 hours from El Paso with their son in tow. Just in front of us were two women who had flown in from Virginia and two men who'd flown in from Kansas City. There were also lots of Bay Area couples there. There were couples with babies in strollers and one couple with an aged mother in a wheelchair and hooked up to oxygen.

This is not the right time. There is no right time. There is just the right thing to do. This was the right thing to do.

The Republicans and the far right are going to us as scapegoats no matter what we do. We all know that. We have always known that.

Now they know a little more about us.

James Vallejo, CA

[New Email]

Josh, Your post for today about your struggle on gay marriage was very interesting. I just explained exactly your points to my Christian massage therapist so it confirmed what I perceived as the struggle in the world - at least for reasonable people! I'm sure you'll get emails galore. I appreciate your openness and honesty. I'll try to be brief. As a gay woman, 52, with 3 adult open minded heterosexual children, spiritual but not Christian, partnered for 13 years, married (in our own minds/hearts with our God as a witness) for 10 years - and looking forward to the paperwork and rights to catch up with the feelings and commitment....I have to simply say - accepting anything short of equal is NOTHING. No matter how others can use it politically or not - what's right is right. When you settle for anything short of right - you're selling yourself and this country short. So many people forget what America stands for - Freedom and equality. Any form of intellectualizing away equal rights for gay families has no foundation in logic or law. This will be proven - it's just a matter of time. Thanks for your site... I read it every day. Judy

[New Email]

Josh,

I hope you don't catch too much flack for your thoughtful post on gay marriage. I appreciate your honest description of your own conflicted thoughts on this and I very much share them (hopefully not just the two of us). As a married straight man, I genuinely feel that my state-sanctioned marriage will never be entirely valid until my gay friends enjoy the same priviledges as my wife and I do. At the same time, one can easily see how Rovian Republicans must be salivating at the thought of having another fear-based issue to stir the troops with. "So, you're not as afraid of terrorists these days? How about GAY PEOPLE getting MARRIED just like YOU AND THE MISSUS?????". I don't know the answer either, but in the end, I know I'll be standing alongside my gay friends, cheering them on and maybe, just maybe, being someone's best man some day.

Thanks for your good work, Adam Chase

[New Email]

I'm a fan of TPM.

I feel sure that you are a logical person. The rationale you are pursuing in your mind re gay marriage is typical of a lot of decent, middle of the road Americans. I think that after the smoke clears you'll have no reasonable alternative to admitting that your reluctance to back gay marriage is simply based on the idea that we are too "different" to join with straights in celebrating a loving commitment. It's the old miscegnation argument.

I know you'll finally come around to seeing it for what it is.

Thanks for all your hard work and wonderful blog.

Linda, who just celebrated her 31st "anniversary" with a wonderful partner.

[New Email]

As an openly gay man who was actively involved in Democratic politics and fundraising a few years ago, I initially shared your apprehension about the backlash involved in making gay marriage an issue in a presidential election year. I suffered my friends reaction to this position as recently as a few weeks ago. "Don't ask, don't tell" strikes me as the military equivalent of gays ceding the right to even civil unions. The fact remains that while gays can serve in the military and not be asked about their sexuality, they're still not protected...let alone embraced for their service...under law. So, the pragmatism you subscribe to and I did as well until very recently is much like Bill Clinton's "look, I tried and this is the best I can do." I've come to the conclusion that it's better to have fought the battle and lost than never fought at all. Like chosen careers in the military, we're dealing with peoples lives here, not abstract concepts.

[New Email]

Thanks for your very thoughtful post on gay marriage.

I'm a gay man, mid 50s, happily partnered. My immediate and visceral response to the fight over gay marriage is, like many of your readers, to settle for nothing less than true equality.

I'm also a literate and thoughtful man, deeply concerned about the steep slide into danger that Bush's policies and actions have taken us. My immediate and visceral response to that is to put aside all other goals and focus only on defeating Bush.

My fear is that gay people will be 2004's Nader, handing the right a slim victory. I haven't a clue how to resolve my hopes and my fears! But thanks for helping me examine and articulate them.

Regards, Chuck


To conclude, I should say that I've made no particular attempt to find a representative sampling of the letters I received. These are the ones that caught my attention, moved me, or just made me think the most. To the extent that I could characterize them, I would say that the majority of the letters had a tone and content of friendly criticism, though there were more than a few that contained only one or two epithets.

I truly hope that

I truly hope that Democrats will not spend too much <$Ad$>time abasing themselves, begging Ralph Nader not to run again for president in 2004, as he seems likely to announce he will do on Meet the Press this Sunday.

Certainly, this latter-day political narcissist has already made up his mind what he's going to announce. So there's no point waiting to call him what he is: an enemy of progressive change in this country and a cat's paw of the Republican party.

If anything, calling him a 'cat's paw' is too generous since a dupe at least doesn't know he's being used.

In any case, I have a rough confidence that this won't be as damaging to Democratic prospects as some fear. Because after the last four years I just don't think that many people will get in line again behind this pied piper of political oblivion.

Late Update: A reader notes that since Nader now isn't even running as a Green, he has apparently abandoned even the pretense that he is in the race to create a viable third party in American politics. If he runs, it would now be strictly on a platform of vacuous moral posturing and self-aggrandizement.

Wow. The Fox News

Wow. The Fox News poll has the president down at 48% approval. For some reason I cannot begin to fathom, the statistic doesn't seem prominently on display on the FoxNews website. (I can't even find it.) But you can see the brutal numerical truth here.

You know its really

You know it's really a new day when Chicago's Mayor Daley says he'd have "no problem" if Cook County started allowing gay marriages.

Sure, it's not the Mayor Daley. It's his son. And Richard M. Daley's ability to reclaim the Chicago mayoralty for his family has from the start been based on rapprochements with all manner of groups, political factions and ideological tendencies that were, if not beyond the pale, then at least subordinated in the Chicago of his father.

But you can't have much familiarity with the strains and schisms that rent the Democratic party in its urban bastions of the North through the latter decades of the last century, and the particular convulsion in Chicago in 1968, and not find those words coming from that mouth something bracing, unexpected, in some sense hard to fathom, and yet terribly welcome.

Andrew Sullivan has been commenting on this at some length in the last few days. But it's amazing to watch how San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's act of inverted civil disobedience (a Mayor violating the seemingly clear letter of the law in the cause of a higher principle of equality) has unleashed the floodgates around the country. The county in New Mexico, which briefly started issuing marriage licenses, has now apparently reversed itself. But I think Andrew is right that this spate of marriages -- at least in San Francisco and perhaps now in other locales -- has suddenly made this whole issue concrete and human in a way it simply wasn't before.

I'm not sure that makes the movement's eventual success more likely. But it clearly makes it impossible for anyone to ignore. It now has to be confronted across the political spectrum -- by some eagerly, and by others with great reluctance.

I must confess to a deep ambivalence about same-sex marriages. It's not one of belief or values, but one of pragmatism, at least as I understand it -- and yet a pragmatism I'm not entirely comfortable with.

I strongly support civil unions -- the ability of gay and lesbian couples to solemnize their unions and enjoy the whole raft of civil protections, privileges and obligations that heterosexual couples do through marriage -- survivorship rights, the ability to visit and make decisions for a sick spouse in the hospital, etc. Anything less just conflicts with everything I believe is right and just.

My reason for not supporting gay marriage -- and I think there's a difference between opposing and not supporting, in this case -- is that it seems like a step that would trigger a backlash that would a) quite possibly prevent the adoption even of civil unions and b) provide a tool for conservatives to win elections and thus prevent or turn back various other progressive reforms that are no less important than this one. (Of course, this hybrid reasoning has all manner of uncomfortable echoes from the middle decades of the 20th century.)

In other words, when I say that I don't support gay marriage, my reasoning and rationale are inextricably tied up with my sense of the larger political context in which the question arises -- what's possible and what's not, and what the larger political repercussions would be. In fact, I find the two parts of the equation difficult to untangle even in my own head. (If there's an undertone of uncertainty or moral awkwardness you recognize in this post it likely stems from my feeling that the open embrace of gay marriage from so many unexpected quarters shames what seems to me to be my own timidity.)

I don't think these concerns about broader political repercussions can be easily or honestly ignored. And yet if we posit a country in which there is marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for gays and lesbians, then, paradoxically, I think the state-imposed stigma becomes even greater than it is now. Not entirely so, but at least by one measure.

Today we have marriage. It's a state-sanctioned institution for men and women. The state just, by and large, isn't involved in homosexual relationships. Now, I know that there are laws on the books in many states that definitely do involve the state in same-sex relationships adversely. And in practice, the state can have much less than a hands-off approach.

Yet, if we have marriage (for straights) and civil unions (for gays), then you have the state being in the business of solemnizing and recognizing both kinds of relationships, but in a way that clearly gives preference -- even if just symbolically -- to straights. Once you make the leap to civil unions, this sort of public denigration of same-sex relationships seems hard to justify, and full gay marriage seems hard not to embrace.

I know that little in these ideas or formulations is novel. They just give a sense of my thoughts on the issue, and my wrestling with it. But the images of happy newlyweds in San Francisco is jostling my own calculus of pragmatism and right.

Bad Counsel Let me

Bad Counsel?

Let me share a thought with you.

As you know, there's a been a scandal bubbling in the Senate Judiciary Committee since late last year over whether Republican staffers stole Democratic staff memos covering judicial appointment strategy. Now, for some time, this whole matter has been a sort of side light to the bigger stuff going on in politics. In fact, Republicans in government and out came up with a whole series of theories to explain why this theft really wasn't a problem. Most came down to the argument that the Dems didn't have sufficient security on their computers to keep the GOP staffers out -- sorta like how if there's no lock on my pocket you're allowed to steal my wallet so long as I don't notice.

In any case, outside of most people's notice, this has all changed of late. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William H. Pickle has been conducting an investigation into the matter. And a few weeks ago it emerged that the infiltration had been far more extensive than earlier believed. For at least a year, and probably more like eighteen months, GOP staffers accessed the Democrats confidential files. And they snatched approximately 5,000 of them, give or take.

But the big change came last Thursday at an open hearing of the Judiciary Committee. Faced with the new evidence, pretty much every Republican on the committee gave up on offering any justifications or excuses for what had happened. And even those who had been most aggressive in fighting off Democratic attacks conceded that what had happened was quite possibly criminal and should be pursued by law enforcement authorities.

This week a trio of Republican senators on the committee felt compelled to hold a closed door meeting with conservative activists to tell them to back off. To quote The Hill: "[S]enators, who received last week a closed-door briefing on the investigation from Senate Sergeant at Arms Bill Pickle, warned conservatives they might come to regret their position when the results of the probe are fully known. Pickle is expected to finish his investigation by March 5."

Now here's where this gets interesting. The report from the Sergeant at Arms is coming down the pike really soon. (Let's call it the Pickle pike.) And most of the Republicans on the committee seem to agree now that this is a criminal matter, at least in the sense that there were probable illegalities committed. It's hard to see how that won't lead to a criminal referral when the report comes in.

So say a referral is made to the Justice Department. If that happens, how can they not appoint a special counsel? Not only is the issue at hand inherently political, but the political appointees at the DOJ work with the White House Counsel's office and the Judiciary Committee Republicans to plan and coordinate strategy for judicial nominations. The whole issue here is whether their colleagues on the Senate staff side were purloining Democratic staff memos to aid that planning. It seems like a classic case where the folks at Justice would need to recuse themselves.

Now we come to the White House Counsel's office. Remember, what we're talking about here is planning and strategizing on how to get judicial appointments through the Senate confirmation process. On the Republican side that involves Senate staffers, people at Justice, and the White House Counsel's office. Indeed, the whole process is quarterbacked out of the Counsel's office.

We already know that at least two Senate staffers accessed and archived the Democratic staff memos for more than a year. We know that thousands of documents were involved. And we know that the contents of at least some of those memos were leaked to conservative journalists. Those memos provided invaluable assistance in planning strategy on the Republican side.

How likely is it the existence and/or contents of those memos were discussed in the regular meetings Senate staffers held with members of the White House Counsel's office to plot strategy for getting through their judicial nominees?

And if a special counsel is appointed ... well, you see where this is going.

More on this later.

Math is not my

Math is not my strong suit. So maybe someone can help me with this.

A new line item in the White House talking points is to say that the economy is on the right track because it has produced some 366,000 jobs in the last five months.

In his noon press briefing yesterday, Scott McClellan listed as one of the signs the economy was on the right track the fact that "there have been more than 366,000 new jobs created in the last five months." And just an hour earlier, in a brief chat with reporters before meeting with the President of Tunisia, the president said: "I'm pleased by the fact that since August there's been 366,000 new jobs, in one survey."

Now, the problem here is that everyone at the White House from the president on down is trumpeting this number like it's a good thing, when in fact, it's not.

If I'm not mistaken there's a general consensus among economists that in our current economic circumstances we need roughly 150,000 new jobs created each month just to break even -- basically, just to keep up with a growing working age population.

So just to break even on the employment front we needed about 750,000 new jobs to have been created over the last five months. In fact, the economy created just less than half that number. So basically, 366,000 new jobs in five months isn't very good at all.

The president is pleased that on his watch the economy can't even produce enough jobs to keep up with a growing population? Can't he set his sights a bit higher?

Lets call it the

Let's call it the big bat.

We all know that first the Dean campaign, then the Clark campaign, and then to lesser extents the other Democratic presidential candidates and now even House candidates have used the web to haul in large sums of money from small donors.

But the big test won't get started until a month or more from now.

Let's say John Kerry wins the nomination. I think that's overwhelmingly likely. But in this case I'm just using the assumption to sketch out a hypothetical or rather plot a sensible course of action. I'm not trying to prejudge the outcome of what's going to happen over the next couple weeks.

One of the biggest factors in this upcoming race has always been what would happen in the spring and summer of this year. The game plan goes something like this ...

After the Democratic primaries are over, the eventual winner would have spent a lot of money winning the nomination. And that nominee-to-be would probably be pretty near the spending caps he or she had had to agree to to get matching funds.

That means that for all intents and purposes the Democratic nominee would be out of cash and probably out of luck till the general election phase began after the conventions. That's when a new round of public funds would come in and the spending caps would reset.

Right about that time, though -- in early spring -- President Bush will be able to go on the airwaves with the equivalent of campaign commerical carpet bombing and bludgeon the Democratic nominee while he has no funds to fight back.

A milder version of this happened in 1996 when an unchallenged Bill Clinton went on the airwaves early and took advantage of the period when Bob Dole had no money to respond. But the war chest President Bush has been able to amass is far, far larger. What's more, like Kerry, he's opted out of the public system for the primaries. So he can spend as much as he wants.

(As it happens, I think that going on the air early for Clinton in 1996 just put the icing on the cake. That was never going to be a close election. This, on the other hand, is definitely going to be close.)

Now, assuming Kerry's the nominee, one part of the equation has already changed: if memory serves, Kerry opted out of the public financing system for the primary phase of the campaign. So he can spend as much as he can raise.

But he still won't have anywhere near as much as President Bush will have in reserve.

That's where the big bat comes in.

How well will the Kerry campaign -- and the rest of the Democratic party, broadly construed -- do in the middle-months of this year raising small-donor cash online to keep President Bush from unleashing all his fire power while Kerry has no way to fire back?

We'll return to this question later with some thoughts on how they might go about it.

On the Today show

On the Today show this morning, the <$NoAd$>president's campaign chairman Marc Racicot, said that that forecast of 2.6 million new jobs this year wasn't a forecast but rather a "goal".

That prompted this exchange in this morning's gaggle ...

QUESTION: Scott, on taxes and jobs, your campaign chairman, Marc Racicot this morning said that the job prediction or the job forecast in the CEA report was a "goal." You indicated to us yesterday that it was simply a figure that was based on economic modeling. So what is it? Is it an objective analysis of the current state of the economy, or was that a political document?

Scott McClellan: John, I think it is what it is. The data is a snapshot that economists use at a point in time for economic modeling. That's what I said yesterday. So it is what it is --

QUESTION: Right, but Racicot --

Scott McClellan: -- and it's based on the data available at that point in time.

QUESTION: So was Racicot wrong in describing it as a goal?

Scott McClellan: I haven't seen those specific remarks. I'll be glad to look at them, but it is what it is, and it is how I described it yesterday.

[Here there's a short and snappy back-and-forth between John and Scott on the difference between predictions and goals, and what the definition of 'is' is.]

Scott McClellan: John, I'm giving you the facts. It is what it is.

QUESTION: And the meaning of the word "is" is?

Scott McClellan: Well, John, I think that where the discussion of policy should be -- or the discussion should be is on policy. And the President is a decision-maker. The President leads by making policy decisions. And the policies we are implementing are working to strengthen our economy and create an environment for robust job creation. New jobs are being created. The unemployment rate is declining. The policies this President has advocated and passed are working. And I think the American people think the discussion should be there on the policy decisions that are being made. Some don't want to discuss the policies. But it's important for a President to lead and make decisions, and then defend those decisions.

QUESTION: You understand the difference between a forecast based on economic modeling and a stated goal. Racicot just seems to indicate that this is a stated goal.

Scott McClellan: It is the economic forecast for our annual Economic Report. That's what it is.

QUESTION: So it's not a goal?


Drip, drip, drip ...

Now this is something

Now this is something special. Tompaine.com has <$Ad$>set Bob Dreyfuss up with a blog on Iraq and national security issues, The Dreyfuss Report.

Bob and I disagree about a lot on foreign policy. Generally speaking, he's just much more to the left than I am on the issue. But he's one hell of a reporter. And the whole complicated, ugly, tragic, farcical Iraq mess is the sort of story that's just made for him.

I'll be visiting this site again and again.

Bob links to this very important article by Knut Royce in Newsday which reports on how the US has "awarded more than $400 million in contracts to a start-up company" tied to Ahmed Chalabi.

If we didn't have so many billions to spare, one might almost think that was a problem.

TPMLivewire