Hillary’s Best :Frenemies"

On the GOP side of the isle, the would be GOP presidential candidates comprise a virtual clown car of lunacy with some like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee having little chance of winning in the general elections.  On the Democrat side, we have undeclared Hillary Clinton, the draft Elizabeth Warren crowd -  personally I like Warren, but question her ability to win in the general election at this point in time - and folks like Jim Webb who seem to have no real base of support.  Add to that the fact that none of Hillary Clinton's "friends" will speak ill of her and some believe Hillary is "inevitable."  Here are highlights from a piece in Politico that looks at the current situation:

What makes Jim Webb a better presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton? “I really don’t have an answer for you on that,” the former Virginia senator told NPR late last month. Where does Martin O’Malley differ from Clinton as a leader? “My mind is not even in the compare-contrast mode,” O’Malley told the New York Times. How does the bombastic Bernie Sanders feel about the candidate he’s planning to challenge for the Democratic nomination? “This is a woman I respect, clearly a very intelligent person,” Sanders said Monday. 

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

Time and time again, when invited to criticize Clinton, her potential Democratic primary rivals have ducked, deflected and dodged. They’re trying to present themselves as viable alternatives to the daunting frontrunner without addressing the obvious question of how they stack up against her.

“At the end of [interviews], somebody has to ask me a question about Hillary, and I try not to attack her. Usually, no matter what I say, it becomes ‘Hillary Clinton,’” said Sanders, raising his arms in a sweeping gesture as if to indicate that Clinton’s name becomes the banner headline. “What I’m running on are the issues … Her name recognition is about 10 times greater than mine, so if I run, it would take a lot of work getting around the country introducing myself to people.”

With Elizabeth Warren continuing to resist entreaties to enter the race, liberals are still waiting for a serious challenger to Clinton to emerge — if only to ensure the party’s progressive wing gets the attention and respect it believes its views deserve. 

The repeated questions and dodges underscore the unusual nature of the Democratic race. Though Clinton is a private citizen who has not declared she is running, she has cultivated an aura of inevitability so strong that, “She’s tantamount to an incumbent,” in the words of Democratic consultant Tad Devine.

Naturally, voters will want to know how lesser-known candidates compare to Clinton, but advisers to those candidates argue that talking about the former secretary of state would be a mistake.

“It makes no sense, whether it’s Webb, Sanders, or O’Malley, to start a campaign by going on the attack,” said an adviser to one Democrat considering a 2016 run who was not authorized to speak on the record about messaging strategy. “It would be putting the cart before the horse a little bit to start lobbing bombs at Hillary Clinton before you even enter the race.”

“You need to make an affirmative case before you get to the contrast,” said the adviser, who added that Mitt Romney erred in 2012 by focusing on Obama before he had articulated a positive vision of his own candidacy.

[T]he Democratic field faces something of a Catch-22. Because no challenger has gained traction, Clinton feels little pressure to campaign and is reportedly considering postponing an announcement until July. But the longer Clinton stays out of the race, the longer she can avoid taking positions that opponents can attack to gain traction.

Webb, Sanders and O’Malley are all planning to travel to early primary states in the coming weeks and months, and the pressure to define themselves in contrast to Clinton will only intensify.  For now, though, they’re content to play nice.

I like many of the views of Sanders and Warren.,  My concern again is who can win in November, 2016.  Right now, I think Hillary may be the Democrats' best bet.  Readers thoughts?

Is Jim Webb The Real Threat to Hillary Clinton?

While the Republican field of would be 2016 presidential nominees contains a plethora of clown car candidates (think Rick Santorum, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, etc.), on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has few would be challengers.  Efforts to recruit Elizabeth Warren by the progressive wing of the Democrat Party continue to elicit statements that Warren is not running.  The only other would be contender is former Virginia Senator Jim Webb who, unlike Warren, has said he is contemplating a run for the presidential nomination.  A column in the New York Times maintains that Webb, not Warren, is the real threat to Hillary.  Here are column excerpts:

THE conventional wisdom is that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be almost impossible to dislodge from the Democratic presidential nomination and that even if she does encounter some hiccups, they will come from her left flank on economic policy. But if Mrs. Clinton runs, she may face a serious and very different threat: her own foreign policy record. While she can pretty much split the difference with any primary opponents on economic policy, the divisions over foreign affairs could be a lot harder to paper over for Mrs. Clinton, who has been tacking to the right on Iran, Syria and Russia in anticipation of Republican assaults during the general election.

This is why it isn’t really the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren who should worry the Clinton camp. It’s the former Virginia senator Jim Webb, a Vietnam War hero, former secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, novelist and opponent of endless wars in the Middle East. Late last month, Mr. Webb formed an exploratory committee.

[S]he would find him much more complex than dealing with liberals. He’s not a liberal, but a lot of what he says might appeal to liberals. He does not get carried away by humanitarian intervention.”

Mr. Webb’s attacks on free trade and economic elites, coupled with a call for America to come home again, might well prove a potent combination in the early primaries, attracting antiwar progressives as well as conservative-minded Southern white men whom he believes the party can win back. His credo is as simple as it is persuasive: Rather than squander its power and resources abroad, America should rebuild.

Unlike Mrs. Clinton, who continues to struggle to explain her vote for the Iraq war, Mr. Webb publicly attacked the George W. Bush administration in 2002, presciently asking, “Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?” As a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees he also castigated the Obama administration for its intervention in Libya in 2011. He was right. It’s a move that has boomeranged, creating further instability and emboldening jihadists across the region.

In contrast to Mrs. Clinton, who has gotten into hot water for trying to retroactively amend her views and record, Mr. Webb did not arrive at these beliefs casually or opportunistically. As his recent memoir, “I Heard My Country Calling,” makes clear, his opposition to ventures abroad is as much viscerally emotional as intellectual. Growing up as a self-described military brat, he spent his formative years in Britain, where he saw firsthand the effects of loss of empire and the devastation wrought by World War II. “Britain was bled out and spent out,” he writes. “They understood the great price of the recent wars in a much more sobering way than did most Americans.”

Whether Mr. Webb will attempt to begin a successful maverick campaign is an open question. But he is an eloquent and forthright speaker whose foreign policy experience would make it difficult for Mrs. Clinton to paint him as an isolationist or a novice who will leave America open to attack, as she attempted to do to Mr. Obama during the 2008 primaries. On the contrary, it’s Mrs. Clinton whose interventionist foreign policy record leaves her politically vulnerable.

Who Will Save the Democratic Party From Itself?

After its disastrous experience in the 2014 midterm elections, some think that the Democratic Party needs to refocus itself and return to some of its historic roots as a champion of the working and middle classes.  One such person is former Virginia Senator James Webb who has announced an exploratory effort on a run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.  There are positive aspects to Webb's vision, but the question is whether he or anyone else can cause the party to recalibrate itself and/or force Hillary Clinton to do so.  The Democrats need a stirring theme and agenda and just saying that they are not crazy and/or a bunch of hate merchants like the Republicans - true as that may be - isn't enough to recapture the battered middle class.  We need to reignite social mobility for the younger voters and give parents an ability to once again believe their children have a better future.  Here are highlights from a New York Times editorial:

Not everyone agrees that Hillary Clinton’s selection as the Democratic nominee is unstoppable. The first to challenge her is Jim Webb, a one-term former senator from Virginia.

Here is the case for the Democratic Party renegade.  When Webb, who served as secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee on Nov. 19, he sought to capitalize on Democratic discontent. Taking a swipe at both Wall Street and Clinton’s potential bid for the nomination, Webb declared:

Our Constitution established a government not to protect the dominance of an aristocratic elite, but under the principle that there should be no permanent aristocracy, that every single American should have equal protection under the law, and a fair opportunity to achieve at the very highest levels.

Webb suggested that he could bring working class whites back into the Democratic fold and restore the biracial Democratic coalition:

We have drifted to the fringes of allowing the very inequalities that our Constitution was supposed to prevent. Walk into some of our inner cities if you dare, and see the stagnation, poverty, crime and lack of opportunity that still affects so many African-Americans. Or travel to the Appalachian Mountains, where my own ancestors settled and whose cultural values I still share, and view the poorest counties in America – who happen to be more than 90 percent white, and who live in the reality that “if you’re poor and white you’re out of sight.”

Webb’s exploration of a presidential bid is based on the premise that he can tap into a crucial but alienated segment of the electorate.

This bloc includes voters convinced that Wall Street owns both parties, voters tired of politicians submitting to partisan orthodoxy and voters seeking to replace “identity group” politics with a restored middle- and working-class agenda.

Webb is one answer to the weaknesses of today’s center-left, the so-called “upstairs-downstairs” coalition described by Joel Kotkin, presidential fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University. Kotkin argues in his recently published book, “The New Class Conflict,” that the Democratic Party has been taken over by what he calls “gentry liberals,” an elite that has undermined the historic purpose of the Democratic Party.  Kotkin contends that

The great raison d'être for left-wing politics – advocating for the middle- and working classes – has been refocused to attend more closely to the policy imperatives and interests of small, highly affluent classes, as well as the powerful public sector.

I asked Kotkin what he thought of the themes Webb intends to raise, and he wrote back “I think he’s onto something.”

Al Hunt, a Bloomberg columnist, warned that Webb “could be Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare,” noting that Webb

seems an improbable candidate. He has taken illiberal positions, was President Ronald Reagan’s Navy secretary, has few relationships within the Democratic Party, and has no serious fund-raising network. What he does possess is a long-held and forceful opposition to U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya, and potentially Syria, as well as solid anti-Wall Street credentials. In Democratic primaries, these may be Clinton’s greatest impediments to rallying a hard-core activist base.

To gauge Webb’s prospects, I looked at the exit poll data for the 2006 Virginia Senate race, when he unseated George Allen, the favored Republican. I then compared Webb’s performance among key constituencies to the performance of all House Democrats running nationwide in the same year.

The results of this comparison do not support the portrayal of Webb as a candidate equipped to win over key white constituencies.

What are the prospects of winning the presidential nomination for a candidate who challenges current Democratic Party strategic orthodoxy? This strategy calls for identity group, rather than class-based, mobilization, on the assumption that turning out single women, the young, and racial and ethnic minorities is more effective than an uphill struggle to revive support in the recalcitrant white middle and working class.

As much as such a shift to a class-based strategy might result in economic policies more beneficial to less affluent Democratic constituencies, and therefore to more votes in the long haul, so far there has been insufficient intraparty pressure to force a change in strategic orientation.

It is not lost on Democratic strategists that President Obama won twice deploying a group-based rather than a class-based strategy. Even if the next Democratic nominee does not inspire the high minority turnout levels of 2008 and 2012, the 2016 electorate will be less Republican than it was in 2012. Every four years, the heavily Republican white share of voters drops by a little over 2 percent, and the disproportionately Democratic minority share grows by the same amount.

Insofar as the Republican Party tempers its retrograde stance on social-sexual and moral-racial issues, Democratic campaigns stressing alleged threats from conservatives — the threat to freedom and privacy posed by the Christian right; the threat to Hispanic family unity posed by anti-immigrant activists; the threat to programs serving the poor posed by deficit hawks — will run out of gas.

Democrats, according to Pew, retained an advantage on less tangible qualities such as empathy, honesty and a willingness to compromise.  As attractive as those characteristics are, they are not top priorities for voters. . . . . voters’ top priorities consistently include bread-and-butter issues, jobs and the economy.

The Democrats’ lack of credibility on economic issues will hobble, if not extinguish, the party’s prospects. Unless the Democrats develop a coherent, comprehensive strategy for the have-nots, it won’t matter whether the party’s nominee is Clinton, Webb or anyone else.

Can Jim Webb Run for President as the Anti-Hillary?

While he was in the U.S. Senate Jim Webb often did not vote as I would have preferred, but ultimately on key issues he usually came around.  Once, after I had lambasted him on an issue on gays in the military, I received an e-mail from his office which was astounding/flattering that someone in his office apparently read this blog.  Now, Webb - who did not seek reelection to the Senate - is making noises about throwing his hat into the Democratic presidential primary ring against the as yet unannounced Hillary Clinton.  A piece in the Fiscal Times looks at a possible Webb candidacy and how it might play against the Hillary juggernaut.  Here are excerpts:

When most politicians are asked whether they’re considering running for president, they typically toss off a quick one-liner that doesn’t answer the question and then quickly change the subject. But when Jim Webb, former Democratic Senator from Virginia, was asked the question after a speech in Washington on Tuesday, he immediately admitted he was “seriously” thinking about it.

He did so, though, in the tone of voice another man might use to say that he is considering knee-replacement surgery but hasn’t yet made up his mind whether it’s worth it.

Of course, admitting it was really his only option. Webb had mentioned a possible White House bid in media interviews before, and he had just delivered what amounted to a stump speech at the National Press Club, checking the box on everything from income inequality and improving national transportation infrastructure to criminal justice reform and the use of American military force abroad.

Webb, who served in the Senate from 2007 to 2013, has never been the most enthusiastic of politicians. He had a distinguished military career — awarded the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts — and he carried that no nonsense military attitude with him into the political arena, which is more typically full of nonsense. That reluctant demeanor worked for him in his 2006 Senate run because there was a strong “Draft Webb” campaign spearheaded by opponents of Republican Senator George Allen, who imploded during the general election for reasons that had little to due with Webb.

How much of Webb’s Cincinnatus act is real and how much is shtick is unclear — he was certainly under no obligation to turn up at the Press Club — but it may not matter. In a race against Hillary Clinton, the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination, his apparent reluctance gives him an angle unavailable to a lot of other potential contenders.

One thing that she [Hillary] cannot deny, though, is ambition. Hillary Clinton wants to be president. She has run for the office once, and is obviously planning on running for it again.

That, in itself, shouldn’t be disqualifying. But a savvy opponent could find a way to persuade the voting public that a desire to be president indicates an inflated ego and exaggerated sense of self-importance. Just ask Al Gore.

A candidate who is reluctantly answering his country’s call could claim a patch of moral high ground unavailable to a career politician merely looking to take the next step in a long career.

There, of course, is Jim Webb’s greatest challenge. If his plan is to run as the outsider called to serve by a country hungry for his leadership, he’s going to need a country calling out for his leadership. At the moment, it’s not clear anybody’s hearing that call except Jim Webb himself.

Jim Webb Verbally Eviscerates Romney During Virginia Beach Remarks

AP Photo

I haven't always been a happy supporter of Jim Webb even though I did vote for him six years ago when he ran against my former law school roommate, George "Macaca" Allen.  A case in point is when Webb was waffling on DADT repeal and I was contacted by his communications director after slamming Webb in a blog post.  Webb went a long way to wipe out any displeasure I might have had with him when he eviscerated - or perhaps castrates is a better term - Mitt Romney while speaking at Barack Obama's campaign stop in Virginia Beach today.  The thrust of Webb's remarks: castigating Romney for lobbying in support of the Vietnam War and then using a special exemption from service for Mormon missionaries and spending critical war years in Europe. I understand where Webb is coming from.  I'm 60 years old and only missed the draft because I had a high lottery number (269 as I recall).  Unlike Romney, I never sought an exemption.  And I never agitated in support of the Vietnam fiasco.  And, yes, I lost childhood friends in that fool's errand that is similar in so many ways to the ongoing disaster in the Middle East.    Politico has details on Webb's statements.  Here are highlights:

Webb’s bladework today on Mitt Romney was as unexpected as it was memorable.  From Webb’s introductory remarks before Obama’s Virginia Beach appearance:

Governor Romney and I are about the same age. Like millions of others in our generation, we came to adulthood facing the harsh realities of the Vietnam War. 2.7 million in our age group went to Vietnam, a war which eventually took the lives of 58,000 young Americans and cost another 300,000 wounded. The Marine Corps lost 100,000 killed or wounded in that war. During the year I was in Vietnam, 1969, our country lost twice as many dead as we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the past 10 years of war. 1968 was worse. 1967 was about the same. Not a day goes by when I do not think about the young Marines I was privileged to lead.

This was a time of conscription, where every American male was eligible to be drafted. People made choices about how to deal with the draft, and about military service. I have never envied or resented any of the choices that were made as long as they were done within the law. But those among us who stepped forward to face the harsh unknowns and the lifelong changes that can come from combat did so with the belief that their service would be honored, and that our leaders would, in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, care for those who had borne the battle, and for their widows and their children.

Those young Marines that I led have grown older now. They’ve lived lives of courage, both in combat and after their return, where many of them were derided by their own peers for having served. That was a long time ago. They are not bitter. They know what they did. But in receiving veterans’ benefits, they are not takers. They were givers, in the ultimate sense of that word. There is a saying among war veterans: “All gave some, some gave all.” This is not a culture of dependency. It is a part of a long tradition that gave this country its freedom and independence. They paid, some with their lives, some through wounds and disabilities, some through their emotional scars, some through the lost opportunities and delayed entry into civilian careers which had already begun for many of their peers who did not serve.

And not only did they pay. They will not say this, so I will say it for them. They are owed, if nothing else, at least a mention, some word of thanks and respect, when a presidential candidate who is their generational peer makes a speech accepting his party’s nomination to be commander-in-chief. And they are owed much more than that — a guarantee that we will never betray the commitment that we made to them and to their loved ones.

[C]oming from Webb — a voice for the white working class, a former Navy secretary and decorated Vietnam veteran whose son left college to enlist as an infantry private in the Marine Corps and fought in the Iraq War — his words carry a punch that few other Democratic surrogates can muster.

 That's right.  Military veterans receiving benefits and those on active duty do not pay income taxes on their benefits.  These individuals are part of the 47% that Mitt Romney holds in thinly veiled contempt.  The man is despicable.  

Mitt Romney in 1968 - while thousands of young Americans were dying in Vietnam

Homophobic Bob Marshall Delivers Signatures for GOP Primary

There are few political figures in Virginia who are more intense in their hatred of and efforts to denigrate the lives of LGBT Virginians than Delegate Bob Marshall who would happily institute a theocracy in Virginia. Indeed, Marshall has stated publicly that he'd be happy if all gays left Virginia. Yesterday, Marshall delivered signatures to get himself on the GOP primary ballot for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Jim Webb. While Marshall is likely too extreme even for many in the Virginia GOP, his candidacy will likely force former Senator George Allen to pivot far to the right in an effort to secure votes from the most delusional Kool-Aid drinkers that are likely to vote in the primary. This, of course, should give Tim Kaine, the likely Democrat candidate, lots of video spots and crazy statements to use against Allen come November. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:

Del. Bob Marshall (Prince William) submitted 17,100 signatures to the Virginia State Board of Elections Wednesday to qualify for the June 12 GOP primary ballot for U.S. Senate.

“The credit in reaching this goal goes to hundreds of grass-root volunteers who spent countless hours gathering petition signatures while I was busy on the people’s business in the Virginia General Assembly session,’’ Marshall said in a statement.

The state GOP will verify the signatures. Candidates have until 5 p.m. Thursday to collect 10,000 signatures from across the state, including 400 from each of the state’s 11 congressional districts. If they submit more than 15,000, the party will count the signatures but not verify each one.

Former Virginia governor and U.S. senator George Allen and tea party activist Jamie Radtke submitted signatures earlier this month. Others in the GOP race include Hampton Roads lawyer David McCormick and Bishop Earl Jackson.

Some of the upcoming batshitery should be truly something to behold.

Del. Bob Marshall May Challenge George "Macaca" Allen for Senate Bid

A story in the Washington Examiner makes the case that gay hater extraordinaire Del. Bob Marshall may be considering a primary challenge against George Allen for the GOP nomination to run for the U. S. Senate seat to be vacated by Jim Webb. I'll admit, it would be amazing entertainment to watch Marshall and Allen pummel themselves in a primary race. I suspect that Allen would prevail even though clinical insanity and a rejection of reality are increasingly a prerequisite for inclusion in the Republican Party of Virginia, so an Allen win would not be a guaranteed outcome. Here are some from the Examiner story:

Longtime Del. Bob Marshall is considering entering the race for Virginia’s open U.S. Senate seat and has gone so far as to seek legal advice from the attorney general on how to collect signatures for a statewide run.

Marshall, a Prince William Republican who narrowly missed the party’s nomination for the job in 2008, told The Washington Examiner on Tuesday that he still has people asking him to throw his hat in the ring but he didn’t have a timetable for making a decision. “Bottom line, am I serious about this prospect? Yes. Definitely,” he said. “But I’ve still got to get all these ducks in line before I set the trip wire.”

Marshall has served in the House of Delegates since the mid-1990s and has a strong record among conservatives. He is well known for circulating controversial anti-abortion bills, pushing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions, and leading efforts to keep federal health care reform out of Virginia.

Marshall would join a crowded field of Tea Party candidates who are jockeying for the opportunity to knock off establishment-favorite George Allen for the Republican nomination.

Earlier this month, Marshall contacted Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli asking for an opinion about the state’s ballot restrictions. Candidates for statewide office must collect 10,000 signatures from registered voters, including 400 from each of 11 congressional districts — a process that has come under scrutiny from current Republican presidential contenders who failed to meet the threshold.

But the General Assembly failed to meet its constitutional duty to redraw congressional district lines by the end of the year, causing confusion as to how candidates should proceed.

I hope Marshall runs and that it opens the eyes of some of his constituents as to just how batshit crazy he is. Plus, the money squandered in a GOP primary will reduce the funds available for the general election campaign.

Mark Warner and Jim Webb Vote for DADT Repeal

While I am sure they will be catching Hell from the Neanderthals and knuckle draggers who are all too plentiful in Virginia - including the Hampton Roads area where comments on local news articles reveal both intense religious based bigotry and great ignorance based on spelling errors that would make a grade schooler blanch - both of Virginia's senators did the right thing in the end and voted for repeal of DADT. Personally, in the lead up to all of this, I had some testy communications with Webb's office and harsh words with Democrat officials. I am thankful that Webb finally recognized that DADT was wrong. Both Senators released statements on their vote to repeal and the Virginia Pilot has highlights. As for Jim Webb, whom I thank for his vote, here's what he said in his statement:
*
“We need to, first of all, understand what this is and what it is not. The question is not whether there should be gays and lesbians in the military. They are already there. According to General Ham, who conducted this extensive study, approximately the same percentage of the military is gay and lesbian as in our general population.
*
“The question is not about whether anyone should be able to engage in inappropriate conduct as a result of this policy, because we will not allow that and we will be very vigorous in our oversight of the Department of Defense to make sure that does not occur.
*
“The question is whether this policy, as now enacted, works in a way that on the one hand can protect small unit cohesion--or to sort that out--and on the other, allow people to live honest lives.
*
We have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who had an extensive career in surface arfare starting with small destroyers and up to commanding fleets, saying he believes the policy should change and that it can work. We have the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a Marine, saying he believes this policy should change and it can work. Most interestingly, we have General Ham, who conducted this study—an infantry officer and former enlisted Army soldier whose religious beliefs caused him concern about homosexuality—at the same time saying this policy can be changed and that it should be changed.
*
With this understanding and with the notion that we need to be putting a policy into place that allows an open way of living among people who have different points of view, I'm going to support this legislation.”
*
The opponents of DADT, of course, believe that only their point of religious belief should be validated. As is sadly the case more and more with the Christianists, it's all about them and their generally intolerant, fear based and hate-filled beliefs that matter. Everyone else can go to Hell literally and figuratively in their view, This mind set is not what America is or should be about. One can only hope for the day when such people are far fewer in number.

Far Right Hysteria as DADT Vote Approaches

While I continue to hold my breath on what will happen with the DADT vote, it is rather entertaining to watch the batshitery and hysteria roiling through the Christian Right as its spokesman and bigots-in-chief realize that their favorite tool for marketing the concept that gays are inferior may be about to fall. The flying spittle and rants and threats would be humorous but for the fact that it shows just how mentally/emotionally untethered some of the Christianists have become. Now, the hate group, Family Research Council is threatening to "endorse and fund" primary challenges to any Republicans who vote for DADT repeal. Somehow, I don't believe that support from an increasingly shrill hate group will lead to a great deal of election victories and, if some GOP incumbents are defeated in primaries, Democrats will likely be the principal beneficiaries of the efforts of the Bible beating hate merchants. Here are highlights from Right Wing Watch on FRC's hyperventilating and threats:
*
Today [yesterday], The Daily Caller printed a memo written by Freedom Federation founder Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel that was distributed to his Religious Right allies laying out the ten senators they intended to target: Senators need to know that they will be held accountable for how they vote on this issue. Within the next 48 hours be sure to communicate with your constituencies that the following ten Senators in the following states must be contacted, urging them to vote against overturning DADT:
*
Ben Nelson – Nebraska; Jon Tester – Montana; Kent Conrad – North Dakota; Joe Manchin – West Virginia; Jim Webb – Virginia; Claire McCaskill – Missouri; Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe – Maine; Scott Brown – Massachusetts; Lisa Murkowski – Alaska
*
Family Research Council took it a step further and officially announced that they will "endorse and fund conservative primary challengers to any U.S. Senator who votes to overturn 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' during the lame-duck session":
*
FRC Action PAC will work to remove any U.S. Senator who would place liberal special interests ahead of the priorities of the American people. . . . . the men and women of the Armed Forces who are engaged in fighting two wars should not be distracted by Congress using them to advance a liberal social agenda. Using the Senate’s time in the lame-duck session to pay back his liberal political base is simply absurd and demonstrates once again Senator Reid’s misplaced priorities. Members of the Senate should refuse to become accomplices in helping Harry Reid advance his agenda over the American people’s agenda,” concluded Mackey.
*
Never mind that polls show that 77% of the public and even a majority of Republicans favor repeal. The Christianists continue to live in their bizarre bubble like world that doesn't countenance that their version is increasingly rejected - especially by younger voters who are opting more and more to place themselves in the "no religion" category. It will be the "godly Christians" like the shrill Pharisees at FRC and the Vatican that ultimately kill Christianity.

The Missing Element in the DADT: That Gays Are Human Too

Opponents of LGBT equality go to great lengths to dehumanize LGBT individuals - it's a tactic long used by the Christian Right that bears a striking resemblance to the game plan used by NAZI propagandists against the Jews. Naturally, it's easier to justify mistreatment of those who are some how "other" or less than fully human. In the debate over whether or not DADT should be repealed, there's be huge focus on the sensibility of bigots and chaplains (a position that perhaps ought to be dropped from the military ranks completely, in my opinion even though my "father in law is a former Army chaplain), but almost no commentary on the lives and emotional/psychological costs DADT inflicts on LGBT service members. Are the opponents of repeal just grand standing to the toxic Republican Party base or does their opposition suggest something far more disturbing: they don't see gays as human beings. The Plum Line in the Washington Post looks briefly at this phenomenon and here are some highlights:
*
One thing that's been oddly missing from the debate in the Senate over repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is any discussion of the moral and human dimensions of this story, at least as it concerns the gay service-members themselves. The discussion has mostly focused on how straight troops will be impacted.
*
Indeed, when Senator James Webb today asked the Service Chiefs a simple question about the gay human beings impacted by this discriminatory policy, everyone at the hearing acted a bit startled. Webb asked: What should we do with gay patriotic Americans who have already served our country for years, and want to lead free and open lives? Everyone looked uncomfortable, as if Webb had gone way off topic.
*
Matthew Yglesias today wonders what on earth opponents of DADT repeal are thinking. As he says, at bottom this debate is really about whether we are going to treat gays as "free and equal citizens of the country," or whether they're "some kind of subordinate class."
*
So here's my question: Is it possible that one of the things holding up repeal is that many people simply haven't had an up-close view of the ugliness of anti-gay bigotry, and aren't willing to believe the push for equality for gays is on a moral par with other major civil rights battles?
*
[I]t seems to me that the broader discussion has been largely antiseptic and lacking in moral urgency and historical depth. I wonder whether it's because people have mostly been insulated from the ugliness of anti-gay bigotry. I'd be very interested to hear from others on this.

Tell Sen. Jim Webb to Support DADT Repeal

It's crunch time for DADT repeal and Senators need to put aside their personal prejudices and vote to end DADT and its enshrining of religious based discrimination into the law. As you will recall, before the election, the Senate failed to break a filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act which contains a path to the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Along with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, I am urging readers to call key senators such as Jim Webb and again tell them to allow a vote on the defense appropriations bill which includes the path to repeal for Don't Ask Don't Tell. This MUST happen before the end of the lame duck session.

*

Call Senator Jim Webb at - 202-224-4024. For non-Virginia readers, please call the Senate switchboard today at (202) 224-3121. I'd love to know what kind of reception you receive.