More Monday Male Beauty

Pentagon to Eliminate 6000 Norfolk Joint Forces Command Jobs - Meanwhile, McDonnell and Cooch Scare Away Progressive Employers

The Hampton Roads region in particular and Virginia in general have allowed themselves to become far too dependant on the military as a means to keep the local economy afloat. Rather than embracing modernity and progressive values that might attract new high tech and green industries, Virginia's leadership in the form of Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell, Virginia AG Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli and the GOP Kool-Aid drinkers in the General Assembly seem to strive to make Virginia appear to other parts of the country and world as the home of rednecks, racists and homophobes. Now, the local Hampton Roads faces a major hit to the military funded economy. It has been announced today that the region's Joint Forces Command is targeted for elimination as part of the Pentagon's cost cutting initiatives. That translates to 6000 lost jobs, millions and millions in lost payroll, and a major hit for commercial real estate owners who have been leasing facilities to the military. Here are some highlights from the Virginian Pilot:
*
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called for the elimination of the Norfolk-based Joint Forces Command on Monday as part of a broader effort to reduce certain kinds of military spending - especially a growing reliance on defense contractors. "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of savings and restraint," Gates said.
*
It employs about 6,000 people - most based in Hampton Roads, others elsewhere in Virginia and Florida. Its headquarters are at Norfolk Naval Station, and it has a command center in northern Suffolk.
*
Not surprisingly, elected officials across the state and region lambasted Gates' announcement and said they would fight it, but it's not clear what they can do to halt the process. Unlike the Navy's plan to relocate an aircraft carrier from Norfolk to Jacksonville, Fla. - which requires Congress to approve funds to make Mayport Naval Station ready to host a nuclear carrier - Gates indicated this bureaucratic reshuffle doesn't require legislative approval.
*
Gates' proposal for shifting defense spending has broader implications for Virginia than the closure of JFCOM. . . . The commonwealth is home to more than 12,000 defense contractors and is second only to California in military-related businesses, Gov. Bob McDonnell said. The companies that employ them have collected $341 billion since 2000, so a reduction of 30 percent over the next three years, as Gates directed, will be an enormous hit, he said.
*
In Suffolk, the command has been a powerful engine driving local economic development. Hundreds of military and civilian employees work at its north Suffolk campus, a 640,000-square-foot facility leased for an estimated $16 million. Hundreds more are employed by defense contractors working nearby.
*
I'm not sure what it will take to educate Virginia's leaders that rampant anti-gay initiatives, AG opinions authorizing the random stopping of suspected immigrants, and far right Christianist extremism forming the state's laws do not a make for an image that will be attractive to many companies that might be seeking to relocate (either too or from Virginia). Some of the leadership in Hampton seem to be figuring it out, but the lesson is totally lost on McDonnell, Cuccinelli, the GOP controlled House of Delegates and local Congressman like Randy Forbes and Rob Wittman.

Prop 8 Proponents May Lack Standing to Appeal Perry Ruling

I mentioned in an earlier post that some 43 years ago the U. S. Supreme Court struck down a ballot initiative derived amendment to the California Constitution that would have allowed California residents to discriminate against black citizens in leasing and real estate sales decision. The amendment was a "will of the majority" response to California statutes that barred housing discrimination. The Christianists may face another obstacle in their effort to appeal the U. S. District Court ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. They have no standing to appeal the ruling since they were merely intervenors, not the actual defendants. Here's what I mean via the pleadings in the Perry lawsuit:
*
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his
official capacity as Governor of
California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in
his official capacity as Attorney
General of California; MARK B
HORTON, in his official capacity
as Director of the California
Department of Public Health and
State Registrar of Vital
Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her
official capacity as Deputy
Director of Health Information &
Strategic Planning for the
California Department of Public
Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
official capacity as Clerk-
Recorder of the County of
Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his
official capacity as Registrar-
Recorder/County Clerk for the
County of Los Angeles,
Defendants,
*
NOTE: This list does NOT include the Prop 8 proponents who are described as follows:
*
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J
KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING
WILLIAM TAM, MARK A
JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL, as official proponents
of Proposition 8,
Defendant-Intervenors.

What this argument comes down to in ordinary English is as follows: If none of the "real defendants," if you will, files an appeal, then there can be no appeal by mere intervenor parties. The Prop 8 crowd intervened in Perry saying that they had an interest in the case, but still they were not the actual defendants. Previous U. S. Supreme Court decisions do NOT auger well for the Prop 8 intervenors. The first case of relevance is Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). That case arose when an Arizona state employee at the time, sued the State and its Governor, Attorney General, and Director of the Department of Administration alleging that State Constitution Article XXVIII-key provisions of which declare English "the official language of the State," the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
*
The Federal District Court . . . . declared the Article fatally over broad after reading it to impose a sweeping ban on the use of any language other than English by all of Arizona officialdom; and declined to allow the Arizona courts the initial opportunity to determine the scope of Article XXVIII (which derived from a 1988 Arizona ballot initiative that established English as the official language of the State) . . . In addition, the court denied the motion of newcomers Arizonans for Official English Committee (AOE) and its Chairman Park, sponsors of the ballot initiative that became Article XXVIII, to intervene to support the Article's constitutionality. The Supreme Court stated as follows:
*
To qualify as a party with standing to litigate, a person must show, first and foremost, "an invasion of a legally protected interest" that is "concrete and particularized" and" 'actual or imminent.'" Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 155 (1990)). An interest shared generally with the public at large in the proper application of the Constitution and laws will not do. See Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S., at 573-576. Standing to defend on appeal in the place of an original defendant, no less than standing to sue, demands that the litigant possess "a direct stake in the outcome." Diamond, 476 U. S., at 62 (quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
*
The standing Article III requires must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance. Diamond, 476 U. S., at 62. The decision to seek review "is not to be placed in the hands of 'concerned bystanders,'" persons who would seize it "as a 'vehicle for the vindication of value interests.'" Ibid. (citation omitted). An intervenor cannot step into the shoes of the original party unless the intervenor independently "fulfills the requirements. . . .
*
AOE and its members, however, are not elected representatives, and we are aware of no Arizona law appointing initiative sponsors as agents of the people of Arizona to defend, in lieu of public officials, the constitutionality of initiatives made law of the State. Nor has this Court ever identified initiative proponents as Article-III-qualified defenders of the measures they advocated.
*
The Court ultimately resolved the issues before it on other grounds. Nonetheless, the language does not seem to bode well for the Prop 8 proponents. Another case that did get to the merits of a party's standing to appeal a lower court ruling is Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986). In that case, the the appellees were physicians who provide abortion services in Illinois and who filed a class action in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Diamond, a pediatrician not part of the class action plaintiff group, filed a motion to intervene as a party defendant based on his conscientious objection to abortions and on his status as a pediatrician and as a parent of a minor daughter. Ultimately, the District Court permanently enjoined the enforcement of certain provisions of the law. The State of Illinois chose not to appeal the lower court rulings. Given this scenario, Diamond sought to appeal the ruling on his own.
*
The U. S. Supreme Court held that the appellant doctor - who was solely an intervenor, and not an actual party to the lawsuit just like the Prop 8 proponents - had no standing to appeal the lower court decisions that he disliked. In ruling against the disgruntled, Christian right physician, the Court stated in part as follows:
*
Article III of the Constitution limits the power of federal courts to deciding "cases" and "controversies." This requirement ensures the presence of the "concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 204 (1962).
*
The presence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be, is insufficient by itself to meet Art. III's requirements. This Court consistently has required, in addition, that the party seeking judicial resolution of a dispute "show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct" of the other party.
*
[T]he decision to seek review must be placed "in the hands of those who have a direct stake in the outcome." Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 405 U. S. 740 (1972). It is not to be placed in the hands of "concerned bystanders," who will use it simply as a "vehicle for the vindication of value interests." United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669, 412 U. S. 687 (1973).
*
Had the State of Illinois invoked this Court's appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2) and sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision, the "case" or "controversy" requirement would have been met, for a State has standing to defend the constitutionality of its statute.

*
Had the State sought review, this Court's Rule 10.4 makes clear that Diamond, as an intervening defendant below, also would be entitled to seek review, enabling him to file a brief on the merits and to seek leave to argue orally. But this ability to ride "piggyback" on the State's undoubted standing exists only if the State is, in fact, an appellant before the Court; in the absence of the State in that capacity, there is no case for Diamond to join.
*
With none of the defendants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger moving to appeal the District Court decision, under the reasoning, the Prop 8 proponents have no basis for an appeal and the case should be over. Having watched Christianist organizations file frivolous lawsuits and appeals time and time again, I suspect that the Prop 8 proponents will not slink away into the night. Nonetheless, under existing precedent their efforts should be rejected. And in light of the existing case law, they ought to be hit with sanctions if they file frivolous appeals and motions for rehearing. They LOST and they need to get over it and stop denigrating LGBT Americans for no purpose other than to line their own pockets and further their theocratic agenda.

Monday Male Beauty

David Boise Rips Tony Perkins Apart

One of the things that consistently drives me crazy is the way that the mainstream media provides bigots and haters like Tony Perkins (pictured at left) a platform where they are allowed to make all kinds of false statements and peddle outright lies without any challenge or questioning from the typically vapid reporter or news anchor. It happens all the time on gay rights related issues but extends to other issues as well where demagogues like Perkins seek to incite hatred and dupe the uneducated and gullible. Well, this did NOT happen yesterday on Face the Nation. David Boies took on Perkins head on and pretty much called him a liar (something that is most definitely true) on national TV. Would that we could see more of the professional Christians subjected to this treatment and their faux experts demolished as the frauds they are in fact. Here are highlights from Boies' withering come back on Perkins (a clip is set out below):
*
"In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination," Boies said. "And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined.
*
"But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that.
*
"That's what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost," Boies said.
*
I'd love to see Maggie Gallagher challenged in this way along with all of the bogus experts at Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America. Here's the video clip:

Legal Expert: Cuccinelli Places Virginia Police at Risk

In his quest to demonize everyone who isn't white, conservative Christian, and heterosexual, Virginia's Attorney General and Christo-fascist in chief issued an opinion in collusion with Delegate Bob Marshall form Northern Virginia that authorizes Virginia police to stop and question those suspected of being illegal immigrants. Kookinelli apparently wants to gain more attention amongst the Kool-Aid drinking set that hates immigrants - translated this means Hispanics - almost as much as LGBT citizens. Never mind that federal court has stayed Arizona's law that allowed such conduct and never mind that the opinion sets the stage for all kinds of abuses and harassment of legitimate citizens. Under Kookinelli's opinion, if one looks Hispanic you are pretty much open game. Now a legal expert at Washington & Lee's Law School has taken Kookinelli to task in an editorial in the Roanoke Times and outlined the risk that police will be assuming if they follow Kookinelli's discrimination based opinion. Here are some highlights:
*
On July 30, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued an official advisory opinion regarding the authority of local law enforcement officers to inquire about immigration status. This opinion is based on such faulty logic, and is so contrary to constitutional law, it places local police departments and officers at danger if they follow his advice. In order to avoid facing the risk of possible lawsuits, it is important that law enforcement officers and agencies understand that this opinion is contrary to federal law.
*
[T]he attorney general actually says reveals that he is trying to mislead officers into an unconstitutional interpretation of their authority. To understand why, look once more at the operative language.
*
First, he says that officers may briefly detain and question a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. This is called an "Adams" stop, but does not apply to immigration violations because they are civil offenses, not crimes. He then follows up that statement by saying that a person, once lawfully detained, may be asked of his immigration status so long as it does not prolong the detention.
*
The attorney general's opinion then combines these two separate propositions to reach the wildly inaccurate conclusion that Virginia officers have existing authority to do what the Arizona law ordered its officers to do -- stop and question individuals suspected of being in the country unlawfully.
*
The attorney general's misleading opinion does a disservice to law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day to keep us safe. First, it needlessly subjects them to the risk that they will violate their duty to uphold the Constitution. Such action is not only offensive to the vast majority of honest law enforcement personnel who want to enforce the law, not break it, but it also subjects them to lawsuits that may impose significant costs in attorneys' fees and damages on them and their departments.
*
Second, it threatens to disrupt the hard-won trust that has developed between law enforcement and immigrant communities.
*
This poorly reasoned opinion will do little to solve the problem of illegal immigration, but will almost certainly cause problems for law enforcement and for safety in our communities. When the law is twisted to serve a political agenda, we all pay the price.
*
The last paragraph sums up well Kookinelli's approach to the law - he thinks it is whatever he wants it to be based on his own religious extremism and racial prejudices. The man is a menace and embarrassment to Virginia.

Sunday Male Beauty

U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 - The Will of the Majority is Not Sacrosanct

One of the arguments that the whining Christianists such as Maggie Gallagher are using to condemn Judge Walker's ruling striking down proposition 8 is that it overturns the will of the majority. Taken literally and to its logical conclusion, this argument would allow a majority of voters to strip away the rights of any minority group it chose to target. In making this argument - as I have noted before is all too typical - the anti-gay forces are ignoring an inconvenient piece of history. In this instance it is the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), which likewise arose from a California constitutional amendment that would have allowed property owners to refuse to rent or sell property to blacks. Here's the historical background from the case:
*
The California Legislature, during the period 1959-1963, enacted several statutes regulating racial discrimination in housing. In 1964, pursuant to an initiative and referendum, Art. I, § 26, was added to the state constitution. It provided in part that neither the State nor any agency thereof "shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses."
*
The California Supreme Court held that Art. I, § 26, was designed to overturn state laws that bore on the right of private persons to discriminate, that it invalidly involved the State in racial discrimination in the housing market, and that it changed the situation from one in which discriminatory practices were restricted to one where they are "encouraged," within the meaning of this Court's decisions. The court concluded that Art. I, § 26, unconstitutionally involves the State in racial discrimination, and is therefore invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

*
Confronted with this set of facts - which certainly can be compared to the goals of Proposition 8 in terms of encouraging discrimination against gays and lesbians - the U.S. Supreme Court held in part as follows:
*
Second, it [the California Supreme Court] held the intent of § 26 was to authorize private racial discriminations in the housing market, to repeal the Unruh and Rumford Acts, and to create a constitutional right to discriminate on racial grounds in the sale and leasing of real property. Hence, the court dealt with § 26 as though it expressly authorized and constitutionalized the private right to discriminate. Third, the court assessed the ultimate impact of § 26 in the California environment, and concluded that the section would encourage and significantly involve the State in private racial discrimination contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.
*
The right to discriminate, including the right to discriminate on racial grounds, was now embodied in the State's basic charter, immune from legislative, executive, or judicial regulation at any level of the state government. Those practicing racial discriminations need no longer rely solely on their personal choice. They could now invoke express constitutional authority, free from censure or interference of any kind from official sources.
*
Here, the California court, armed as it was with the knowledge of the facts and circumstances concerning the passage and potential impact of § 26, and familiar with the milieu in which that provision would operate, has determined that the provision would involve the State in private racial discriminations to an unconstitutional degree. We accept this holding of the California court.
*
the section [Sec. 26] will significantly encourage and involve the State in private discriminations. We have been presented with no persuasive considerations indicating that these judgments should be overturned.
*
Reitman when combined with the case law and facts cited by Judge Walker makes a strong case that the will of the majority does NOT trump the federal constitution. For the U. S. Supreme Court to reverse Judge Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger would also require the Court to get around the clear ruling that discrimination cannot be made legal via an initiative derived amendment to a state constitution. Stated another way, the majority cannot strip away federal constitutional rights via state constitution amendments.

Bigotry is Bad for Business - Jan Brewer and the Arizona Business Community

It seems that most bigots in politics are largely opportunists who often place personal advancement and/or media exposure ahead of the true best interests of their state or country. It's all about them and pandering to the lowest common denominator for short term political gain. It seems Arizona Governor Jan Brewer - a far right Missouri Synod Lutheran Christianist who is against LGBT equality - is a case in point. She jumped headlong into immigrant bashing and has seen an uptick in popularity in some circles, but the Arizona business community is none to happy with her because what's good for Brewer's ego satisfying celebrity is not so good for business. Newsweek has an article on the growing schism between Brewer - who seems to think she's the president of Concerned Women for America rather than the governor of a state where she is supposed to represent the needs of all citizens and residents - and the business community. Here are some highlights:
*
Back before they grew distant, Barry Broome, head of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, would talk to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer every few weeks. . . . he never imagined what was to come: that she would sign into law one of the nation’s most draconian illegal-immigration bills; pick a costly, high-profile fight with the federal government to defend it; and create a public-relations fiasco for the state.
*
Strains between Brewer and the state’s business community are starting to show. Though her championing of the immigration measure has proved politically popular and catapulted her to national prominence, that success has come at a price. . . . Several companies have packed up and left. At least 40 groups have canceled conventions and conferences, says Debbie Johnson, CEO of the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association. And the Phoenix area alone is projected to lose $92 million in business, according to Mayor Phil Gordon. “Anyone who says our image has not been hurt is living in a bubble,” he says.
*
Many business leaders are reluctant to criticize Brewer publicly. . . . The state is perilously close to sealing a reputation as a bastion of intolerance. Phoenix “risks becoming the next Birmingham,” says Robert Lang of Brookings Mountain West, a think tank based in Las Vegas. Noting that Arizona is trying to diversify into the solar-energy and biotech industries, he adds, the state is “playing with fire…Who is in solar? Not the kind of people who are listening to Rush [Limbaugh].” It makes Gordon cringe.
*
Many Latino organizations, both local and national, are leading the charge to punish the state economically. In many ways, the effort is shaping up as a de-fining civil-rights struggle for Hispanics. They’re pressuring baseball teams to boycott the state. They’re petitioning cities and states to cut off business ties (many have done so, including Los Angeles and St. Paul, Minn.). They’re urging artists to forswear performing there (among those who have agreed are Kanye West and Rage Against the Machine). And they’re warning other jurisdictions considering similar legislation that an equally potent backlash would await them.
*
“We will make clear that the damage to Arizona can happen anywhere else that tries to pass a law like this,” says Alfredo Gutierrez, a former Arizona state senator . . . . He’s modeling his approach on the anti-apartheid campaigns against South Africa and has been reaching out to Latin American countries to discuss the possibility of sanctions. “We even have a committee in Rwanda,” he says. “I just discovered it while Googling.”
*
Brewer’s likely Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, may yet prove to be a tough adversary. He has fought crime linked to illegal immigration for years—credentials that give him legitimacy to attack her and the GOP for their handling of the issue. “This is the worst thing that ever happened for business in Arizona,” he says.
*
One can only hope that Brewer and the forces of hate and intolerance lose in November. Arizona is certainly a state that the boyfriend and I won't be planning to visit anytime soon even though I have a family connection to the state that reaches back to the early 1920's. Meanwhile, Virginia's clinically insane Attorney General Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli is encouraging police to stop and question those in Virginia who look like they may be immigrants and ask for their documentation.

Are the Democrats Trying to Lose in November?

Frankly, my frustration with Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats seems to increase almost every passing day. It's to the point that it seems they want to lose horrifically come November's mid-terms. Otherwise, why would a party that still holds commanding majorities - at least for now - in Congress (1) fail to push for needed jobs legislation and (2) have a president who simply refuses to get on the bully pulpit and go on the attack against Republican obstruction and flat out lies. And why aren't they tying the tea party crowd and Sarah Palin - which a majority of Americans deem scary - firmly around the GOP's neck? Frank Rich looks at the potential coming debacle and the terrifying policies the GOP would bring in should they triumph in November largely because the Democrats have sat on their hands, demoralized their own base and done little to prove they can deliver effectively on campaign promises. The entire approach to the Party base has been you need to support us because they other guys are worse/scary. It is driving me crazy. Here are highlights from Rich's column:
*
The 2010 campaign against the Bush administration is in full cry, with President Obama leading the charge. The Republicans are “betting on amnesia,” he confidently told the claque at a recent fund-raiser. . . . Sounds plausible, but it’s Obama who’s on the wrong side of that bet, to his own political peril.
*
Betting on amnesia is almost always a winning, not a losing, wager in America. Angry demonstrators at health care town-hall meetings didn’t remember that Medicare is a government program, and fewer and fewer voters of both parties recall that the widely loathed TARP was a Bush administration creation supported by the G.O.P. Congressional leadership.
*
The president is also wrong when he says that every single current G.O.P. idea is a Bush idea. Many are not. And those that are not are far more radical. A political campaign built on Obama’s faulty premises cannot stand — or win.
*
Bleak as this picture looks for the Democrats, it is so only up to a point. No one knows what will happen on an Election Day almost three months away. One encouraging sign for the party in power is the over-the-top triumphalism of the right.
*
But rather than wait for miracles or pray that Bushphobia will save the day, Democrats might instead start playing the hand they’ve been dealt. Elections, the cliché goes, are about the future, not the past. At the very least they’re about the present. It’s time voters were told just how far right the G.O.P. has lurched since Bush returned to Texas. And the White House might also at long last — at very long last — craft a compelling message, not to mention a plan, to offer real hope to the jobless.
*
Some 16.5 percent of America’s workers are now either unemployed and trying to find a job, involuntarily working part time, or have stopped looking for work altogether. That figure doesn’t even include the many Americans who’ve had to settle for jobs for which they are overqualified.
*
[W]hat we can discern of the Republican “ideas” lying in wait almost makes Bush’s conservatism actually seem compassionate. The public is largely unaware of this because the conservative establishment in both Washington and the press has been relentless in its effort to separate the G.O.P. from the excesses of the Palin-Fox-Beck-Breitbart bomb throwers and from wacky Tea Party senatorial candidates like Sharron Angle of Nevada and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
*
The leaders who would actually take over should the Republicans regain Congress are far closer to the revolutionaries than most voters imagine. . . . . Once that election is won, the road will be clear and the ideologues will take over the asylum. Ryan’s radicalism will be abetted by the new House speaker, John Boehner, who didn’t even wait for the BP well to be plugged to announce that “a moratorium on new federal regulations” would be “a great idea.”
*
In the theoretically more sober Senate, the G.O.P.’s rightward shift is arguably even more drastic. . . . . Now we have a Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, joined by such onetime “moderates” as John McCain and Charles Grassley, calling for hearings to “look into” the 14th Amendment. That Reconstruction landmark, guaranteeing citizenship to anyone born in America, was such a prideful accomplishment of the old Party of Lincoln that the official G.O.P. Web site has been showcasing it to counter the Republicans’ current identity as a whites-only country club.
*
The Hispanic-bashing has gotten so ugly that Michael Gerson, the former Bush speechwriter, wrote last week that Graham and McCain “may never fully recover” their reputations.
*
But even if the Democrats sharpen their attack, they are doomed to fall short if they don’t address the cancer in the American heart — joblessness. This requires stunning emergency action right now . . . The Democrats have already retreated from immigration and energy reform. If they can’t make the case to Americans like Alexandra Jarrin that they offer more hope for a job than a radical conservative movement poised to tear down what remains of the safety net, they deserve to lose.

*

The thought of the Republicans back in charge is indeed frightening. Political junkies of the middle and left know this, but too amny voters who don't start paying attention untill the last minute do not. The Democrats need to do something now to show they can actually govern and carry the attacks on the GOP as well. Relying solely on the latter will be a disaster.