Californians are in a battle over Proposition 8 on whether or not to add to the California Constitution this clause:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Voting “yes” on the proposition adds the language; voting “no” leaves the constitution as is.

I’m always extremely weary of direct citizen-driven changes to state constitutions.  Constitutions shouldn’t reflect torch-and-pitchfork-mob-like citizenry activism.  Instead, they should reflect well-thought-out, well-debated, well-researched, and broadly-supported ideas and statutes.  Using the U.S. Constitution as an example, there was a reason why in 1787 only 55 delegates debated and wrote the Constitution, and there is a reason why it takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.  Amending the U.S. Constitution is deliberately hard, as it should be, so as to not reflect immediate, transitory changes people might desire.  Otherwise, we end up with a document that becomes so ever-changing it ceases being a strong, tried, and honorable document and instead becomes weak and diluted.

Proposition 8 in California is a citizen-driven attempt at changing the California Constitution.  Immediately, therefore, I am skeptical of it.  But my skepticism doesn’t cease there.  What else about this proposition that makes me shiver is the thought of enshrining into a state constitution language that legally and directly casts one group of people as a sub-class to another group (California, of course, isn’t the first state to do this, though).

Shouldn’t this fundamentally be a question about civil rights?  Shouldn’t this be a conversation about are we willing to say to one group of people they’re second-class citizens?  That they’re less human than the rest of us?  That they’re less worthy of enjoying the same rights as the rest of us?  Same-sex couples deserve the same basic rights that opposite-sex couples enjoy: the rights to marry, the rights to have a family, the rights to share medical benefits, etc.

Furthermore, for anyone objecting to same-sex marriage on the grounds it will deteriorate the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, please explain to me how a loving gay couple is going to destroy your marriage.  Give me evidence of a same-sex marriage that has damaged your marriage or the marriage of any other heterosexual couple you know.  Can’t do it?  Then stop using this excuse as an excuse to deny rights to others.

As a reason for supporting Proposition 8, the vote yes website cites in 2000 61% of Californians supported Proposition 22 that used the same words Proposition 8 uses, except Proposition 22 didn’t change the California Constitution.  The measure was decided by the California Supreme Court to be unconstitutional:

The state Constitution’s guarantees of personal privacy and autonomy protect “the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice,” said Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the 121-page majority opinion. He said the Constitution “properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.”

It seems to me that people in opposition to same-sex marriage basic civil rights are going to look as foolish as those in decades ago who opposed civil rights for African-Americans.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

New Obama ad:

From Marc Ambinder:

28 years ago yesterday, in a late-in-the-game debate, Ronald Reagan famously asked, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

The man who made turned [sic] the debate performance into an ad for the Gipper, Jeff Goodby, is now helping the other side. (He was a junior account exec back then… he later created the Got Milk ads.)

He’s edited this ad for Progressive Future, a center-left organizing group based in Denver. The ad will run in Ohio and Florida.

I’m one.

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

It should be pretty obvious by now that the McCain campaign’s latest line of attack against Barack Obama—that he’s a socialist—is an empty, only-for-show tactic.  Yet another ridiculous claim in a long line of ridiculous claims during this campaign.

Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker has an article this week discussing this.  In the article is the quote from the 2000 version of John McCain I cited in my Sarah Palin post last week:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

Hertzberg also adds this:

Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support.

He also discusses the spreading-the-wealth of the oil company profits in Alaska, making Sarah Palin a socialist, too, and then quotes the socialist governor:

A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

“Collectively.” Let’s check the dictionary, shall we? Socialism:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Collective ownership, just like in Alaska where they “collectively…own the resources.”

And of course, let’s not forget the government’s $700 billion (+) bailout plan that McCain voted for and the government’s partial nationalization of some banks.  That’s not socialism, McCain campaign?

This socialism charge again Obama is simply another vaccuous attempt by the McCain campaign at throwing something at him in the hopes it will stick and do some damage to him.  On the tax issue, since McCain is always happy to talk about taxes and how Obama will raise them, why not turn Obama’s “spreading the wealth” comment into a serious discussion on altering the tax policies of the United States if he truly is against the progressive tax structure that spreads wealth around?  McCain can’t do that because he has jettisoned all seriousness he had remaining a long time ago.

(Nod: Talking Points Memo)

With “Wario Land: Shake It” here.

(Nod: Fumin)

Designed by: Armada and NuFrame
Year: 2008

And since today is apparently video day, here’s one more.  This one’s from The Daily Show during the week of the GOP Convention.

In regards to the RNC attack ad “Storm,” I wrote if you replaced “Barack Obama” with “Sarah Palin” you would get a new ad.  Well, Jed at Daily Kos had the same idea:

(Nod: AmericaBlog)

I’ve enabled commenting on all posts, but before you comment, you have to register.

<nerdTalk>For anyone with their own WordPress blog, if you want to enable or disable commenting or pings for every post you have and don’t want to edit each post one-by-one, as long as you have access to your database through phpMyAdmin, you can follow these easy steps.</nerdTalk>

Remember these guys?

They’re back:

(Nod: Americablog)

A cool look at 50 movie posters from the original films and their remakes.

(Nod: Smashing Magazine)

Because he makes this election about us.  Ask what we can do for our country.

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

Telling of what an Obama presidency could bring for America’s image abroad: Gallup polled 70 countries on their preference for Barack Obama or John McCain, and the results were overwhelming.

Nicholas Kristof wrote recently in the New York Times:

In his endorsement, [Colin] Powell added that an Obama election “will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.” You can already see that. A 22-nation survey by the BBC found that voters abroad preferred Mr. Obama to Mr. McCain in every single country—by four to one over all. Nearly half of those in the BBC poll said that the election of Mr. Obama, an African-American, would “fundamentally change” their perceptions of the United States.

Europe is particularly intoxicated by the possibility of restoring amity with America in an Obama presidency. As The Economist put it: “Across the Continent, Bush hatred has been replaced by Obama-mania.”

Change is coming.

In this latest ad from the RNC, simply replace every instance of “Barack Obama” with “Sarah Palin” and you’ve got yourself a new ad:

(Nod: Ben Smith)

The “Weekend Update Megapixel Giant Touch Map” (at about 5:30 remaining in the video).

Kudos to SNL to speaking to us broadcast graphics developers (and teaching us a lesson). :-)

Sarah Palin needs to shut-up and go home.  She has proven to be disastrously unqualified to be vice president or president, she has proven to be an unmitigated embarrassment for John McCain, and she has proven to be either unwilling or incapable of realizing what she says is either so false, so hypocritical, or so divisive that she makes George Bush look like Aristotle, Ghandi, and Mother Theresa combined.

What Sarah Palin will tell you is she’s one of the most popular governors in the nation.  What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is why.  Numbers lie.  Yes, the numbers will tell you that prior to her selection as the GOP vice presidential candidate, 82% of Alaskans approved of her job performance (since her selection, her approval rating has dropped to 68%, still a high number).  But that 82% doesn’t tell you why they approve.  Certainly one reason is that every year Alaskans get a cut of oil company profits; this year every eligible (meaning you lived in the state for a full calendar year and weren’t a felon) man, woman, and child received $2,069 from the State of Alaska.  That’s not Palin’s policy, since it was instated in 1976.  What is Palin’s policy, however, is this year every man, woman, and child received an additional $1,200.  $3,269 total.  A family of four year-long residents received $13,076.  No wonder why they approve of her job performance.

What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is whether or not she’s supporting indicted Alaskan senior Senator Ted Stevens.  We do know that she once ran a 527 group of his.

What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is she has no idea what the vice president does, but if she did, it would be like the Cheney vice presidency.  First was the interview several months ago before she was the vice presidential nominee where she plainly admitted to not knowing what the vice president does:

As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.

Then on Monday she said this in an interview:

A vice president has a really great job, because not only are they there to support the president’s agenda, they’re like the team member, the teammate to that president, but also they’re in charge of the United States Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it’s a great job and I look forward to having that job.

Emphasis added.  The vice president, of course, has no substantive role in the U.S. Senate unless there is a tie vote.  Article I Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution is clear on this matter.  Also, during the vice presidential debate, she argued for expanding the role the vice president a la Dick Cheney:

Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with [Cheney] that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.

How you can argue for more power when you don’t even know the existing power of the office is beyond me.

What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is since she was announced as John McCain’s running mate, voters’ opinion of her has plummeted:

In addition, for the first time, more voters have a negative opinion of her than a positive one. In the survey, 47 percent view her negatively, versus 38 percent who see her in a positive light.

That’s a striking shift since McCain chose Palin as his running mate in early September, when she held a 47 to 27 percent positive rating.

What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is how anti-intellectual she is or is not.  Andrew Sullivan writes:

Here’s one way to look at the question: how has Palin brought up her own kids? Her eldest son is a high-school drop-out. Her eldest daughter has had, so far as one can tell from press reports, very uneven attendance in high school, and no plans for college. Her other daughters seem to spend a lot of time traveling the country with their mom at tax-payers’ expense. I’ve seen them at several rallies with the Palins this fall. Are they not in school?

The least one can say is that none of her children seems to have been brought up thinking that college is something to aspire to. And her new son-in-law just dropped out of high school as well.

Sarah Palin’s own record of several colleges over several years—ending with a degree in sports journalism—tells you a lot. So does her interest in policing the Wasilla library as mayor and using the town’s money for a sports stadium. She cut funding for the town museum and opposed building a new library. So does her amazing ignorance about the constitution.

What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is she abused her power in the Troopergate scandal (although she will tell you the investigation “cleared” her); what Sarah Palin won’t tell you is she lied about telling Congress “thanks, but no, thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere” and then proceeded to spend some of the received money anyway on a Road to Nowhere; what Sarah Palin won’t tell you is she took full advantage of the earmark system that John McCain moans about; what Sarah Palin won’t tell you is on these issues and a host of others, she is incapable of telling the truth—often simple truths, at that—but is more than capable of simply making things up to suit her needs.  She won’t even tell you what newspapers or magazines she reads.  She won’t tell you these things because she refuses to hold a press conference and instead would rather hide from the media and the American people.

What Sarah Palin will tell you, however, is Barack Obama pals around with terrorists.  What Sarah Palin will tell you is he is a socialist because he thinks spreading the wealth around is a good policy for the economy.  Here’s the full quote in its context for the record:

So all I want to do is—I’ve got a tax cut. The only thing that changes, is I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well—even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that—I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. [...]

My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

Sarah Palin will tell you Obama is a socialist, but she won’t tell you if you apply her definition of a socialist, her taxing a corporation and then spreading that wealth makes her a socialist.  She also won’t tell you the John McCain of 2000 said the same thing Obama said:

Responding to a question from a girl who wants to know why her her father, a doctor, pays a higher tax rate than people who earn less:

McCain: “I think it’s to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.”

Doctor’s daughter: Aren’t we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?

McCain: “Here’s what I really believe. When you are, reach a certain level of comfort, there is nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”

What Sarah Palin will tell you is some parts of America are more American than others (although she later apologized for her comments, they were delivered at a rally and were no doubt meant to fire up her supporters who probably don’t care whether or not she apologized), and she will tell you that community organizers aren’t that great because they don’t have “actual responsibilities.”

What Sarah Palin will tell you is she is one of us, that she’s a “hockey mom,” whatever that is supposed to mean.  Well Sarah, you aren’t one of us.  We don’t lie, cheat, and swindle our way through life.  We don’t pal around with groups in our states who want to secede from the Union.  That isn’t the American way.  That isn’t putting country first.  That is putting you first.

Sarah Palin, it’s time for the rest of us to tell you something: go home.  You are unfit to be vice president let alone president, and by choosing to have you on the GOP ticket and possibly in the White House, your “maverick” friend John McCain is unfit to be president.

Worth another watch:

The grassroots movement spreads to the pumpkin patch.

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

(Nod: Roxy)

(Nod: Dad)

Back on 29 October when we first learned John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate, he said this of her:

She’s got the grit, integrity, good sense and fierce devotion to the common good that is exactly what we need in Washington today.

And during her introduction speech that day, she said this of herself:

When I found corruption [in Alaska], I fought it hard and brought the offenders to account.

Yesterday we learned an interesting thing:

Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business.

That compounded on this:

Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin didn’t report thousands of dollars in state travel reimbursements that she collected while living at home last year, according to her tax return for 2007.

But worry not, she fights unnecessary government spending and has the integrity of a saint.

The more we learn about this swindling, serial-lying abuser-of-power, the uglier it gets.  No amount of lipstick could save this pig.  She’d be a change from George Bush, alright.  A sex change, and nothing more.

As he the man of wisdom once said:

There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.

Let’s hope Americans are smart enough not to get fooled again.

Yes, the last “debate.”  Although, perhaps for tonight’s rendition, I can actually drop the quotes.  I thought this was by far the closest any of the debates have come to an actual debate.  Both candidates were directly engaging and responding to one another, and Bob Schieffer did well in making sure they did exactly that.

As I noted last month, Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager said:

This election is not about issues.  This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.

Well, Mr. Davis.  This third debate confirmed what we should take away from John McCain: that he is an angry old man.  The obvious display of contempt toward Obama, the fidgeting, the rolling of his eyes, the sneering, the sarcasm, etc. all add up to McCain having an anger problem.  As David Gergen on CNN noted, McCain “looked angry. It was an exercise in anger management up there.”  In the tough times we face, we don’t need a leader who cannot control his emotions; we need someone who can calm us and reassure us.  John McCain cannot do either.

The best line from John McCain in all three debates came tonight.  McCain said:

Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.

A good line, one I’m surprised he waited until 19 days before the election to use.  The line, though, has a problem.  While McCain is technically not Bush, voting for his policies 90% of the time gets you pretty close to being him, no?

And apparently Barack Obama is at fault for the McCain campaign being so sleazy.  McCain said this:

And I know from my experience in many campaigns that, if Sen. Obama had asked—responded to my urgent request to sit down, and do town hall meetings, and come before the American people, we could have done at least 10 of them by now. [...] So I think the tone of this campaign could have been very different.

President Bush is a Republican leader who is incapable of accepting blame for his actions.  John McCain is a Republican leader who is incapable of accepting blame for his actions.  But just remember, John McCain is not George Bush.

In the same exchange as the quote above, McCain said this:

And of course, I’ve been talking about the economy. Of course, I’ve talked to people like Joe the plumber and tell him that I’m not going to spread his wealth around. I’m going to let him keep his wealth. And of course, we’re talking about positive plan of action to restore this economy and restore jobs in America.

That’s what my campaign is all about and that’s what it’ll continue to be all about.

Is John McCain in denial?  Does he not see the ads his campaign puts out?  That 100% of them recently were negative?

Finally, Sarah Palin introduced us to Joe Six-Pack.  Tonight, McCain introduced us to Joe the Plumber.  Now, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I like the name Joe.  But why does the McCain campaign have this infatuation with Joes?!  As an average Joe speaking for Joe Public, knock it off.

Final verdict: again, McCain needed a game-changer.  Didn’t happen.