Careful Reading Tuesday

Marc Ambinder dove into the tank for Adam Serwer of The American Prospect with his "Myth-busting Monday" round-up, which included this:

No, the decision not to pursue the Black Panther case from election day was not made by political appointees. The political appointees who would have made the decision had not been confirmed yet, reports Adam Serwer

Seriously?  Adam Serwer completely fluffed the timeline and the allegations, and is back-pedaling faster than the Knick officials who promised their fans LeBron.  [And Bonus Backpedaling from Dave Weigel, who was my target of scorn yesterday.]

A brief recap of the Serwer contribution:

His first Big News was that the case was downgraded to a civil charge by BushCo before it was filed in Jan 2009.

No kidding - mainstream reporting (e.g., NY Times, Fox, John Fund of the WSJ, Fox from May 2009) have described it as a civil suit. The real controversy revolves around the DoJ decision in May 2009 to more or less drop the suit *after* they had won a default judgment. Needless to say, by May 2009 some of the Obama people were in place.

2. Serwer's other Big Breakthrough is that Ms. Fernandes, who allegedly told the Voting Rights division not to pursue black-on-white fraud or intimidation cases, could not have been part of the Black Panther decision since she wasn't at DoJ in May 2009.

Again, who cares? J. Christian Adams, the aggrieved DoJ source, never said she was part of that specific case; he has specifically alleged she was part of other decisions, such as not pursuing motor voter fraud or felon purges.

Here is a Serwer UPDATE to his original post where he digs in a bit:

UPDATE: I should make it clear that I'm not the first person to mention this (Media Matters has been pointing this out for a while) Perez revealed the date the case was downgraded in his public testimony to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in May. It's been part of the public record for weeks--which is why I don't understand why so little of the coverage of this story mentions it. I'm simply pointing out that none of the political appointees being blamed for dismissing the case were even at the DoJ when the case was dismissed.

Then a follow-up retreat:

A few commenters on my previous post about the Obama administration not being in office when the decision was made not to pursue a criminal case against the New Black Panther Party are arguing out that conservative outrage is over the subsequent decision, made in May, not to further pursue the civil complaint after obtaining an injunction against the individual who was holding a baton. That decision was made by a career official at the Justice Department after an evidence review and reportedly approved by an Obama political appointee, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli. The decision was still made by career lawyers in the section; there's no evidence, beyond J. Christian Adams' statements, that Perrelli had the case dismissed.

Mr. Serwer then goes on to explain that, well, even though Obama appointee Perrelli was in place, no one has proved he was involved (and he won't testify), and anyway, it was a reasonable decision.  Gee, that is almost the same as the first story, except for being utterly reversed.

On Ms. Fernandes (a former Student of Barack) we get this cursory confusion:

At any rate, the decision to approve not going forward with the civil case was still made a month before Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes joined the DoJ and sometime afterward supposedly issued a decree against cases involving minority defendants.

So contra the Ambinder summary, Serwer now admits that the Obama people were just where the critics said they were in time to do what they are alleged to have done.  For whatever reason, that new post is not getting as much play. 

RELATED BASHING:  Keith Olbermann does the full swan dive into the tank with Serwer's non-news.  Larry O'Connor of Big Journo and Battlin' Bob Somerby have more.

LET'S HAVE A QUICK 'DASH TO DUMB':

The first entrant in our moral inequivalence watch will be Dave Weigel, explaining why the New Black Panther case is No Big Deal:

All that said, the problem I have with the new obsession with this is, really, that there's no evidence the NBPP's clownish Philadelphia stunt suppressed any votes, or that they'll try such a stunt again.

Ben Smith is a strong entrant:

As I noted on the day, the two uniformed Panthers were staking out a heavily Democratic polling place -- it had gone 95% for Kerry -- and you don't typically intimidate your own voters.

So this November, if a few rednecks waving Confederate flags in a mostly white district chase away a few stray ethnics, these two will be OK with it?

Please - no news outlet will cover anything else, and Weigel and Sully will race each other to blame Sarah Palin.

3:10 TO PIMA:  In a bold attempt to get ahead of, or at least alongside, the next likely sally from the Serwer/Weigel duo, what about the 2006 incident in Arizona that was never pursued by Evil BushCo?  Over to Media Matters:

Christian Adams' case continues to implode: Bush-era DOJ declined to charge Minutemen for voter intimidation

July 01, 2010 12:44 pm ET - by Jeremy Holden

Conservative media figures are busy hyping the unsubstantiated allegations of GOP activist and former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams that the Obama administration improperly dismissed voter-intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for racially charged political reasons. As Media Matters previously noted, Adams' allegations are based on hearsay and on charges made by others. But his allegations become even flimsier when considering the fact that he worked in the Bush Justice Department in 2006 when attorneys declined to pursue charges that members of the Minutemen were intimidating Hispanic voters in Arizona, charges based on nearly identical circumstances.

"Nearly identical" circumstances?  Nearly!  We will uncover a difference or two before the end.

Mr. Holden does a bit of legwork and provides this contemporaneous coverage from the November 8, 2006, Arizona Daily Star:

A crew of anti-immigrant activists, meanwhile, visited several South Side polling places in what one poll-watch group called a blatant attempt to intimidate Hispanic voters.

Anti-immigrant crusader Russ Dove circulated an English-only petition, while a cameraman filmed the voters he approached and Roy Warden stood by with a firearm in a holster.

Diego Bernal, a staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), said the trio was trying to intimidate Hispanic voters. "A gun, a camera, a clipboard before you even get to the polls - if that's not voter intimidation, what is?" he asked.

If it's not intimidation, what is it?  Possibly street theatre:

Bernal said his group encountered the men at the Precinct 49 polling place at South 12th Avenue and West Michigan Street and began documenting the scene with their cameras. "There was an interesting period where they were taking pictures of us taking pictures of them."

Hmm, did the monitors outnumber the intimidators?  In a first class example of the power of blogs, a Kossite actually took to the streets on election day 2006 to track down these scary guys.  The story:

"Men With Guns Harass Latino Voters" blared the headline on Daily Kos. I clicked and read a quote from a TPM Muckraker post:

I just spoke with a Latino election monitor in Arizona who said that a trio of men, one with a handgun visible, is harrassing Latino voters as they go to the polls in Tucson, Ariz.

Tucson? That's where I live. I read more and found that this incident took place "at a polling place in Tucson's Iglesia Bautista precinct." Which is less than 2 minutes from my home. I jumped in the car and grabbed my camera. I'm a photographer and a student of photojournalism at Pima Community College.

And the gist - the three agitators went to heavily Latino/Democratic districts with lots of Dem monitors around, observed the 75 foot rule, and asked a few people to sign an 'English-only' petition.  That seems to be legal; as to whether it is intimidating, well, I am trying to imagine two or three of the New Black Panthers pulling their shtick in a 95% white neighborhood while surrounded by local cops and monitors. 

In that scenario, and speaking as a middle-aged white guy, the only fear I would have is that I would lose a contact lens while giving them the eye-roll.  Perhaps I am made of sterner stuff.  OK, perhaps not.

ON TO POST C AND PLAN C:  Adam Serwer is back with yet another clarification; his latest gambit is to simply insult the intelligence of his readers:

So, I just wanted to clear something up: I wrote my post yesterday about the Justice Department's decision not to pursue criminal charges against the NBPP during the Bush administration because I had seen conservatives arguing that it was made by the Obama administration. It wasn't. I did not mean to suggest that the civil case, which the DoJ dropped in May of last year after receiving a preliminary injunction against the only NBPP member in Philadelphia who was walking around with a baton, was dismissed during the Bush administration. I apologize if any of my writing has been unclear on this point or any confusion has resulted because I misstated the accusation of who wanted the criminal case dismissed.

He's sorry it was unclear, but his response was really directed at one episode of The Factor and one Washington Examiner editorial that complained about the dismissal of charges in May 2009 and could be fully corrected by changing one word from "criminal" to "civil" (they mischaracterized the initial filing).

Let's see - the lead of his first post was this:

I did an interview with New York Daily News Columnist Errol Louis about the New Black Panther Party case today and realized that there's a specific data point that has been lost in all the breathless coverage of this case and whether or not it represents a racist agenda from the Obama administration: The decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.

So really, when he wrote "lost in all the breathless coverage", he meant, and were supposed to know, that he meant 'misstated occasionally'.

Conservative activist and former Voting Section Attorney J. Christian Adams identified United States Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli as the person who ordered the case dismissed, but he wasn't confirmed until March, three months after the case was downgraded.

How could that confuse or mislead anyone?  Surely a knowledgeable reader will know that, hmm, Perrelli was in office when the case was dismissed, so I am not sure what a knowledgeable reader would conclude.

All of which kind of puts a rather large wrinkle in the right-wing fantasy that the decision to pursue a civil rather than criminal case against The New Black Panther Party members was a racist decree handed down from the racist leadership of the Obama administration.

A civil/criminal "right-wing fantasy" held by few in the right wing, since the real objection is to the dismissal of charges in May.  But Mr. Serwer intended that passage to be clear.

And from his first Update:

I'm simply pointing out that none of the political appointees being blamed for dismissing the case were even at the DoJ when the case was dismissed.

Other than, of course, the ones who were, by May 2009.  Uh huh.  And I am simply pointing out that either Serwer was absolutely at sea as to the facts and should admit it, or he should come back with an even more creative Plan D (Maybe the dog ate his notes?  Or maybe BP spilled oil on them!  Yeah, that's the ticket!).  But this apology for being unclear?  He was perfectly clear - he was also perfectly wrong.

And lest you wonder, Mr. Serwer has not built up so much credibility that I am interested in his insights into the customary application of these laws.  If the right Dem flack told him they only applied to extra-terrestials, that would leap from TAP to Olby by Friday.

Comments

[hit and run]

Heavens but did we need the rain,JMH.

We're getting a nice good long soaking at this point.

Climate Change we can believe in.

[Clarice]

I thought the gold club was some native rite implement in the Piedmont.

[JM Hanes]

Well, I debated correcting the typo, but the parallelism was just too hard to resist. Maybe our kids will consider checking us into the same old folks home, so we won't have to rely on texting each other.

[narciso the harpoon]

So first Gore, now RFK, for different reasons I imagine, in the LUN

[narciso the harpoon]

Wrongt LUN

[daddy]

Apologies, but way, way, way OT.

Had an unusual dream yesterday. Dreamed I was scrunched up sleeping in the back of some small car like a Volkswagon, and the 2 guys up front were having difficulty driving. The driver was passing out and almost veering off the road to kill us, and the other guy had maps out but couldn't make sense of them. In my dream we were way up near the top of the world, maybe like where TC's daughter worked last summer in Alaska, and for some reason they had stopped at some truck stop with a small 7/11 and the guy running the joint was Simon of American Idol, talking about how he had moved north to save Arctic animals, and suggesting we go inside his shop for junkfood. Then there came a banging on the door and I woke up, which waking from a start is probably why I remembered this goofy dream. I climbed out of my sleep box, and went into the cockpit. We were halfway between Paris and Hong Kong, just past Moscow. The boys up front were yawning and dodging thunderbumpers, and on the console was a hunting magazine about hunting caribou in Alaska, and also on the console was an open package of chocolate covered Macademia nuts. I guessed that in my sleep I must have heard them talking about such stuff and that that must have been the source of my dream about junkfood and Arctic animals, though I never could figure out where Simon came from. Interesting how the subconscious mind works.

Anyhow, swapped seats, they climbed into the sleep box and started snoring, and me and the other previously sleeping guy now had a lovely 3000 miles ahead of us of the steppes of central Asia, and then the entire length of China, all beautifully illuminated by the rising sun. It really is amazingly beautiful territory from 7 miles high. Infinite green grasslands slowly turning into limitless red/brown stark deserts, with isolated oasis of green surrounding nuclear cooling towers every few hundred miles. We could easily see 500 miles in almost any direction, and crossing the humongous 20,000 foot tall snow covered mountain range in Southeastern Khazakstan, you could see its relatively slender width extending lengthwise for hundreds of miles, but then you could also see way off South a second massive chain of mountains, and then another, each with trapped clouds in between them, unable to cross the peaks, so generating a small micro-climate wherever they stopped. Airborne geology is the way to go. Assuming the successive ranges were created by India plowing into Asia millennia ago, you could imagine the crust buckling and creating these vast extended ranges, and visualizing it from our perch, that idea made good sense. Anyhow, fabulous sightseeing. Wish you guys were there.

After cooking my meal of scallops and coffee, and checking in with the Chinese, I now got back to my new Evolution book I ranted about yesterday. I was almost ready to take back all the bad stuff I said and pat the author on the back because on page 29 he swerves into an obvious truth, because he tells us what we boys have always suspected:

"women are genetically closer to chimpanzees than are men."

"Homo Sapiens has gained seven hundred gene copies since the split with chimps, and the chimp has lost almost the same number. One chromosome has gone even further. Women have 2 large X chromosomes, men an X matched with a smaller Y. The human and chimp X's have diverged by just half a percent in the DNA alphabet, while the Y has shifted 3 times more: proof that women, with 2 X's, are genetically closer to chimpanzees than are men."

Now thats some settled science if you ask me. Why I can hear the synapses popping even as I type, and Hit and Narciso and Matt and DoT and DrJ and OL and Pops and the Captain and all the rest, are all probably muttering under their breathes "That certainly explains a lot."

"What's that Honey?"

"Oh nothing dear, just reading what some guy wrote at JOM. BTW, did you get any banana's on your last trip to the Grocery Store?"

But then the author goes and blows it, even if the cover does say "If you were to read only one book on Darwin this yea, this should be it", because author and ace Geneticist Steve Jones also tells us:
Under no circumstances did homo sapiens ever have sex with Neanderthals. "Perhaps we murdered the Neanderthals or starved them out, but sex was not on the agenda. In addition, todays European and Middle Easterners retain no ancient lineages that might have come from our extinct relatives."

Well of course now we know (even readers of the New York Times) that we been banging Neanderthals nonstop since the Paleolithic, and that the only guys that didn't get in on that orgy were South African Hottentot's. (poor guys---I understand it was great sex while it lasted!)

Anyhow, that brought up what I considered an interesting topic---was it human chicks giving it up to Neanderthals, or was it Neaderthal chicks giving it up to humans? This interesting discussion lasted from overhead Urumqui (where the Chinese hang their Muslim's at the drop of a hat---even if they did help invent NASA) and Kunming. Anyhow, a gorgeous mid afternoon approach to Hong Kong ensued, beautiful sky and tons of islands and hundreds of boats plying the beautiful waterway to Macau, and I think we concluded that in general it had to be human women giving birth to Neanderthal crossed kids versus Nanderbabes birthing quasi-human kids (since our bunch survived and they didn't)---but not knowing much about chimpanzee sexual habits I admit, unlike the author, that I could be wrong.

Anyhow, much fun, and we saw some fine looking chimps in Kowloon last night. I must say though that what disappointed me was that the other 3 boys, all smart, had not heard a single word about the Obama NASA outreach plan to the Muslims. They thought I was crazy when I mentioned it, like swerving into conspiracy nut territory, since on the road they read the International Herald Trib and watch CNN, and that media completely successfully buried the story. That was disappointing.

Now to go see what you guys have been talking about today. Zai gin.

[Clarice]

HEH, daddy..

[Clarice]

jmh, It's hard to imagine a home for the aged dumb enough to admit the two of us.

[centralcal]

now, now, Clarice - I can imagine the home. I "see" a roomful of JOMers there. Posting and conversing on our "free" Obamacare laptops (after we carefully dispose of all our assets, of course) instead of actually talking to one another.

[JM Hanes]

Clarice:

"It's hard to imagine a home for the aged dumb enough to admit the two of us."

That would depend on whether we're talking with or without Obamacare.

daddy:

Typical. A perfect XX just isn't good enough, is it?

"I think we concluded that in general it had to be human women giving birth to Neanderthal crossed kids"

Well, if human guys go crazy over their genetically inferior chimpy women, how big a stretch is it to think they'd walk a mile or two for her ape-like cousins?

[JM Hanes]

centralcal beat me to it, I see!

[JM Hanes]

TSK9! Can't believe I missed you. If you're still round about, how are you? And how is little (not so little?!) K9?

[Danube of Thought]

I am declaring The O'Reilly Factor a puerile disgrace. Not just tonight, but in its essence, and always.

[narciso the harpoon]

What particularly inane thing did he do tonight, Dot

[Clarice]

I used to watch him because he was so influential--I wanted to see what he was saying, He is a military and economic ignoramus and a social conservative...In other words, I really couldn't imagine why I was wasting my time. People who like him are as dangerous when voting at progs are.

[Clarice]

From PJM--Congressman asks IG to investigate NBP case:

July 14, 2010
Mr. Glenn Fine
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530

Dear Mr. Fine:

In light of the recent testimony of Mr. J. Christian Adams before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), we urge you again to investigate the dismissal of U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. Over the last year, we have asked you on multiple occasions to investigate this matter to no avail. In light of the mounting evidence of improper activities in the department’s Civil Rights Division (CRD), we urge you again to immediately initiate an investigation into this matter.

There is something rotten happening at the department under your watch. Your continued refusal to investigate has been — and remains — inexcusable. One can only surmise that your failure to investigate stems from a fear of upsetting the department’s senior political leadership, some of whom could be directly tied to the dismissal of this case. However, as inspector general, you have a legal and moral obligation to go wherever truth takes you.

As you are aware from our previous correspondence, which we have enclosed for your review, this case was inexplicably dismissed last year — over the ardent objections of the career attorneys overseeing the case as well as the division’s own appeal office. Despite repeated requests for information by members of Congress, the press, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the department continues to stonewall efforts to obtain all information regarding the case’s abrupt dismissal. Recent events and information has compounded this troubling situation.

Mr. Adams was a career attorney with CRD before resigning last month in response to the department’s illegitimate instruction that he not comply with a USCCR subpoena. We are deeply concerned that the department, which is statutorily obliged to execute USCCR subpoenas, is in fact obstructing individuals from complying in this matter. We believe that this obstruction — aside from the many troubling actions surrounding the dismissal of the case — merit an investigation into the department’s enforcement of the commission’s statutory authority.

Additionally, we are concerned about revelations from Mr. Adams’ testimony that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political appointee, reportedly forbid CRD attorneys from bringing forward additional voting intimidation cases in which the defendant was a national minority. We believe that this allegation merits immediate investigation. There is no excuse for the selective application of federal law based on the whims of political appointees.

You should also be aware that Rep. Wolf has asked the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) to review your failure to investigate this matter. It is our understanding that the CIGIE’s Integrity Committee will be discussing your actions at its July meeting. We appreciate the CIGIE’s prompt attention to this matter and look forward to its response.

We urge you again to investigate the myriad of troubling issues surrounding the dismissal of this case. With the commission obstructed from fully conducting its investigation and the congressional majority turning a blind eye, the inspector general must be willing to ensure the integrity of the department. We appeal to you to fulfill the duties of your office.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf
Member of Congress

Comment

Subscribe

[narciso the harpoon]

"In the land of the blind" which is most of cable, the one eye man, is king, One sees the difference with what Beck has been able to
uncover, and not to mention Kendall who not only has brought up the "Philadelphia Story' but has been unfailing in her ability to explain it

[daddy]

Wow, That Megan Kelly clip was outstanding.

No backing down whatever when Kirsten tried to play the Race card.
Hope that gets tons of airplay. Excellent thread BTW and boy is TM on a roll lately.

O'Reilly frequently disappoints and angers me, especially when he idiotically rants against Big Oil. I wish FOX would start doing re-runs of Megan Kelly for the night owls amongst us.

Jane, congrats on the new show.

[Ann Squaredance]

JMH: you are on a role today my friend. :)

If you are interested, I found two blogs that cover all the commie friends of Obama and even the UN.

NewZeal
Keywiki

Janet: Here is another great video. "I Fought For You"
____________________________________________
I agree that watching O'Reilly and Beck gets tiresome but without them who would know what is going on in the world. Reminds me of "You go to war with the army you have..."Rumsfeld

Such as it is on T.V., sadly.

[bgates]

I like lists.

If you agree with everything in Martin Luther King's most famous speeches, but you don't think he's as big a deal as Abraham Lincoln, you might be a racist.

If you think a college class consisting of a 4th generation North Dakota farm kid, a Mormon missionary, a trust fund baby from Marin County, and a re-entry student from Idaho who did three tours in Iraq is more "diverse" than a class with the presidents of the College Democrats, the African-American College Democrats, the Asian-American College Democrats, and the Latino/a College Democrats, you might be a racist.

If you don't think your white grandmother was "typical", you might be a racist.

If you belong to the political party that was created to work towards abolition and that elected the first ever (historical! unprecedented!) African-American congressmen, you might be a racist.

If you disagree with a stupid idea even when a black person suggests it, you might be a racist.

If you think schools should admit the smartest students they can get even if it means more Jews and Asians, you might be a racist.

If you call a Yale-educated lawyer's writing "an embarrassment" without reading any of it, and he's not Clarence Thomas and you're not Harry Reid, you might be a racist.

If you think there's so much as a hint of something not completely respectable in the fact that in the twenty-first century, upwards of forty members of the Congress of the United States of America are proud members of an organization that denies membership to people based on nothing but the color of their skin
-you might be a racist.

(But you're in pretty good company!)

[narciso the harpoon]

You're working toward a continuous place on Clarice's list aren't you bgates

[Ann Squaredance]

Hey daddy, Sarah Palin stands up for us all again, on little ole facebook:

Sarah Palin: The Charge of Racism: It’s Time to Bury the Divisive Politics of the Past

The only purpose of such an unfair accusation of racism is to dissuade good Americans from joining the Tea Party movement or listening to the common sense message of Tea Party Americans who simply want government to abide by our Constitution, live within its means, and not borrow and spend away our children’s futures. Red and yellow, black and white, this message is precious in all our sights. All decent Americans abhor racism. No one wants to be associated with any organization that is in any way racist in sentiment or origin. I certainly don’t want to be. Thankfully, the Tea Party movement is not racist or motivated by racism. It is motivated by love of country and all that is good and honest about our proud and diverse nation.

Someone twittered tonight this great saying:

The only "N" word the Tea Party uses is "November". (Love it!)

bgates:

God, I love you! :)

[daddy]

Thanks for that link Ann.

As Insty says, "read the whole thing."

Would that we had some more Conservative guys able to fight as well as our Conservative girls are fighting lately.

bgates, wonderful as always.

[P]

JFK appointed his brother RFK as his AG. It doesn't get much worse than this. Horrifying!!!

[Clarice]

I don't know if that is bgate's aim, but he looks to be doing just that. And-he saved my bacon again by providing the perfect wrap up..

begates, I heart you man.

[Clarice]

Obama/Tribe and crackpot physics.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/barack_hussein_einstein_at_har.html

[bunkerbuster]

You might be racist if:
1. You support efforts focused on cracking down on undocumented workers, detracting from efforts to crack down on their employers.
2. You blur or obliterate or deny altogether the distinctions between the vast majority of peace loving Muslims and the tiny minority of terrorists.
3. You pretend that pre-segregation Democratic party is no different in its approach to race relations than the current Democratic party.
4. You pretend that the Civil Rights Act was somehow a Republican initiative and/or that the Democrats who opposed it represented the party's mainstream.
5. You pretend that Republicans who remained opposed to desegregation throughout their careers were not representative of the party's mainstream.
6. You opposed the national holiday for Martin Luther King and either agreed with or failed to denounce Ronald Reagan's execrable claim that MLK was a communist.
7. You supported Reagan's opposition to sanctions against South Africa's apartheid regime.
8. You object to people speaking Spanish around you or using Spanish in business transactions
9. You never complained that people with money to donate or family connections get preferred admissions to unversities, but now routinely bemoan efforts to bring more ethnic minorities into top universities.
10. You blur or deny altogether the distinction between affirmative action programs aimed at facilitating minority access and those relatively few programs involving ethnicity- or gender-based quotas.

[FeFe]

It strains my brain to follow the Left-wing slant for Obama cover they employ in this case. Thank goodness I stick to news sources interested in Journalism 101, just the facts. Therefore, I can employ my brain power to being productive and earning tax revenue for reparations. South Africa here we come! Thank you for this post.

[bunkerbuster]

``It strains my brain..''

Ding, ding ding. Another confession! It's spreading like a social disease!! lol...

[Extraneus]

Ha. Here he comes.

Bayh: Tax increases will hurt recovery

[bunkerbuster]

Isn't this month's "magic fist" of the market talking point supposed to be that smart capitalists are stashing their cash under the mattress instead of spending it and ``generating jobs'' because they're too unsure about the future? If that's true, how in the world would tax cuts make a difference?

[Pofarmer]

If that's true, how in the world would tax cuts make a difference?

Because giving folks incentives to spend and invest money works?

Also note, the category is "cash and liquid assets". Would be interesting to know what the liquid assets covers.

[herve Leger Dress]

The perfect!These articles written too great,they rich contents and data accurately.they are help to me.I expect to see your new share

[Janesquaredance]

Let's see how long it is before Glenn Fine is dismissed ala Gerald Walpin

[Clarice]

That might be a big mistake if it happens, Jane. He's very respected and highly regarded thru out the Dept, on the Hill, and in the legal profession.

[JM Hanes]

If you blur or obliterate or deny altogether the difference between the vast majority of Republicans and a tiny minority of racists, you might be in need of a self-awareness intervention.

[Ignatz]

--6. You opposed the national holiday for Martin Luther King and either agreed with or failed to denounce Ronald Reagan's execrable claim that MLK was a communist.--

Do you have a credible citation for this assertion? If so produce it.

[Rob Crawford]

Gold is quite conductive, so waving one around in an electrical storm is quite brave.

As we used to say in college, "the equivalent of standing atop Geisert Hall* during an electrical storm, waving a copper rod and screaming 'God is a bastard!'"

* The tallest building on campus, built atop the highest point in the county.

[Rob Crawford]

Is Bubu forgetting his history again?

Bubu -- one party was founded on the platform of ending slavery, elected the first blacks to Congress, and supported every *REAL* civil rights legislation that came along. The other party created Jim Crow, lynched members of the other party, blocked every *REAL* civil rights legislation that came along, and continues its support of government showing favor based on skin color.

[JM Hanes]

Too late to save me from admitting to a typo, instead of going for the gold, Rob!

[Odins Acolyte]

These libs are crazy and think us ignorant.
What a surprise is comming for these ignorant elite! Let them keep doing what they are doing. We are changing plans and going to pick our own battles on the ground of our own choosing and the time of our choosing. Stew. Wait for it.

[bunkerbuster]

Ignatz: make a counterpoint and I'll address it. Are you claiming Reagan didn't say that? If I prove he did, what will you say? If you can't answer those, why should I take the time to repair your ignorance?

[Threadkiller]

Clarice,

That is the same L. Tribe that helped decide that McCain was "natural born" by including Obama as an example. Relativity isn't a theory, rather it is just who you know.

[Porchlight]

If I prove he did, what will you say?

Snort. Bubu, I almost feel sorry for you, you're so pathetic.

[Ignatz]

--Ignatz: make a counterpoint and I'll address it.--

You made a claim. I've challenged it. Prove it. That's how the world works.

--Are you claiming Reagan didn't say that?--

I spent some time googling and found no such statement by Reagan.

--If I prove he did, what will you say?--

I will say you were right.
However you made a charge about people's complicity in an "execrable claim", so if you can't prove it and are an adult, you will admit you were wrong AND issue an apology to those you falsely accused. Don't come back without either an unimpeachable citation or an abject apology.

[Rob Crawford]

Oh, Ignatz, the likes of bubu aren't interested in "proving" their claims. They simple make their claims, knowing that someday someone will read them and believe. That's, after all, how they came to know all they know.

[bunkerbuster]

Ignatz:
Reagan famously opposed the creation of a Martin Luther King holiday, arguing it would cost too much, then flip-flopped when a veto-proof majority in Congress backed it. He was joined in his initial opposition by Republican Senators including Jesse Helms John McCain. Helms referred to King as an "action-oriented Marxist,'' which drew a vociferous rebuke from Democrats and some Republicans including Bob Dole, though not a word from Reagan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day#cite_note-Helms-6

From the book, ``Reagan In Letters'':
Reagan wrote in a letter to his friend Rudolph Hines: on the question of whether he thought MLK was a communist: ''We'll know in 35 years, won't we." Reagan went on to defend Helm's remarks about MLK and the senators desire to make public records regarding the FBIs investigations of the civil rights leader.
http://books.google.com/books?id=sIQzbBBcsgcC&pg=PA803&lpg=PA803&dq=%60%60We'll+know+in+35+years''+Reagan+Martin+Luther+King&source=bl&ots=9LSSMCMKm5&sig=6lIhPNeDrU-4cYN9y3sBcHOE9DY&hl=en&ei=n28-TKf2L4a0lQe_0f34BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%60%60We'll%20know%20in%2035%20years''%20Reagan%20Martin%20Luther%20King&f=false

[Porchlight]

Hmm, that doesn't read like a "claim" to me.

[bunkerbuster]

You're right, Porchlight. I did not find any published quotes of Reagan directly saying he thought MLK was a communist. It's clear from both his remarks in the letter and from the context of his opposition to the holiday that he could have and should have opposed Helms slurs and chose not to. Not the same, I'd agree, but, nonetheless, evidence that he chose political expedience, at best, over speaking out against bigotry...

[Threadkiller]

evidence that he chose political expedience, at best, over speaking out against bigotry...

Will you speak out against the overwhelming amount of Blacks and Hispanics who voted for Prop 8 in CA?

[hit and run]

You know what Reagan did famously say?

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is . . . that they know so much that isn't so."

[Captain Hate]

Somebody let me know when Reagan excused and minimized somebody's membership in the KKK who 22 years later filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That's a "fleeting association" to Slick?

Yes it was at a memorial service where you want to speak nicely about the dead (although any Repub doing that wouldn't be given a free pass by the MFM or the trolls) but you can do that without lying about a part of somebody's life that you just can't put a positive spin on. But Clenis is the king of bullshit and never misses an opportunity to make garbage up, like the black churches burning in Arkansas that he remembers, knowing his buds and enablers will never call him out on it.

[bunkerbuster]

Threadkill asks: ``Will you speak out against the overwhelming amount of Blacks and Hispanics who voted for Prop 8 in CA?''
Absolutely. Why should it be the government's business who adults marry? I say keep Big Government out of the bedroom and out of the wedding planning business. Americans believe in freedom and that should include the freedom to marry a person who's your same gender. Gay love exists in every society on the planet and has throughout recorded history. History shows that societies that target gays, from the Nazis to the Soviets to Cuba to Iran do so out of a habit of targeting the politically weak as a way to win the support of those who feel marginalized economically and/or socially but are a member of the majority by some other measure, such as sexuality. This is a perfect example of the totalitarian tendencies of identity conservatives. They reflexively target gays because they are weak...

[Rob Crawford]

Oh, bubu, you're so sad. So desperate to escape your party's racist past...

Just admit the Democrats are the party of racial hatred. Always have been; they've just changed which racial group they use for their rioting.

[boris]

From wiki:

African American civil rights activist Bayard Rustin, who had studied Gandhi's teachings, counseled King to dedicate himself to the principles of non-violence, served as King's main advisor and mentor throughout his early activism, and was the main organizer of the 1963 March on Washington.Rustin's open homosexuality, support of democratic socialism, and his former ties to the Communist Party USA caused many white and African-American leaders to demand King distance himself from Rustin.

So apparently MLK may have been at the very least a fellow traveler (chiding US morbid fear of communism) and Helm's statement is hardly an example of bigotry.

But then false witness of bigotry is the bubu stock in trade. Prop 8 was about preserving traditional marriage not about excluding gays. California had a civil form of marriage open to gays and prop 8 just prevented the elimination of the traditional form.

[narciso the harpoon]

The problem was replacing Rustin with Levinson, compounded the problem as even Garrow although I don't recall if Branch
has conceded. He was certainly center left, although he was miles above what passes for leadership nowadays, there seems to be a lot
of that going around nowadays

[Captain Hate]

dentity conservatives

WTF is this supposed to mean; it's obviously a term which Axelrod has delivered to his minions to use in their turfing activities.

[Captain Hate]

With an 'i' at the beginning of course

[boris]

It means conservatives with teeth CH.

[MayBee]

I did not find any published quotes of Reagan directly saying he thought MLK was a communist.

Hmmm...which President's FBI was taping MLK?

[bunkerbuster]

an identity conservative is someone who's identity is based in their conservative political ideology. they respond to attacks on their ideology as attacks on their identity. there are, of course, identity liberals as well, but they tend to get a get a lot less attention because they are far more often displaced in the media by more intellectually oriented liberals. rush limbaugh's a gazillionaire because he understands that, for his audience, it's about identity, not ideas. Of course, I could also use the term wingnut, but I figure identity conservative isn't nearly as perjorative, so tend to prefer that. If anyone has a suggestion for a better term for conservatives who base their identity on political ideology, i'd be happy to use it instead...

[bunkerbuster]

If Prop. 8 was about "preserving traditional marriage," wouldn't it have sought to ban heterosexual adultery and divorce, given that divorce and hetero adultery are by many, many times the greater threat to "traditional marriage?" No, Prop. 8 was yet another attempt to make a particular cultural minority that has historical held power in the country feel superior by putting a relatively powerless minority a little bit further under its heel...

[MayBee]

''We'll know in 35 years, won't we."

I didn't follow the messed up link, but I have a guess about why Reagan said we'd know in 35 years.
Bunkerbuster- is he referring to the wiretaps that JFK's FBI had made of MLK being released in 35 years?

[Ignatz]

We're awaiting your apology for that execrable claim you made. You refuted your own claim without admitting it was false and only did so when prompted. And even then you weren't adult enough to just admit it and move on. Are you so small you won't apologize either?

--there are, of course, identity liberals as well, but they tend to get a get a lot less attention because they are far more often displaced in the media by more intellectually oriented liberals.--

Thanks for the laugh to start my morning.

[JM Hanes]

bunkerb:

"No, Prop. 8 was yet another attempt to make a particular cultural minority that has historical held power in the country feel superior"

This statement is just plain silly. The was a huge turnout for the vote, and the proposition was passed by voters from across the political/demographic spectrum. That could be the very definition of a "cultural" majority.

As to identity politics, you extrapolate from the ideological to the personal, impugning conservative motives in preference to substantive discussion of conservative ideas, almost every time you post.

BTW, if you assume I'm against gay marriage, you would be wrong. I support gay marriage, and I'm not the only one in these threads who does.

[boris]

"feel superior by putting a relatively powerless minority a little bit further under its heel"

Thanks for demonstrating your standard thought process. Hope you choke on enjoy your majority status over this "relatively powerless minority" while it lasts.

[MayBee]

No, Prop. 8 was yet another attempt to make a particular cultural minority that has historical held power in the country feel superior by putting a relatively powerless minority a little bit further under its heel...

I don't even know what that means. Who is the particular cultural minority that has historical held power? And how did this minority pass a state-wide prop?

My jaw dropped when prop 8 passed. It was not what I wanted. But it has distressed me to watch so many of the pro-gay marriage activists wind themselves into little balls of anger against the people they imagine voted for it.
The "No H8" campaign with duct taped mouths is especially misguided. Why oh why won't they listen to their non-activist supporters?

[Captain Hate]

JMH and Maybee: What happens if gay marriage is recognized by either actions by the legislature or judiciary, and somebody sues the Catholic church, or any religion, for discrimination because they won't perform the ceremony? You know that's the next step for a lot of proponents.

[MayBee]

I know, and that is a troublesome possibility/probability CH.

That's one reason I have been distressed to see pro-gay marriage activists in California go after the Mormon church. They don't understand people's concerns.

[boris]

"why won't they listen to their non-activist supporters?"

Just my opinion ... the "prop8 = bigotry" argument is agitprop to influence people wearing a "not me" chain .... "I support" ... "not what I wanted" ... whenever the bigotry card is played.

A young couple with the choice between traditional marriage or civil union bases the decision on what they want, not on what they want to avoid. Nobody making that choice considers it comparable to joining a whites only country club.

Pretty sure the activists on both sides know it is not really about bigotry. I'd say it's about something of value one side has, the other can never have, and the only "fair" remedy is for nobody to have.

[boris]

My second paragraph would be more accurate if it reads ...

A young couple choosing traditional marriage over civil union bases the decision on what they want, not on what they want to avoid. Nobody making that choice considers it comparable to joining a whites only country club.

I have read about choosing civil union because "traditional marriage = joining a whites only country club".

[Porchlight]

You know that's the next step for a lot of proponents.

Damn straight it is, and by design too.

[hit and run]

Threadkiller:
Will you speak out against the overwhelming amount of Blacks and Hispanics who voted for Prop 8 in CA?

Bubu:
Absolutely.

This should be good.

Bubu:
This is a perfect example of the totalitarian tendencies of identity conservatives. They reflexively target gays because they are weak...

So the Blacks and Hispanics of which you are absolutely speaking out against are identity conservatives . . . from the non-Asian country of Afghanistan where Reagan claimed to have liberated Auschwitz from the Commie MLK,I suppose.

[JM Hanes]

Captain Hate:

What happens if gay marriage is recognized by either actions by the legislature or judiciary, and somebody sues the Catholic church, or any religion, for discrimination because they won't perform the ceremony?

Ignatz first brought that problem to my attention, and I believe it's a very serious concern, both religiously and financially. which must be addressed. That's one of the reasons I think that relying on courts (of variable competence!) to mandate gay marriage is the worst way to go about it. As a legislative matter, I believe the state could and should confine the law to its own domain of civil proceedings, and -- with explicit reference to the separation of church & state -- decline to compel religious institutions to perform any & all marriages sanctioned by civil law.

At present, I don't believe ministers/pastors/priests are legally obliged to perform any and all heterosexual marriages on demand, either. There are any number of reasons they can, and do, decline to officiate at some ceremonies, although I don't know if that practice has ever been challenged in court. The very fact that people must obtain a marriage license in order to wed, suggests, if not outright establishes, that marriage has never been treated as a self-evident universal right.

If framed as above, such a law would introduce critically important legislative intent into any judicial proceeding. I don't have sufficient legal expertise to formulate a law which would completely protect religious institutions from the potentially devastating burden of litigation, but I believe it should be possible to build in substantial protections. No institution, regardless of the issue, is entirely immune to legal actions, of course, but having the law on your side would be a powerful disincentive.

[Captain Hate]

Thanks for the response JMH (and everybody). I think your head's in the right place regarding whether this should be done legislatively, where there's still a lot of opposition that reps would have to face, including from a significant number of gays. However good luck on not having discrimination lawsuits filed as I'm sure the usual suspects are poised to do exactly that for a class of people (rather than an individual couple that currently may get refused) once the situation is conducive to them, either legislatively or judicially.

[boris]

"this should be done legislatively ..."

In a republic not everything should be decided by majority vote. While a term like "domestic partnership" can be defined any way the legislature desires, some words should be more fundamental, liberty for example.

If liberty could be redefined such that everybody, no matter how oppressed, has liberty under the new definition, what is to stop those with the "real thing" from having theirs redefined away?

As a general principle "judicial fiat is bad but legislative fiat is okay" is false. The sphere where legislative fiat applies should be clearly constrained.

Traditional marriage and civil unions can and do coexist. My opinion is those advocating eliminating one or the other have no credible claim to the moral high ground. (Redefining marriage as civil union eliminates the traditional form)

[JM Hanes]

boris:

I wouldn't have thought you'd want to call the majority vote on Prop 8 into question, but if you can think of a likelier, more effective way to preserve traditional marriage, you might want to propose it.

[boris]

JMH, I might suggest that nothing I wrote could be honestly misread to "call the majority vote on Prop 8 into question" ... but that might be construed as reading your mind.

So ... I'll just suggest that whatever you think I meant to say when I wrote what I wrote is unlikely to be consistent with reality and leave it at that.

[boris]

In case this helps clarify anything for anybody ...

Judicial fiat redefining marriage ... not good

Constitution ruling against redefining marriage ... would be okay

Public referendum against redefining marriage ... very okay

Legislature redefining marriage ...

Applies majority vote outside the scope of government. Clearly changing the definition of words provides a mechanism for a legislature to change the meaning of a constitution without going through the more difficult process of amending it.

The word marriage should require constitutional amending to redefine, not one to prevent redefinition. Having said that an amendment to prevent works for me because it simply affirms a status that should be in effect by default.

[JM Hanes]

I presumed that you were including marriage in the "not everything" properly decided by majority vote. I note that you offer no ideas on how traditional marriage might be more effectively preserved than it was by majority vote in California, and I admit that I'm not at all sure how you see our republican, as opposed to democratic, system playing into that equation.

Perhaps I should not hazard a guess as to whom you attribute advocating the elimination of traditional marriage. I will simply note that justices of the peace, as civil servants, have long been empowered to perform legal marriages, so any marriage in that context is already a civil union.

[JM Hanes]

I didn't see your 3:40 post till I hit the "continue posting" button, so I will just observe that a public referendum is more democratic than republican, and leave it at that.

[boris]

"any marriage in that context is already a civil union"

C'mon semantics? The Lioness I presume.

The institution defined as 1 man 1 woman ... Eliminated

The institution formerly known as "Domestic Partnership" ... new definition of marriage

[boris]

including marriage in the "not everything" properly decided by majority vote

The referendum did not redefine marriage, it overruled the redefinition of marriage. I suppose you could claim it "redefined" the redefinition to a previously understood but undocumented state.

If someone stole my wallet, then I took it back ... that's not restealing IMO.

[bunkerbuster]

Ignatz: I admitted that I couldn't find a reference to Reagan calling MLK a communist. I have no problem adjusting my views to the facts at hand. I found several references to Reagan calling MLK a communist, but none backed up by any credible source. So I'm perfectly willing to admit that it's probably a myth. Nonetheless, it's true beyond a doubt that Reagan played racial politics, specifically the GOP "Southern strategy" of appealing to the racial identity issues of white southerners, with MLK. That is why he opposed the MLK holiday and played coy word games with the issue of smearing MLK as a communist. And smearing people as communists is something Reagan was very familiar with from his days at the Screen Actors Guild, as we all know...

[bunkerbuster]

``The institution defined as 1 man 1 woman ... Eliminated.''

Gender is only a tiny part of the definition of marriage and, indeed, has little to do with the essential meaning of lifetime commitment and love. Lifetime love is something that can as easily be shared by two men or two women as by a man and a woman. Secondly, the legal institution of marriage is only part of it. It's also a cultural and religious institution and those parts need not change when gay marriage is legalized. As for suing churches, if a church gives up its tax exempt status, it can do what ever it likes as regards marriage. It can refuse to marry mixed race couples: just as right-wing Bob Jones University bans mixed-race dating, without government interference...

[Threadkiller]

"Reagan played racial politics, specifically the GOP "Southern strategy" of appealing to the racial identity issues of white southerners...

Is that the same as the Democrat "southern strategy" of just trying to sound like the people they wish to vote for them?

Hillary">http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/05/audio-hillary-obama-develop-southern-accents-for-selma/">Hillary and Obama develop southern accents!

And don't forget Harry Reid and his joy over Obama's light skin and lack of "negro dialect."

[Say my name, say my name.]

Clinton spoke about God far more than did Dubya, and mostly in black churches.
============

[Captain Hate]

right-wing Bob Jones University bans mixed-race dating

Wrong tense

[boris]

"Gender is only a tiny part of the definition of marriage"

So your explanation as to why the 1 man 1 woman form is overwhelmingly chosen by opposite sex couples when hoth forms are available is what? Habit ? Unaware it's like joining a whites only country club?

Given the availability of both forms in Ca (wrt prop 8) how do any of your dubious assertions argue for the elimination of the traditional form?

The judges who eliminated the traditional form in Ca and Ct cited the extra value society assigns to traditional marriage as having no remedy short of redefining marriage. It seems to me that directly contradicts your "tiny part" claim.

Anyway my point on this thread was not about the meaning of marriage, about which we are in disagreement. It was simply that given the choice it is the traditional form that couples want.

Apparently you are quite sure they would be just as happy with the domestic partner version. I'm not, and what evidence we should be able to agree on seems to be on my side. Are even gays satisfied with it?

[bunkerbuster]

Good point, Capt. Bigot. BJ University quit its ban on black men preying on fine white Christian women on university grounds right after John McCain raised a stink about Bush visiting the university. No such response by the GOP, or the university, when Reagan visited. So yes, the GOP is getting better, but still, there's a reason almost no black people and increasingly few Latinos vote for the party...

[Ignatz]

--And smearing people as communists is something Reagan was very familiar with from his days at the Screen Actors Guild, as we all know....--

I don't know that and I suspect you don't either.
What I do know is you are the last person who should be complaining about people being smeared considering your mendacious and false accusations on this thread, your refusal to apologize for them and your insistence on reforming your smear into another shape when the first ones are identified as false.

BTW you didn't even admit you were wrong until you were called on your duplicitous response to my original challenge.
And we're still waiting for the apology for your smears.

[narciso the harpoon]

It helped that they were Communists, he was a New Deal liberal at least till around 1960

[bgates]

Please excuse the length.

From the testimony of Ronald Reagan in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, 1947:

STRIPLING: As a member of the board of directors, as president of the Screen Actors Guild, and as an active member, have you at any time observed or noted within the organization a clique of either communists or fascists who were attempting to exert influence or pressure on the guild?

REAGAN: Well, sir, my testimony must be very similar to that of Mr. (George) Murphy and Mr. (Robert) Montgomery. There has been a small group within the Screen Actors Guild which has
consistently opposed the policy of the guild board and officers of the guild, as evidenced by the vote on various issues. That small clique referred to has been suspected of more or less
following the tactics that we associate with the Communist Party.
...
STRIPLING: You have no knowledge yourself as to whether or not any of them are members of
the Communist Party?

REAGAN: No, sir, I have no investigative force, or anything, and I do not know.
...
STRIPLING: Mr. Reagan, what is your feeling about what steps should be taken to rid the
motion picture industry of any communist influences?

REAGAN: Well, sir, 99 percent of us are pretty well aware of what is going on, and I think, within the bounds of our democratic rights and never once stepping over the rights given us by democracy, we have done a pretty good job in our business of keeping those people's activities curtailed. After all, we must recognize them at present as a political party. On that basis we have exposed their lies when we came across them, we have opposed their propaganda, and I can
certainly testify that in the case of the Screen Actors Guild we have been eminently successful in
preventing them from, with their usual tactics, trying to run a majority of an organization with a well organized minority. In opposing those people, the best thing to do is make democracy
work. In the Screen Actors Guild we make it work by insuring everyone a vote and by keeping everyone informed. I believe that, as Thomas Jefferson put it, if all the American people know
all of the facts they will never make a mistake. Whether the party should be outlawed, that is a
matter for the government to decide. As a citizen, I would hesitate to see any political party outlawed on the basis of its political ideology. However, if it is proven that an organization is an agent of foreign power, or in any way not a legitimate political party -- and I think the government is capable of proving that -- then that is another matter. I happen to be very proud of the industry in which I work; I happen to be very proud of the way in which we conducted the fight. I do not believe the communists have ever at any time been able to use the motion picture screen as a sounding board for their philosophy or ideology.
...
REAGAN: Sir, I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which
are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it.

[bunkerbuster]

Boris: I'm missing your point. How does allowing gay marriage "eliminate" the "traditional form?" Including gays doesn't prevent heteros from being as traditional as they wanna be. It has no affect whatsoever on people's personal decisions about what marriage will mean to them.

[bunkerbuster]

Ig: i got a detail on what Reagan said wrong, apparently. I did further research to confirm, then admitted I didn't have anything to backup my specific claim. What more do you want? I stand by my claim that people who didn't condemn Reagan's approach to King MIGHT be racists. I think I got the gist of Reagan's take on MLK right, though, and his view on race relations, in general, and on accusing people of being communists.

[Threadkiller]

there's a reason almost no black people and increasingly few Latinos vote for the party...

The reason I keep hitting you with Prop 8 really isn't to argue the proposition. It is to have you explain the hypocrisy of your statements. If so few blacks and Latinos vote for the party, what compelled them to vote with the party?

They pushed prop 8 to its victory and that goes in the face of all your angry white people theories.

It does not matter what side you are on with the content of the law. The fact of the matter is it is minority against minority. And only you are first to cast stones and blame whites for "discriminatory" decisions.

If you study what bgates posted you may realize that Reagan would defend most of your antics.

[cathyf]

Just a note, but the Catholic church has laws about marriage which are seriously different from civil laws. First is that the church does not recognize divorce, and so refuses to marry divorced people as that would be bigamy. The second is that the church will not perform a marriage for a vowed religious or an ordained deacon, priest or bishop unless he/she has been released from his/her vows by Rome.

And we have procedures in place to enforce this (we are the World's Oldest Bureaucracy after all!) In order for a Catholic to be married in a Catholic church, he/she must produce a recent baptismal certificate. The baptismal church of a Catholic serves as the designated place of recordkeeping for the person. After performing a wedding, the priest sends notification to the bride's and groom's baptismal churches, and from then on out any baptismal certificate issued will note the marriage. The same for a vowed religious (nun or brother) or deacon. So if your baptismal certificate shows one of these events, you had better be able to show a death certificate for the former spouse, or proof of an church-granted annulment, or a dispensation from vows. Before the marriage, the impending wedding is announced 3 weeks in both the bride and groom's parish, so that anyone knowing of a previous marriage can come forward.

In other words, we are dead serious about not allowing certain people to get married in the Catholic church who have no problem at all getting a marriage license from the state. And that's one-man-one-woman marriage. It is one thing to pass a law requiring civil authorities to grant "marriage" licenses to gays, or bigamists, or any other category that the state agrees upon. It is quite another thing to assert that a government-issued license requires a church to convey its sacraments upon people who are ineligible according to the church's theology.

[Ignatz]

--I stand by my claim that people who didn't condemn Reagan's approach to King MIGHT be racists.--

Amazing. His approach was nothing like what you described and it was not just a detail, so how can you stand by a claim that had no accuracy to it in the first place?
And you now apparently claim, without a bit of irony, that you didn't originally mean MIGHT in the way Jeff Foxworthy means it but you actually meant there is just a small, perhaps minute chance that someone who didn't denounce Reagan's position MIGHT be a racist. You know that wasn't your implication, so in answer to your question..."Ig...what more do you want"?
I'd like a little honesty and a little humility and an apology to those people you tried to smear by claiming that since we didn't denounce something Reagan never said we were racists.
You get caught in bonehead statement after bonehead statement and instead of just saying, "Jeez you're right, sorry" you try to smear from a different angle or you continue to argue what continent a country is on as though no one else can look at a map and see that you're talking through your hat.
You are the epitome of what you denounce. Your idealogy and arguments are impervious to fact to the point that when your position is disproven you seamlessly slide to a new unsupportable assertion to remake your original false point. You are the very essence of an "identity" liberal and you are supremely "intellectually dishonest" both terms which you delight in lobbing at others in one form or another.
That's called projection and it's pretty damned tedious and infantile.

[bunkerbuster]

Threadkiller asks: ``If so few blacks and Latinos vote for the party, what compelled them to vote with the party?''

My guess is that many Latino voters are Catholic and thereby generally disposed to homophobia, which, it's no secret, is a huge problem in the church. I think the problem is similar among many black voters -- they tend to be church-going and are getting their homophobia at church. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that they were drawn to Prop. 8 out of support for the Republican party. lol...

[Threadkiller]

So they can go to church with "bigots", vote with "bigots" and not be "bigots"?

You should talk your thoughts out loud. It may help if you listen to yourself.