Embarrassment resumes for the cause of protecting marriage

In an effort to protect the sanctity of marriage from whatever it is that allowing gay marriage will do (I can't think of anything, but there has to be something to get these people riled up), a resolution from the Senate seeks to amend the Constitution. This likely won't get too far in the Senate, let alone to the states for ratification, so there's nothing really big about the story...except for one thing.

If you check out the list of co-sponsors for this, one in particular may stand out to you: Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID]. That's right, Larry Craig is co-sponsoring the bill to protect the so-called sanctity of marriage. I guess that wasn't a big deal to him a year ago when he got himself busted for soliciting sex in a men's restroom in Minnesota. Note that I'm not saying "allegedly" since he plead guilty to the charge, despite his claims otherwise.


I understand that this is probably very important to these guys for whatever unconstituted fear and hatred they have, but if you want to be taken seriously, you may want to try to avoid this kind of embarrassment.


Never mind that they also got David Vitter as a co-sponsor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but getting caught involved in a prostitution ring scandal may endanger a marriage far more than letting gay people wed will. Perhaps you should focus on adding a "Thou shalt not commit adultery" amendment while you're at it.


Story source at pandagon.net.

Obama's popularity limiting Clinton's VP chances

Polls I've been seeing how shown Barack Obama up - like double digits up - on John McCain. While that may excite at first, please keep in mind that if you check your calendar, it will likely say "June" (or "May" if you haven't checked it in a few weeks), not "November". Also, you might have heard some guy called Michael Dukakis had a similar lead over George H.W. Bush back in 1988, and I don't think he was the one elected. Then the argument starts that I just compared Obama to Dukakis and we go back and forth.

The moral of the story? Don't put too much into polls at this point. You never know what might come up.

What the story does tell is how unlikely an Obama/Clinton ticket will be. You might think Obama would be uneasy to share the ticket with Clinton, and you'd likely be right. But wouldn't it make sense? She did have very strong support during the primaries. Just listen to the crowd reaction the night of the Montana/South Dakota primaries - definitely on for her. It seems like an amazing move.

There is one thing that's preventing this seemingly "dream ticket". Polls are showing that Clinton supporters are starting to move over to him. The idea of the pairing would be that Obama would need Clinton there to get her supporters on his side. If they would shift in large numbers over to John McCain, it would create huge problems for him. However, it turns out that McCain's views are very, very different from Clinton's - so much that even bitterness (there's that word again) over their candidate losing the formerly inevitable nomination won't make them cross the aisle. As I've said many times before, I just cannot fathom them doing that at all.

Now it seems that they're starting to embrace Obama. He's got a majority of women voters, and his numbers are up in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida - all states that Clinton argued he would have great trouble with in the general election. Would Clinton still be an asset on the campaign trail? Of course - there's no doubt there. But as for a vice-president, I'll say I'd eat my hat if it were to happen. And yes, I will make a video of it.

Personally, I'd like to see Senator Joe Biden share the ticket with Obama. He's experienced (chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee), brings some of the credibility that critics say Obama lacks and he's not only a good speaker, but a sharp-tongued one as well. Surely I'm not the only one who remembers his nail of Rudy Guiliani during one of the 20+ debates:



I'd vote for him.

Brokaw to moderate Meet the Press

You may recall last week when I said this about Tim Russert's replacement on Meet the Press:

"Until then, hopefully Tom Brokaw can stick around as a fill-in host. He has the dignity and respect that the job requires, but unfortunately his career is behind him and I doubt he'll come out of retirement for the full-time hosting gig."

Well, I have to say I called it.

I think that's a good move for the election and it will give NBC plenty of time to find a full-time replacement.

I just don't get it

With all the controversy that went down with the Reverend Wright deal, how in the blue hell can people still think that Barack Obama is a Muslim? REVEREND Wright!

Ugh.

Busy day of terrorism and oil

There is a lot going down today - which is fitting in that it is also the day of Tim Russert's funeral.

Rudy Guiliani is up to bat for McCain's team against Obama's stance on counter terrorism. Problem is that the Obama campaign is using Guiliani's own political identity - the mayor of New York during the 1993 and 2001 terrorist strikes - against him. Turns out back in 1993, Guiliani responded to the attacks by saying that America doesn't fight violence with violence - they use the law. He was quite a proponent of that back then. But now the law isn't good enough to handle the evils of the world. Indefinite imprisonment without charge - violating basic human rights in the process - is the answer now. Definitely an American we can be proud of. Just without the quaint little Constitution.

The other big news is President Bush going to Congress pleading for the ban on off-shore drilling to be lifted to help with high gas prices. Except that it won't do a thing for gas prices whatsoever. Bush and his group have been going for this for as long as I recall, and now they have as good a reason as ever. As MSNBC's First Read (the source of this morning's information) put it:

"Here's what we don't understand about all this oil drilling talk: Isn't the
real problem the lack of new oil refineries, not the oil itself?"

Shhhhh! You're ruining it for them!

Oh, and by polls released today, Obama's up in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Sure, it's only June, put some Republicans may be sweating a bit heavier in the summer sun today.

How to fill the holes Russert left?

There is not another Tim Russert anywhere that I am aware of - and especially not in any of the major news organizations. He was definitely unique and his untimely death last week has left a major hole in the hearts of those who knew him and those who watched him on TV.

But his death has also left holes in NBC's news organization - in both his roles as the Washington Bureau Chief and moderator of the popular Meet the Press. Everything I've been hearing says that the two jobs will be broken up, which I think is a good idea. It's an enormous work load that only a guy like Russert could divide and do well. He was experienced in it and he was good at it - but he didn't start out with both jobs on day one, and neither should any successor to his jobs. It would be a huge responsibility to try to keep both things running at a Russert level for one person, and frankly, I don't think it's possible now. Perhaps eventually, but not now.

So who do you get to fill the rolls?

From what I've read in numerous places, a likely candidate for the Washington Bureau Chief is NBC Political Director Chuck Todd. If you're familiar with any NBC or MSNBC news show, you've seen Todd crunching poll numbers and giving excellent data and analysis for the political game. He's very good at what he does and from what I've seen, he's respected amongst NBC - and if nothing else, he's called Chuckie T by the folks over at Morning Joe (and occasionally awkwardly by Chris Matthews). If that's all true, then I think Todd would be an excellent choice to take the vacated spot.

Hosting Meet the Press is an entirely different matter.

In his 17 years as moderator of the show, Tim Russert firmly established Meet the Press as the defining political show. Anyone seeking high office had to pass the Meet the Press test. Everyone who was anyone sat down for a Russert grilling. The show was informative, polite and well managed. Whoever takes the moderator spot has a very big legacy to uphold, and it won't be able to be done by just anyone.

Names I've heard include David Gregory, host of MSNBC's Race for the White House, but best known as NBC White House correspondent; Andrea Mitchell, a lady-of-all-trades who was very close to Russert in her long tenure at NBC; and even Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball. I think Gregory would be an alright choice, and even one I myself had mentioned just after Russert's death. I've never seen Mitchell interview anyone, but her political analysis is usually quality work. I'd have to see her host something first. Chris Matthews is a horrible idea. Just plain horrible. Hated by both conservatives and liberals, he's loud, often offensive and quite egotistical. Amongst the on-air figures, he's about as far from Tim Russert as you can go. Watch a clip from Meet the Press, then one from Hardball. Unless NBC has serious issues, Matthews won't be a serious contender.

Until then, hopefully Tom Brokaw can stick around as a fill-in host. He has the dignity and respect that the job requires, but unfortunately his career is behind him and I doubt he'll come out of retirement for the full-time hosting gig.

For those interested, Russert's funeral will be covered by NBC, with coverage starting on MSNBC at 3pm. This was by Russert's own request.

McCain repeats usual stance towards Obama

As I glanced over the mid-afternoon headlines, I spotted the top story at the Washington Post titled "McCain Camp Criticizes Obama on Foreign Policy". 'That's not really news', I thought - McCain's been criticizing Obama's foreign policy since before the Democratic primary race ended. So McCain advisers are calling Obama's approach to terrorism "naive". That's nothing new either - most pro-Iraq figures say that against the opposition. They say that Obama has a 'September 10th mentality' to terrorism.

Uh oh - them's fighting words!

Actually, they aren't. In fact, it's not a very bright thing to say at all, since one doesn't have to think very hard to remember just who was president on September 10th, 2001 and the almost eight months leading into it. Come on - starts with a G, has a Dubya in it...yes! George W. Bush! The president whom McCain has embraced thus far in the campaign! Okay, so maybe we shouldn't reference that one...let's see what else we have going on.

So Obama applauds the Supreme Court decision that restores habeus corpus to the Gitmo prisoners. That's what they're in a huff about? This really amazes me. You are talking about basic human rights - the things that we Americans hold in such high regard as we sit all high and mighty. These prisoners have been held for YEARS without being charged with anything. They're not prisoners of war, because they do not fall into the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention (which is "quaint" if you recall). How are we not the bad guys in this situation? We are skirting around the issue for NO reason other than to say we're accomplishing something -when we're really not. If they're really criminals, then charge them and give them their day in court. What do you have to hide?

Uh oh...maybe I shouldn't be asking that.

But back to McCain. You think he'd play it up a little bit to the American people that have the power to vote him into office in November (complain all you want about the Electoral College, but a substantial number of voters are still needed). Bush's popularity ratings are the lowest of any president in the history of the poll. A majority says that the country is on the wrong track. The war is unpopular, the treatment of the detainees is protested against, the economy is tanking, gas is over $4 a gallon. Why in the HELL would you defend these things? Are they necessary to keep us safe? Who's being naive now?