Hillary Hovers and Hedges

Hillary Clinton will surely have a states-rights problem come the campaign for Prez. The clearest evidence of that is in — of all subjects — same-sex marriage.

This should certainly be a Dem gimme. Many GOP pols, including Presidental hopefuls, have chosen to admit defeat here. While the deft and delusional keep at it, half of Republican bigs accept it's  a done deal. On the other side, many Dems pushed for marriage equality and get to claim the high ground with the recent, very recent, sweeping victories. Plus, the SCOTUS seems poised to mandate nationwide marriage equality this summer.

So it's all too obvious that she should join the victory lap, even though she only stepped into the race in the last few yards. Instead, she stupidly clings to her adopted Southern heritage of states rights. That's a bad sign in several ways. Not only is that no longer relevant to this particular issue. It also puts her at odds with most Dem and independent voters, most notably those her daughter's age and younger. Moreover, it reflects poorly on what we might expect in policy should she become President.

You can check for yourself. Start with last June's interview by Terry Gross on NPR. While Gross fairly demanded that Clinton admit she'd been wrong on marriage equality, only changing for expedience, Clinton would have none of it. Much has been made of her continuing defensive posture. 

Yet lost in the personal here, Clinton's statements on states rights are astounding. Consider from that interview:

.... So for me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had I fully endorsed the efforts by activists to work state by state. And in fact that is what is working.... And then leaving that (Secretary of State) position I was able to very quickly announce that I was fully in support of gay marriage. And that it is now continuing to succeed state by state. I am very hopeful that we will make progress and see even more change and acceptance...

There you have it, politics fans. As late as the middle of last year, she wanted it all ways. Moreover, she based it on states rights. We know historically how incredibly poorly that works for civil rights.

There is, of course, the personal irony here of her upbringing. From Illinois and then to undergrad in MA and law in CT, she didn't get to the states-rights turf until she was nearly 30. While she and future husband Bill Clinton dates at Yale Law, she didn't agree to marry him until she moved with him to Arkansas when she was 28. 

States rights have been and continue to be big in AR. When her hubby was Gov. then President Clinton, he played the let-the-states-decide card many times. She has been in tune.

So there you have it. Come the SCOTUS decision, she'll be able to do the cliché of it's settled law. Yet I suspect she'll continue by adding unnecessarily that she would have preferred if the states individually could continue to legislate marriage to suit each.

We deserve a President with more courage and vision and, well, morality. The correct answer is, "I support this and we are doing this because it is right." If she feels the need to waffle on such important and fundamental issues, she should stifle it. 

Milhous or Millstone?

Let us lefty types praise Congressional Republicans, at last for their current stupidity. That is, their reanimation of the odious GOP disgrace Tricky Dick Nixon.

They seem to be oblivious to the low comedy nature of the likes of "I know you are, but what am I." When the Pee-wee Herman character responded that way to an insult, it was more evidence of his puerile foolishness. Now Congressional GOP type and their not so foxy media touts chant an unending Greek chorus of "Nixonian."

The knowledgeable and analytic know first that the evils of the lawless, ruthless Nixon are not at all like the events Obama haters are failing to turn into scandals. Moreover, winger media as well as Republicans push and push the comparisons with Nixon, first the same as and then even worse than Nixon.

I accept as so many pundit types of all political stripes have said or written, that Republicans won't rest, vindicated until they force a Democratic President from office. Nixon, of course, slithered away ahead of impeachment, indictment and jail and under a pardon from his replacement.

Alas, the unrelenting efforts to drive Bill Clinton from office surely were driven by the Nixon stain. The GOP did get him impeached for lying about and inducing others to lie about his being fellated by an intern. He did not leave office and if anything his personal and political stock climbed. (It's worth noting that several of those leading that impeachment effort were at the time involved in long-term adulterous relationships, and lying about those.)

Regardless, this full chorus singing for Obama's impeachment serves two purposes:

1. Highlighting governmental problems, while even in the short term having hearings that show the President to be innocent of the allegations.
2. Reminding all voters that Republicans have decades of nefarious association with the sleaziest of all Presidents. 

Yes, the GOP loves to claim being the Party of Lincoln. Really though, they have revivified that awful zombie to make us aware they are the Party of Nixon.

Younger voters who had only a vague historical reference to Nixon are learning more and more about his sordid administration. They now know that this is the Republican way. The GOP would have been far wiser to leave hid corpse undisturbed.

Boomers and older voters hear this dreadful belch from the past. We too re-associate Republicans with the sneaky, lawbreaking, Constitution abusing Nixon.

When Watergate became his Waterloo, Nixon tried to defend his criminal leadership and simultaneously shift the focus from this abuse of office to whether he had profited financially from his misdeeds. Among his remarks at the time were, "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."

Well, he seemed incapable of honesty, but truth be told, he was a crook, on many levels.

So, thanks GOP'ers. You have successfully and repeatedly reminded us how the Party of Nixon acts and speaks.

Obama's Great Rights Address

Put me in the long column of those pleased with President Barack Obama's second inaugural address.

I am torn about whether he should have been so bold in his first one. I do admit that had he campaigned so progressively strongly, he might well have lost that election. We are a socially slow nation.

Several areas in particular yesterday's speech struck many of us lefties. For example:

1. A long overdue parallelism and paean to Seneca Falls (women's suffrage), Selma (Black civil rights), and Stonewall (gay rights) was the clear moral and intellectual posture we've longed for from him.
2. A strong statement for marriage equality — "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law - for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

Many other themes he iterated had appeared and gotten action in his first term. He wants to complete equal pay for equal work for women, for instance. He likewise spoke again of curbing gun violence, reversing climate change and many more works in progress.

It seems part of his finally fully supporting LGBT rights, including marriage equality, reflects the nation's zeitgeist. Leading the reversal of the military Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy, led his opposition to the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act, which in turn led his clear support for marriage equality. Instead of costing him this election or poisoning the well of public support, those did the opposite. Most of America is with him on these issues.

The unhappy and increasingly scatter band of anti-LGBT sorts still chant. They point to the 31 states that enacted anti-same-sex-marriage laws and/or amendments after New Hampshire went with civil unions and then Massachusetts with marriage. The coup those who would hamper, harm and hinder homosexuals maxed out and is being reversed, in many cases by the most populous states. It's a dwindling party of bigots, doomed to sit increasingly in their rented halls and living rooms muttering.

We can hope for the slim chance that the SCOTUS will fully enable SSM. Otherwise, the Prez can continue to nibble away at the blocks to equality here. Placing such rights clearly on a plane with other huge civil-rights struggles has already set the tone.
 

Obama, Warren, and No-Vote, Yes, Yes

Gosh, the never-ending campaign in ending. Praise to all gods!

My big endorsements can't be any surprise:

Barrack Obama for President.
Sure our economic recovery is slower than anyone, including the POTUS wants. Yet with all the GOP Congressional rejection of his jobs plans, we are ahead of the rest of the industrialized world and on the right path in jobs, securities markets, and housing. Taking a flyer on Romney/Ryan with no specifics and endless deceit would be self-destructive beyond all reason. Obama's nowhere near progressive enough to suit me, but there is no comparison here. Obama next week.

Elizabeth Warren for US Senate.
Sen. Scott Brown now has the record he lacked as a do-nothing state rep and senator. It reeks to high heavens. He has voted with the Dark Side on all important bills, stymieing recovery, and trying to do the same with equality, women's rights, and hard-won liberties. In his campaign, he refuses to discuss his record, makes incredible personal attacks, and lies without shame or cease. Warren has already shown her heart and (much, much brighter) head are in line with MA values. She has accomplished more with her advocacy in Washington without even the power of elected office than Brown has or can promise. For God sake, let her get to work and help us and the nation. This one is even easier than the POTUS. Warren.

MA ballot question 1 — Do not vote.
This is the trick on the ballot. On its face, a yes vote makes sense, to allow anyone including service stations not affiliated with a particular car company access to all the computer repair codes and related information. If at least 70% of voters ignore this, it will not have any effect even if nearly 30% approve it. That's the way of ballot questions. The legislature recently passed a law which the governor signed that does all this, on a slightly different schedule than the ballot question. If it passes, the legislature will waste time undoing its law and aligning its efforts on a new version. Ignoring this choice would be good for all concerned.

MA ballot question 2 — Yes.
The death-with-dignity question, dubbed assisted suicide by its opponents is a sensible and well constructed version of the law in effect in Oregon for the past 15 years. There it has been proven effective in helping terminally ill patients stop suffering and having their lives prolonged against their will...and dignity. It has numerous safeguards, as in multiple physician consultations, evaluations and delays. This is humane.

MA ballot question 3 — Yes.
The medical marijuana proposal is simple enough. Several states have already approved and implemented it. The rationale is to provide palliative options for those with conditions not easily or well treated with stronger, harsher, more expensive chemicals. In states where this has been the law for years, some people game the system to get pot. They can and do get it illegally now. As well as helping those who need it, I see this as a solid step toward aligning marijuana sales with those of alcohol, taxed, regulated and controlled. We should drop the early to mid-20th Century reefer-madness mindset.

Back Porch Capuano

Now he's mine. I've long admired plainspoken and progressive U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano. As a result of redistricting, as of January, he gets my part of Boston as well as other neighborhoods and other towns.

He's constantly going and was tough to get on Left Ahead. He did join us eventually a few years ago. We'll get him on again.

Two nights ago, he was up on my hill holding forth and shaking hands with about 40 of us. He is introducing himself to his new constituents. As always, his candid talk and answers went over well. I don't think he's capable of lying or even dissembling. While he's proudly lifelong Somerville, his plain talk could fit just as easily in New Jersey or West Virginia, two areas I grew up in where they admire and respect it.
An earlier post contains clips of his predictions for November wins by Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren.

---

Forever Mayor

---

He poked fun at himself for retaining his quality-of-life focus from his days as Somerville aldeman and then Mayor. He says he still does non-Congressional things, even ones some people consider stupid, like noting where there are potholes that need fixing. He says, "I think these are the things that really matter to people. I care way too much."

In some way, Capuano is a character in his own long-running play. He clearly enjoys letting voters see his foibles and learn about what makes him angry or pleased. That goes a long way toward humanizing him, so that when he casts a vote in the House you don't necessarily like, you have a sense of why...and if you don't, he'd be willing to explain it.

In fact, his candor and conviction remind me of another beloved member of Congress. In a post here six years ago, I recalled something "...U.S. Senator Wayne Morse (D-Oregon) told me many years ago [in the 1960s]. He was staunchly anti-Vietnam War in a state whose voters had the opposite view. When I asked him about compromises and importance of being counted, he said, 'Don't believe a thing a politician tells you if it doesn't square with his voting record.'"

Monday evening, Cappy spoke as though the crowd didn't know his voting record or politics. Surprising to this wonk, he was right.

Up top, he explained why he voted against invading Iraq, which he saw as not involved in 9/11. In contrast, he voted for involvement in Afghanistan, where al-Quaeda had was being shielded. He approved of the anti-terrorism military activities, but not nation building. However, he thinks we are being far too slow in leaving, as the terrorists have long left. He still would support sending troops wherever al-Quaeda or their ilk move.

He went to controversial issues to explain how he legislates and deals. For a big example, he supported the Affordable Care Act for healthcare overhaul, even though he found it only a good beginning and far from perfect.

He enjoys the process, which he describes as politics are "the most difficult thing you can do without hitting each other." He hasn't appreciated the obstructionism by the GOP for the past several years. In fact, he longs for a return to when "...we got to fight with people we disagree with. Then we have to fight among ourselves about the details. Those family fights are the ones I miss."

---

Stand Up, Speak Up

---

He said that unfortunately, "my side is full of complainers." He wants both the President and those in Congress to speak up about key issues. "I really want more people on my side to show up and not be afraid to talk about civil liberties."

As much he is willing to mix it up, he says there's an important role for bipartisanship. On the other hand, he said, "There's a big difference between getting along with someone and just selling out." He wants Democrats from the President down to be more aggressive on key issues.

For the long-lasting impasses in Congress, he isn't surprised. He sees it not as a symptom of the Congress members, rather of the national division. "Congress is severely divided" he said because the nation is. The folk voters send to D.C. accurately represent their constituents, hence the conflicts.

For pending issues, he continues to define himself as proud liberal who is a fiscal conservative in the old sense. "I'm not afraid of taxes," he said, "I pay 'em and I have no problems asking you to pay them, but I want them to be used properly." He tells constituents who complain about taxes that if they don't pay them, they don't get the services they want. "You don't get anything for free."

By the way of conclusion, he said plainly that he had no idea of how Congress would act during its lame-duck period looming or even the first six months of the new term. "I'm not optimistic for the next six months or so, but I'm incredibly optimistic for the long term."