Burnt Orange Report

Divider, Not a Uniter

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Dean often said in his speeches that he was tired of President Bush dividing us by nationality, race, creed, gender, income, and sexual orientation. Was it because he was an angry man? No, it's because he was right. Because Bush is a diveder, not a uniter.

From PlanetOut...

Saying he can't stomach President Bush's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a gay Republican leader in Ohio announced on Thursday he is becoming a Democrat.

In a letter to the chair of the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County, John Farina, a former official in the county's party organization and former president of the Cleveland chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, ended his 20-year association with the GOP. He also withdrew his candidacy for the Board of Elections' central committee in the March 2 primary.

Farina, 35, said in the letter that the president's announcement on Tuesday forced his decision.

"Quite frankly I'm sick over it," Farina wrote. "It is an insult to me as a lifelong Republican and it does nothing to strengthen marriage. It is an obviously political move that will do nothing but divide the nation even further. So much for Mr. Bush being a uniter."

Besides this, the fact that Bush can't even keep together his Senate Republicans against this thing is telling as to the fact that it is simply a sop to the right-wing (as if we didn't know that already).

This is not Compassionate Conservatism folks, it's Federally Mandated Hate based on Fear. So read the full text of the Hate Amendment below and think how those 51 words are in no one's best interest.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

A Letter from the Man Who Would be President

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I have been sitting on this for a couple of weeks now, but the big story over at DailyKos spurred me to post the following, hoping that it might spur my contact to reveal the rest of the letter...

On February 10, a comment was left in Joe Trippi's Change for America blog that stated the following...

hey, Joe, I have a question for you...

the night of the rally in Des Moines, after most of the people had left, I was stuck there waiting for my ride to come back, and I found a piece of paper laying near where the media had been.

it begins "Joe Trippi, our message won tonight" and is signed at the bottom "44". Is this a note that Gov Dean wrote to you that night?

anyway, I am so happy that you are already looking for a way to keep the fight going.

Posted by 2501 at February 10, 2004 11:25 PM

I e-mailed the person, Anthony T. who lives in Virginia according to DeanLink who e-mailed me back with the link to the following scan of the letter saying that he was blocking the rest out until Dean was out of the race.

If you want to know what the rest says, leave comments on this entry urging him to reveal the rest so that he may read them (since I'm sending him the link to this entry in order to protect the privacy of his e-mail).

Endorsements...by Karl-T.

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

After some thought and much hand wringing, I have come to a decision on a number of endorsements on everything from national on down to campus politics.

President: I have been since the beginning, a Howard Dean supporter. Since he is out of the race, I have had some thinking to do. He will remain on the ballot here in Texas and is still trying to gain delegates but I know that my Senate District out in the Hill Country is probably not going to meet the 15% marker. Maybe it will here in Austin, but not likely out there. So I have reached the following conclusion.

I will now endorse John Edwards for President. But, if Dean supporters in Austin want to try to get those delegates, by all mean, vote for Dean. Back home, I will vote for Dean barring Edwards needing my help statewide on March 9 if he is still around. I will try to caucus for Dean but will go with Edwards if I need to in order to make it through the convention process. I know that doesn't seem like much of an endorsement, but if I'm going to give money or time to anyone, it's going to be Edwards because he represents to me at least a fresh positive face in politics, wheras I do not see Kerry doing much new for the party other than using it.

U.S. Congress: I endorse Lloyd Doggett for the new district he is running in that goes to Mexico. While I didn't get to enjoy him for but a year (and will soon be represented by Lamar Smith, the same one I had back in the Hill Country, even though 'back home' has been put in the Midland-Odessa District). He's the best chance for Austin to retain some chance of a congressman because it ain't happening in the other two seats and I believe it is more important to keep Austin values represented in some fashion than be forced to go with a Hispanic candidate just because that's how the seat was Perrymandered.

County Commissioner Precinct One: Celia Israel is my choice. I cannot speak for the precinct as a whole, but those here on the University Campus would be best served by Celia who represents new leadership for Austin. Her primary opponent, Ron Davis, did not spend near the time she has in talking to students and came across as very defensive in his speeches, even when no one was attacking him. In addition, I think it would be a shame for Austin to have no openly gay officials with the departure of the sheriff so Celia gets my vote.

I defer to the University Democrats endorsements (listed to the right) on the rest of the local races. I voted for all of them at our meeting and believe that they are the best candidates for each of their races.

Student Government:
I will post these on Election Day.

Students Fight Back Against Creationism in Montana

By Byron LaMasters

It was heartening to read in today's New York Times about a group of students who have organized to fight back against creationists in a small town in Montana:

— In early December, a local Baptist minister, Curtis Brickley, put up handbills inviting residents of this town, population 754, to a meeting in the junior high school gym. The topic was the teaching of evolution in the Darby schools.

Two hundred people from Darby and surrounding Ravalli County, which nurtures a deep vein of conservative religious sentiment, filed into the gym on Dec. 10. There, the well-spoken minister delivered an elaborate PowerPoint presentation challenging Charles Darwin's theories.

[...]

Within days, a group of parents, business people, teachers, students and other residents mobilized to defend Darwin against Mr. Brickley's challenge. The group, Ravalli County Citizens for Science, phoned a biotechnology firm in nearby Hamilton asking for help and was connected with Dr. Jay Evans, a research immunologist. He began looking into Mr. Brickley's claims, which were drawn in part from materials from the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization affiliated with many conservative causes.

[...]

On Tuesday, there was yet another confrontation at the board meeting, and on Wednesday, about 50 Darby High School students staged a walkout carrying signs with slogans like "Don't spread the gospel into school" and "Strike against creation science." There are 39 students in this year's graduating class.

"We decided to create this group to figure out what was going on," said Aaron Lebowitz, a senior who was a founder of Citizens for Science and the chief organizer of the walkout. Partly as a result of the group, he said, "awareness has been awesome."

In a town where not just the marshal but also the mayor, the state representative, the library director and at least two of the five school board members say they have strong creationist beliefs, the Darwin defenders have had to fight to gain political traction. But even some of their staunchest opponents give them credit.

"As a group, I think they've helped focus the other perspective, which I'm thankful for," said Doug Banks, a general contractor and school board member who has favored curriculum changes that could lead to criticisms of evolution. "As much as that's concerned, they've had a positive impact."

One of the best things about the Internet is that it makes resources available for small groups of people anywhere in the country to fight back against attempts such as this. The article also credits "young, Internet-driven" supporters of Howard Dean who have a "zeal to change the world". We won't get Howard Dean elected president, but the young people that got energized into politics by Howard Dean can make a difference for progressive change (as we see here) in so many ways. It's critical for our party to keep them.

Whoa! Baylor Paper Endorses Gay Marriage

By Byron LaMasters

Baylor is about the last place I would have expected this:

Back in California, San Francisco city lawyers filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing local government officials are allowed to advance their own interpretations of state constitutions.

The city also is asking Superior Court Judge James Warren to declare unconstitutional sections of the California Family Code defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, the AP reported. San Francisco officials believe barring gay marriages violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the state constitution.

The editorial board supports San Francisco's lawsuit against the state. Taking into account equal protection under the law, gay couples should be granted the same equal rights to legal marriage as heterosexual couples. Without such recognition, gay couples, even those who have co-habitated long enough to qualify as common law spouses under many state laws, often aren't granted the same protection when it comes to shared finances, health insurance and other employee benefits, and property or power of attorney rights.

Like many heterosexual couples, many gay couples share deep bonds of love, some so strong they've persevered years of discrimination for their choice to co-habitate with and date one another. Just as it isn't fair to discriminate against someone for their skin color, heritage or religious beliefs, it isn't fair to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation. Shouldn't gay couples be allowed to enjoy the benefits and happiness of marriage, too?

Editorial board vote: 5-2

Nice. I'm sure the Baylor administration is rolling their heads.

A Gay Rights Victory in the South

By Byron LaMasters

A gay marriage ban was rejected by the Georgia State House.

The Georgia House narrowly rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Thursday, a surprise vote that derailed the same-sex marriage question that seemed almost certain to go to voters this fall.

Proponents of the ban fell just three votes short of clearing the final legislative hurdle. The Democrat controlled House voted 117-50 in favor of the marriage ban, short of the 120 votes needed to pass a constitutional amendment.

The ban already passed the Republican Senate, and since the governor's signature isn't required to change the constitution in Georgia, the question seemed likely to head to voters for final approval this fall.

[...]

The defeat came largely because black Democrats resisted. For much of the debate, black members compared the struggle for black voting rights to the current national debate over gay rights.

The gay community certainly owes the African-American representatives in Georgia a debt of gratitue. In fact, we owe African-American elected officials a lot. Black leaders know the struggle that gays and lesbians face, and they stand with us. It's a tremendous honor to me to know that the leaders of the battle for Civil Rights a generation ago are joining us for our fight this generation. Gays and lesbians are forever indebted to the brave African-American elected officials who stand with us in our struggle. Thank you Georgia.

Via Pandagon.

Edwards and NC Electability

By Byron LaMasters

John Edwards will be sure to let everyone know about this poll out today from Survey USA with head-to-head matchups between Bush and Kerry and Bush and Edwards in North Carolina:

President, Head-to-Head, NC:
Bush (R) - 53%, Kerry (D) - 42%
Bush (R) - 47%, Edwards (D) - 50%
Data Collected: 2/23/04 - 2/25/04

C-SPAN on Campus

By Byron LaMasters

I received an email earlier today that C-SPAN will be on the UT campus tomorrow. I may try and stop by around 2 PM if I have a chance after one of my government midterms.

CSPAN will be on campus on Friday, February 26th. They will have a bus parked near the LBJ school from 10 AM to 3 PM. They will be giving tours of the bus and are willing to spend as much time as you'd like with you so come on out!

The Nader Speech

By Byron LaMasters

Some commenters have criticized us and the University Democrats for protesting the Ralph Nader speech. People say that Ralph Nader will help Democrats because third parties typically take votes away from incumbents (Right... Republicans for Nader sounds just about as silly as Republicans for Sharpton). Ralph Nader and his supporters have said that Nader will attack the Bush administrations in ways that the Democratic nominee cannot. That may very well be true, but that doesn't do much good to Democrats if Nader attacks Democrats with near equal vigor. On to the speech (which I meant to post on my Nader thread last night, but didn't get around to it)...

Ralph Nader first addressed Florida. He blamed Republicans for disenfranchising thousands of voters. He blamed the Democratic mayor of Miami for siding with Republicans in the recount and having a low profile during the campaign. He blamed some other people, and said that Al Gore won Florida and he won the election and he should be president to day, and it wasn't his fault. Then Nader went into his typical speech. He railed against corporate power, then redistricting. He said that there wasn't really much difference between the two parties (though he did say he'd "rather see a Democrat elected President") that the Democrats got a D+ and the Republicans a D-. He went off on the "liberal intelligencia" that opposed his run for president, saying that they had good jobs, money, health insurance, etc. so for some reason they weren't qualified in telling him not to run for president.

Nader said that regulatory agencies were just about as bad under Democrats as under Republicans. He said that the FDA was its worst in thirty years under Clinton-Gore. Nader attacked the "military industrial complex". He attacked Democrats and Republicans for caving to it. He said that on many issues Republicans were "harsher" than Democrats but that Democrats weren't much better. Of the Democrats warnings of how bad Republicans are / can be, Nader said "A party that defines itself by the worst is a party that never wants to be best". Nader said that both parties got worse every four years because every four years both Democrats and Republicans worked to shut out separate, independent and reform minded voices. Nader attacked Democrats for abandoning the south saying "it’s a shame that Democrats abandon southern states".

Nader did spend some time articulating his campaign themes. He spoke of a living wage, renewable energy, ending corporate and military contracts for universities, requiring all contracts for Universities of over $100,000 to be available online. He blamed the two party system for voter apathy among young people. He said that only 29% of 18-24 year olds voted in 2000. He talked about voter responsibility and the need for a "serious young generation". He attacked Democrats for not standing up on issues like the Taft-Hartley law, WTO, NAFTA, etc. Nader talked about how Richard Nixon was a liberal compared to Bush and a lot of politicians of both parties today and that Nixon "keeps looking better every year".

At the end of the speech Nader did offer something of an olive branch to Democrats wondering the rational of his run. As I said earlier, Nader said that he will "take apart the Bush administration in ways that the Democrats cannot". He said that he hoped to "puts the Democratic nominee back towards sanity and away from the corporate powers". He said that "Democrats don't inspire confidence and they need a little jolt". I agree with that last statement for Democrats in the 2002 election. Democrats didn't inspire confidence. And Howard Dean's enduring legacy will be that his campaign gave Democrats that jolt that Nader speaks of. Nader will probably prove to be largely irrelevant in this year's election. Even many hardcore Greens and Nader voters in 2000 that I've spoken to are not even considering voting for him this year. I'm all for Ralph Nader going across the country attacking George W. Bush "in ways that the Democrats cannot". But what good does that achieve when he attacks the Democrats with near equal vigor? Not much in my eyes.

Mainstream Media on Perry

By Byron LaMasters

Well, as I predicted, the Austin Chronicle reported on the Perry rumors:

For the record, Naked City looked into the Perry rumors when they first surfaced some weeks ago – inevitably accompanied by the warning, "The divorce papers are being filed today!" – and found no evidence of any truth to any of them, whatsoever. Amid much finger-pointing about who was the original source (and which political party he or she belongs to), nobody will go on the record. The governor's office (perhaps understandably) refuses any and all comment beyond a one-sentence statement from Perry spokesperson Kathy Walt: "These are false, malicious, and hurtful rumors, and the Chronicle's own investigation acknowledges that fact."

We also know that numerous other reporters, from here to New York, have looked into the rumors, with, as far as we know, an identical lack of results. Nor do we expect anything we say here to have any effect on the rumors, which have become entirely self-replicating as they echo through the blogosphere.

The Quorum Report wrote this:

Like most news organizations, we here at the Quorum Report have wrestled with a relentless rumor mill over the last month and a half that has proven to be little more than an enormous distraction.

We are not going to get into all the details of ever-morphing rumors about Governor Perry, but the last six weeks make Monty Python movies seem like serious political discourse.

We break our silence because -- well frankly -- enough is enough.

This publication is as wired into the Texas political scene as well as any other, and more wired than most. We pride ourselves on our breadth of both traditional and non-traditional sources.

We have not been able to find even a scintilla of corroboration for any of the rumors. And since the rumors change every day, the matter is now simply silly.

I posted on the Perry rumors, because I thought that there was legitimate cause to warrant investigation by the mainstream media. I still don't know if there is any truth or not to the rumors, and I was very clear in all of my posts on the issue that the scandals regarding Rick Perry were only rumors. I've received multiple emails over the past week from people claiming to know something, or able to prove something regarding the scandal, but I haven't received anything that has proven the suggested rumors. I've certainly appreciated the increased traffic, and I hope that it continues, but if you're coming back here to see me post more on the Perry rumors, in all likelihood, it won't be happening unless something big is uncovered by the mainstream media.

It's Spreading

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's late but I'm sure that it will be in the news cycle over the weekend as I just saw the following online at Isebrand.com...

New Paltz, NY, mayor to start issuing marriage licenses today (Friday) by IseFire - Fri 02/27/04; 12:05 am EST

The village of New Paltz, NY, will start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Friday!

Marriage Equality New York is seeing this as the time for the New York City LGBT community to demand that Mayor Bloomberg instruct the City Clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as possible.

Apparently, there will be at NY City Hall a press conference on Sunday (Feb 29) at 1:30 pm with community leaders and elected officials to demand that marriage licenses be issued in The Big Apple.

It's not going to go away folks. I'm wondering who is going to be next? Large cities? Small liberal hamlets? Anywhere in Texas?

Life During (Culture) Wartime

By Jim Dallas

One of the wonderful things about blogs is that you get to see bloggers opinions evolve as a situation changes.

A couple weeks ago, I blogged a rather tortured rationalization for why I was "on the fence" about gay marriage, one that in retrospect was a little embarassing, because while it made sense at the time, later reflection revealed it made little sense at all.

In thinking about that faux pas, I was reminded of some people's accounts of the London blitz during World War II:

For the first few days a lot of people were very frightened. I can remember my Mother-in-Law bursting into tears and putting her gas mask on that first day; she wore it for about an hour but nothing happened and she took it off again when we gave her a cup of tea and she realised she couldn't drink it with the gas mask on!

In1940 the air raids started up proper. Like lots of others down our street we had an Anderson Shelter in our garden, but it was dreadfully damp so in the end we used to sleep under our big oak table. If the air raid sirens went off in the evening we would just ignore them and carry on eating our tea or playing cards until we heard bombs getting a bit close and then we would dive under the table for cover.

For folks, such as myself, who don't have a strong personal commitment to change feel the earth move under their feet, the first reaction is near-panic (usually expressed by talking gibberish), and an inability to figure out what to do.

The responsibility that one has is to buckle down and get over it.

Ultimately, though, one has got to pick a side, because the alternative is about as practical as trying to drink tea while wearing a gas mask.

As Atrios noted, the defensive position sought out by some Democrats over the Hate Amendment is not going to work. It'd probably be better for them to take a real position on it and simply get on with their lives (despite the likelihood of being buzz-bombed by the culture warriors).

The only responsible position now is to support legalizing gay marriage in full, all or nothing. I've decided to crawl out of the bunker, and I invite our presidential candidates and congressional candidates to do the same.

We the People (Except for Homos)

By Byron LaMasters

Thanks to CalPundit. I'd publish it on the main page, but due to bandwidth considerations, I'll let yall check it out on the next page...

Ralph Nader in Austin

By Byron LaMasters

I just returned from campus where I got to hear Ralph Nader. There were about a dozen of us from the University Democrats and another five or so people who had read Andrew's post from yesterday (it was great to meet some of our readers!). We had signs which we held up outside the auditorium before the speech ("Ralph Don't Run", "A Vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", "ABB (AN): Anyone But Bush (And Nader)", "Remember Florida", etc.) and we held up our signs and chanted "Ralph Don't Run" as he entered the auditorium, as well as after the speech. We were respectful as he spoke, as it is our hope that everyone who attended the speech ends up voting for the Democratic nominee this fall (we do share a similar progressive philosophy after all). We weren't there to make enemies, but rather to send a message. Ralph Nader said it himself. He said that exit polls showed that 38% of his voters would have voted for Gore, 25% for Bush and the rest wouldn't have voted. He used it to justify that many of his voters would not have voted and that he took votes from Bush as well. Very well, but had 38% of Nader voters voted for Gore in Florida (and 25% voted for Bush, and the rest not vote), Gore would have won Florida by about 13,000 votes and we wouldn't be talking about recounts. I'll never be able to forgive Ralph Nader for that. Never. But fortunately, we have a chance to remedy the 2000 fiasco in less than nine months. I'm looking forward to it.

Anyway, I did take some notes on the speech, and I'll post on it later tonight. I'll be continuing on this thread, so you all are welcome to start the discussion here.

Maybe It Is Time

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Byron's post earlier today got me thinking about the issue of gay rights in this country. And as a gay American, I of course do have many thoughts on what has been happening in our country of late.

I never thought that we would have gotten to where we are today as fast as we have.

Canada going forth with gay marriage (which hasn't led to the destuction of our neighbors to the north), the falling of the sodomy laws, a presidential candidate who signed into law the highest form of recognition for same-sex couples and ran on it and almost became the nominee, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling and then reaffirming that the denial of same-sex marriage was unconstituional, a San Francisco Mayor who went forth to issue the first same sex marriages leading to another state challenge of constitutionality, a New Mexico clerk who tried the same before being told no, a Chicago Mayor who may be open to following the lead of San Francisco...

Something is happening folks, I mean, something more than just events. It feels like the beginnings of a movement, a crisis.

Maybe it is time.

Maybe it is time to stop playing the waiting game of hoping that American public opinion will shift as time wears on.

Maybe it is time to stop the wait and see approach.

Maybe it is time to realize that now is the oppertunity was have been waiting for to open up this issue to the national dialogue.

It's not going to just go away and be an election year issue only for 2004. And I think that Bush and Co. realize that too and that's why he came down on the side of pushing the Marriage Amendment. Because one way or another gay marriages are going to happen in states in this country. And those legal couples in Massachusetts are going to move to other states in the nation and are going to challenge the state DOMA laws and they will start to fall. And as they start to fall, they will challenge the national DOMA and if that falls, what else is left to deny gay marriages from being realized as the new norm?

Maybe it is time, because I believe it's going to happen and it's going to happen within the next 5 years.

But right now?

I will fight the Federal Marriage Amendment because it's morally wrong to support discrimination in our founding document. If we want to call ourselves first world leaders, we can't let this happen.

I will not vote for any candidate that supports the FMA or similar action to amend any state constitution. While I can stomach for now candidates that are not 'pro-gay marriage,' I will not vote for them if they go for the FMA. That includes you John Kerry if you decide to flip-flop your coifed up little self one more time. I live in Texas so I can vote Green and not give a damn in the general presidential election.

I believe that this family is not a threat to our national stability. I believe that this sight makes me think about the underlying frustration in the gay community. I believe these people are scary homophobes. I belive that this man doesn't deserve four more years of policy making. I believe that this governor had a bad face day. And I think that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is showing courage not often found in politicians by saying that he will risk his political career for this fight.

I also believe that this couple is still not a threat to your marriage.

Have any of you married couples felt the bonds of your love unraveling this past week? Any parents suddenly filing for divorce because of those shock waves being sent out from the East and West Coasts?

I thought not.

Maybe it is time.

Shame on Urban Outfitters

By Byron LaMasters

This is NOT COOL.

Yeah, it's via Drudge. Grrr. If I see someone wearing one, I'll have a few choice words to say the least (and that's if I'm having a good day)...

Concerns About Kerry

By Byron LaMasters

Reading ABC's The Note today remind me of why I'm leaning towards Edwards. I don't think I'd go as far as saying that John Kerry makes me uneasy, because in all likelihood, I'll spend the next eight months defending John Kerry as the great hope for the American restoration. But what I don't understand about Kerry is why did he vote against DOMA if he essentially favors it now (and I don't mean to take anything away from Kerry voting against DOMA - it was a courageous thing to do)?

Kerry did the round of network morning shows today, slamming the President on gay marriage and accusing him of trying to "divide the country" -- and defending against charges that he's a flip-flopper. A quick look:

On ABC's "Good Morning America," Kerry told Charlie Gibson that as a matter of law under the Defense of Marriage Act, the State of Ohio would not have to recognize a marriage performed in the State of Massachusetts.

Kerry said that he does not favor repealing DOMA, even though he voted against it in the Senate based on the rationale that it represented an "outright effort of gay bashing on the floor of the United States." He compared DOMA to President Bush's effort to amend the Constitution and said they were both done for the same purpose: "to divide the country." (There was no mention of President Clinton's pretty key role in signing DOMA.).

Ok, maybe I'm overreacting. Yes, DOMA was only opposed by 14 votes in the Senate, and repealing isn't really a political possibility, but Kerry should have stood by his vote and said that it wasn't necessary then, and it's not necessary now, because individual states have the right to decide for themselves how they will recognize marriage.

Moving on was more on Kerry while stumping in Ohio yesterday:

Inside Astros Shapes of Struthers, Ohio, Kerry seemed to have trouble connecting with the 90 manufacturing plant workers gathered at the closed to the public event. Kerry twice referred to Ohio as Iowa, answering seven questions in 27 minutes, with three of the responses taking well over five minutes.

In a scene eerily reminiscent of a pre-staff shake-up Kerry, the Senator drifted from a question on retirement pensions into a riff on "No Child Left Behind," explained the Bush Administration cuts in veterans' benefits by blaming failures inside the Office of Management and Budget, and labeled the Bush Administration's foreign policy a "folly."

Rambling answers, confusing Ohio with Iowa, not connecting with his audience? Grrr... This is an easy problem to fix, one would think. Kerry's advisors and consultants need to get him out of this. Like so many politicians, John Kerry likes to hear himself speak. Now, I don't mind. I happen to like sitting down and watching C-SPAN for hours on end (of, well sometimes) watching politicians listen to themselves speak. But most American's don't. They don't want simple questions to be answered in seven minute mini-speeches. Most American voters want a message, and someone that can sell it. That's what I see John Edwards do all across the country. Kerry may have the right profile to be president, but it's hard to articulate what John Kerry's message for America is. I'm really hoping for a debate in Texas before our primary as Texas Democratic Party Chairman Charles Soechting has called for. It would be helpful for people like me who are still undecided. I'll definitely keep an open mind until after Super Tuesday (so, for once, I will probably not be voting early). However, if either candidate accidentally refers to Texas as Tennessee or something, well he can kiss my primary vote goodbye.

DMN: 2004 to be the "Most consequential presidential election in a generation"

By Byron LaMasters

For once, I wholeheartedly agree with a Dallas Morning News Editorial on the candidacy of Ralph Nader:

Mr. Nader plans to plug away for gay marriage, universal health care and a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and against the North American Free Trade Agreement, tax cuts and globalism.

Well, fine. It's a free country. But it's also a country facing much more serious challenges than the last time Mr. Nader ran. On the most important issue of all – how America will deal with the post-9-11 world – Mr. Nader's notion that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties is absurd. Because of the two competing visions of America's place in the world, this is likely to be the most consequential presidential election in a generation. Given those stakes, it's hard to see that Mr. Nader's gadfly candidacy serves any useful purpose this year, besides mischief-making for Democrats.

Amen. Ralph Nader serves no useful purpose in the 2004 election. Period. Let's do our part in Texas to keep him off the ballot in Texas.

It's the Economy (or War) Stupid!

By Byron LaMasters

Even though recent polls show that the majority of Americans oppose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, even in socially conservative states like Missouri where such a proposal might be a winner for Bush, it's very low on people's list of priorities. It's the economy, stupid. The LA Times reports:

Here in the political swing state of Missouri, considered a top prize in the 2004 presidential election, voters overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. They also solidly back the concept of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

A statewide poll in late January found that 62% of Missouri voters oppose granting same-sex couples the same benefits as married pairs. And 53% favor a constitutional amendment, according to the poll, which was conducted by the St. Louis Post Dispatch and television station KMOV.

That puts Missouri — which narrowly supported Bush in the 2000 election — on the conservative side compared with the nation as a whole. A majority of Americans oppose gay and lesbian marriage, but polls indicate that less than 40% support a constitutional change.

An ABC News--Washington Post survey last month found that six in 10 Americans prefer to let states define marriage on their own.

A majority of Missouri voters, by contrast, would welcome a federal standard like the one Bush has endorsed.

But that doesn't mean that Bush has an automatic edge on his Democratic rival here in the heartland come November.

Even in this community of 11,000 — which overwhelmingly backed Bush in the last election — voters made it clear that gay marriage is not high on their list of concerns as they weigh presidential candidates.

They're far more interested, they said, in hearing detailed proposals to create jobs, make healthcare more affordable and improve education. They're also upset with the course of the war in Iraq — and some are hoping a new commander in chief might turn things around.

"I got to church on Sunday and I read my Bible, and my point of view is that marriage should be a man and a woman, so I'm for what Bush is saying," said Ray Spavale, 64. "But I might vote for [Massachusetts Sen. John F.] Kerry this time around. Bush jumped into the war in Iraq too soon. I don't like to see our young men dying."

"It would take a lot more than this one issue to make me vote for Bush," said Carolyn Baynes, 70, a retired credit specialist who supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Interviews with two dozen shoppers Tuesday in this well-off suburb west of St. Louis found passions running high on the subject of gay and lesbian marriage. Just about everyone had an opinion — and a vehement one — on whether the state should sanction same-sex unions.

Sure, everyone has an opinion about the gay marriage issue. It's good that we're finally having a debate about it in America. The only way that we'll actually make progress on social issues and for equal rights for all Americans is if we actually force people to talk about it. It'll be a long process, but what's clear here, is that even conservative voters in middle-America aren't buying it. They're not convinced by the scare tactics of the right. The anti-gay marriage amendment may be a factor in their voting, but only after issues like the ongoing war in Iraq, education and jobs. The article goes on:

Yet many also expressed ambivalence about turning their private, often religiously rooted, beliefs into a political crusade.

[...]

Construction contractor Robert Diamante has made up his mind: Much as he recoils from the idea of same-sex marriage, he does not want to tamper with the Constitution. He's uneasy with the federal government imposing a value system on its citizens — even a value system he happens to agree with.

"This is America," said Diamante, 39. "People can live their own lives."

[...]

Over at Wal-Mart, however, Ruth Ruprecht looked up from a stack of toasters to say she couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. A retired educator, Ruprecht, 73, said she figured gay marriage was inevitable — a concept she, like much of America, would have to learn to accept.

"We're breaking a new frontier," Ruprecht said. "You object for a little while, but you get used to it. This is a way of life now. It's going to happen."

Gay marriage is inevitable. Just look at the poll numbers for young people. Not only to most polls show that most young voters (18-29) oppose a anti-gay marriage consitutional amendment, polls show that most young voters, in fact, support gay marriage. Sure, young people may not vote as much today, but in a generation, we'll be the leaders of America, and our generation will see that this civil rights battle is won, once and for all. Just go to most any college campus (ok, well maybe not Liberty University of Bob Jones, but you get the idea). Being openly gay in most colleges is like being openly Black or openly left-handed. It's not really an issue (well that is for everyone but the YCT folks who have their straight pride days and White's only scholarships).

State Bar Polls for Judicial Candidates

By Byron LaMasters

I recently received an email of the State Bar Polls for the Texas Judicial races (I think they're on the Quorum Report as well, but you need a subscription. Among incumbents, Steven Wayne Smith is the only Judge to lose the bar poll. I'm pleasantly surprised with David Van Os's showing (48%), and I'm certainly happy that Jan Patterson won a large majority in her race. She spoke with the University Democrats last Wednesday. Anyway, here's the results:

TEXAS SUPREME COURT:

Place 5, Justice-Full Term:
(R)-Paul Green, San Antonio --72%– (5410)
(R)-Steven Wayne Smith, Austin –28% – (2061) (I)

Place 9, Justice-Full Term
(D)-David Van Os, San Antonio – 48% – (3625)
(R)-Scott Brister, Hockley – 52% – (3913) (AI)

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Place 2, Judge-Full Term
(R)-Guy James Gray, Jasper – 19% – (1097)
(R)-Lawrence "Larry" Meyers, Fort Worth – 56% – (3310) (I)
(D)-Quanah Parker, Abilene – 25% – (1472)

Place 5, Judge-Full Term
(R)-Cheryl Johnson, Austin – 51% -- (2845) (I)
(R)-Patricia Noble, Dallas – 26% -- (1469)
(D)-Thomas Edward Oxford, Groves – 23% -- (1266)

Place 6, Judge-Full Term
(D)-J. R. Molina, Fort Worth – 33% -- (1930)
(R)-Michael E Keasler, Austin – 42% – (2443) (I)
(R)-Steven M. Porter, Boerne – 25% – (1453)

1ST COURT OF APPEALS (Houston- 14counties)

Place 4, Justice-Full Term

(R)-Evelyn Keyes, Houston – 59% -- (966) (I)
(D)-Jim Sharp, Houston – 41% – (668)

3RD COURT OF APPEALS (Austin- 24 counties)

Place 4, Justice-Full Term
(R)-Bill Green, Austin –6%-- (101)
(R)-Ernest C. Garcia, Austin – 24% -- (387)
(D)-Jan Patterson, Austin –69% -- (1097) (I)

Place 6, Justice-Unexpired Term
(R)-Bob Pemberton, Austin – 48% -- (700) (AI)
(D)-Diane Henson, Austin – 37% (537)
(R)-William C. (Bill) Davidson, Austin – 15% – (212)

9TH COURT OF APPEALS (Beaumont- 11 counties)

Place 2, Justice-Full Term

(R)-Charles Kreger, Conroe – 64% – (149)
(R)-Ralph K. Harrison, The Woodlands – 36% – (83)

10TH COURT OF APPEALS (Waco- 16 counties)

Place 3, Justice-Full Term
(D)-Boyd Mangrum, Waco – 21% -- (56)
(R)-Felipe Reyna, Lorena – 67% – (175) (AI)
(R)-Lynnan Locke Kendrick, Waco – 12% – (32)

13TH COURT OF APPEALS (Corpus Christi- 20 counties)

Place 3, Justice-Full Term
(R)-Alicia Cuellar, Corpus Christi – 33% – (142)
(D)-Linda Yanez, Edinburg –67% – (285) (I)

14TH COURT OF APPEALS (Houston- 14 counties)

Place 9, Justice-Full Term
(R)-Eva Guzman, Houston – 76% – (1482) (I)
(R)-Lloyd Wayne Oliver, Houston –24% -- (465)

(I) - denotes incumbent
(AI)- denotes appointed incumbent

Shocker! Kerry Wins 3 More

By Byron LaMasters

Here's the results, via CNN:

Candidate Vote % State Del

Utah (100% reporting)
Kerry 55% - 5
Edwards 30% - 3
Kucinich 7% - 0
Dean 4% - 0

Idaho (100% reporting)
Kerry - 54% - 12
Edwards 22% - 6
Dean 11% - 0
Kucinich 6% - 0

Hawaii (97% reporting)
Kerry 50% - 14
Kucinich 26% - 6
Edwards 14% - 0
Dean 323 8% - 0

A few things of note. Edwards probably could have made a run for a victory in Utah or Idaho if he had just visited there. On the other hand, though, who cares? A visit could have given him maybe a handful more delegates, which compared to the delegates at stake next Tuesday is completely insignificant. Why bother picking up a delegate or two in these states when you can pick up a few dozen in say - Georgia or Ohio. That is, of course, unless your name is Dennis Kucinich. He campaigned in Hawaii, and it paid off with a strong second place with 26% of the vote, which was good for six delegates. Dennis Kucinich, may just get more delegates than dates after all.

Back to Edwards - He's closing in Georgia (via kos) in the American Research Group poll. Kerry leads 45-37% there. I'll bet on Edwards scoring a win there (even though John Lewis and Max Cleland are working hard for Kerry). New York looks just about out of reach for Edwards (Kerry has a 54-21% lead), and Ohio is closer but still a solid (46-27%) Kerry lead. Then again, five days before the Wisconsin primary, Kerry had a 53-16% lead in Wisconsin, and that 37 point lead eroded 31 points in five days. Anything can happen, and don't forget that the schedule gets a lot easier for Edwards after Super Tuesday.

Protest Ralph Nader Tomorrow in Austin

By Andrew Dobbs

Hey everyone, I'm going to be taking some time out of the incredibly hectic Student Government campaign I've been working on to tell Ralph Nader not to run for President. It will probably be next to impossible for him to get on the ballot in Texas (he'll need to gather a minimum of 65,000 signatures in 2 months, you'll probably need at least 100,000 since many of them won't work out) but we need to nip this in the bud. Make it clear that the grassroots are against him reelecting Bush.

Ralph will be on the University of Texas campus in the Geology Building, room 2.324 at 7:00 pm. It will get crowded fast and we want to be visible so let's say we meet up at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Statue on the East Mall at 5:30 PM with signs already made. "Ralph Don't Run" or "No Ralph No" or "A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Bush" or "No More Floridas" or something to that effect would be great. Let's get a big crowd out there and let him know that the grassroots are not going to let him spoil this election.

5:30 PM, MLK Statue, UT Campus, Ralph Nader Protest. Have your signs made and I'll see you there.

Tell Mary Cheney to Stand up to Bush's Attack on her Family

By Byron LaMasters

Send a letter to Mary Cheney.

Americans Oppose Hate Amendment

By Byron LaMasters

According to this National Annenberg Election Survey poll:

Group / % For / % Against
Total 41% 48%
Men 44% 46%
Women 39% 50%
Northeast 36% 50%
Midwest 41% 47%
South 48% 43%
West 36% 56%
18-29 years old 30% 58%
30-44 years old 42% 49%
45-64 years old 44% 45%
65+ years old 49% 40%
Attend church more than once a week 62% 33%
Once a week 52% 39%
Once or twice a Month 39% 47%
A few times a year 29% 59%
Never 29% 59%
Republican 57% 35%
Democrat 34% 57%
Independent 37% 52%
Has gay friend, family, or colleague 34% 56%
No gay friend, family, colleague 50% 42%
Conservative 56% 36%
Moderate 37% 52%
Liberal 26% 66%
Married or living as married 46% 43%
Others 34% 57%
High school or less 43% 45%
Some college 41% 50%
College degree or more 39% 52%

Now, the poll also shows that most Americans do oppose gay marriage, but it looks as if many Americans who might otherwise feel uneasy about gay marriage, see this proposed amendment as hateful pander to the far right.

The Hate Amendment

By Byron LaMasters

Henseforth, on this blog, I shall refer to the Federal Marriage Amendment as the Hate Amendment. George W. Bush can't win this election on jobs or on foreign policy (because he's miserably failed in both regards), so he's playing the gay card. Blame it on the homos. Andrew Sullivan (someone who endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 if you all remember) has correctly declared (on his website, via a reader) that Bush's full endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment as a declaration of war against gays and lesbians in America:

The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

Amen to that (well, other than the fact that I never bought into the whole uniter crap in 2000). Never before has the United State constitution been amended to rewrite discrimination into that sacred document. It took hundreds of years to amend the constitution to do away with discrimination against African-Americans (XIII, XIV, XV) and women (XIX), and now the President of the United States, here in the twenty-first century wants to rewrite discrimination into the United States Constitution. This is not only a declaration of war against gays and lesbians, as Andrew Sullivan writes, this is a declaration of war against the United States Constitution.

There is some good news, however. Karl-Thomas wrote earlier that he wasn't sure if he could vote for Kerry in November based on some of his previous statements on the issue. Karl-Thomas, I'm here to tell you that you can gladly vote for Kerry or Edwards. Sure, neither of them support gay marriage (but then again, neither did Howard Dean), but both went on the record this afternoon as opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It's our job to hold them to it. The AP reports:

Democrats accused Bush of tinkering with a document that is the bedrock of American democracy to divert election-year attention from his record — an allegation the White House denied. Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., who hopes to run against Bush in this year's presidential election, said: "I believe President Bush is wrong."

"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign," said Kerry, who opposes gay marriage but will oppose the amendment if it reaches the Senate floor. Bush is "looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people," Kerry said.

Campaigning in Georgia, where the state legislature is debating its own ban on gay marriage, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites), D-N.C., said he was against the president's idea of a constitutional amendment. "I don't personally support gay marriage myself," he said. "My position has always been that it's for the states to decide."

Ok, so now I just need to decide which one of these guys I'm going to vote for...

More Planoization (Special NCLB Edition)

By Jim Dallas

The New York Times today has a story about grassroots reaction to the No Child Left Behind Law. Seems that in more than a few states, the people are on the verge of revolution.

It's both sad and amusing to read the comments people are making about the law after they've discovered just how hard it is to meet federal expectations:

Last fall, 245 of Utah's 810 schools were put on a watch list because they had failed to make "adequate yearly progress," said Steven O. Laing, Utah's state school superintendent. Many had been considered excellent schools, but ended up on the list because one small group of students — fifth-grade special education students, for instance — had failed to reach academic targets.

In a meeting with Mr. Meyer on Tuesday, several Republican senators asked questions reflecting concerns about schools put on watch lists in their districts. Mr. Meyer described the law as a tool that helps states to measure school performance, while giving them the flexibility to set their own proficiency benchmarks.

"It's a pretty dynamic business management model," Mr. Meyer said.

After the meeting, Senator Bill Wright, a Republican who is chairman of the Senate Education Committee, said Mr. Meyer had done "a great job."

"But we still have a difference of opinion about how N.C.L.B. would affect Utah," Senator Wright said.

An hour later, Mr. Meyer met with school superintendents. He heard Steven C. Norton, superintendent of a rural district in northern Utah, report that parents were upset that two schools had been put on a watch list because the law required that 95 percent of students take the standardized tests and one student less than that qualifying threshold had shown up on testing day.

"These are die-hard conservative Republicans, and they feel that this is like crying wolf when they see their school labeled for frivolous reasons," Mr. Norton said in an interview that he had told Mr. Meyer.

That evening, addressing 50 educators and parents at Kearns High School in a Salt Lake City suburb, Mr. Meyer said that American schools needed to improve so that workers could compete for jobs in a globalized economy. The law, he said, empowered educators by identifying students who needed special help and resources.

Russel Sias, a retired engineer and registered Republican whose daughter is a middle school teacher, said to a reporter at the meeting: "I feel like we're hearing the best vacuum cleaner salesman in the world. They're going to label every school in the country as failing, and they call it empowerment?"

Truth be told, many schools are probably getting unfairly labeled as underperforming for frivolous reasons. But what irks me about this story is that it seems to attribute too much to the law's mistakes and too little to the fact that some schools simply weren't as good as people believed they were.

The "big lie" of the 2000 Election (discounting the Florida recount and Social Security privatization), was that there was an education crisis sweeping America. Strangely, though, many folks came to believe there was a crisis - but that this crisis only affected other people's children.

The NCLB law's tough accountability stance seems in part based upon this "crisis" mentality, which is why I find it funny people are suddenly having to confront the reality that, for the most part, most American schools could be criticized if you just set the bar high enough (even though the reasonable and non-panicky thing to say is that most schools are doing a fairly good job for most of their students).

(And the reality that federal intervention in public education - particularly one that metastasized into a multi-billion dollar unfunded mandate - is going to be a real pain in the neck).

On the other hand, if NCLB it has had one positive impact, has been that it has forced people to recognize that there was real educational deficiency - and it wasn't just being ghettoized in the inner city; it was being pushed out of sight into special education and other dark corners (the real crisis we weren't being told about).

I hope we all learn something from this experience.

Rock The Vote Blog

By Byron LaMasters

This is cool to see. Rock the Vote has a blog. They've got some interesting info about Gen-X voting apathy, gay marriage, the Janet Jackson / Super Bowl incident and voting rights for students at Prairie View A&M University. Check it out...

No, I'm not Behind This

By Byron LaMasters

And no, I won't be attending. I have two exams tomorrow, but it does look as if some folks are planning a little event tomorrow morning at the governors mansion. It seems a bit silly to me, but maybe it will give the Austin Chronicle something to report.

A Dean / Edwards Alliance

By Byron LaMasters

There are certainly signals of such an alliance, and as I wrote last week, Dean and Edwards are talking, although I don't really see Dean endorsing Edwards anytime soon. Reuters reports that some Dean state organizations are helping Edwards:

Edwards is hoping for an endorsement from former rival Howard Dean, the ex-governor of Vermont who dropped out of the race last week. He has benefited in several states from the support of Dean's political organization and on Monday announced his endorsement by two leaders of the "Generation Dean" youth movement.

"We're going to do what we've got to do to get the word out for Edwards," Dean's former Ohio state coordinator Steve Chaffin told Reuters after endorsing him this week.

Among other former Dean supporters backing Edwards, Kos endorsed Edwards yesterday, and offered a strong case for undecided voters like myself to support Edwards. Early voting in Texas started today, and for the first time in awhile, I won't be voting on one of the first days of early voting. Instead, I think I'll wait until after Super Tuesday to see what happens. I'm currently leaning towards Edwards, but still undecided. Andrew has told me that he plans on voting today (for Edwards), so I'm sure he'll write on the experience when he has a chance.

Break a Leg

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's Monday again, so time for some humor here on the BOR. Our first piece is from Fredericksburg. No, not my hometown out in the Hill Country but historic Fredericksburg, Virginia.

A Fredericksburg man has been charged with yanking off a neighbor's prosthetic leg and beating him with it during an argument.

Authorities say the fight started when the victim, Michael Clapp, 38, discovered a bottle of medicine missing from his Townsend Boulevard apartment Wednesday night.

Clapp suspected his neighbor, 27-year-old Rodney Prophitt, and went next door to confront him around 7:15 p.m., city police spokesman Jim Shelhorse said. When he did, police say, Prophitt knocked Clapp to the ground, then pulled off his artificial leg and struck him with it several times.

"At some point, Mr. Clapp was able to grab his leg back, get back to his apartment and call 911," Shelhorse said.

Police charged Prophitt with felonious assault and petty larceny. Clapp was treated at Mary Washington Hospital for a broken nose and other facial injuries. Shelhorse did not know what type of medication was taken or why Clapp has a prosthetic leg.

Ok, I'm sure Mr. Clapp didn't think it was funny but come on, it's not everyday that one gets beaten with their own body parts.

For more humor, this time involving our President and his Team, check out the extended entry...

Here ya go.

Hot on the heels of the capture of Saddam Hussein, security guards at New York's Kennedy airport today arrested an individual, later identified as a public school teacher, trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule and a calculator.

At a morning press conference, Attorney-General John Ashcroft said he believed the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

"Al-gebra is a fearsome cult," Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country.

"As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, there are three sides to every triangle," Ashcroft declared.

When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes.

"I am gratified that our government has given us a sine that it is intent on protracting us from these math-dogs who are willing to disintegrate us with calculus disregard. Murky statisticians love to inflict plane on every sphere of influence," the President said, adding: "Under the circumferences, we must differentiate their root, make our point, and draw the line."

President Bush warned, "These weapons of math instruction have the potential to decimal everything in their math on a scale never before seen unless we become exponents of a Higher Power and begin to factor-in random facts of vertex."

Attorney-General Ashcroft said, "As our Great Leader would say, read my ellipse. Here is one principle he is uncertain of: though they continue to multiply, their days are numbered as the hypotenuse tightens around their necks."

500,000 to 1,000,000 Protesters Expected at GOP Convention

By Byron LaMasters

This could easily turn into a circus. The New York Times reports:

Though the Police Department and many protest organizers have been reluctant to predict how many people will ultimately turn out for protests, estimates have ranged from 500,000 people to a million.

Six months before any delegate is to take a seat at Madison Square Garden, it is clear that many groups are already planning strategy and activities. Labor unions, environmentalists, self-declared anarchists and others who merely label themselves as anti-Bush or anti-Republican are making plans to turn out. Barely a week passes without several planning sessions in New York, focusing on everything from housing and tactics to legal strategy and what to expect in interactions with the police.

Are Bush / Rove etc., still deluded into thinking Bush can actually carry New York? Hah.

Bush Booed at California GOP Event

By Byron LaMasters

It's really great to see the GOP implode. Now, George W. Bush is getting booed by Republicans. The LA Times reports:

An uproar over illegal immigration roiled the state Republican convention on Saturday as party leaders struggled to keep the rank and file united behind Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush.

Hundreds of GOP loyalists booed the president at a rally where U.S. Senate hopeful Howard Kaloogian and his allies denounced Bush's plan to give temporary legal status to undocumented workers.

"Enough is enough!" the crowd shouted. "Enough is enough!"

A Kaloogian supporter, Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, told the crowd he knew a gynecologist who surveyed patients about the plan and found it rated "right below genital herpes."

Schwarzenegger fared no better than Bush. Even staunch allies of the governor distanced themselves from his effort to strike a deal with Democrats on a bill to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa of Vista warned that the move would "empower criminal aliens."

It's always fun to see Tom Tancredo screw with whatever Hispanic outreach attempt that Bush is trying to make. Via Atrios who has now enabled trackbacks thanks to Haloscan.

Buy more Girl Scout cookies

By Jim Dallas

Because Atrios said so.

Because my young(er) sister, who is a Brownie Scout, said so.

And because the nutters in Waco said not to do so:

This year's annual Girl Scout cookie sale is going well, despite, or perhaps because of calls for a boycott over the local council's sponsorship of Planned Parenthood's "Nobody's Fool Conference" and the groups’ decision to honor Planned Parenthood's executive director.

"We're pleased to report that the cookie sales have been going very well. All the media attention has definitely put us in the spotlight and those that are very much in support of girl scouts and want to show their support of girl scouts, have been going out of their way to find out where they can purchase cookies, " says local Girl Scouts Executive Director Beth Vivio.

Vivio says some residents are dropping by the scout office to place orders-- something that's never happened before.

And some regular cookie buyers are doubling their orders.

But there have been a few negative incidents...

Vivio says some young cookie sellers in Temple were the target of what she calls inappropriate comments as a result of the controversy.

Pro Life Waco's John Piscotta is the voice on the radio spots calling for the boycott, including a new one that went on the air this week.

He says his group is not going after the girl scouts and that the ads-- target adults.

Pisciotta say he was asked by the station manager of KBDE, a Waco Christian radio station, to make the public aware of the affiliation between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood.

"I regret if the nice relationships that some people have with their scout organizations of troops have been disrupted, but there are also many moms and dads that are shocked by this information," says Pisciotta.

In response to the ads, Vivio says, "We feel like we are being used by this individual and his attempt to further his cause. Certainly, he's entitled to his beliefs and has a lot of people who support what he's doing, but it's very unfortunate that the Girl Scouts and particularly the young girls we serve are being used in this way."

Some parents have pulled their daughters out of the Girl Scouts because of the affiliation with Planned Parenthood, but others remain supportive.

Whether the council continues to co-sponsor the annual Nobody's Fool Conference is a question that will be addressed at a board meeting next month.

Vivio says it's now become an internal issue that has strong support on both sides.

Like Atrios, I'm waiting for the Boy Scouts to stop caving into the nutters.

Blog Ads of a Different Kind

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Bush may be gearing up to release some if his $143 million in the first blast of ads on television but it seems the RNC has started their part on the web.

Yesterday I checking out the statistics for Burnt Orange Report traffic, which had exploded because of Byron's latest posting about the Rick Perry Rumors. There on top of the Site Meter Report was the latest banner ad from the Rublican National Committee which I managed to capture.

Interesting that they were using Edwards for their picture if they are so sure that John Kerry will be their opposition. Though I have wondered if it may be their intention to start attacking Kerry this next week in the lead up to Super Tuesday voting so that Kerry has to defend from two sides and give Edwards a chance of slipping in some wins. (Conspiracy: Hurt Kerry now so that Edwards becomes the nominee because they would rather run against him and have the money to afford this even if it doesn't work and Kerry just gets damaged?)

Either way, I went ahead and clicked on the ad to see where it went to. It was just the usual front page for getting people to find out more about Bush. But it did have the following interesting piece which I captured as well and I bracketed the quote I will refer to.

UPDATE: A reader by the name of Benjamin L. has sent me a screenshot of his own by e-mail. He had this to say..."The RNC has been running their ads for several weeks now. I took this screencap two weeks ago, and I think you'll agree they aren't doing the best job of targetting them. Feel free to post it." So I am. It's in the extended entry because it's kinda big.

UPDATE 2: Kudos to 100 Monkeys Typing for yet another great example. Click here and then click on the ad. It's interesting.