Archive for March, 2010

Election Projection 2010: Midwest Senate Seats

Posted on: March 31st, 2010 by Kyle. | 2 Comments

The 2010 midterm elections are only seven months away. Like I did in 2008, Kylebell.com is going to track the projected outcomes of the election between now and election day. I’m going to be breaking up the projections into different regions. First up is the Midwest:

Indiana
Incumbent: Evan Bayh (D) – Retiring
Challenger(s): Rep. Brad Ellsworth (Democrat), Former Rep. John Hostettler, Former Senator Dan Coats and State Senator Marlin Stutzman (Republicans)
Prediction: Toss-up

Evan Bayh was elected in 1998 after serving two terms as Indiana’s governor. Dan Coats, who is considering a challenge to Bayh, retired in 1998 to avoid facing the popular Democrat in the general election. Bayh went on to win over 63% of the vote against the mayor of Fort Wayne. In 2004, despite President Bush beating John Kerry by over 20% in the state, Bayh was re-elected with 61%.

Since becoming Indiana’s junior senator, Bayh has taken a centrist stance (some would say even conservative). From 2001 to 2005 he was the head of the Democratic Leadership Council, which tries to push for moderate policies and candidates. Senator Bayh was one of three final picks to be President Obama’s Vice President (the other two being Tim Kaine and Joe Biden).

When I first wrote a draft of my prediction, I had this seat as “Leans Democratic”. That all changed when Senator Bayh announced in February that he would be retiring. The fact that a former senator is in the mix to win the Republican nomination and that Indiana has a conservative tilt make this a challenge for Democrats in the fall.

That said, they have recruited a top candidate in Brad Ellsworth, a former Sheriff of Vanderburgh County and a current Congressman from Southern Indiana. He won his seat handily in 2006, defeating incumbent John Hostettler, who lost his House seat in a rural part of Southern Indiana due to his far-right conservative views. As a candidate for the Senate, Hostettler would probably not fare much better statewide than he did in his former district.

Coats has already shown that he can win statewide, but that was over ten years ago. He has since been a lobbyist in Washington, a point that Democrats will drive home throughout the campaign. Another potential major downside to a Coats nomination for the Republicans is that he does not even live in Indiana anymore. He has been a resident of Virginia since he left the Senate. Ellsworth will certainly use that in television ads to paint Coats as a carpetbagger that only lives in Indiana when it is convenient.

Illinois
Incumbent: Roland Burris (D) – Retiring
Challenger(s): State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (Democrat), Rep. Mark Kirk (Republican)
Prediction: Leans Democratic

This is a seat that should never have been even considered competitive. That is until the former Governor Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Barack Obama’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. Before being impeached, Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris. At first, Democrats in the Senate refused to seat him and the Secretary of State in Illinois would not sign his certification. Ultimately he was allowed to be seated, but decided against running for a full-term due to poor fundraising and poll numbers.

Enter Republican Mark Kirk, a suburban Congressman from Chicago. Known as a moderate, he voted for President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal only to say it was a mistake when voters within his own party chastised him for the vote. However, now that he has won the Republican primary, expect him to tack back to the center. Alexi Giannoulias is a young, telegenic politician, somewhat similar to Barack Obama. He currently leads in the polls by a healthy 8 points. Yet for a state as Democratic as Illinois, that isn’t all that comforting. The Blagojevich scandal and uncertainy surrounding the economy may mean that this race would be competitive. For now, it leans towards the Democrats.

Wisconsin
Incumbent: Russ Feingold (D)
Challenger(s): Real Estate Developer Terrence Wall, Businessman Dave Westlake
Prediction: Leans Democratic

Russ Feingold campaigned in 1992 on a promise to rely on citizens from Wisconsin for his campaign contributions, that he would raise his children in Wisconsin and hire most of his staff with people from the state. When he ran for re-election in 1998, he imposed a spending limit of $3.8 million, which is one dollar for each citizen in the state. In 2001, he was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He joined John McCain in 2002 to pass McCain-Feingold, a landmark campaign finance law that capped the amount political parties could raise from individuals.

All of these have made Feingold a target of the Republican Party. His liberal positions in a state that has been trending more towards the center (with the exception of 2008) make him vulnerable to attacks from the right. Yet he has survived, winning by 12 percent in 2004 as George Bush nearly carried the state. He even won counties that George Bush also won. Despite his liberalism, his connectedness to the state seems to have paid dividends. For that reason, Wisconsin leans Democratic in 2010.

Ohio
Incumbent: George Voinovich (R) – Retiring
Challenger(s): Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher (Democrats), Former Rep. Rob Portman (Republican)
Prediction: Toss-Up

Ohio is the ultimate swing-state. It is a true microcosm of the United States. The Buckeye State has big cities, medium sized cities, small cities, small towns and rural farmland. While most of the state would consider themselves to be Midwesterners, Southern Ohioans have a drawl more common in the South. It has college towns, beaches, farmland and declining manufacturing centers.

It also has volatile politics. Ohio went slightly for George Bush in 2000 and 2004, but swung towards the Democrats in 2006′s midterm elections as they captured House seats and a Senate seat, along with the governor’s mansion. Barack Obama defeated John McCain in Ohio, ensuring a sweep of the entire Midwest. If there is a Republican comeback of any sort, it will have to start in Ohio defending this seat.

This is an expensive state to compete in. With major markets like Cleveland, Cincinatti and Columbus, along with medium-sized cities like Toledo and Dayton, the two parties could easily spend a good $15-$20 million here. Democrats spending money on a seat currently held by Republicans can help draw funds away from their vulnerable incumbents such as Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln and others. It doesn’t hurt that Republicans will use spending as a major campaign theme. Their leading candidate, Rob Portman, presided over record deficits as the budget director for George Bush.

Iowa
Incumbent: Chuck Grassley (R)
Challenger(s): Lawyer Roxanne Conlin, Former State Legislator Bob Krause
Prediction: Likely Republican

While President Obama sailed to victory in both the Iowa Caucus and general election in 2008, this year’s Senate race is going to be a tough one for Democrats to pull off. “As a good farmer, Senator Grassley must recognize that 51 years, or 58 years at the end of his term, is a long time to go without rotating crops,” Krause told supporters in Des Moines. Chuck Grassley has been around for five terms and shows no signs of retiring.

Grassley famously participated in healthcare “negotiations” during the summer with Democratic Senator Max Baucus, only to spread malicious falsehoods about the legislation when he met with voters during townhall meetings. This doesn’t seem to have hurt his support any. His Democratic challengers will undoubtedly be vastly outspent in campaign ads and the state party will be focused on retaining the governor’s mansion in the state.

Missouri
Incumbent: Kit Bond (R) – Retiring
Challenger(s): Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (Democrat), Rep. Roy Blunt (Republican)
Prediction: Toss-up

The Carnahan family is to Missouri what the Bayh family is to Indiana. Governor Mel Carnahan served from 1993 to 2000 and decided to run for the Senate. Unfortunately, shortly before the election, he died in a plane crash. Yet his name remained on the ballot and amazingly he managed to win against incumbent Senator John Ashcroft (yes, the guy that George W. Bush would name Attorney General). Mel Carnahan was the first person to be elected posthumously to the United States Senate.

They still needed to fill the sit, though, so the new governor appointed his wife, Jean Carnahan. Ultimately she decided to run in a special election in 2002 to fill out the remainder of Mel’s term. She lost to Jim Talent by approximately 20,000 votes and provided Republicans with their Senate majority after the 2002 midterm election. Four years later, in 2006, Senator Talent lost to Claire McCaskill as the Democrats reclaimed their majority status.

Robin Carnahan is attempting to keep the family name alive in her run for Senate this year against Republican Representative Roy Blunt. Like Ohio, Missouri is a bellweather state. What happens at a national level is often felt in these two states. Missouri has been trending slightly more Republican at the national level than other states in recent years, giving their electoral votes to President Bush in 2000 and 2004, as well as John McCain in 2008 by fewer than 4,000 votes.

However, Democrats have managed to win statewide office frequently. In 2006, aside from picking up a Senate seat, they also won the governor’s mansion back from Roy Blunt’s son, Matt Blunt, who decided to not run for re-election. The fact that Robin Carnahan comes from a political dynasty in Missouri should help her chances of winning this seat from the Republicans. Her campaign is distancing itself from the Democratic Party, highlighting her independence and ability to work across the aisle. This will be one of the closest elections of 2010. You can bet on that.

A Culture of Abuse: The Catholic Church’s Crisis of Leadership

Posted on: March 27th, 2010 by Kyle. | 1 Comment

The Catholic Church finds itself in yet another sexual abuse scandal involving children. This time, however, it involves a school for deaf children in Wisconsin. Father Lawrence Murphy molested as many as 200 children throughout his career as a priest. The response from church leadership: inaction.

As the New York Times has reported, Father Murphy began his priesthood in 1950. Within less than ten years, reports of sexual abuse surfaced. When the victims turned to church leaders, they were turned away. When they turned to law enforcement, they were sent back to church leadership. A circle of inaction protected a pedophile priest. “A criminal priest was an oxymoron to them,” John Conway, a vocational rehabilitation supervisor for the deaf when he first heard of the abuse occurring, told the New York Times.

Yet it was not complete inaction on the part of the church. Indeed, while internal investigations took place, they did only decades later and with no punitive damage against the priests. At the behest of Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Father Murphy was evaluated by a sexual disorders expert. “It was sex education for them. They were confused about sex,” Murphy said. “There was rampant homosexuality among the older boys. I fixed the problem.”

Ultimately, Father Murphy admitted to abusing 19 children, although as many as 200 were reported. Instead of immediately removing Murphy from the priesthood and involving the appropriate authorities in law enforcement, the Archbishop Rembert Weakland wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1996 (now known as Pope Benedict) about the sexual abuse occurring in his diocese. He asks for a recommendation on action to take.

After not hearing from Cardinal Ratzinger, he writes a second time in 1997 warning of impending lawsuits. In a response, Archbishop Weakland is urged to proceed with a canonical trial, but the decision is appealed by Murphy who cites his old age and health. The Secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict led prior to becoming pope, recommends leniency and dismisses a trial. Murphy died in 1998 with no action taken against him by the church

The saddest indictment against the Catholic Church is not the abuse itself, which has been well known for several years, but the continued cover-up. It is reprehensible that a body of men that call themselves servants of God do the dirty work of the devil. Instead of act as a normal individual would in hearing a story of a priest molesting hundreds of children, leadership within the Catholic Church turned a blind eye and indeed protected pedophiles within their ranks.

Catholics across this nation should be repulsed. They should demand a top-to-bottom scrubbing of an institution that has gone terribly wrong. There are perhaps more child molesters within the Catholic Church than in any other institution that is not within the confines of a jail. If Pope Benedict were serious about wishing to cleanse the church from its past sins, he would call on an independent investigation that would lay out all of the facts, name names and render judgment upon the criminals that hide behind the sacramental robe. Unfortunately for Pope Benedict, an investigation would only show that he was complicit with the culture of abuse, protecting the pedophile priests over the children that he was meant to protect.

As a former Catholic, I have found a personal spiritual refuge as an alternative to the corruption inherent with the Catholic Church. After the initial shock of the abuse scandal waned, I realized at quite an early age that I could no longer associate myself with an organization such as this. It was not an easy decision. I was raised Catholic by my grandmother, who despite hearing of the scandal, continued to attend church undeterred.

I do not blame the countless followers who only seek spiritual guidance in their weekly attendance of mass. Yet there must be a point when all Catholics realize that their continued attendance is essentially an approval of the leadership’s response to this issue. It is not as if the sexual abuse scandal is a minor, inconsequential incident, either. It is perhaps the most substantial series of events to occur in decades. Certainly since the Catholic Church’s movement away from Latin mass.

People of good faith, ones that believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, should demand nothing less than a complete rebuke of these misguided “leaders”, as well as a reprimand and criminal action against offending priests. Church leadership found to have been involved in any cover-up should be expelled from the ranks as they have done nothing less than promote the continued abuse and rape of children. This is no longer a matter of scattered cases of abuse, but a culture of abuse towards the most vulnerable in our society.

Finally, if the Catholic Church does not wish to take responsibility for its own actions, then it should fall upon law enforcement to rigorously investigate and prosecute abusive priests and the leadership that fosters their continued existence within church hierarchy. The Catholic Church is not above the law. The United States and our European allies are compelled to protect their citizens from egregious abuses such as this. Simply ignoring them as internal matters of the Catholic Church is not sufficient.

Health Care Vote Will Hurt Republicans in November

Posted on: March 23rd, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

Now that health care reform has passed both chambers of Congress and is going to be signed into law today by President Obama, the election year political messaging begins. A lot of attention has been given to the 17 House Democrats seeking re-election in districts John McCain won in 2008 after having voted for health care reform. But there are 32 House Republicans that voted against the bill in districts that President Obama won in 2008.

In other words, while Democrats will have to defend their vote in tough districts, nearly double the number of Republicans find themselves in similar situations. Worse yet for the GOP, there is evidence that support for the bill is significantly improving from where it was just a couple months ago when Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy.

President Obama’s approval rating on health care stood at 36-54 opposed in January (according to CBS) and was up to 41-51 by this past weekend before the vote took place. That’s a shift of 8 points in about a two month period and that is before the House even passed the bill. Undoubtedly, those numbers will continue to improve as the positive coverage from the bill’s passage continues. The president’s overall job approval is at 49-41 positive, an improvement from 46-41 in January.

What these numbers show is that the negative feelings towards this bill have peaked and the positive feelings are on the way up. As various aspects of the bill begin to be felt relatively quickly, such as kids being able to stay on their parent’s insurance plan until age 26 or the ban on pre-existing conditions, approval will continue to improve. Americans will realize that the Armageddon that Republicans literally said would take place after the bill passed was nothing more than scare tactics.

Not only are calls for repealing the bill ridiculously unrealistic (President Obama would veto any repeal), they also will ring hallow in November. Voters will question why the Republican Party is campaigning on a platform of repealing a ban on pre-existing conditions, filling the Medicare prescription doughnut hole, extending health insurance to 32 million Americans and reducing the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Let’s get back to those 32 House Republicans that voted against health care in districts that President Obama won. Below is a list of all of them:

Judy Biggert IL-13
Brian Bilbray CA-50
Mary Bono Mack CA-45
Ken Calvert CA-44
Dave Camp MI-4
John Campbell CA-48
Anh “Joseph” Cao LA-2
Michael Castle DE-AL
Charles Dent PA-15
David Dreier CA-26
Randy Forbes VA-4
Elton Gallegly CA-24
Jim Gerlach PA-6
Mark Kirk IL-10
Leonard Lance NJ-7
Tom Latham IA-4
Frank LoBiondo NJ-2
Daniel Lungren CA-3
Donald Manzullo IL-16
Thaddeus McCotter MI-11
Howard “Buck” McKeon CA-25
Erik Paulsen MN-3
Thomas Petri WI-6
David Reichert WA-8
Mike Rogers MI-8
Peter Roskam IL-6
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen FL-18
Paul Ryan WI-1
Lee Terry NE-2
Patrick Tiberi OH-12
Fred Upton MI-6
Frank Wolf VA-10
Bill Young FL-10

Two are running for the Senate, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware. Both of those districts are favored to be won by Democrats. Representative Cao sits in a heavily Democratic New Orleans district and was only elected because the sitting member was a convicted felon. He voted for the House bill last November, but opposed it on Sunday. You can count him as a lame duck. Democrats are sure to win that seat back.

Go down the list and you can see some vulnerable names in Democratic or Democratic-trending districts: Peter Roskam and Judy Biggert in the Chicago suburbs, Jim Gerlach whose failed bid for governor has undoubtedly put him behind the game in his suburban Philadelphia district, Dan Lungren of California went from 62% support in the 2004 election to 49% in 2008.

With the right challengers facing each of these vulnerable Republicans, Democrats have a good chance at winning a few of these seats. The Republican takeover of Congress that conservatives are talking about seems a long way away when you add that to the Democrats which are already favored to pick up Mark Kirk’s seat in Illinois, Mike Castle’s in Delaware and Cao’s in Louisiana.

Despite phony concern coming from Republican leaders over the political impact that health care reform would have on Democrats, most evidence suggests that passing the bill enhances their chances of retaining majority status. The Democratic Party in Congress and President Obama have, without a single Republican vote, passed historic legislation to provide universal health care coverage for Americans. This goal has eluded every president since Tedd Roosevelt over 100 years ago. It’s an achievement that puts them in the history books and on safer political ground than they would have been if Republicans succeeded in killing the bill.

Let me be clear that I do not mean to say that Democrats will gain seats in the midterm election this fall. I believe that we will see modest losses in the House and a handful in the Senate. This falls well within the political history of the president’s party losing seats in a midterm election. Democrats won in places in 2008 that we normally wouldn’t have: conservative districts in Alabama and Idaho, among others. These are likely lost causes in 2010. But the talk of a takeover of both the House and Senate by Republicans is overblown. They will not win either chamber for a long time to come.

House Passes Student Loan Reform, Increases Pell Grants

Posted on: March 21st, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

The United States House of Representatives today voted to increase Pell Grants to college students in need of financial assistance and voted to reform how student loans were awarded. As part of the health care reconciliation bill, these reforms will take away federal money that previously went directly to banks to provide loans to students. Instead, the federal government will now directly lend to students, saving $60 billion of taxpayer money over the course of 10 years.

Basically, these loans were giant subsidies to private banks. The banks received low interest loans from the government and when they signed loans with students, the risk was passed on to the government, which was responsible for defaults. This bill gets rid of the middle man. “What we have is a miraculous opportunity,” said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “Simply by stopping the subsidy to banks, we can plow those savings into our students.”

By voting against the reconciliation package in the House, every Republican member has voted against saving $60 billion in unnecessary spending to banks. The Republicans also voted against removing deals in the original health care proposal, such as the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback”, where money was directed to Nebraska and not any other state. I thought that they were against government waste? They’ve proven, yet again, that they will say one thing and do another.

Health Care Reform Becomes Law as House Passes Bill

Posted on: March 21st, 2010 by Kyle. | 1 Comment

Democrats scored a major victory on Sunday night as the health care bill, which has been debated for over a year, has finally passed both chambers of Congress and is expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama shortly. The vote was 219 to 212 with zero Republicans voting in favor. It is an achievement that eluded Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

The bill extends insurance to 32 million Americans that previously did not have health insurance, reduces the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades, bans the insurance industry practice of denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, and bans insurance companies from dropping coverage due to health. While Republicans have complained about a lack of bipartisanship, the bill includes over 200 Republican amendments.

Is America becoming a socialist nation?

Posted on: March 18th, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

It was not a common phrase in our lexicon until recently. Only after a black man was nominated and eventually elected president did the term “socialism” resurface to describe the Democratic Party’s leader. Bill Clinton avoided the accusation, as well as Al Gore and John Kerry. “Liberal” or “far left radical” was sufficient for them. But not for Barack Obama. Not for a president that many in white America fear as an illegitimate leader – one that only won 365 electoral votes and 53 percent of the popular vote – thanks to ACORN and falsified birth certificates. [end sarcasm]

It’s a serious charge, though, that I think we write off too quickly. While I would like to think that most Americans are reasonable enough to admit the simple reality that President Obama won the election in a landslide fashion and is indeed an American citizen, large numbers of Republicans come to different conclusions. Only 42 percent of Republicans polled by Research 2000 were found to believe that President Obama was a citizen of the United States. A majority were either convinced that he was not or were unsure.

So what motivates people to believe these fallacies? I believe that there are several causes, not the least of which is race. No one questioned a white president’s citizenship. The second is simply economics. There is a great deal of unease in our country today, largely derived from the economic anxieties that we live in, and rightfully so. But in these uncertain times people often come to conclusions that are, at best, flawed. They need someone to blame for all of their woes. President Obama is an easy target for them. He confirms their suspicions about a black man in the White House (emphasis on white).

I would rather not spend an entire post digressing about people’s (false) suspicions and conspiracy theories. I was invited to participate in a discussion about socialism in America on fire! Radio, an Internet radio program. You can listen to the full episode at this link or just click play on the player below. If you just want to hear what I have to say, you can skip to around 39:00 minutes, but the entire program is interesting:

What exactly is socialism, anyway? The standard dictionary definition of socialism is “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” If one wants to have an honest debate about government theory, properly defining terms is an important first step.

President Obama has never advocated for anything remotely close to a “command-and-control” system of government that socialism implies. Indeed, he has said throughout his political career and as president that he is a believer in the free market. At the same time, he has advocated for stronger protections of consumers through reforms of the financial system and health care system. One should not confuse government regulation with government control.

The second point that I would make is that the kinds of programs that have been derided as examples of “socialism”, such as the so-called public option, are already in existence for large portions of the population. Seniors benefit from “socialized medicine” in the form of Medicare. Veterans benefit from Veteran’s Affairs hospitals. The poor benefit from Medicaid. This is not a new concept in American politics. Protecting those that are vulnerable in society has been a priority among Democrats for decades.

Many of the complaints from some that have called President Obama a socialist were actually policies enacted during the Bush administration. TARP, otherwise known as the “bailout” for Wall Street, was a policy pushed by President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson in September 2008. It was Secretary Paulson that asked Congress for near limitless control over hundreds of billions of dollars with no oversight to speak of. The “auto bailout” began under President Bush as well. $17.4 billion was given to GM and Chrysler during the last month of the Bush administration (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html).

The bottom line is that the country is not moving towards socialism. We live in a democracy where elections have consequences. Those upset with President Obama’s policies vocally opposed him before he was elected and they lost. We have a long tradition in this country of enacting programs that protect the poor and those in need, as well as regulate industries that abuse their power. Those policies will undoubtedly continue to be advanced by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, as well as future Democratic politicians.

The Prop 8 Trial

Posted on: March 12th, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage in the Golden State was unconstitutional. The basis of this ruling was simple: the act of banning marriage for gays amounted to creating a status of second class citizens. Gay activists applauded the ruling, while conservatives derided it as an assault on traditional values. Soon after the ruling over 18,000 gay Californians tied the knot, committing to their relationship with one another just as straight Americans would.

The victory for gay Californians was short lived. Voters approved Proposition 8 during the fall 2008 election, banning gay marriage once again as an amendment to their state constitution. While the margin was close, only 52 percent of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8, compared to over 60 percent just eight years earlier, it made little difference to those that were once again unable to achieve marriage equality.

The battle continued beyond Election Day. While by 2009 gay marriage was legalized in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, Californians found themselves going backwards in the equality movement. A court challenge with the California Supreme Court was filed shortly after Prop 8 became law. The argument of the pro-marriage community was that Prop 8 first needed approval from the legislature before it could be approved by voters, since it fundamentally changed a basic right of citizens.

The California Supreme Court sided with supporters of Prop 8. As Lisa Leff of the Huffington Post put it, “While gay rights advocates accused the court of failing to protect a minority group from the will of the majority, the justices said that the state’s governing framework gives voters almost unfettered ability to change the California Constitution.” However, the ruling left unchanged the 18,000 gay marriages that had taken place between the initial Supreme Court ruling and Election Day of 2008.

The Prop 8 fight was seemingly over. Gay rights activists debated amongst each other whether a push to overturn Prop 8 should be put on the ballot in 2010 or 2012. Some argued that the quicker, the better, while tempers were still flared and gay rights activists were ready to go. Others argued that losing again in 2010 would set back the gay rights agenda more than Prop 8 did. Instead, waiting until 2012 would be the preferable approach, allowing a carefully crafted campaign to be built.

While Californians bickered amongst themselves about a way forward, two powerful Washington D.C. attorneys were setting their sights on the Golden State. Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative by any standard, joined forces with Democrat David Boies to challenge Proposition 8 in federal court. The two formerly faced off in the U.S. Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which ultimately decided the 2000 presidential election.

These unlikely allies filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Northern California on behalf of two gay men and two gay women. “Our Constitution guarantees every American the right to be treated equally under the law,” Boies said in May 2009. “There is no right more fundamental than the right to marry the person that you love and to raise a family… The courts exist to reverse injustices… This is not a question of state law. It’s a question of federal Constitutional law.”

The case before the U.S. District Court, which is in its final stages, wrested on the history of discrimination against gays in the United States and the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Both Boies and Olson argue that Proposition 8 violates basic constitutional protections. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution,” Olson said.

As Boies and Olson have pointed out, Prop 8 and the California Supreme Court ruling that followed created three distinct classes of Californians: straights that were free to marry (and divorce) whenever they want; the 18,000 gays that were married between their initial ruling and Prop 8 passing who were allowed to keep their marriages; and every other gay Californian who were not entitled to any marriage rights at all. Any reasonable interpretation of this ruling is that it violates basic constitutional principles of equal justice.

The hope of these attorneys is to eventually see the U.S. Supreme Court hear their case. This is, of course, more than just about California. It is about the legal rights of all Americans. I personally find it ironic that the act of banning gay marriage in Proposition 8 could ultimately lead to the opposite – legalization across the nation. A favorable ruling from the Supreme Court would mean that gays and lesbians could marry in every state. Such a reality depends on the verdict of one judge in California and the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the rights of this nation’s citizens.

Moderates Not Welcome in Republican Party

Posted on: March 10th, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

The sign on the door of the GOP is simple: “Moderates Need Not Apply”. The latest moderate GOP politician, if you can call him that, is Delaware’s lone Congressman Mike Castle. He is running for the Senate seat formerly held by Joe Biden before he became Vice President. Biden’s son Beau decided against running for his father’s former seat, leaving Castle as the favorite.

The Tea Partiers won’t have any of that, though. They strive for ideological purity over pragmatic political choices. You would think that they would have learned from last fall’s New York 23rd District that running teabaggers is not a way to win elections in swing districts. Democrat Bill Owens won that race, despite the fact that it had been Republican since the Civil War.

Instead, a right-wing challenger is exactly what Mike Castle is going to get. As reported by the Wilmington News Journal, Christine O’Donnell will challenge Rep. Mike Castle (R) in Delaware’s GOP Senate primary. She is a political commentator and a former (unsuccessful) two time candidate for Senate in 2006 and 2008. I can guarantee that O’Donnell will give Castle a run for his money if she fully embraces the Tea Party movement.

You may recall Congressman Castle from a town hall meeting last summer where a member of the audience brought in her birth certificate and demanded to know “why are you people ignoring his birth certificate?” Of course, she is referring to President Obama. The crowd burst into applause. “He is NOT an American citizen. He is a citizen of Kenya.” When Congressman Castle corrected her, the crowd booed him.

These people are the base of the Republican Party today. Moderates like Mike Castle, who will at least publicly say that the President is a U.S. citizen, are not popular with the Tea Party crowd. It’s odd how you are now a moderate if you can recognize facts from lunatic fringe conspiracy theories, but that’s the reality that we are living in.

Castle is not the only Republican facing a serious challenge from conservative challengers. Senator Arlen Specter was challenged from the right in Pennsylvania and left the Republican Party last year because polling showed that he would lose to conservative Pat Toomey. He was just the first casualty of this war against moderates. Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, once the favorite to win the Republican nomination for Senate in Florida, is now trailing conservative challenger Marco Rubio by nearly 20 percent. Not even the nominee of the Republican Party in 2008 is immune to these primary challenges. John McCain is facing off against former Congressman J.D. Hayworth.

For Democrats, the self-implosion of the Republican Party from right-wing extremists is a welcome development going into the 2010 elections. Democrats can position their candidates against the same tired conservative politicians that ran the country into the ground under George W. Bush. Unfortunately, it also means that there will be even fewer potential allies for President Obama and Congressional Democrats to turn to in order to pass legislation.

Celebrate Read an E-Book Week with 50% Discount

Posted on: March 7th, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

It is Read an E-Book Week from March 7 to 13. To celebrate this year’s promotion of e-reading, I will be offering all of my e-books for 50% off of their original price. Enter the code RAE50 at checkout to redeem your discount. On top of that, people that tweet about this article (linking to it) will be eligible to win a FREE copy of one of my e-books. Be sure to include @kylewbell in your tweet. Of course you can sample each of my books before you buy them. Just click the links below for each book:

An Election to Remember: Obama, Clinton and the Never Ending Primary of 08
International Political Economy: Free Trade or Fair Trade?
The Slavery Debate in 19th Century America
Detroit: A City on the Brink

They come in many different formats for different devices. Everything from the Sony Reader to the Amazon Kindle are supported. The winner of the free e-book will be selected randomly after the conclusion of Read an E-Book Week. Follow @kylewbell for updates on future promotions and news.

Gov. Rick Perry Gets Nod from Texas GOP

Posted on: March 2nd, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

Governor Rick Perry of Texas has defeated Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in the race for the GOP nomination for governor. Perry, the longest serving governor in Texas history, became governor when George W. Bush resigned to become president in 2001. His bid for a third full term was thought to be in real jeopardy when Hutchison announced her intention to run. In 2006, he was re-elected with less than 40 percent of the vote.

You may recall Rick Perry as the guy that mentioned secession as a possibility for Texas because of the policies of Barack Obama. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot,” he said in 2009.

Ultimately, the conservative voters of Texas won out. Perry garnered 51 percent of the vote, compared to 31 percent for Hutchison. A third Republican candidate, Debra Medina, has 18 percent of the vote. Medina raised the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job during an interview with Glenn Beck. Clearly it didn’t hurt her too much in the Republican Party as she was a no-name candidate, yet managed to register in double digits.

“I don’t have all of the evidence there, Glenn, so I don’t, I’m not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there so I have not taken a position on that,” Medina said.

Democrats see this as their best opportunity to win the Texas governorship in over a decade. The popular Houston Mayor Bill White will be the Democratic Party’s nominee. Having won 76 percent of the vote, the Democrats are clearly united behind their candidate. It will take some repairing for Perry to win over Hutchison voters, particularly given the nastiness of the campaign. We’ll see in November.