Updated: Yesterday’s Elections

It was Election Day yesterday.  People went to the polls to elect governors in New Jersey and Virginia, and members of Congress in New York and California.  Voters in Maine also decided a ballot measure on same-sex marriage.

I mostly want to talk about the referendum in Maine, but first a word or two about the votes in New Jersey and Virginia.  I disagree with the notion that these votes were somehow a report card on President Obama’s performance.  That, of course, isn’t to say that no lessons should be drawn from this election, just that the media are making mountains out of mole hills (or at least small hills), as they are wont to do. 

Let’s take Virginia:  Virginia voters have, for the past five gubernatorial elections, elected the opposite of the party controlling the White House.  If a Democrat won the White House, the Virginia Governor’s Mansion always went to a Republican, and vice-versa.  And that isn’t even mentioning the absolutely dismal campaign that Creigh Deeds ran.  In New Jersey, voters rejected the status quo and the corruption under Jon Corzine.

Now to Maine.  Same-sex marriage was repealed in Maine by a vote of 53 to 47 percent.  That margin is nearly the same as the margin on Proposition 8 in California last year.  A same-sex marriage law had been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor earlier this year.  The law had been suspended pending the outcome of the election.  This means, of course, that supporters of same-sex marriage have never won at the ballot box.

I think it shows that voters are still too easily swayed by what amounts to propaganda about same-sex marriage and that people are still caught up in traditional definitions of what makes a marriage.  People still can’t seem to separate religious and civil marriage, which are two distinct and separate things.  Until people see that distinction — which is blurry to many — we’re going to have these defeats at the ballot box.  I’m heartened, though, that same-sex marriage continues to win in court.  I think that the real victory will come in the legal system, just as the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by Loving v. Virginia.

Just as I was disgusted by the proponents of Yes on 8 (the no same-sex marriage crowd), I am similarly disgusted by the absolute disregard for people’s families that is being shown by the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine.  Take a look at some comments from Matt Barber.  They’re not pretty, but they show exactly what the anti-gay referenda are really about — homophobia, pure and simple (Hat Tip:  Pam’s House Blend – emphasis in Pam’s post).

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% – 47%:”There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ’same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1′ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1′ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow ‘gay’ duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker – who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room – homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda – counterfeit marriage might have prevailed.”

I don’t know how else his comments can be construed.  They’re simply homophobic and show what the anti-gay referenda are really about.  It seems to me that they’re about hate.  They hate gays and any perceived (even if it’s not true) invasion of the little boxes into which they want to put people.  As Pam notes in her post:

The fact is that it was, yet again, not yet time to test equality when put to a popular vote. It is proof, yet again, that civil rights should never be decided by mob rule — but the hateful people behind Yes on 1 capitalize on spreading fear — suckling pigs at the teat of dying, mud-covered sow of homophobia.  The hog is going to die.  Hate alone cannot sustain that beast.

We should find solace in the fact that the children and grandchildren of those who voted to rollback the rights of fellow Mainers will be embarrassed that their relatives were so short-sighted, duped by entities that exist solely to discriminate using the ballot box as a weapon — and making money off of the hate with great gusto.

Pam’s right.  People are going to look back in a few decades and wonder what all the fuss was about.  They’re going to look askance at their grandparents and wonder why they were so bigoted.  It’s going to be the same thing as what happened with inter-racial marriage a few decades ago.  Most of us wonder what the fuss was about.

So this is a major disappointment.  But we’ll get over it, learn from it, and keep advancing the cause of equal rights for LGBT people in America.  I still think the major victory is going to come in the courts, maybe even the Olson/Boies case now pending in federal court.  But whichever way it happens, it will happen.  It’s as inevitable now as it was when Gavin Newsom stupidly opened his fat mouth in 2004 and declared it so.

UPDATE: I just read David Mixner’s excellent post on yesterday’s election results in Maine.  He called the campaign against gay rights “gay apartheid.”  I agree.  I also agree that it is reprehensible for President Obama to sit on the sidelines.  I’ve been worried all year that maybe we have lost a major opportunity to repeal DOMA and DADT.  We’ve gotten some legislation, but DADT and DOMA are the big, consequential pieces of legislation that have to be repealed.  What is going to make Obama work on our behalf now?  I’m tired of half measures and getting patted on the head and told to go away.  I’m tired of politicians who do that.  I’m beginning to be sorry I worked for and voted for Obama last fall.  I’m beginning to be sorry I thought that he was different.

Obama’s Apparent Sexism

Am I the only woman in the world who thinks that President Obama should be able to play basketball with whomever he wishes to play?  We have a New York Times story breaking the news about President Obama’s White House frat house feel:

Does the White House feel like a frat house?

The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.

[snip]

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

While the senior adviser Valerie Jarrett is undeniably one of the president’s closest White House confidantes, some women inside or close to the administration complain that Mr. Obama’s female advisers are not as visible as their male colleagues or, they suspect, as influential.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton administration whose sister, Betsy, served as the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer.

Ms. Myers said women have high expectations of the president. “Obama has a personal style that appeals to women,” she said. “He is seen as a consensus builder; he is not a towel snapper and does not tell crude jokes.”

I find myself agreeing with Kathleen Parker in today’s Washington Post.  This is all one big yawn.  I mean, can you see Senator Barbara Mikulski playing basketball with the president as Obama drives to the basket?  Well, it would be comedic.  Basketball is, after all, a contact sport.

 We in the United States have enough problems (two wars, health care reform, gay rights, global warming, to name just a few) without being so over-sensitive to non-issues.  Obama has, as Valerie Jarrett pointed out, appointed women to many high-level posts inside the White House.  To me, this is what matters.  I get that this is about access to the president.  But I think that Obama should be able to play ball with whoever he wants to play ball with.  And the rest of America needs to grow up.

Interracial Couple in Louisiana Denied Marriage License

Does this really still happen in America in 2009?  What century does this guy think we’re living in?

HAMMOND, La. — A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.

Thirty-year-old Beth Humphrey and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey told the newspaper she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell’s wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.

“It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzman. “The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry.”

The ACLU was preparing a letter for the Louisiana Supreme Court, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and see if they can remove him from office, Schwartzman said.

“He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it,” Schwartzman said.

According to the clerk of court’s office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.

Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.

The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk’s office.

More Thoughts on Issues of the Day

More random thoughts on issues of the day:

• President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today.  While I am a supporter of his, what has he done to win this already?  Keep in mind that the nomination deadline was 12 days after Obama took office (the deadline is February 1).  I think there is a good possibility that Obama could earn this prize later in his term as president, but he doesn’t seem to have done much yet other than lay out some goals and set a tone.
• State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano was out of line yesterday.  He yelled “You lie!” and “Kiss my gay ass!” to Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday during a speech the governor was making to a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco.  Apparently the governor was not expected.  It was, after all, a Democratic fundraiser and Schwarzenegger is a Republican.  But Ammiano was out of line.  This kind of attack should have no place in American politics.  It doesn’t matter if emotions are running high.  That kind of thing is just not needed.  The only (slightly) redeeming factor is that Ammiano’s outburst did not come during a joint session of Congress.
• Apparently the National Republican Congressional Committee thinks that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to be “put in her place” and said as much yesterday.  Do they not see how offensive that is?  Do they not see how sexist that is?  I’m not exactly a huge Nancy Pelosi supporter, but this just isn’t right.
• Charlie Rangel needs to resign.  Now.  Every day he doesn’t (and every day the House Democratic leadership continues to protect him), the chances grow that he’ll cost the Democrats in next year’s mid-term elections.  “The Republicans did it, too!” (with Tom DeLay) is not a good defense.  Sure, the Republicans are hypocritical in their posturing.  So what?  It only matters what Rangel did and the appearance of Democrats improperly protecting their own.
• Julian Bond is right on in his op-ed in today’s Washington Post.  LGBT people still do not have equal rights in America.  As he points out, our “…struggle is no less necessary, nor worthy, than a similar struggle fought by blacks several decades ago. Now, as then, Americans are denied rights simply because of who they are.”  It’s past time we had equal rights.  It’s also past time for Obama (and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to actually do something to help get those rights passed in Congress

Thoughts on Issues of the Day

Since I’m way, way short of time these days for in-depth blogging – I’m in my extremely busy period at work – here are some thoughts on the issues of the day, in no order of importance:

• President Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to speak in front of the International Olympic Committee was an unforced error.  Whether Chicago won the Games or not (and the Games were always going to Rio – South America is long overdue to host the Games), he had no business going to Copenhagen to make a pitch for the Games.  I don’t care if Chicago is his hometown.  The President of the United States doesn’t deign to do what amounts to business development.  His time is too valuable for that, especially with health care coming to a critical point, his diplomacy initiatives with Iran, and the Afghanistan war review.  I know he can communicate fine when he’s out of town and that presidents travel quite a bit, but this was one trip he didn’t need to make.
• Roman Polanksi is a man who, when he was in his 40s, had sex with a 13 year old girl.  Where is that not wrong?  Where is that not a crime?  It doesn’t matter if he had a plea deal in place and the judge was a publicity hound who was going to renege.  Polanski committed a crime.  And, by the way, the Hollywood elite look to be pretty out of touch (and wrong) for their defense of him.  Does the fact that Polanski makes good films outweigh the fact that he raped a 13 year old girl after plying her with alcohol and drugs?  Apparently it does in Hollywood.
• I’m afraid that we’re biting off much more than we can chew when it comes to Afghanistan.  Withdrawal – which the White House says is off the table – should be considered.  Has no one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue read any history?  The Afghan people have never had a functioning government.  Never.  Are we so sure we can be the ones to finally break a cycle that’s been going on for centuries?  There are ways to contain the Taliban and al Qaeda without committing thousands more American troops to the fight. 
• Speaking of Afghanistan – General McChrystal should be fired for making public statements about the advice he gave to Obama.  Politicizing decisions that are made by the elected, civilian controllers of the military is not a general’s place.  There is a reason that there is civilian control over the military.  General MacArthur forgot that, too, and had to be reminded by President Truman.  General McChrystal should suffer the same fate that MacArthur suffered.
• President Obama seems to be facing a lot of the same questions he faced during the campaign – that he doesn’t have the backbone to be Commander in Chief during a time when a long war is being fought.  I think there’s some mettle there, in Obama, but it still remains to be seen.  Is there something he’s waiting for?

I’ll blog as I can, but as I mentioned above, this is my busy time at work.  But even if I’m not posting as much as I’d like, I am still around reading comments and other things.  So please feel free to comment.  I’ll respond as I can.

California’s School and Prison Problem

The Los Angeles Times has some stories out this week about the overcrowding in California prisons and the problem with the huge increases in fees and tuition that will be charged to University of California students.  Those pieces, along with a San Francisco Chronicle story about the huge cuts made to education’s budget, illustrate a problem that will haunt California for a long time.  Simply put, if we don’t pay to educate our kids now, we’re going to pay to incarcerate them later.

It’s a question of values, really.  Do we prepare our children to lead productive lives, or do we lock them away when they are adults?  We’re doing the latter now, and we’re going to be doing a lot more of it in the future, too.  Don’t get me wrong — there will always be bad people in society, people who have gotten all the chances they should have and still do terrible things.  Prisons will always be needed for that reason.  But we’re adding to that population when people don’t even have a chance to get started in their lives because they can’t get a decent education.  (And no, not all of that is the state’s fault either; I believe in personal responsibility as well.)

Right now, Governor Schwarzenegger has until midnight (see the first link) to give a federal judge his plan to reduce the overcrowding in California prisons.  Currently the system has about 149,100 prisoners in a system designed for about 80,000.  And the budget for those prisons has almost doubled since 1999, from $3.22 billion to $5.57 billion in fiscal year 2008-2009.  The really telling statistic, though, is the cost per inmate over the same time period — $22,737 to $48,536 (see LA Times graph to the right).  That’s a huge increase, and it’s actually down slightly from fiscal 2007-2008.

And still California’s prisons are overcrowded.  The inmate population keeps rising, in large part because many of the inmates have nothing else to do except sell drugs or commit other crimes to survive.  The long term solution isn’t more prisons, even though those will probably be needed in the short term.  The solution is more and better schools and making sure that all California children get a good education and aren’t priced out of going to a good state school like UC Berkeley or UCLA.

Yet California cut its school budget by something like $8.4 billion this year (see third link above), after other cuts were previously made, totalling about $18 billion.  Yes, I know California’s budget crisis necessitated making hard choices.  But cutting like this is akin to eating your seeds instead of planting them.  You’re not hungry now, but you will be tomorrow.

That makes it necessary for the schools to lay off teachers and staff.  It also makes it necessary for the UC Regents to raise fees by a factor of almost four, for the 2010 spring term, as well as lay off and furlough professors and other staff.

[...] basic undergraduate fees for California residents next year would rise to about $10,300, not including room, board and other campus expenses. That figure would be 44% higher than in fall 2008.

In all, most UC undergraduates living in on-campus housing would pay more than $26,000 a year under the proposal, although officials said needy students would receive enough additional financial aid to cover the increases.

Yes, saddling them with more debt as they come out of school and start their lives.  That’s a huge burden.

Under the fee proposal, professional school students in areas such as medicine, law and dentistry also would see steeper increases over the next three years. For example, by 2012-13, a UC Berkeley law student would pay $51,818 per year, or 40% more than this year, and a UCLA medical student would pay $34,616, or 33% more. Those figures do not include the costs of living and books.

More huge burdens.

I’m not saying that education is without its problems.  I’m not saying that there isn’t waste, and I’m not saying that there aren’t ways to make the schools more efficient.  But the fact of the matter is that educating children requires money.  We have to pay for good teachers, and yes, we even need back office types in the schools, so that teachers get paid and have benefits.  We have to have good colleges and universities, and they can’t be priced so high as to make it unreasonably difficult to go or to pay back the student loans that are needed.

We’re shooting ourselves in the foot here in California, but I see the same thing happening all over the country.  Yes, we need prisons, but we need schools — good schools — more.

Obama’s Speech and Joe Wilson’s Disrespect

Finally, I think I’m starting to understand the president’s plan for health care.  President Obama’s speech last night went a long way to reassure me about his plans.  It sounds like I can get behind his plan.  The fight isn’t over, though; Obama still has to get this plan through Congress.

President Obama mustered all the force of his famous eloquence – including a stirring tug at the bonds of friendship between Republican senators and their late Democratic colleague Edward Kennedy – to push the reset button on health care Wednesday night.

Casting himself in the political center and shedding his earlier technocratic style for a powerful appeal to “the American character,” Obama outlined in a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress how everyone, insured and uninsured alike, small businesses and large, could gain from his proposals.

He sought to bridge the deep rift among Democrats over a public insurance option that threatens to send him and his party to a devastating defeat.

“We did not come to fear the future,” Obama said. “We came here to shape it.”

Seizing authorship for the first time of what the White House now calls “the Obama plan,” Obama made flexibility, not ultimatums, the order of the day and “stability and security” for all the mantra.

It’s still hugely expensive at $900 billion over 10 years, but it is necessary to have health care reform.  Costs are rising too fast and too many people are uninsured to sit around doing nothing.  I think everyone can agree on that, even if they can’t agree right now on how to get there.  But that will come, especially if the debate is vigorous and respectful.

That brings me to Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) and his “you lie!” shout while the president was speaking.  Wilson disrespected himself, his office, Congress as a whole, President Obama, and the office of the president of the United States.  I feel disrespected as a result.  There is no place for heckling the president during an address to a joint session of Congress.  What was Wilson thinking?

From Dana Milbank’s Washington Sketch column:

As President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, the nation’s rapidly deteriorating discourse hit yet another low.

It happened at 8:40 pm, just after the president vowed to lawmakers that his health-care reform proposals would not provide benefits to illegal immigrants. As millions of Americans watched from home, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted at the president from his fifth-row seat: “You lie!”

Murmurs of “ooh” filled the stunned chamber. Nancy Pelosi’s chin dropped. Obama moved on to the next sentence in his speech, about how no federal money would be used to fund abortion. “Not true!” came another shout.

The national debate, already raw for years, had coarsened over the summer as town hall meetings across the country dissolved into protests about “death panels” and granny-killing. Guns were brought to Obama appearances. A pastor in Arizona said he was praying for Obama to die.

But even by that standard, there was something appalling about the display on the House floor for what was supposed to be a sacred ritual of American democracy: the nation watching while Cabinet members, lawmakers from both chambers and the diplomatic corps assembled.

Wilson was only the most flagrant. There was booing from House Republicans when the president caricatured a conservative argument by saying they would “leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.” They hissed when he protested their “scare tactics.” They grumbled as they do in Britain’s House of Commons when Obama spoke of the “blizzard of charges and countercharges.”

When he asserted that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” there was scoffing and outright laughter on the GOP side. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) shook his head in disbelief. Several Republicans shouted “What plan?” and Rep. Louis Gohmert (Tex.) waved at Obama a handwritten poster he made on a letter-size piece of paper: “WHAT PLAN?” Gohmert then took that down and replaced it with another handmade poster that said “WHAT BILL?”

The irony was that Obama had used his speech to offer a significant concession to Republicans and to break with liberals in his own party. There was a cool silence in the chamber as the president told “my progressive friends” that the “public option” they treasure as part of health-care reform could be sacrificed in favor of other ideas.

[snip]

When Obama addressed the charge that he plans “panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens,” someone on the GOP side shouted out “shame!” The president went on: “Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical.” “Read the bill!” someone shouted back. Obama mentioned those who accuse him of a government takeover of health care. “It’s true,” someone shouted back.

The antics continued when Obama urged opponents to “come to me with a serious set of proposals.” About 20 Republican members raised copies of the GOP health-reform proposal over their heads. They raised their props again when Obama criticized those who think “it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it.”

Even as Obama delivered a tribute to the late senator Ted Kennedy, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga), a leader of House conservatives, perused his BlackBerry. Shortly before the speech ended, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) walked out to beat the rush.

Above all, though, was Wilson’s effrontery. From the reaction in the chamber — one Democrat could be heard calling for him to be thrown out — Wilson knew he had stepped in it. He shrugged, then consulted his BlackBerry. He puffed out his cheeks to exhale and licked his lips.

Toward the end of Obama’s speech, the text of which was handed out before the congressman’s outburst, was a fitting rebuke of the sort of behavior Wilson had just exhibited. When “we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter,” Obama said, “we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.”

As Obama spoke these words, Wilson twiddled his thumbs, then took his BlackBerry from its holster to consult it yet again. The speech ended, and, as his colleagues applauded, Wilson beat a hasty retreat.

An incensed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went up to GOP Reps. Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.) to complain about the outburst. “No president has ever had that happen,” Emanuel said. “My advice is he apologize immediately. You know my number.”

Wilson did as Emanuel advised. After all that shouting, it’s a wonder he wasn’t too hoarse to place the call.

It doesn’t much matter to me that Wilson apologized.  His behavior was loutish and had no place being directed to a president addressing a joint session of Congress.  But then, he was in good company from the rest of the Republicans.  The one bright side, as Joel Achenbach points out:

Politics is a game of momentum; the Republicans very likely surrendered it by trying to emulate the angriest of their constituents.

It’s fine to be angry, and it’s fine to disagree.  But that doesn’t give anyone the excuse to heckle the president.  I’ve called over and over for real ideas from the Republicans.  Instead of that, we get more and more anger and vitriol.  And the country suffers for that.  I said it yesterday: It’s time to take a deep breath, remember that we’re Americans, and try — just try — to set aside some of the anger and do what’s best for the nation.  I know that’s a lot to ask for from politicians.  But the times demand it.

Obama’s Speech to Students

The whole flap over Obama’s speech to school kids is completely ridiculous.  Are people so full of negativity and vitriol that they can’t recognize an attempt to engage kids in a civics lesson?  This was not an Orwellian moment, with the kids gathered around a television, looking at the Leader’s face, being indoctrinated.  People really are wound a little too tight these days and need to take a breath.  (As many on the left needed to do when Bush was in the Oval Office.)

What did Obama say yesterday that was so awful?  Nothing that I could detect.  He talked about doing well in school.  He talked about responsibility, something he’s been talking about for a long time.

And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. 

Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide. 

Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

 I know.  Horrible, controversial stuff.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it. 

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work — that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things. 

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

Working hard.  A terrible concept to talk to our kids about.  So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?

The president challenged school kids to be something in life, to contribute to society.  I know I’m getting a little sarcastic.  The point is that Obama gave a perfectly fine talk about life.  About school.  About watching what you put in the Internet.  That life looks a lot like work.  And for this, Obama is labeled a socialist, kids are kept home, and his talk is boycotted by several schools and school districts.  (Read Kathleen Parker’s column for more on how ridiculous the nattering on the right was.)

And why shouldn’t kids write about Obama’s talk?  Writing about something is quite powerful.  It makes what one has learned sink in. 

The bottom line is that presidents talk to kids all the time.  Many presidents have done that over time.  (President Bush, as I recall, was reading to school children in Florida when he was told about airplanes hitting the Twin Towers in New York.)  I hope Obama talks to kids more.  We need our children engaged in our country and its future.

Ted Kennedy Dies at 77

Ted Kennedy (photo via ABC News)

The Senate lost its liberal lion last night, as Ted Kennedy died from brain cancer at the age of 77.  President Obama called him “the greatest senator of our time.”

From The Washington Post:

A Legislator Like No Other

By Dan Balz

For a generation or more, Edward M. Kennedy held two roles in the political life of the country. He was the vibrant symbol of American liberalism in an era of conservative ascendance. He was also the vigorous embodiment of a pragmatic legislator in an era of deep partisan divisions and polarization in the nation’s politics.

Kennedy’s death from brain cancer late Tuesday brought an end to one of the most storied political careers of the last half century. That he died at a moment when one of the greatest causes of his lifetime — enactment of universal health insurance — faces major obstacles on Capitol Hill only underscored the void his absence has left.

Kennedy was the last of the Kennedy brothers, the patriarch of one of the most glamorous, influential and star-crossed families in American political history. He was father, uncle, sibling and leader in carrying on the traditions established by his two slain brothers, John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. He knew tragedy and triumph, disappointment and elation, scandal and ultimately enormous success.

He sought the presidency but never achieved the ultimate prize in politics that once seemed part of his destiny. But with his defeat at the hands of Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Democratic primaries, Kennedy seemed liberated from the burden of having to follow his brothers in a quest for the White House and went on to become what President Obama called early Wednesday the “greatest senator of our time.”

Obama owes his presidency in part to the endorsement he received from Kennedy at a critical moment in the Democratic nomination battle in 2008. Kennedy urged Obama to run in 2008, not to wait, as others were counseling. Kennedy knew that Obama’s hopes of becoming president would diminish the longer he stayed in the Senate.

Kennedy saw in Obama something of his own brothers, and his eventual endorsement– which ruptured his relationship with Bill and Hillary Clinton — represented a passing of the Kennedy mantle to the young senator from Illinois. In return, Obama agreed to make enactment of health care legislation one of his first priorities as president.

Kennedy was steadfast in his political ideology. He was the champion of the poor, the downtrodden, the weak and dispossessed. He battled for the causes of civil rights and women’s rights and health care and education spending. He believed in the power of government, whether it was in or out of fashion, as a force for change and for good. He voted against the resolution authorizing the Iraq war and remained one of the war’s fiercest critics.

Kennedy fought for those causes in the Senate and spoke for them as the leader of his party’s liberal wing. The senator’s Web site, marking his death early Wednesday, featured the quotation that summed up that commitment, taken from his remarkable address to the Democratic National Convention in New York in 1980 as the last flames of his presidential candidacy were extinguished.

To tears throughout Madison Square Garden, Kennedy issued the call that echoed through the rest of this life: “For all those whose cares have been our concern, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.”

Ronald Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Biden, recalled that speech early Wednesday as he reflected on Kennedy’s death. “For many of us active in politics and policy,” he said, “Senator Kennedy’s stirring speech at the 1980 Democratic convention is a statement of idealism, determination and principle in politics that still inspires and guides.”

Charles Campion, a Boston-based political consultant who recalled standing for 12 hours at a VFW hall in West Roxbury, Mass., during Kennedy’s first race for the Senate in 1962, said early Wednesday, “His greatest legacy was his own faith and unwavering beliefs. He followed his own compass and regardless of polls and even his own political vulnerabilities, he would never compromise or finesse on his principles.”

Those convictions made him a lightning rod for criticism from conservatives. Through much of the last quarter century, the name Kennedy was used by Republican strategists to tar other politicians running for office, a guilt-by-association label that became a staple in many GOP campaigns.

Kennedy seemed an easy target in those political conflicts, an old-fashioned liberal who in an age when many prefer the label “progressive” never flinched from defending liberalism or ran from the label and what it stood for. Yet, when George W. Bush came to the White House in 2001, it was Kennedy to whom he reached out for help in passing his education reform initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.

That, too, was typical of Kennedy’s life and legacy. As much as he was the liberal’s liberal, he was the legislator’s legislator, a man willing and able to work across party lines, a politician of deep conviction who knew how and when to cut a deal, who believed in the end that the role of a politician was to make progress, if not all at once then step by step.

He loved the Senate and his affable personality helped lubricate relationships that otherwise might never have existed. He was both respected and well liked by his political opponents. He worked closely on legislation with Republicans like John McCain of Arizona (McCain’s 2008 presidential candidacy was, for a time, badly damaged by his association with Kennedy on immigration reform) and Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Both men recently noted how the health care battle this year might have been different had Kennedy been able to participate, and his death brought statements of sadness and respect from Republicans as well as Democrats. Hatch described him as an “iconic, larger than life United States senator whose influence cannot be overstated.”

Not that Kennedy shrank from partisan combat. His relentless attacks on Robert Bork, whose 1987 nomination to the Supreme Court was blocked by Democratic opposition, will long be remembered by conservatives and Republicans for its harshness.

But when the time came for moving legislation, few senators were ever shrewder or more committed to delivering results than Kennedy. Backed by one of the most able staffs on Capitol Hill, Kennedy churned through legislation, mastering policy and process, knowing the angles and earning the respect of allies and rivals as he pushed for results.

“Senator Kennedy represented a balance between principle and practicality that set the standard for effective political leadership,” said Democratic strategist Geoff Garin. “On the one hand, he was a passionate and compelling advocate for social justice. At the same time, he believed in the art of compromise and in the value of getting things done. That combination resulted in an extraordinary body of landmark legislation and also created a modern day model of legislative leadership at its best.”

Kennedy’s legacy also is one of personal redemption. His first dreams of winning the White House were ended in 1969 when he drove off a bridge on Martha’s Vineyard’s Chappaquiddick Island that resulted in the death of 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. He was charged with leaving the scene of an accident and the accident trailed him for years

His 1980 campaign, in which he challenged a sitting president of his own party, foundered at least in part by Kennedy’s own lack of readiness as a candidate. Through many of those years, his personal life was in turmoil. His first marriage ended in divorce. But he turned his life around, settling into his role as a leader of the Senate and a new marriage to Victoria Reggie, who remained at his side throughout the year-long battle with cancer.

Kennedy’s death Tuesday night came one year to the day when he appeared before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, sick with cancer and fighting a painful case of kidney stones. Everyone in the hall knew it would be the last convention Kennedy would address. As in Madison Square Garden 28 years earlier, there were many tears that night in Denver, but for a different reason.

Kennedy’s body was weak but his spirit was strong and his voice resonant. ” I have come here tonight,” he said in his rich Boston accent, “to stand with you to change America, to restore its future, to rise to our best ideals and to elect Barack Obama president of the United States.”

He lived to see Obama elected and inaugurated, but not to participate in or see the end of the battle to change the nation’s health care system. But he has left behind a legacy that few in public life will ever achieve.

I heard it said this morning that if health care reform passes this year, it will be due in large part to the groundwork that Kennedy laid years ago.  I think that’s probably quite correct.  (Ezra Klein has a lot to say on this today in his Washington Post blog.)

The Senate truly has lost a major force.  No matter his flaws (Chappaquiddick comes to mind and is mentioned in Balz’s piece), no one can deny his accomplishments.  He was instrumental in passing No Child Left Behind, The Americans With Disabilities Act, and coubtless other pieces of important legislation. 

He will be greatly missed.

Bringing Weapons to Protests

A man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle joins protesters outside an event in Phoenix where President Obama was discussing health-care reform. (By Jack Kurtz -- Associated Press)

I’m extremely concerned.  How long is it going to be before something bad happens at one of these health care protests?  People are bringing loaded weapons — rifles, pistols — to these events, some of which are presidential events.  That’s a bit scary, for my money.

Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. “There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally,” he said. “Those laws don’t change when the president comes to your state or locality.”

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs’s comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

I’m not an “anti-gun campaigner” (although I do think that it’s time for real gun control in this country), but these are presidential events at which guns are present.  President Obama is our first black president.  In some places of the country, that’s a recipe for a tragedy.

Man with gun (not visible in this photo) at presidential event with Tree of Liberty sign. (via Talking Points Memo)

EJ Dionne’s column today was excellent.

Try a thought experiment: What would conservatives have said if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?

How would our friends on the right have reacted to someone at a Reagan or a Bush speech carrying a sign that read: “It is time to water the tree of liberty”? That would be a reference to Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that the tree “must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Is that advocating violence?  Violence against the president?

More Dionne:

Pardon me, but I don’t think conservatives would have spoken out in defense of the right of every American Marxist to bear arms or to shed the blood of tyrants.

In fact, the Bush folks didn’t like any dissent at all. Recall the 2004 incident in which a distraught mother whose son was killed in Iraq was arrested for protesting at a rally in New Jersey for first lady Laura Bush. The detained woman wasn’t even armed. Maybe if she had been carrying, the gun lobby would have defended her.

[snip]

What needs to be addressed is not the legal question but the message that the gun-toters are sending.

This is not about the politics of populism. It’s about the politics of the jackboot. It’s not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It’s about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.

Think about that for a second.  An angry minority — and no one is saying that they don’t have a right to their opinions — intimidating people with the threat of violence.  Because that’s what it is, really, bringing weapons that appear to be loaded to events — a threat of violence.

More Dionne:

The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.

On the contrary, violence and the threat of violence have always been used by those who wanted to bypass democratic procedures and the rule of law. Lynching was the act of those who refused to let the legal system do its work. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.

Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president’s public events only now, when the president is black. Race is not the only thing at stake here, and I have no knowledge of the personal motivations of those carrying the weapons. But our country has a tortured history on these questions, and we need to be honest about it. Those with the guns should know what memories they are stirring.

This is exactly right.  Democracies are societies based in consensus, based in law.  The threat of violence undermines that.  And the racial aspect, which I mention above and Dionne raises, makes it that much more disturbing.

More:

All this is taking place as the country debates the president’s health-care proposal. There is much that is disturbing in that discussion. Shouting down speakers is never a good thing, and many lies are being told about the contents of the health-care bills. The lies should be confronted, but freedom involves a lot of commotion and an open contest of ideas, even when some of the parties say things that aren’t true and act in less than civil ways.

This is a health care debate.  It’s not the second Civil War and it shouldn’t be.  No one is talking about taking rights away from anyone or enslaving anyone.  Bringing guns to public events like this undermines our society in profound ways.

Yet if we can’t draw the line at the threat of violence, democracy begins to disintegrate. Power, not reason, becomes the stuff of political life. Will some group of responsible conservatives, preferably life members of the NRA, have the decency to urge their followers to leave their guns at home when they go out to protest the president? Is that too much to ask?

Where is the NRA in this, anyway?  They’re supposed to be about the safe, lawful use of firearms in America.  Just the accident potential from brining loaded firearms into public events is huge.  And just think if someone actually tries to do something to harm the president or others at the event.  What then? 

Leave the guns at home.