Spare me this nonsense...

The Dems use gun legislation to shoot themselves in the foot...

When are they going to get it? In a society where guns are already deeply saturated and prevalent, gun control is useless (although it's very useful in angering swing voters).

The one thing I like about Kerry...

He knows how to fire back!!! He's been called a panderer and a flip flopper for weeks now. Now he's citing real reasons what Bush could be called the same thing (indeed, couldn't any politician?)

Watch Bush's poll numbers

I predict that the gay marriage thing will send his poll numbers spiraling downwards.

The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre

I recommend this review of "The Passion of Christ" in Slate. For those of you too lazy to click and read, here are the money quotes:

Gibson had an ingenious idea for promoting his Passion: as the film that the Jews don't want you to see. Now watch those lines form! Bad reviews won't matter, either, since Gibson has called his critics "the forces of Satan" or, more charitably, the "dupes of Satan." After Gibson's pre-emptive blasts, an attack on his Passion will be interpreted by some as an attack on their religious beliefs instead of on filmmaking that is theologically, morally, and—by the way—artistically suspect.

and

Pilate (the Roman governor) whom many historians identify as a surpassingly cruel ruler responsible for crucifying many thousands to maintain his authority, is portrayed as a sorrowful, even-tempered man whose wife (Claudia Gerini) shows acts of loving kindness toward Mary (Maia Morgenstern) and Mary Magdalene (Monica Bellucci). Pilate is shocked by the Jews' brutality and by the determination of the priest Caiphas (Mattia Sbragia) to see this so-called blasphemer executed. While Pilate wrinkles his forehead, searching his tender conscience, sundry Jews lean into the camera and hiss or keen through rotted teeth.

I know, it sounds like a Monty Python movie. You're thinking there must be something to The Passion of the Christ besides watching a man tortured to death, right? Actually, no: This is a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it's an act of faith. For Gibson, Jesus is defined not by his teachings in life—by his message of mercy, social justice, and self-abnegation, some of it rooted in the Jewish Torah, much of it defiantly personal—but by the manner of his execution.

I wonder why Newsmax.com has been promoting this movie and Mel Gibson's wacky version of Catholicism so furiously over the last few months?

The gay marriage amendment examined strategically

Now that I've vented, let's look at this issue and what it means for 2004:

1. Bush can now be painted (legitimately) as a outright bigot. Traditionally, the Democrats have tried to portray Republicans as out of touch conservative extremists. Clinton was very successful. But in 2000, Bush the "compassionate conservative" rhetoric to keep insulate himself from those types of traditional Democratic attacks. Well, Bush can no longer claim to be a "compassionate conservative". He sold away the rights to that title when he endorsed the anti-Marriage Amendment (I recommend that Democrats start calling it that). Honestly, I miss the days when I could portray each and every Republican as a hateful extremist, but I'm glad they're back.

2. Bush's base is angry, and this is clearly Bush making a play at them. But what Bush forgets is that his religious base is also INSANE. They are the types who ban evolution from school textbooks, advocate prayer in school, blame 9-11 on gays and feminists, believe women should be back in the kitchen, etc. He was able to silence these people in 2000 and keep them out of the mainstream debate (unlike 1992, where the fire and brimstone Buchananites thoroughly embarrassed Bush Sr during the campaign). Sure, the Republicans will try to put forward a "tolerant" face when they debate this amendment - but the fact is, many in the Republican party think that the "gay agenda" is a danger of biblical proportions. And these are the people whom the media will invite onto the cable talk shows to debate the issue (remember, the media is on our side when it comes to this issue. They're hugely pro-gay rights).

3. Libertarians will find another reason not to support Bush. Constitutional amendments that bar the states from making key decisions can really get the libertarians fuming. I think you'll see conservative columnists like William Saffire soon coming out against the amendment.

Therefore, this issue is a net plus for the Democrats.

Bush the disgusting bigot

Bush came out today in favor of a constitutional amendment that not only bans gay marriages, it also keeps states from giving gay couples ANY benefits.

What can I say? Today Bush endorsed an amendment to the Constitution that seeks to forbid a loving couple from joining in a legally binding relationship. He is explicitly condemning all gay people and the lifestyles that they live and he's trying to take this country back into the 1800s - and why? To pander to a bunch of people who don't even think evolution is real?

This is war. Bush (to borrow a phrase from Andrew Sullivan) declared war against all gay people today. As leader of our nation, he has opened the floodgates of hate towards gays. And he's prepared to modify our constitution to legitimize this war. How demoralizing this day must be for gay people. And it's equally demoralizing for straight people, like me, who don't share the President's hatred towards loving relationships. George Bush, in my mind, just joined the likes of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. All of these men attacked freedom and individual rights under the banner of the far right. But at least Thurmond and Wallace hid their intolerance and hatred behind the "states rights" lie! Bush proposes federally mandated bigotry.

To hell with this guy. Hopefully this will go down as his Waterloo...

If you want to read the responses of some angry former Bush supporters, go to AndrewSullivan.com.

Kerry a one trick pony

As Mickey Kaus recently pointed out, Kerry seems to respond to every attack on his record (particularly his military record) by saying, "That's an attack on my patriotism. Don't you know I served in Vietnam?" The problem is, Bush has instructed his surrogates to compliment Kerry's patriotism and then attack his voting record. So that defense doesn't work.

A look at Kerry's voting record:

Kerry voted against many weapons programs...too many to list. Why can't he just defend his votes? Most of those programs were worthless and inefficient products of the military industrial complex. How many Apache helicopters have crashed and killed US soldiers? How many billions were spent developing these worthless contraptions?

He also voted against the first Gulf War. How does one defend that vote? Bush Sr. even convinced many of the Arab nations to get on board! Kerry response: "I served in Vietnam. Let's go back to discussing Bush's National Guard record." That seems to be his only defense!

Of course, John Kerry is betting that voters won't read through his lengthy voting record, and that they'll instead just use his war heroics as an easy heuristic to determine whether he is strong or weak on defense. Bush might have a hard time rewiring these voters to believe that Kerry is weak on defense just because his voting record seems to support that notion (remember when I say "weak on defense" I'm not saying that I actually believe that John Kerry is weak on defense, but that his voting record creates the perception). The American swing voter doesn't delve into policy statements, voting records, or anything sophisticated. They use things like personalities and resumes.

I'm not saying that the Edwards campaign is perfect. Edwards' campaign manager recently denied the importance of national security issues in the next election. "It's the economy stupid" was only possible in peace time. Otherwise, voters need to be assured on the national security issue. If Edwards plans to run using the strategy of the 2002 midterm elections (brush off national security issues and push the focus towards the economy) then he will suffer the same fate that Max Cleeland suffered.

So what's the answer? Edwards badly needs foreign policy credibility on his ticket. That restricts his options when it comes to potential VPs:

1. Bob Graham - long time member of the intelligence committee who has the ability to possibly carry Florida.
2. Wesley Clark - former NATO supreme commander - can't carry any states and is gaffe prone, but he definitely shores up the ticket against national security criticism.

It's tragic that Edwards is hamstrung like this, because an Edwards/Bayh or Edwards/Richardson ticket would not only beat Bush, it would probably beat him quite badly. Clark and Graham can't help pick up several states like Bayh and Richardson can.

I seem to have ventured off the subject (from Kerry's endless invocation of Vietnam to Edwards VP speculation). But I guess that's what blogs are for...

Nader means nothing

I didn't want to jump on this issue too quickly - but I don't think Nader will attract many votes this year. Here's why:

1. His main supporters are Kucinich and Dean supporters. They'll probably both vehemently endorse the eventual Democratic nominee. Furthermore, Dean will probably stay closely involved in the campaign, perhaps using Dean For America as a PAC. So Deaniacs won't feel completely left out in the cold.

2. This year the ABB movement is strong. Most of us would vote for a rock before we'd vote for Bush.

3. Nader won't be on the ballot in many states this year. The states where he will appear will probably be left leaning states that will go to the Democrats anyway.

4. Nader might be right - he might actually help Democrats by attacking Bush and making the nominee look more moderate. If he abides by his promise to mainly lay off of the Democratic nominee, then we should be alright.

Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ

When a movie is vigorously defended by far-right wingers for months and months as "not anti-Semitic", it's a good bet that it is. It's also a good bet that it's a bad movie. Here's a New Yorker piece on Passion...

If you really want to know how good a movie is, go to Rotten Tomatoes and look at the tomatometer. Right now this movie is rotten.

From what I've read, this movie is just 2 straight hours of Christ being beaten to a pulp. Nothing more, and nothing less. Malcolm McDowell's character in A Clockwork Orange would love this movie.

A follow up

I reported last weekend that the US might be close to catching Bin Laden. Here is Centcom's response to the rumors.

And now for some more Sullivan...

Ah ha!!! I knew the pro-tax Republican movement would spread to the federal government eventually! Andrew Sullivan finally gives in:

PAYING FOR THE WAR: So should we? My own view is that we're not spending enough in the war on terror or homeland defense. I'm also viscerally opposed to tax hikes. But I can't keep having it every which way, if I also believe in restraining the debt. I used to think that running deficits would itself restrain spending - and then we see a Republican president endorsing the Medicare expansion after sending the debt through the roof. So that theory goes out the window. I don't believe in the supply-side notion that cutting taxes boosts revenue so much that the cuts pay for themselves (although I do think they help stimulate economic activity). So what's the responsible thing to do? Ideally, I'd propose means-testing social security, raising the retirement age, ending agricultural subsidies and carving away corporate welfare. But none of that is likely to happen any time soon. So I'm gradually moving toward the belief that we should propose some kind of temporary war-tax. Levy it on those earning more than $200,000 and direct it primarily to financing the war on terror. Put in a sunset clause of, say, four years. It may be time for some fiscal sacrifice for the war we desperately need to fight. And we need to fight it without creating government insolvency which, in the long run, will undermine the war. I don't love this idea; and I'm open to other suggestions. But it behooves us pro-war fiscal conservatives to propose something.

A war tax? Sacrifice? How novel!

Email

Here's an email from Andrew Sullivan's website:

"As an independent, Republican-leaning Edwards supporter. I guess I'm a swing voter - I voted for Clinton in '92, Dole in '96 and Bush in 2000. If Edwards is the nominee, I will vote for him. If Kerry is the nominee - feckless, say-anything, "Do you know who I am?" John Kerry - I will vote for Bush. It's that simple. And I imagine that a big reason Karl Rove is keeping his powder dry on Kerry right now, who's incredibly vulnerable to attack based on his record, is that the White House would much prefer to run against Kerry than Edwards."