According to the Daily Show’s John Oliver there is an important reason why one should never touch the Queeen. One that was over looked in all the chatter about the the Queen and First Lady putting their arms around each other while discussing shoes.
Watch John Oliver and Jon Stewart discuss the event.
With today’s unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court made Iowa the third state to approve of same sex marriage joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. According to the story in the Washington Post
The decision will be considered final in 21 days unless a rehearing is formally requested. The county that challenged the lower court’s ruling indicated today that it would not file such a request, meaning that same-sex couples likely will be able to obtain marriage licenses in Iowa in three weeks, attorneys for the plaintiffs said.
So what do the defense of marriage folks do now? Richard Kim has a long post on The Nation.com in which he outlines the options and discusses some of the larger political implications.
So now that the Iowa Supreme Court has essentially legalized gay marriage, what’s next? Some right-wingers (like Iowa Congressman Steve King and William Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation) are already promising to put a defense of marriage amendment in front of Iowa voters. But they have a long road ahead of them. Iowa law says that a constitutional ammendment must pass TWO consecutive sessions of the state legislature before it appears on a ballot. So the earliest one could see a DOMA on the ballot is 2011, but with Democrats in control of both houses and with both the House speaker and the Senate majority leader on record supporting the decision–there’s virtually no chance that such an amendment would even come up for a vote this session.
That leaves the right-wing with a daunting task: defeat enough Democrats to take control of both houses (Dems currently enjoy a 56-44 and 32-18 advantage), replace them with Christian right Republicans who are willing to champion a marriage amendement and peel off enough remaining Democrats (to offset any moderate GOP defectors) to squeeze through four rounds of yes votes. Only then will they even have the chance to put the issue in front of voters–sometime in 2013 or 2014 if all the stars align. Then, they still have to win that campaign in a political climate in which increasing numbers of voters support gay rights. Oh yeah, and the vote will take place after Iowans have witnessed 5-6 years of ho-hum same-sex nuptials of which the most radical, earth-shaking element is that one of the grooms is a 50-year old church organist named Otter Dreaming (one of the named appellees in the Iowa decision). As Ari Berman points out, Iowa isn’t exactly the hotbed of culture war antagonism–despite being square one for GOP presidential wrangling–so my strong hunch is that Mr. Dreaming’s marriage will endure at least any legal and political challenges.
It doesn’t seem very likely that Iowa will amend it’s Constitution. Here in Massachusetts it didn’t take long for gay marriage to just become marriage. Just read Andrew Sullivans story about his Massachusetts wedding.
Born in a different era, I reached that conclusion through more pain and fear and self-loathing than my 20-something fellow homosexuals do today. But it was always clear to me nonetheless. It just never fully came home to me until I too got married.
It happened first when we told our families and friends of our intentions. Suddenly, they had a vocabulary to describe and understand our relationship. I was no longer my partner’s “friend” or “boyfriend”; I was his fiancé. Suddenly, everyone involved themselves in our love. They asked how I had proposed; they inquired when the wedding would be; my straight friends made jokes about marriage that simply included me as one of them. At that first post-engagement Christmas with my in-laws, I felt something shift. They had always been welcoming and supportive. But now I was family. I felt an end—a sudden, fateful end—to an emotional displacement I had experienced since childhood.
The wedding occurred last August in Massachusetts in front of a small group of family and close friends. And in that group, I suddenly realized, it was the heterosexuals who knew what to do, who guided the gay couple and our friends into the rituals and rites of family. Ours was not, we realized, a different institution, after all, and we were not different kinds of people. In the doing of it, it was the same as my sister’s wedding and we were the same as my sister and brother-in-law. The strange, bewildering emotions of the moment, the cake and reception, the distracted children and weeping mothers, the morning’s butterflies and the night’s drunkenness: this was not a gay marriage; it was a marriage.
And our families instantly and for the first time since our early childhood became not just institutions in which we were included, but institutions that we too owned and perpetuated. My sister spoke of her marriage as if it were interchangeable with my own, and my niece and nephew had no qualms in referring to my husband as their new uncle. The embossed invitations and the floral bouquets and the fear of fluffing our vows: in these tiny, bonding gestures of integration, we all came to see an alienating distinction become a unifying difference.
It was a moment that shifted a sense of our own identity within our psyches and even our souls. Once this happens, the law eventually follows. In California this spring, it did.
So I think Richard Kim is right. Iowans are soon going to find gay marriages just as ordinary as straight ones. So what is left for the opposition? Here’s Richard Kim again
So, here’s my guess as to what the right can and will do. They’ll move to amend Iowa’s marriage law so that it requires in-state residency. Currently, Iowa (like California and unlike Massachusetts) does not have any such restriction (prompting claims that Iowa will become the Mecca of gay marriage). Of course, because of the court’s equal protection ruling, any such change will have to apply to both gay and straight couples, but the collateral benefit for the right would be in limiting the number of gay couples who can marry in Iowa and then sue in other states. But after thousands of out-of-state couples got married in CA and will likely stay married no matter how the CA Supreme Court rules on Prop 8’s broader legality–there’s not much use in raising this hurdle.
So, Iowa, Massachusetts welcomes you to the club. I don’t think it will be too long before there are more than three members.
Did Michelle Obama make a major diplomatic mistake when she touched the Queen? (This is much more interesting to think about than the economic agreements that came out of the G-20.) Everyone is writing about it and talking about it.
We start with Mika Brzezinski saying ” you don’t touch the Queen” and then today’s stories including this also from MSNBC
Mrs. Obama clearly made an impression with the 82-year-old monarch — so much that the smiling queen strayed slightly from protocol and briefly wrapped her arm around the first lady in a rare public show of affection.
It was the first time Mrs. Obama — who is nearly a foot taller — had met the queen. The first lady also wrapped her arm around the monarch’s shoulder and back.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman who asked not to be identified because of palace policy said he could not remember the last time the queen had displayed such public affection with a first lady or dignitary.
“It was a mutual and spontaneous display of affection,” he said. “We don’t issue instructions on not touching the queen.”
It was the first time Mrs. Obama — who is nearly a foot taller — had met the queen. The first lady also wrapped her arm around the monarch’s shoulder and back.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman who asked not to be identified because of palace policy said he could not remember the last time the queen had displayed such public affection with a first lady or dignitary.
“It was a mutual and spontaneous display of affection,” he said. “We don’t issue instructions on not touching the queen.”
Then the Guardian weighed in with the headline Michelle Obama’s G20 faux pas brings out Queen’s touchy-feely side. The story continued
Whoever briefed Michelle Obama on the things one does and doesn’t do with one’s hands when one meets the Queen must be wondering what went wrong.
Within minutes of their first encounter at Buckingham Palace yesterday, America’s first lady broke royal protocol by doing the unthinkable: she gave the Queen a hug. The monarch, for her part, responded with equally flagrant disregard for convention by returning the gesture.
Proceedings had begun innocuously enough following the Obamas’ arrival at the palace – polite handshakes, a curtsey and chit chat with the Duke of Edinburgh, who asked the president how he’d managed to stay awake all day.
Then, at the “getting to know you drink”, there was an exchange of dialogue between Michelle Obama and the Queen (they seemed to compliment each other on their shoes). At this stage, with everything going so swimmingly, the first lady put her arm around the Queen. The monarch appeared awkward at first, but after this initial surprise and hesitation, she seemed to respond positively by putting her arm round Obama’s waist.
So it was not quite a major diplomatic incident. And does it reflect a softening of the royal protocol that forbids physical contact with the Queen beyond handshakes? The Queen is widely regarded as formal but close observers point out that a number of traditional rules for dealing with the monarch have been relaxed in recent times. Bowing, for example, is no longer required.
And the picture is priceless
The Queen who is tiny – around my size – and the tall Michelle. I think Michelle was being herself and the Queen clearly appreciated her.
Last week the Repbulicans released a budget with no numbers . Today, April First, they released one with numbers. Who stages their events and didn’t they know what day it is?
The Washington Post’s Lori Montgomary wrote
After getting blasted last week for presenting a budget plan light on details, House Republicans today unveiled a more complete proposal that would cut taxes for business and the wealthy, freeze most government spending for five years, halt spending approved in the economic stimulus package and slash federal health programs for the poor and elderly.
This seems to be back to the future. Didn’t we already try this? Representative Paul Ryan who presented the alternative said it offers “lower spending, lower deficits, lower debt and more jobs.” The argument is always that lower taxes for businesses (repeat the mantra “the United States has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.”) will create jobs. I guess that after Boehner and Cantor, the party needed to try a new face.
Here is Dan Gross on 1600 Pensylvania Avenue with David Gregory.
The White House Reaction
“If you expected a GOP alternative to the failed policies of the past that got our country into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, then I have two words for you: April Fool’s,” said Kenneth Baer, communications director for the Office of Management and Budget.
TPM has posted a summary of the latest ruling by the Minnesota elections court.
The Minnesota election court has just handed down a much-awaited ruling, laying out which previously-rejected ballots might just be counted yet — and though it’s unclear right now whose votes are whose, it doesn’t look all that good for Norm Coleman.
It looks as if, after a very thorough review, the Court is going to look at only 400 ballots to determine if they should be counted.
Both campaigns submitted lists of ballots that they said they’d proven were legal and ought to be counted — and here’s what the court thought of them:
“Upon the Court’s initial review, it became apparent that the parties’ spreadsheets identifying the relevant exhibits were inadequate and unreliable. This required the Court to complete an exhaustive review of all the records and documents submitted by either party throughout the course of the entire trial.”
The court thus reviewed:
“…19,181 pages of filings, including pleadings, motions and legal memoranda from the parties; 1,717 individual exhibits admitted into evidence; and testimony from 142 witness examinations, including election officials from 38 Minnesota counties and cities and 69 voters who appeared and testified in defense of their ballots. The trial evidence comprised exhibits offered in three-ring binders that, when stacked, equaled over 21 feet of paper copies.”
Don’t think they’re just complaining about the length — not that anybody would blame them. The court is clearly establishing the level of diligence they went to in order to decide the questions at hand — thus guarding themselves against any appeal on procedural grounds.
As I understand the process, the ballots will be reviewed by the Secretary of Stae to make sure they are complete and can be counted and however many of the 400 ballots pass muster will then be counted. So I think one can assume that not all of the 400 will be counted and not all of the ballots that are counted will go to Norm Coleman. Therefore this is bad news for Norm given that Al Franken has at least a 225 vote lead.
One of the commentators to TPM wrote
If all 400 ballots were counted, Coleman would need a 313-87 split to overtake Franken. There’d be about a 1 in a million chance of the votes breaking in Coleman’s favor like that. Ans since not all 400 ballots will be counted, so I think it’s safe to say that Coleman is finished.
If all this is true, Al Franken may be (finally!) just a few days from being Senator Al.
Yesterday I was minding my own business when I got an email from Florida. A co-worker on vacation was at the Red Sox spring training game and sent a picture. Then she said that Dice-K was pitching and Lowell, Pedroia and Youkilis were also playing. Sent a wave of envy through my end of the floor when I forwarded the picture.
So the word on Daisuke Matsuzaka in his first spring training game is good. Effective and efficient. This this a good sign for the spring? Will having pitched for the winning Japan in the World Baseball Classic hurt or help him in the long run? Hard to say. But along with the various injuries that appear to be healing and Matsuzaka’s performance yesterday, the Sox look good.
From the Boston Globe’s Extra Bases blog
“Seventy-five pitches through five innings is ideally what we were hoping to get through today,” said pitching coach John Farrell after the Sox’ 4-3 loss in 10 innings to the Atlanta Braves.
…
“I surprised myself,” Matsuzaka said with a mischievous grin, suggesting he is growing tired of the constant questions about his pitch efficiency. “The Red Sox keep reminding me that I was a little bit ahead of schedule, but on the other hand, getting ready for the WBC put me ahead [of everyone else]. I’d like to take that in a positive way.”
There wasn’t much else to report from the clubhouse, where the Sox were eager to depart after two long road trips in two days. Farrell made repeated note of Matsuzaka’s willingness/ability to rely on his two-seam fastball, a pitch designed to quick outs and conserve pitches.
Matsuzaka also made a point of noting that he was working on his “movement,” suggesting he is more focused on, as Farrell said, “pitching to contact.”
The countdown clock to opening day reads 6 days, 7 hours, and 12 minutes. It’s Spring!
I picked the number one seeds: Louisville, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, North Carolina. And we got: Michigan State, Connecticut, Villanova and North Carolina.
I keep telling myself that a great batter like Ted Williams only gets to .400. not .5oo while the average hitter is doing well to hit .280. And don’t ask me about the earlier rounds, please. I think I am at about 50% or a bit over for most of the rounds. Just a 50% tournament for me.
Part of my problem is I don’t know when to pick on sentiment and when not to do so. Like I picked VCU bacause I taught and worked there once. Bad move. I also didn’t pick Kansas over Boston College because BC is a local Boston school. But I thought very hard about not picking Louisville because I dislike Rick Pitino and I should have gone with instinct there.
Oh well, the Final Four should be exciting anyway. Go Tar Heels!
In case you haven’t been reading fivethirtyeight.com since the Presidental election, you really should check in once in a while. There is Nate Silver’s advance look at the the details to be released later.
Eric Cantor is said to want to eliminate North Dakota rather than Idaho, while Thaddeus McCotter has suggested using the balance of TARP funds to purchase scratch-off tickets
You have to see the diagram to get the rest.
What’s up with the Republican House leadership anyway? After being criticized by all stripes of poltical commentators and just ordinary citizens for not offering any alternative to the President’s proposed budget, they released an eighteen page booklet with no numbers. I repeat, no numbers.
According to David Gregory on MSNBC’s First Read,
Dude, where’s my budget? Let’s be honest: Yesterday’s House Republican budget rollout was a P.R. disaster for the GOP. “Here it is, Mr. President” was the title of the GOP Leader blog touting that they had answered Obama’s dare to produce a budget. The problem — their budget rollout didn’t contain any hard budget numbers or deficit projections. They say those hard numbers will come out next week. But now we learn that Reps. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan objected to unveiling yesterday’s “blueprint,” but were overruled by Reps. John Boehner and Mike Pence. But bigger than any internal disagreements or any criticism about a lack of details is the fact that yesterday’s GOP non-announcement moved the attention away from the Obama-vs.-congressional Democrat storyline to the GOP’s lack of a budget. In fact, after yesterday, the White House and congressional Democrats can agree on one thing: The GOP — at least until next week — is the “Party of No.” What’s more, it puts more pressure on Ryan to truly put out a comprehensive budget alternative; Also, this episode could end up creating a rift in the GOP over how to combat the Obama White House. After all, Senate Republicans wanted nothing to do with an alternative, and now Mitch McConnell, et al are either laughing at their House GOP colleagues, furious at them, or both.
As proof that the Democrats are refocusing on the Republicans rather than each other is the new Democratic Party video. Kate Phillips writes in the New York Times Caucus
As the House and Senate head toward a heavy budget battle next week, Republicans have been facing criticism from the White House and from Democrats over whether they have offered a real alternative when it comes to the proposals on the table.
In the Senate, what Republican leaders are promising is a lot of amendments. But in the House, Republicans held a news conference yesterday to announce that, despite President Obama’s remarks to the contrary, they did have a plan of their own.
Carl Hulse, chief congressional correspondent of The New York Times, reported that Representative John A. Boehner, the minority leader, was grilled by reporters on Capitol Hill because the blue 18-page “recovery” pamphlet that the Republican leadership released was short on figures, spending or revenue details.
Next week’s budget debate will be interesting. The Democratic Blue Dogs have their own ideas and the Republicans are split. The look of the final budget may depend on which party can come together sooner.
How’s he doing? I thought the press conference last night showed a more subdued President Obama. David Biespiel said on Politico’s Arena
Overall: Professor in chief. I saw the news conference on CNN from my hotel room. Will cable TV present every Obama news conference as if it’s the last night of Yalta? I disagree with the interpretation that these night time press conferences should be for dramatic events only. Meeting with the press monthly on prime time is good for democracy–whether the climate is dramatic or not.
I tend to agree with him. I don’t think the President is at his best with press conferences – he seems to do better with town hall meetings – but they are informative. Maybe he should think about a prime time town hall meeting.
Thomas Mann from Brookings said on Politico’s Arena
What struck me about last night’s press conference was how the President managed both to maintain his signature leadership style — cool, intelligent, knowledgeable, and reasonable — and to forcefully advocate his position that his economic recovery program and his budget are inextricably linked. He also signaled clearly, especially in his closing remarks, that he fully understands the obstacles he faces and that some of his priorities will take years to accomplish. It appears he will continue to aim high with an ambitious agenda in spite of the clamor of critics for cutting back on his objectives. In a world in which an exclusive focus on short-term gains has dominated behavior in government and in the private sector, Obama is planning an eight-year program of governance that aspires to grapple seriously with long-term challenges.
Which leads me to talk about the Republican opposition. Several Republicans posted on the Arena their disappointment that there was no real opposition agenda. I believe that the President has also pointed out that there is no alternative budget so there can be a real discussion.
Eugene Robinson wrote in today’s Washington Post
Some listeners thought they heard flexibility or even retreat on the president’s ambitious agenda of health care, energy and education. I heard the opposite — a single-minded focus on these three initiatives, which Obama maintains are vital if the economy is to be put on sound footing. His strategy is to let Congress work out the details, but he was clear that he expects all of the Big Three to be reflected in the budget. One thing we’ll learn about him, the president said, is that he’s persistent. I’m going to take him at his word.
If you recall, Barack Obama stuck to a consistant message throughout his campaign. He never let himself get sidetracked to drawn into debates he didn’t want to have. I think last night showed he is still the same person, that what we saw during the campaign is what we got as a President.
One negative note to my evaluation of his first 60 days. I am still worried about some of his appointments, particularly in the economic area. As I have said before I am very very skeptical about Larry Summers in particular. Christopher Hayes gave this piece of advice back in January and I think it is still relevant.
But as the Obama administration continues to fill thousands of government positions, they’d do well to heed the words of a wise man who once said that “tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment.” That was President Obama, whose primary campaign was largely predicated on the principle that having gotten something crucial, like the Iraq War, right when other people got it wrong was of such overwhelming importance that voters should elevate someone who’d been a state senator just a few years earlier to the highest office in the land over a competitor with years in Washington under her belt.
The voters agreed, and I continue to think they got it right. Maybe the president should go back and read some of his old speeches the next time there’s an opening in his administration.
And not to beat a maybe dead horse: where is a job for Howard Dean?
FortLeft 