Seeing From the Outside: A Quote by Gore Vidal

by Nomad

Why Gay Rights Victories in Arizona are Small but Important Steps to Greater Equality

by Nomad

Arizona has been in the news for all the wrong reasons lately. The state legislature under the thrall of the Tea Party Republicans attracted a lot of negative attention from the whole country.
But those events should be balanced by the good news from Tempe, Arizona. 
Altogether it highlights a larger question: Isn't it time that the federal government put a stop to this state-by-state nonsense once and for all? 

The Other Side of Arizona
After a couple of weeks of really bad press coming out of Arizona, it looks as though the cloud is lifting. After the GOP-led State Legislature drafted a controversial "religious freedom" law which allowed gay discrimination based on "sincerely-held beliefs," the eyes of the nation were focused on Arizona. Would the governor would actually approve of the law?

Human Rights and gay rights groups led calls for a veto, and later they were joined by corporations like tech giant Apple joined in calls to walk away from the bill. On the other side were various religious organizations, right wing pundits and of course, the Tea party.

With all that pressure, Governor Brewer wisely decided against the law.

Now there's a little more good news to report.

TheTruth Behind Obama's Use of Ambassador Posts as Political Rewards 2/2

by Nomad

In Part One of this two-part series, I told you about the recent embarrassing confirmation hearing for one of Obama's ambassadors. The quality of the president choices has been called into question. More importantly some on the Right have been asking whether the president isn't simply rewarding his top dollar campaign contributors with these positions. 

It's a good question. In this part we will look at the more recent history of this practice and how it has evolved in the last forty years.

A Look Back: Carter, Bush and Son

Candidates that have run on a reformist platform - like Obama- have fallen into the same trap. President Carter, for example, came under fire in 1977 for exactly the same thing. An article in The Telegraph reported at the time that four top ambassadors were high dollar contributors to Carter campaign in the Georgia governor's race in 1970. 

But, of all the presidents, Carter holds the record for the most number of career appointees, meaning people who have spent their lives working for the Foreign Service- not friends or political contributors. 

In 1980 Congress actually attempted to restrict the practice with The Foreign Service Act. It stated that the Foreign Service, which of course includes ambassadors, should be operated on the basis of merit principles. Merit naturally requires some kind of career in the diplomatic service. More specifically, the Act states that ''contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission.'' 
Upon signing of the bill into law in October of that year, President Carter said:

This bill provides the first comprehensive revision of personnel legislation for the United States Foreign Service in 34 years. It is an important step in the reform, simplification, and improvement of personnel administration in the Government, a top priority of my administration.

It didn't take too long for the Reagan administration to ignore that. According to a 1983 study by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan tied for the number of political ambassadors they appointed, at 32 percent each, according to a 1983 study by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA). That figure is just above an average of roughly 30 percent since World War II.

By the time George H.W. Bush became president, it was as if the reforms of 1980 had never been written . In 1989 one report found that half Bush's administration's 26 reported ambassadors-designate were President Bush's enthusiastic campaigners, or direct Republican campaign contributors or old friends of the family. At that time, President Bush had set a new standard for the spoils system. 

The Truth Behind Obama's Use of Ambassador Posts as Political Rewards 1/2

by Nomad

Confirmation hearings for President Obama's choice for the Ambassador position to Norway was, by any measure, a disaster. 

Critics of the administration immediately began asking questions about the process. Why has the President selected so many political campaign contributors for ambassadorial posts? To hear some of the president's critics, you might well think Obama invented this practice. The truth, however, is quite different. But that's not something you're likely to hear from the Republicans or from Fox News. 

Obama's Tsunis Embarrassment

A couple of weeks ago, Long Island property millionaire George Tsunis, Obama's choice to be the US ambassador for Norway made a bumbling mess of question put to him at a Senate hearing. All in all, the nominee seemed embarrassingly ignorant of the country with whom he would be conducting diplomatic relations with.

Tsunis' answers were so ill-informed that they nearly created a diplomatic incident even before the ambassador was confirmed. Norway's Progress Party was so upset by Tsunis labeling them a hate-spewing "fringe minority" group- when in fact, the party forms part of a coalition with the government- that a spokesperson for the party called upon Obama to apologize.

"[Obama] should apologize to the Norwegian people, not just the politicians, because you do not just send someone out who has no idea. You do not treat countries that way."

It appeared as if Tsunis was simply bluffing his way through the hearing without a clue of Norway or its political system. 

Senator McCain who quizzed Tsunis was clearly disgusted by the candidate's answers. He supplied the punchline by concluding his questioning with a classic McCain sneer, saying "I have no more questions for this incredibly highly qualified group on nominees." 
(The other nominees under scrutiny had all of the finesse of university students at the first oral exam.)
Just listen:

Painful, isn't it? News organizations were quick to point out that Tsunis' appointment probably had very much to do with his past role campaign contributor for Obama. MSNBC noted:

Tsunis donated $50,000 to John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008, before switching sides and donating $988,550 for Obama’s 2012 campaign, according figure from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Gender Gap: Why Women Voters will Reject the GOP in the Midterm Elections

by Nomad

In red states like Kentucky, women voters may just turn these states to blue in the upcoming election.  If that state is any to go by, Republicans are going to be in big trouble. And when it comes with women voters, the party has nobody to blame but itself.

According to an article in the LA Progressive, a recent non-partisan poll shows that Democratic candidate Alison Grimes has a four-point advantage over Mitch McConnell, the senate minority leader and long time incumbent. While four points may not make Grimes a sure thing, the poll also reveals something that must be even more disturbing for Republican strategists. Grimes has a 12 point lead among women surveyed. That's right, a full twelve points.

And women- as a voting block- make up a full 53 percent of all registered voters in Kentucky. 

The bottom line is: Losing women voters means losing an election.

That doesnt guarantee Grimes an easy victory, of course. Naturally, she has done her best to highlight McConnell's poor record on issues women care about.
Said a Grimes spokesperson Charly Norton,

“McConnell’s votes against the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the Violence Against Women Act appear to be a serious drag on his ability to win over Kentucky women. Unless McConnell explains why he has voted against women’s interests time and time again, he will fail to gain an ounce more of support.”

States like Missouri and Indiana have also shown that Republican candidates have lost women voters by a wide margin. 

It's hard not to see that when it comes to women voters, the Republican Party is still in disarray. They may know what the problem is but is it possible that the Republican Party cannot change? Is its attitudes toward women, toward gays and lesbians, toward the poor actually the cold heart of the GOP?