Rick Perry Bails Out of the 2016 GOP Clown Car

The Other Half was just telling me earlier today that he originally thought Rick Perry would be a contender, back in 2012. I thought the same, I thought he'd be more of a force. I was less worried about it this time, after his goofy performance four years ago. But for all the hype and buzz he used to have, he's the first one to have his torch snuffed out. Oops.

[Excerpt]

Rick Perry drops out of race for 2016 Republican presidential nomination

Former Texas governor Rick Perry has announced that he is dropping out of the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Perry is first in the Republican field to exit the race. His campaign ran into financial trouble after he did not poll high enough to participate in the first presidential debate.
. . .

Read more at: The Guardian

2016 Clown Car Update: Gov. Oopsie McGoodhair, Rick Perry Takes the Wheel

Well, why not? Why not try again after flaming out so utterly and so spectacularly last time? I remember watching that debate live (with my Twitter feed keeping me more entertained up until that moment) with my mouth open. Those were some awkward moments. I almost felt bad for him, until I continued reading Twitter, and was back to having a helluva time. There was some funny stuff to read then! And to think I'd been a little worried about Rick Perry's initial entrance into the 2012 race.

I don't think his 2016 entry is going to make the rest of the GOP class worry too badly.

[Excerpt]

Rick Perry poised to try again for presidency

Four years after a disastrous first campaign for the White House, former Texas governor Rick Perry announced here Thursday that he will try again, and the contrast between then and now could hardly be greater. . .

Read more at: MSN/WP

Right Wing World On an Anti-Gay Legislating Blitz (And Why it's B.S.)

Let's get this out of the way right at the beginning: The argument that salespeople, shopkeepers, cashiers, clerks, bakers, photographers, caterers, florists, dress sellers, tuxedo renters and the like should have the "religious freedom" to refuse service to a class of people in order to protect their right to "sincerely held beliefs" is bullshit. Straight up bullshit. We've been down this legal path before, with religious justifications behind attempts to wiggle out of civil rights era legislation. It didn't work then, it shouldn't work now. The similarities are unmistakable, and unsurprisingly, those behind these arguments are doing their best to point out why that kind of discrimination was wrong, but this kind of discrimination is legitimate and necessary.

But think about that for a second. Proclaiming your religion and beliefs in cherished, sacrosanct terms, and then using them to justify discriminating against a group of people. What a thing to hang your religion on.

Now that marriage equality is poised to become a 50-state-wide reality (assuming the Supreme Court rules in that direction), religious conservatives have been in a full-blown, desperate panic over how to limit or stall it. Two major legal strategies are spreading like wildfire. One of those is to initiate legislation that effectively ignores or attempts to trump the Supreme Court, but refusing to--and in some cases punishing other legislators and judges who--follow the law. This tack is virtually assured to fail, and serves only to cast  major doubt on these legislators' grasp of the Constitution, and on any claims they may have of "fiscal conservatism." Quite simply, they're going to lose, and they're going to cost their states lots of money in legal fees.

The other tack is to create legal exemptions and loopholes for religious people. This tells the religious person: you don't have to follow Law X because it is against your religion. And this is where writing about this subject starts to get difficult. This is where it hits a tangent prism that confounds me as a writer, as to which direction of wrong to tackle first, and how to tie it all into a bow. So, I'm going to try a bullet-pointed list of problems with why this sort of legal strategy is fraught with problems. This is by no means a comprehensive list, either.

• Religious beliefs need no evidence or justification. They don't even need scriptural citation. For example, there is no implicit Biblical commandment for being against abortion or against selling products or services to gay people. A person could claim a "sincerely held belief" to almost anything. In Hobby Lobby, the beliefs in question didn't even need to match scientific fact that contradicted the beliefs, all that mattered was the belief.
• Though so far, the topic has pretty much been limited to the wedding industry, and the subject of marriage itself, what legal reasoning could restrict these exemptions (or this complaint) to marriage? Why would it only apply to weddings? It isn't hard to conceive that granting special exemptions to this industry and subject would be a foot in the door for exemptions for all sorts of other things. And while this may sound like a slippery slope logical fallacy, I have seen no argument that would restrict these laws in any way to this specific subject.
• Christianity is not the only religion whose beliefs would need to be respected if such a set of laws were passed. It would apply to all religions, presumably major established ones, as well as cults, and brand new, just-born religions. Given that no evidence or scripture is even needed to claim religious belief, an enterprising individual could invent his own religion on the spot, in an attempt to skirt the law.
• Gay marriage, homosexuality and the wedding industry are by no means the only category of law that could be claimed in conflict with "sincerely held belief." The fact that this category is claiming most of the attention in the news right now shows the transparent nature of the push: though they'll go to great pains to avoid mentioning gay people or same-sex marriage in legislation, it's that purposeful avoidance of naked animus that will make these exemptions so vague as to have trucks driven through them.
• The obvious cause of this new flurry of legislation is religious opposition to same-sex marriage. But these are civil marriages, legal contracts. Not "holy matrimony." These are not marriages in the name of the religions objector's church, or in the name of the objector's God. They are, legally, no more religious in nature than a business contract or a building permit, unless the participants attach their religious beliefs to it. The religion of the formal occasion professional, or the government clerk servicing the civil contract are utterly irrelevant.
• Selling goods or services to a wedding party have not--prior to the advent of same-sex marriage--been seen as endorsement of, or participation in the event the goods or services were used for. If they had been, we'd have already seen "sin checklists" that quiz brides and grooms about infidelity, religious compatibility, prior divorces, and countless other attempts to root out sin. Such a thing would have been seen as outrageous and preposterous in the industry, until now. Which should be telling.
• There is an inherent irony involved in a religious push that simultaneously attempts to shield one group of people from violating their "sincerely held beliefs," while barring other people from following their own. These laws would ignore the customer's beliefs, by trumping them with the business person's (or civil clerk's) beliefs. It forces the customer to follow the seller's religion, or to be refused service. That the people behind such laws are very likely the same people who would be most paranoid about "Sharia Law" ought to be another red flag.
• All of this legislation effectively ignores religions that are in favor of same-sex marriage, and/or gay people in general. These religions do exist, and are growing in number.

 

Anti-gay Texas legislator and cartoon

character, Cecil Bell.

There is so much more that is wrong about what's going on here, that I could double or triple the length of this article. I'll continue to try to get more succinct in future attempts, believe me. Unfortunately, the "truthiness" behind this kind of legislation is succinct. It's simple, to be more precise, and strikes a chord. Or a cord, actually, a safety cord on a parachute that gets anti-gay religious conservatives safely around having to acknowledge that gay people are attaining civil equality in any area. People who have a knee-jerk desire to stamp out these kind of gains very often--nearly always--are blind to the unintended consequences of their proposed legislation. They simply want to stop it, or barring that, delay it as long as possible. But the reality is, this isn't just a Pandora's Box they're opening, it's a series of them. A series of nesting Pandora's Boxes. And it makes their opposition to Sharia Law untenable. A better writer than me should focus on that last part. Maybe then, we could show them why this path would be a huge mistake, not just for gay people, but for those with "sincerely held beliefs."

Here are a few stories going on right now, regarding attempts by religious conservatives to legally discriminate against gay people:

Texas: Anti-Gay Marriage Bill Scrutinized in Committee
Indiana: Tech leaders to Pence: Veto 'religious freedom' bill
California: California Seeks to Head Off Initiative to Execute Gays


 

Jon Stewart on the Ted Cruz Presidential Announcement

John Fugelsang on Ted Cruz, Liberty University and Irony

Exhibit #543 on why John Fugelsang ought to take over for Jon Stewart on
The Daily Show. By KatDesigns@KathyZSkowski/twitter.

 

Why Did Ted Cruz Announce his Bid for President the Way He Did?

Ted Cruz is very popular with Tea Party types. Ted Cruz is very unpopular with a whole big slice of everybody else. It doesn't help that besides being a bomb-throwing panderer, that he's also extraordinarily difficult to tolerate visually and aurally. Ugh. And he doesn't have a big political machine behind him. So, how to launch, and get the biggest bang?

Announce at a Christian "University," where attendance at your rally is mandatory for the student body! He was guaranteed an audience of a group of people who would be at least a little better than even-odds to be on your team.

[Excerpt]

An Evangelical Notre Dame
 
With degrees from Princeton University and Harvard Law, Sen. Ted Cruz may have the most sterling academic résumé of any Republican presidential contender. But to officially announce his 2016 bid on Monday, he headed to a non-elite Christian school in central Virginia: Liberty University, the socially conservative school pastor Jerry Falwell founded in 1971. Much has been said about how Cruz’s choice of venue reflects his need to court the conservative evangelical Christian voters that propelled George W. Bush to two presidential victories, but Liberty’s importance isn’t just symbolism and optics. Since overcoming significant financial problems in the 1990s, the school has transformed itself into a conservative force in a state with a bitterly divided Republican Party. If the only people who heard Cruz’s speech today were the students sitting in the auditorium, it still would have been strategically valuable. . .

Read more at: Slate

Ted Cruz to Announce 2016 Presidential Run

Great. I find him to be one of the most irritating and obnoxious of any other potential candidate outside of maybe Donald Trump or Sarah Palin. He's potentially worse, since they're such obvious showboaters, and transparent bags of hot air. Ted Cruz is a panderer, and a charlatan. But he really knows his audience, and may be able to whip enough of them into a frenzy to be a problem. He carries the dubious gravitas of actually holding elected office, which Trump never has, and Palin never will again.

I find it extremely amusing that Cruz carries almost exactly the same circumstances of his parentage as President Obama does, in that one of his parents was foreign. In fact, Cruz has the added complication that he actually was born outside the country (while Obama's birth is only alleged to have been born elsewhere by certifiable crackpots). It is exponentially more amusing that the very same people who found Obama's parentage to be a Constitutional crisis, will almost certainly have no problem with Cruz. Unless their prejudices extend beyond "that black guy," to "that Cuban guy."

Ted Cruz Rails Against Federal Law That Doesn't Exist

He don't need no education. . .Image from source, ThinkProgress

I'll concede that I'm a liberal, progressive, Democrat, whatever. Lefty by default, pretty much. Even so, I can't imagine that if my leanings were reversed, that I'd have any affinity whatsoever for Texas Senator Ted Cruz. I find him unctuous, smarmy, irritating and I don't think he's ever taken a picture where he doesn't look creepy. Plus, he's a panderer and a bit of a dolt. Witness. . .

[Excerpt]

Ted Cruz Makes Impassioned Plea For Repeal Of Federal Legislation That Does Not Exist

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is known for waging political battles even if the odds of success are slim. He famously launched a 21-hour filibuster in a failed, last-ditch effort to repeal Obamacare. But his latest crusade may be his biggest challenge yet: repealing a federal law that does not exist. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Ted Cruz Continues Fight Against Al Franken on Net Neutrality

I dislike everything about Senator Ted Cruz. Superficially, I'm annoyed by his perpetually creepy face and his annoying, mosquito-buzzing-by-your-ear voice. More seriously, it pisses me off how he plays to his base. But does he believe his own patter? Is he a patronizing douche, who calculatedly throws red meat to the savages? Or is he an egotistical ignoramus who believes that whatever claptrap falls out of his mouth is the truth?

Say what you want about Senator Al Franken, but he's genuine. He knows what he's talking about, and he believes in what he's saying. In the case of Net Neutrality, Franken--who has championed the idea for years--is explaining what it is, in reality. Ted Cruz calls it "ObamaCare for the Internet," and makes rotary phone analogies, neither of which makes a lick of sense in regard to the subject. Cruz is outmatched here, but to paraphrase President Obama again, "Please proceed, Senator."

[Excerpt]

Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) responded on Monday to comments made by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) about net neutrality, the latest exchange in what is becoming an ongoing, public back-and-forth. The debate began when Cruz dubbed the concept "Obamacare for the Internet." Franken said in an interview on Sunday that Cruz has no idea what he's talking about. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Daily Show: "South by South Mess," The State of Texas with Brad Paisley

Hilarious.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Gay Thing: So-called "Religious Freedom" Cases are Not What They Seem

When I started this blog, I never intended for "The Gay Thing" to be anything more than an occasional topic. The news cycle doesn't really permit that anymore, does it? Couple that with the fact that this blog is also my sounding board, the place where I go to get things off of my chest. And this topic often generates that need, particularly when it comes to backlash and stupidity (they often go together).

Here's a FOX "News" story about one of the early
"religious freedom" cases, Sweet Cakes by Melissa.
There wasn't legal marriage in Oregon at the time.
Helpfully labeled so you know he's not Melissa.

Marriage equality is very nearly a done deal. Before the end of the year, we'll likely be past 35 states and the District of Columbia. What's left is pretty much the deep south and the Dakotas, with some stragglers around the edges (come on, Ohio, you're embarrassing me!). But the anti-gay side--and don't kid yourself, that is what they are--isn't ready to give up. Since they're pretty much out of options in regard to the actual legality of same-sex marriage, what they've got left is to make all sorts of claims of "religious freedom." They're actually making a case that the ability to legally discriminate, shun, or otherwise refuse service to gay people, is a central tenet of their religion.

And the story about the
Houston sermon subpoena
thing from Joe.My.God.
That's mayor Annise Parker,
who's caught up in it.

Finding the commandment or verse that calls for this is difficult, but that's not stopping them. This actually started a while back, when the marriage equality tsunami was just a few lapping waves. It was odd too, because it was almost exclusively wedding industry Christians (cake bakers, photographers, venue operators, dress makers, caterers) from states where gay people couldn't marry anyway. It actually rather shone a light on their lie that they weren't anti-gay, just religiously objecting to gay marriage. How can that be true when these weren't legal marriages anyway? Sometimes--as in a religion-meddling-in-politics case in Houston--marriage isn't even a part of the controversy. It's pretty plain: they just don't like gay people, and want to be mean and/or able to ignore that they exist.

So, they've amped up their martyr complexes, and made mini celebrities out of themselves all across Right Wing World. And now that equality has come to the majority of the US, they're turning it up to eleven. The trouble is, their claims have just enough truthiness, and surfacy-outrage to potentially stick. In other words, though their claims are absolute bullshit, it might sound convincing enough to create backlash. Now, why do I say their claims are bullshit?

Well, first there is the above note that they have a difficult time pointing out the specific religious objections they might have to selling products or services to gay people. Second, this often has little to do with marriage itself, it has to do with public accommodation laws, which predate legal marriage. If you have a public accommodation business, open to the general public, you must serve the general public. It's as simple as the Woolworth's lunch counter not being legally able to bar black customers. I don't care if you don't think sexual orientation is a perfect analogy to race, legally, these cases are identical. If there is a public accommodation law that covers gay people (and they are far from universal, lest you think otherwise), you can't refuse to do business with them just because they're gay. Or have a different religion. Or are black. Or anything else covered by the law.

The unbelievable disingenuousness of Las Vegas
wedding chapels (Elvis?) alleging to be solemn
churches is just galling.

Now, there are new cases, even right here in Nevada, where wedding chapels are deciding not to perform marriages for gay couples, using a "religious freedom" excuse. And this is where the truthiness comes in. It sounds like a religious freedom case, because: chapel. And the officiant may very well be religious and homophobic (I'm sorry, your religion doesn't shield you from being a bigot). But these chapels, in every one of these new cases, are not churches, they are businesses. Consider if you will, the parade of couples who have gone through your average Las Vegas little white chapel. Do you mean to tell me every one has been as pure as the driven snow, with a religion that aligns perfectly with the officiant? Really?

So, while I believe that these cases are bullshit, and a transparent attempt by the anti-gay to exert some control over a situation where they have none, I do worry. I saw Hobby Lobby, a case that was a

A rustic, wild west, for-profit church?!?
Our latest martyrs from Idaho.

Pandora's box filled with mind boggling implications. One of them could be giving these chapels inherent religious beliefs and rights, out of thin air. And once you've carved out exceptions to some laws for the "sincerely held beliefs" of one religion, tell me, where would it stop? This isn't a slippery slope question, this is an obvious, and clear eventuality: there would suddenly be other beliefs that need to be "protected" by carving out exceptions to other laws. And pretty soon, it wouldn't just be Christians seeking them. Right Wing World rarely thinks about that.

As an atheist, I am a staunch supporter of religious freedom, because it protects my lack of belief, or is supposed to. But I don't like disingenuous, manipulative, dishonest movements like this one. And I have a very hard time thinking it's a good idea to grant legal exceptions for what amount to mythical beliefs.

Right Wing World: Outrage Over Houston Sermon Subpoenas

It's always something in Right Wing World, some outrage--usually outrageously overblown--to obsess about. It will usually erupt into the mainstream, first as a "what's got their knickers in a twist?-type story, then it either gets treated like a real story, or is tsk-tsked away as a nothingburger. I only wish the latter was how it always went.

This time, it has to do with a lawsuit--filed by the religious side--that has resulted in the subpoenas of church sermons. Why? Because discovery goes both ways in a lawsuit, and because tax exempt churches should not be overtly involved in politics. Simple, right?

No, it would apparently be the worst thing that has ever happened to freedom in America. Even though churches have pretty much been begging for this for years. And waiting

The Usual Suspects, from TowleRoad

for it, so they could do the present freak-out. And it doesn't hurt that the case is LGBT-related either.

Don't buy it. In fact, don't ever buy it without looking into what the current outrage is about.

[Excerpt]

RIGHT-WING FREAKS OUT OVER HOUSTON'S SUBPOENA OF PASTORS' ROLE IN CITY'S EQUAL RIGHTS ORDINANCE CASE

Back in August we reported that anti-gay activists in Houston had failed in their efforts to collect enough signatures for a ballot measure that would place Houston's LGBT-inclusive Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) up for a public referendum. The activists (which included local pastors) proceeded to sue the city over the rejection of signatures and a court date was set for January 2015. . .

Read more at: TowleRoad (and yes, I chose a gay news site on purpose)

Rick Perry Booked on Felony Charges

Oops. Image from source, AOL

I know, I know. My conservative readers (both of you, hi guys!) may say that the charges on Perry are flimsy and won't hold up. That might be true. There are plenty of pundits on the left saying that very thing. That's something you'll rarely see on the right, by the way. The John Boner Boehner lawsuit against President Obama is flimsier, but Right Wing World drools at the prospect, or wants it to go further to impeachment!

So please, let me take a little joy in that headline, willya?

[Excerpt]

Texas Gov. Perry arrives for booking on two felony charges

Texas Gov. Rick Perry arrived at a county courthouse Tuesday for booking on two felony counts of abuse of power for carrying out a threat to veto funding for state public corruption prosecutors. "I'm going to fight this injustice with every fiber of my being. And we will prevail," Perry said before walking into the Travis County Courthouse in Austin, where a grand jury indicted him last week. . .

Read more at: AOL

Rick Perry's Fool in Prison Blues (Another Rocky Mountain Mike Song Parody)

Yes, I know this is a cheat; using a Rocky Mountain Mike parody, two posts in a row. But I tell you, the news isn't snarkable at the moment, at least not with my meager talents. So, I'm leaving it to Mike, a professional! Plus, it was an unexpected work night, so I have that as my excuse.
 

Rick Perry Indicted. Oops.

Yes, Governor Oops McGoodhair has found himself in a bit of a pickle. And though he brushed off the charges as "sketchy," it's never good to be charged with dual felonies. Whether they get him on this is open to speculation. But do I think Rick Perry is a vindictive prick? I do.

[Excerpt]

What the Hell Just Happened in Texas, and Why Was Rick Perry Just Indicted?
 
Texas Governor Rick Perry was indicted Friday on charges of abuse of power—a first degree felony—and coercion—a third degree felony. The charges stem from a 2013 scandal that has been quietly rumbling in the Lone Star State as Perry has been floated as a viable contender for the Republican nomination in 2016. This is a complex case, which might be why it has not made national headlines the way other recent, state-level scandals (like Bridgegate, in New Jersey) have. Below, I have outlined a somewhat confusing short version of events, and a longer, more colorful explanation that involves alcohol, police, and masks. . .

Read more at: The Daily Beast

Rick Perry Sends out the National Guard Against. . .Children?

Governor Oops of Texas is a baffling fellow. I know he's got the "smart guy" glasses on, and he's making himself very visible. I know he has designs on the White House, despite his disastrous previous effort. So, I suppose this is sort a "tough guy" move, to try to shore up his base. The teabaggers hate illegal immigrants, so he's gotta sock it to 'em? Maybe. But what in the world is the National Guard going to do with these women and children that isn't being done?

[Excerpt]

To Deal With Migrant Kids, Texas Governor Plans To Send National Guard To The Border

Faced with an uptick in children crossing the U.S.-border alone from several unstable Central American countries, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said Monday he will send 1,000 members of the National Guard to the border. “I will not stand idly by,” Perry said in making the announcement. He told CNN, “the first thing you have to do is stop the flow [of migrants into the United States]. . .”

Read more at: Think Progress

What is That in the Picture with Ted Cruz?

Image from RawStory

I'd just like to point out that this man--the conservative great hope for 2016--is using a TelePrompTer. Isn't that supposed to be the height of disingenuousness, or. . .something? And might I just ask, is there a single picture of Ted Cruz where he doesn't look evil, or at the very least, creepy?

 

Wendy Davis Wins Primary for Texas Governor

The Gay Thing: Gay Marriage Ban in Texas Found Unconstitutional!

Boy, between states trying to legalize anti-gay discrimination and states tipping toward marriage equality, it seems like every day has some kind of gay news, doesn't it? Throw in Jason Collins, Ellen Page and Michael Sam, and it's just got to be making some people twitchy! Particularly since it's states like Kentucky, Utah, Virginia and now Texas that are seeing their state constitutional amendments get declared federal unconstitutional. Many, many people said these things wouldn't pass constitutional muster back when it was a fad to pass them all over the country. And I think the people who passed them may have even known that. Their number one tactic--even in the face of an inevitable loss--is to delay as long as possible.

Well, gay Texans still have a delay, since this decision is stayed pending appeal. Which is irritating, but expected. I suppose I shouldn't be so impatient, considering the speed things are changing.

[Excerpt]

Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas’ Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

HOUSTON — A federal judge in Texas struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, ruling that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated the United States Constitution and handing gay-rights advocates a major legal victory in one of the nation’s biggest and most conservative states. . .

Read more at: New York Times

Ted Cruz Threatens Filibuster of Debt Ceiling

He just oozes douchiness. Image from source, TPM

Sigh.

This guy. Again. Because his other stunts have won so much for both him and his party. It's just. . .I can't even. . .

[Excerpt]

Ted Cruz Threatens To Filibuster Clean Debt Limit Hike

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will push a 60-vote threshold, meaning he's threatening to filibuster, on a clean debt ceiling increase extension. Cruz's office confirmed the Texas senator's plans to TPM on Tuesday afternoon.

Cruz's move means lawmakers will need to rally 60 votes in the chamber to pass the bill, and Democrats only control 55 votes. . .

 

Read more at: Talking Points Memo