Christine O'Donnell and Tea Party NOT a New Phenomenon

As liberal radio host Randi Rhodes often says, "there is nothing new under the sun."  Despite all the attention the tea baggers have gotten over the last year and a half (largely due to their outrageous costumes, signs and statements), they are not a new phenomenon.  These people are the base of the Republican party and always have been.  They're the people who thought George W. Bush did a heckuva job (even if they distance themselves from him now). They're the ones who made Sarah Palin a rock star.  The difference now is that they've got tea bags hanging from their tri-cornered hats.

The other difference of course is that rather than being fringe rabble rousers, they are now front-and-center in the conservative movement. They were always courted and pandered to by establishment Republicans, but they were never supposed to become the driving force of the GOP.  They are a Frankenstein's monster, and were it not for the fact that they may lay waste to the countryside in much the same way, they'd be very entertaining to watch.

The most disturbing aspect of this turnover of the conservative pond, is the mixing of religion and politics, and the anti-gay, anti-Muslim, xenophobic rhetoric that comes with it.  It's always been around, spoken through megaphones of varying volumes, but now it is central to the mainstream conservative message.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Separated at Birth: Rexella Van Impe and Jan Brewer

It's been bugging me since the first time I saw her. Who does Arizona Governor Jan Brewer look like?  Then it hit me. Have you ever had insomnia, and happened upon the bizarre Jack Van Impe Jeebus show?  It's an apocalyptic, Jesus-is-coming, end-of-the-world religious infomercial. Van Impe may be a crazy Apocalypse-craving nutball, but he landed himself a blonde (for him) younger babe. And she's every bit as maniacal and twisted as he is.  She may be a different sort of crazy from Jan Brewer, but she's almost a dead ringer.  But I'm not ruling out a lingering Star Trek memory of the Cardassians.  Jan's got those crazily prominent eyeball orbital ridges, she's only missing the spoon-like protuberance and gray pallor.

Glenn Beck is Vaguely Nuts

I put up a couple of posts yesterday about Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington. It was reported variously as an evangelical religious revival (ironically led by a Mormon), an apolitical political event, or an ego trip.  But one of the overriding themes was the vagueness of the message. Restoring honor from what? Restoring honor to what? The only thing everyone can agree on is that it's over now.

So, Sunday morning has rolled around, and it's time for FOX "News" Sunday.  No big surprise, Beck's home network has him in the #1 spot to talk about yesterdays big event.  I didn't have high hopes that Beck would clarify what it was all about, and they wouldn't have been met.  Beck is quite frankly bonkers.  Apparently, we as a nation need to "return to God," and we're "lost" until we do.  Mmmkay. For a dude who likes to wave around the Constitution, trying to weld religion to politics seems un-American to me. As a non-believer, I wouldn't cotton to this message anyway, but coming from Beck--an outsized cartoon character--I can't figure out why anyone would.

Keith Olbermann has dubbed him "Lonesome Rhodes Beck" from the film A Face in the Crowd, starring Andy Griffith. I've never seen the film, but the description seems apt.  Still, having watched a rerun of Saturday Night Live last night, I'd say Beck is more like "Nicholas Fehn", the babbling "comic" on Weekend Update.

He opens his mouth, and says stuff, and it sounds like he's making some sort of sense if you aren't paying close attention. . .but he isn't saying much of anything.

It's a mishmash of "things in America are bad," "we must work together to make it better," "we want the truth," "America must stand guard," "we must get right with God," and on and on. . . I can't for the life of me understand this man's hold on people.  He is saying nothing, much like his primary guest yesterday, Sarah Palin.  I'd like to call it style over substance, but the style is so unappealing, I truly cannot see the appeal.  

By the way, as always happens, there is a dispute about the size of the crowd at yesterday's event.  Immediately, Beck fans started saying "hundreds of thousands," with 300,000 become the fast favorite round number.  CBS News estimated slightly less than 100,000.  Beck today said 300,000 on the low end, perhaps as high as 650,000, which sounds like a ridiculous overestimation. But it's just like the "argumentum ad populum" logical fallacy that is consistently made about the FOX "News" ratings.  Popularity doesn't equal "correct." It doesn't equal clarity either.

GOP Gets Dressing Down from Former Evangelical

I've seen DL Hughley on Real Time with Bill Maher, and while he was entertaining, I didn't see him getting his own show on a cable news network. But he has made a name for himself in the short period of time he's been on the air. It was on his show that RNC chair Michael Steele got himself into hot water with "Boss Limbaugh." And this piece of video stunned even Hughley.

Former evangelical Frank Schaeffer exposes the GOP's use of the the religious right, and describes--in extremely frank terms (see, he was aptly named)--where the GOP stands right now. Good stuff.

UPDATE: Apparently Hughley's show has been cancelled. Well, now!

Gay Marriage Moves to Iowa?

Photo from source, MSNBC

Let me see if I get this straight (pardon the pun). Same-sex marriage was made un-Constitutional by California voters, but Iowa may soon legalize it? That's something of a black-eye to the supposed liberal state, isn't it? Here's hoping that the Iowa couples prevail. But how much do you want to bet that if the judges rule in favor of same-sex marriage, that the usual suspects (the unlikely alliance between Mormons, Evangelicals, and Catholics) start up a new resolution to put it up to a vote?

[Excerpt]

Iowa high court takes on gay marriage

The gay marriage debate moves to the Midwest this week as the Iowa Supreme Court hears arguments in a challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage. . .

Read more at: MSNBC

No on Proposition 8: Gay Marriage Hurts No One

If you scroll down on this page, you will come across several Google AdSense ads. I have no idea what they say, because they are placed by Google, which scans key words and phrases on my blog, and plugs in ads accordingly. That's why you might find an anti-Barack Obama ad right here on a pro-Obama site.

So, it was not surprising to me to find "Say Yes on Proposition 8" ads on progressive blogs in the last few days. Prop. 8 is the California measure to undo legal same-sex marriage. It does not prevent gays from marrying, it stops them from continuing to do so. Not enough attention has been paid to the fact that in California, this issue is no longer hypothetical. Passing Prop. 8 would take away something that people already have. This does not "protect" marriage, it will destroy marriages that already exist.

I got married to The Other Half in Palm Springs in June. We had a blast out in California, and spent a lot of money there. We had a reception back here in Las Vegas, attended by friends and family. We've been treated no differently than any other married couple. Our marriage has not affected any other marriage on our street, our city, our state, or our country. The sky did not fall. All the warnings about gay marriage have come to naught.

But the arguments for "Yes on 8" pretend that the ill effects of same-sex marriage are yet to come. Apparently we are still in a (pun intended) honeymoon phase where the destruction of traditional marriage and family hasn't happened yet--but, oh mercy, it will!

The worst part of the "Yes on 8" drive, is the slogan on their web site: "Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children." I mean, really, how dare they? What the hell does this measure have to do with protecting children? From what? As far as I know, nobody is advocating marrying children, or forcing them to attend a same-sex marriage. . .how exactly does voting yes on 8 protect anything? It's already been shown that nothing has been hurt by the thousands of same-sex marriages that have already happened.

And you know what, you "Yes" voters out there? California's economy is--like much of the country--in the shitter. Same-sex marriages are bringing gobs of money to your state. Money that could go to Massachusetts, and now Connecticut. Not only will California miss out on the money if Proposition 8 passes, but I intend to lead a movement for all of us evil gays who have already married to get our money back. You heard me. If you take my marriage away, I want my money back. All of my money back. Bare minimum, that is $70 for the license and $100 for the ceremony at city hall. For every couple. It's going to add up.

The Yes on 8 movement is backed by the Mormon church, in conjunction with some evangelical groups--strange bedfellows in any other scenario. It somehow doesn't seem right to me that religion should be allowed to drive public policy. That is exactly what is going on here.

But the long and short of it is this: Same-sex marriages have already occurred. They've brought money to California. No opposite-sex marriages have been threatened, harmed or affected in any way. No children have been threatened or harmed, but they may have been positively affected if their parents are gay. This is no longer hypothetical, so the conversation needs to be changed. Vote Yes on 8 if you want to take something away from people that doesn't have anything at all to do with you. Does that sound right, fair, or anything like what America is about?