During the 2008 presidential campaign, I documented 10, then 10 more and yet another 10 moments in the extremism of Mike Huckabee. Now, fresh off his victory in the straw poll at the so-called Values Voters Summit, the one-time Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor turned Fox News host called for the United States to leave the United Nations. Following his use of the late Ted Kennedy to fight mythical "death panels" and his tacit endorsement of ethic cleansing in the Middle East, the 2012 White House hopeful's latest statements can mean only one thing.

It's time for still another 10 moments in the extremism of Mike Huckabee:

31. Huckabee Calls for the U.S. to Leave the UN
32. Huckabee Uses Ted Kennedy to Push Death Panels Myth
33. Huckabee Warns of "Union of American Socialist Republics"
34. Huckabee Says Governors Should Ignore Court Rulings
35. Huckabee Sees "Hand of God" in Prop 8 Victory
36. Huckabee Claims Civil Rights of Gays Not Being Violated
37. Huckabee Opposes Two-State Solution in Middle East
38. Huckabee Calls for Abolition of IRS and Putting Politics in the Pulpit
39. Huckabee Parrots GOP's "Club Gitmo" Talking Point
40. Huckabee Headlines Electromagnetic Pulse Conference

31. Huckabee Calls for the U.S. to Leave the UN
The United Nations has been a favorite right-wing punching bag for generations, the bogeyman of Birchers and Birthers alike. At this weekend's "How to Take Back America" shindig (an event which featured sessions such as "How to Recognize Living under Nazis & Communists"), Mike Huckabee added his name to the list.

Looking to top John Bolton's hypothetical about lopping off 10 floors of the United Nations building, Huckabee called for casting the whole institution into the sea. To a standing ovation, Huckabee declared:

"It's time to get a jackhammer and to simply chip that part of New York City. Let it float into the East River, never to be seen again."

32. Huckabee Uses Ted Kennedy to Push Death Panels Myth
In their ever-escalating effort to derail health care reform, Republicans from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to Obama's ersatz negotiating partner Chuck Grassley warned of mythical government "death panels" which would "pull the plug on grandma."

To make his version of the case, Governor Huckabee turned to the example of the late Senator Kennedy. Just moments after criticizing Democrats for defying "good taste" by claiming "Congress must hurry and pass the health care reform bill and do it in his memory," Huckabee announced:

"It was President Obama himself who suggested that seniors who don't have as long to live might want to just consider taking a pain pill instead of getting an expensive operation to cure them. Yet when Sen. Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die? Of course not. He freely did what most of us would do. He chose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments."

Continue reading »

Either this will turn out to be a bold, brilliant move - or a disaster that will set the cause back for a long time. Here's hoping they pull it off:

Eight and a half years after their epic partisan battle over the fate of the 2000 presidential election, the lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson appeared on the same team on Wednesday as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit that has nothing to do with hanging chads, butterfly ballots or Electoral College votes.

Their mutual goal: overturning Proposition 8, California’s freshly affirmed ban on same-sex marriage. It is a fight that jolted many gay rights advocates — and irritated more than a few — but that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson said was important enough to, temporarily at least, set aside their political differences.

“Ted and I, as everybody knows, have been on different sides in court on a couple of issues,” said Mr. Boies, who represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, the contested 2000 vote count in Florida in which Mr. Olson prevailed for George W. Bush. “But this is not something that is a partisan issue. This is something that is a civil rights issue.”

The duo’s complaint, filed last week in Federal District Court in San Francisco on behalf of two gay couples and formally announced Wednesday at a news conference in Los Angeles, argues against Proposition 8 on the basis of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

In the end, the two lawyers suggested, the case might take them, again, to the United States Supreme Court. While neither man claimed any special connection to the gay community — they are working “partially pro-bono,” Mr. Olson said — both said they had been touched by the stories of the same-sex couples unable to marry in California.

“If you look into the eyes and hearts of people who are gay and talk to them about this issue, that reinforces in the most powerful way possible the fact that these individuals deserve to be treated equally,” Mr. Olson said at the news conference.

“I couldn’t have said it better,” said Mr. Boies, patting Mr. Olson on the back.

Not everyone in the gay rights movement, however, was thrilled by the sudden intervention of the two limelight-grabbing but otherwise untested players in the bruising battle over Proposition 8. Some expressed confusion at the men’s motives and outright annoyance at the possibility that a loss before the Supreme Court could spoil the chances of future lawsuits on behalf of same-sex marriage.

“It’s not something that didn’t occur to us,” Matt Coles, the director of the LGBT project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said of filing a federal lawsuit. “Federal court? Wow. Never thought of that.”

But Mr. Olson said that their lawsuit — which also seeks an injunction blocking the marriage ban until the matter can be resolved — fell squarely in the tradition of landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education.

“Creating a second class of citizens is discrimination, plain and simple,” said Mr. Olson, who served as solicitor general under Mr. Bush. “The Constitution of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln does not permit it.”

DOWNLOAD (32)

PLAY (48)

California courts agreed to hear a challenge to Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage. The question before the court asks if Proposition 8 is an amendment to California's Constitution or a revision. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told CNN's Anderson Cooper that if Proposition 8 is a revision to the Constitution it would mean that the courts no longer had a role in determining if the rights of minorities had been violated.

"Should we go in front of the voters every time there is an adjudication in the courts that we don't like and submit the rights of minorities to the whims of the majority, based upon the morality of the day?" asked Newsom. "That's what's happened here in California."

I mean, this is an interesting point. Look, if we were having this conversation in 1967, we would have had a U.S. Supreme Court, the loving court, that unanimously decided to get rid of all of those laws in the remaining 16 states that denied interracial marriage.

If we had gone to the voters, almost every public opinion poll showed that the overwhelming majority of voters would have overturned that court decision

Newsom argued, "Well, what's next? I mean, now, if this is the basis of principle, what other rights should we take away? And is the court powerless in each and every case when the voters by a majority decide to change the constitution, again based upon the issue of the day?"

CNN transcripts:

COOPER: Protesters this past weekend against California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. There was a major new development today. The state's highest court said the initiative can be enforced. They're not going to try to delay it. But at the same time, the court agreed in March to hear arguments on its validity.

And they're going to focus on three questions: does Prop 8 revise the state's constitution instead of amending it? Does it also violate the state's constitution separation of powers doctrine, violating judges' ability to guarantee equal rights? And the court is going to try to decide what happens to the thousands of gay marriages that have already taken place.

Continue reading »

Those darn gays and their desire to treated like any other American couple...they've forced James Dobson's Focus on the Family to announce layoffs of approximately 20% of their work force, or 202 employees, due in no small part to the more than $500,000 spent on the Yes on 8 campaign. Colorado Independent:

Focus on the Family announced yesterday afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide — an estimated 20 percent of its workforce. Initial reports bring the total number of remaining employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Critics are holding up the layoffs, which come just two months after the organization’s last round of dismissals, as a sad commentary on the true priorities of the ministry.

“If I were their membership I would be appalled,” said Mark Lewis, a longtime Colorado Springs activist who helped organize a Proposition 8 protest in Colorado Springs on Saturday. “That [Focus on the Family] would spend any money on anything that’s obviously going to get blocked in the courts is just sad. [Prop. 8] is guaranteed to lose, in the long run it doesn’t have a chance — it’s just a waste of money.”

In all, Focus pumped $539,000 in cash and another $83,000 worth of non-monetary support into the measure to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed gays and lesbians to marry in that state. The group was the seventh-largest donor to the effort in the country. The cash contributions are equal to the salaries of 19 Coloradans earning the 2008 per capita income of $29,133.

In addition Elsa Prince, the auto parts heiress and longtime funder of conservative social causes who sits on the Focus on the Family board, contributed another $450,000 to Prop. 8.[..]

Lewis, the Colorado Springs activist, wonders whether the families who donate to the nonprofit ministry, realize where their funds really end up.

“Seriously, I would imagine their supporters have got to be asking the question about whether their church is really practicing their theology.”

Frankly, I've been questioning that long before they started laying off employees. More importantly, the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal on Prop. 8, and it appears it is on the question of legality of revising the state Constitution as opposed to amending it.

And if you really want to get conspiracy-minded (meaning an area that the Supreme Court would never actually touch), Mark Crispin Miller wants to know why the exit polls show that Prop. 8 was defeated, by the same ratio it was eventually passed. Remember, discrepancy in results like that were exactly the justification we gave for overturning and demanding a new election in the Ukraine.

In the immediate wake of Prop 8's victory in California, much of the conversation in the blogosphere was dominated by anger – real and perceived – by some gay activists toward African Americans, acrimony grounded in eventually refuted claims that black voters provided the margin of victory. While Prop 8 opponents were understandably frustrated, the way some lashed out at African Americans was counterproductive at best. Although the Right is still trying hard to drive a wedge between blacks and gay rights activists, the broader conversation has mostly moved on.

This weekend's historic grassroots protests against Prop 8, organized via Join the Impact, have people thinking about the future again. And that's where our focus belongs. Prop 8's supporters have the past on their side, but we have the future. My advice to the marriage ban supporters is to savor their victories now because they're going to find out what it's like to be on the wrong side of history.

Even in defeat we can see the signs of victories to come. According to a CNN exit poll, 61% of voters aged 18-29 opposed Prop 8, while 61% of 65 and older voters backed it. That tells you where we're headed, especially if you compare those results to 2000, when according to an LA Times exit poll 18-29 year old voters supported the anti-gay Proposition 22 by a margin of 58-42. The final vote tallies tell a similar story. Prop 22 passed in 2000 with 61% of the 7.5 million votes cast, but Prop 8 passed with just 52% of the 12 million votes cast. Prop 8 was also defeated across a much broader area of the state than Prop 22 (results by county for Prop 22 & Prop 8).

As I see it, the biggest story about Prop 8 is the California electorate's strong shift in favor of marriage equality in just a matter of years. A majority of white voters backed Prop 22 but opposed Prop 8. We'll be able to say the same thing about African Americans and Hispanics in the future if we commit ourselves now to doing the necessary outreach, education, and relationship-building activism – something our opponents have been doing for years.

The Religious Right is the real obstacle to equality. They bankrolled Prop 8 and led an aggressive and misleading campaign that convinced many voters that voting 'yes' on Prop 8 was a vote to protect their religious freedom and their children. There are millions of voters, of all races and ethnicities, many of whom are religious, who might vote today to support a marriage ban, but only because they've heard the lies spread by opponents of equality, and haven't had the opportunity to have a real conversation about the impact of discrimination on same-sex couples and their families.

We may have history and momentum on our side, but as we saw on November 4, progress is not inevitable, especially when the Right is willing to do and say anything to prevent it. It's time to learn our lessons, revise our strategies, and commit ourselves to strategic, respectful outreach to those Americans who need to hear from us.

Kathryn Kolbert is president of People For the American Way

DOWNLOAD (54)

PLAY (76)

From the Nov. 10 airing of The O'Reilly Factor. Bill-O just can't understand why there are no protests at the black churches. Never mind who paid the money to roll out the ads supporting Prop 8 and who is preaching hatred of gays from the pulpit, Bill thinks it's out of pure political correctness that there aren't protests at black churches going on. I think Bill would just like to see protests at black churches.

DOWNLOAD (67)

PLAY (120)

Keith Olbermann asks those who voted for California's Proposition 8 how in the world it should affect them whether gay couples wish to legalize their relationship.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

On a related note, California Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed his disappointment in the passage of Proposition 8, and cheered protesters up and down the state by telling them the "fight isn't over" and said he hoped to that the California Supreme Court overturn Prop. 8.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

Pam's House Blend:

Hypocrisy much? The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints is unhappy about the fact that the media spotlight is trained on its participation in making Prop 8 happen.

In an official statement on the church's web site, bearing false witness and hypocrisy is the order of the day.

It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.

Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States - that of free expression and voting.

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

Bzzt. Wrong answer. The people protesting the church's significant role in an another state's democratic process -- members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave millions of dollars to remove the civil rights of human beings -- are merely exercising their right to free speech to highlight that role.

And what is this "erroneous information"? Who knows, the church doesn't say. [..]

And the Catholic church is also lying baldly:

Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church was also a target for supporting Proposition 8.

"Proposition 8 is not against any group in our society. Its sole focus is on preserving God's plan for people living upon this earth throughout time," Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles, said in a statement Thursday.

WTF? Wait a minute. Prop 8 just removed an existing right from one specific group of people. There's no way to whitewash this. There's no spin that takes away the fact that religious institutions that backed Proposition 8 did so because of their faith -- interfering with the laws of California.

Sorry, LDS and Catholic Churches, let me pull out my tiny violin for you. You have used the tenets of your faith to infringe upon my secular government to take away rights from people, and I'm supposed to feel bad that protests are targeting you? I just don't think so. Remember Pastor Martin Niemöller? You have targeted the LGBT community today, but what happens when someone targets any faith, because it's not the "right" faith? What if they target you? Inequality is inequality and it should never be tolerated.

DOWNLOAD (26)

PLAY (48)

Rachel Maddow talks to Melissa Harris-Lacewell about why so many African Americans voted for Proposition 8 and what needs to be done to change those attitudes.

The ACLU has put together this video to help get across the importance for Californians to reject Proposition 8, which will change our state constitution to write in discrimination for citizens because of their sexual orientation.

We're still looking for your help. Please donate to No On 8, even if you're not a Californian. The precedent set in this state will be used in others.

Samuel L. Jackson narrates a video by the No on 8 campaign about the history of discrimination in California and how we cannot allow it to happen again.

Calitics has some insight that may give some hope, but don't think the fight is over.