It's nice to see that last week's doom-and-gloom has faded a little bit. Slublog writes that the Democratic squabbles have opened up a rift that even McCain can exploit.

If these numbers are any indication, there is some real acrimony in the Democratic party. Ace has his doubts about how long the bad feelings will last, but I'm beginning to wonder. What should be troubling the Obama campaign is not the anger among Clinton supporters, but who's angry and why. The Kentucky results show, again, that Obama cannot attract the key demographic of working-class white voters. As the Hot Air data shows, the Wright issue seems a likely sticking point.

Not just Kentucky. Even in Obama-crazy Oregon, he lost to Clinton 53%-46% among folks who never went to college. By contrast, college grads went 66%-33% for Obama*. That's quite a gap.

McCain's staff needs to be repeating this like a mantra: "Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico."

*Corrected. Thanks, Qwinn and Erik.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:25 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

The Ninth Circuit ruled this morning that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny (PDF). The ruling was 2-1 (but the 1 concurred in part and dissented only because the majority did not go far enough). This is kind of a big deal.

Usually, the courts easily dismiss challenges to DADT on the theory that the policy doesn't implicate any fundamental rights and so is subject only to rational basis review. That is, so long as the government can provide a rational reason (even if it is the most spurious cover for its true aim), the law will be upheld.

But now the Ninth, relying on Lawrence v. Texas (BTW, for a good time ask Drew how much he loves Lawrence) has found that DADT burdens a "fundamental" constitutional right to engage in private, consensual sexual relations with another adult. Because it burdens a fundamental right, the Ninth says it must pass more exacting scrutiny than rational basis review. Some judicial contortions ensue and though the court doesn't extend strict scrutiny (the heighest level of scrutiny) to homosexuals, it settles on "heightened review."

A few initial thoughts:

(1) There is no guarantee the Supreme Court will pick up the case at this time. The Ninth remanded to the district court to actually determine if Major Witt (an Air Force nurse (woman) suspended from duty for having a girlfriend) has an due process claim. DADT has not been struck down by any court (yet). It's likely that the Supreme Court would wait at least until then before agreeing to intervene. It's also possible that the government will ask the Ninth Circuit for an en banc rehearing, which could further delay the Supreme Court taking the case.

(2) What impact does it have on the election? Obama and Clinton are in favor of doing away with DADT. McCain wants to keep it. Both sides now have an opportunity to gain ground with portions of their base. Note, however, that Obama's position probably won't help him with his weakest demographic: working-class whites. As with the gun issue, McCain can pick up some votes...if he cares to swing at the ball.

(3) That's two Big Gay Cases in two Big Gay Weeks, which means that someone will come out of the woodwork and fearmonger about Big Gay Conspiracies or "agendas" or whatnot. There's no indication that Major Witt and her girlfriend are planning to get married in California, so can we let it rest for a minute? The gays aren't trying to convert you. I swear, scout's honor. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 01:13 PM | Comments (53)
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

Another devastating loss.

The crafty Sadr and lionhearted Al Qaeda have finally revealed their strategy for chasing us off the battlefield: Putting major security responsibilities into the hands of the Iraqi police and army, and taking those responsibilities out of our boys' hands, who are going to be eating their livers at being relieved from primary responsibility for patrolling Iraq.

I give up. They won. They were playing four-dimensional chess while we were playing Candyland the whole time.

Posted by: Ace at 12:46 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

No preconditions, but there will be "preparations."

He's reversed himself on meeting with Ahmadinejad (maybe), but will meet with "leadership" which may or may not include him.

He's unwilling to say what he's willing to concede to Iran.

He's also unwilling to explain how his plan of diplomacy without threat of force will do any better than Bush's six year strategy of diplomacy with threat of force. Gee, maybe it was just that big meanie Bush's threat of force that made Iran so darn unreasonable. They felt bullied, you see.

And, whatever his current position may (or may not) eventually turn out to be, you shouldn't question him too closely on any of this, because it all is, yes, once again a "distraction" from the things we should be talking about, which is to say, those issues for which Obama can offer gauzy generalities which have been focus-grouped to offend no one because they mean nothing.

Posted by: Ace at 12:35 PM | Comments (35)
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

Because encouraging supporters to blitz blogs with endless boosterism worked out so well for Ron Paul, the folks at John McCain's blog figures they'll encourage their own supporters to do similarly.

elp spread the word about John McCain on news and blog sites. Your efforts to help get the message out about John McCain's policies and plan for the future is one of the most valuable things you can do for this campaign. You know why John McCain should be the next President of the United States and we need you to tell others why.

Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once youÂ’ve commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center.

Guys...? Not a good idea.

Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 12:29 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

A few weeks ago during the last kangaroo court hearing before Congress, I mentioned how much I'd like to see the oil company execs throw the stupid questions right back into their pasty faces.

Apparently they're willing to do some of that.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, Moron-VT, complained/accused (warning, AP spin article) that there's "a disconnect" between normal supply and demand and the skyrocketing price of oil", that it isn't a free market.

John Hofmeister, President of Shell, offered a freshman course on economics in reply, and then agreed with Leahy:

"The fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work," said Hofmeister. The market is squeezed by exporting nations managing demand for their own interest and other nations subsidizing prices to encourage economic growth, he said.

In addition, Hofmeister said access to resources in the United States has been limited for the past 30 years. "I agree, it's not a free market," he said.

The execs all pushed for relief from restrictions that prohibit us from drilling where we have our own resources, "sections of Alaska, the Rocky Mountains and the continental shelf", and constraints on expanded refining capacity.

"The place to start the free market is in our own country," said one executive. [The drilling ban] sets the stage for OPEC to do what we are doing in our own country, and that is effectively limiting supplies."

Of course, it falls on deaf ears. The panel spent the rest of their time engaging in bullshit demagoguery asking them important questions about how overpaid they are and complaining that they're just punishing Americans to reap their evil excess profits.

Supply, demand. I remember studying these things in college. Ok, I'm lying, I would have studied these things in college if I hadn't been emptying pitchers of Miller over at Buster's Pool Hall instead of attending my Tuesday-Thursday economics classes.

I never liked 8 am classes.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 12:15 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

I'll grant them this: the strategy worked. All issues have been resolved.

Posted by: Ace at 11:48 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Just over the AP wires, reported on Fox. It's being interpreted as Hillary playing hardball with the Rules Committee which must decide to do with the Florida and Michigan vote.

I can't imagine what the hell this matters at this point.

Posted by: Ace at 11:33 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, he doesn't say that per se.

Harvard's enormous endowment is currently untaxed in Massachusetts and some are proposing to change that.

What makes this so much fun is the Sulu-esque "delicious dilemma" Harvard's liberal defenders find themselves in -- they keep arguing that taxes penalize success and excellence and harm organizations -- but only in the specific case of Harvard itself.

The economist replies that that's true of all taxes, as he gleefully points out, for example, that the argument that Massachusetts taxing Harvard is like Florida taxing its orange industry is somewhat flawed in that Florida does, of course, tax the orange industry.

The depths of idiocy and obliviousness here are truly astounding: These people have obviously never, ever even considered the effect of taxation on any other endeavor before. They haven't had to -- living in a singular dreamworld of freedom from taxation they were free to support everyone's favorite sort of tax, the always-popular Tax on Other People and of course the special Surtax on Other People's Shit. They never had to confront the issue of taxes previously.

The notion that taxes may reduce an organization's competitiveness, effectiveness, attractiveness to consumers, etc., comes as an outright epiphany to them.

Again: Only in the specific case of Harvard. They're all presumably big fans of taxing the hell out of everyone else.

Thanks to PetiteDov.

Posted by: Ace at 11:01 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm surprised. I thought they'd finally ram it through on the back of the utterly-unrelated war funding bill.

I'm so behind on this story I didn't even know Bush had threatened a veto:

At the same time, the White House renewed its veto threat, reminding everyone involved that the trouble-filled path to Senate passage is but one more step in an even more hard-to-figure battle.

Reid brought up the domestic add-ons in an unusual move designed to win their adoption — over opposition from the White House and GOP conservatives — before turning to legislation providing $165 billion (€106 billion) to conduct military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring….

Â…Reid has signaled he wants the non-war extras to get a vote before the war funding itself, but itÂ’s a high-wire strategy.

“It is going to be extremely difficult for us to get from where we are today to completing this legislation,” Reid said.

Senate Republicans seemed to suggest theyÂ’ll let the add-ons advance to a Bush veto rather than filibustering them this week. A key vote on letting the bill advance looms Thursday, just as senators will be eager to leave Washington for the weeklong Memorial Day recess.

The measure was also opposed by open borders advocates, who once again cannot countenance any sort of guest-worker program that doesn't include a mass amnesty and pathway to citizenship for border-hoppers.

Not to shill for McCain too much, but the president's power of veto is pretty big shakes.

I'm not sure what McCain's position on this was -- Kaus kept asking why McCain wasn't following through on his secure-the-borders first promise, so I imagine he just ducked it. Asked! I sent an email to McCain's online guy to find out.

Thanks to someone.

Posted by: Ace at 10:48 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.