One-term Tommy Thompson in 2010 Has Appeal

A constant in America over the last four years—epitomized in Wisconsin—is the startlingly anxious mood of the electorate.

Get everyone at the table and fix this is the prevailing popular sentiment. The great mass of apolitical voters don't want partisan blame now, just someone to clean it up.

Forget the Tea Partiers-GOP's implausible messages calling President Obama a dithering decider on one hand and a Chicago-based outlaw taking over the economy on the other. These guys are not serious.

Look at Wisconsin to lead. Whatever the result of the Gov. Doyle-Lt. Gov. Lawton-Mayor Barrett-local-national-Democratic-forces' machinations to take on the GOP nominee, a gubernatorial candidate who says, 'I will serve one term to clean up and then I'm out,' has a lot of appeal.

Brings to mind the relatively young, 68-year-old Tommy Thompson whom Scott Walker says is "pretty confident" will support Walker's candidacy. I'm pretty sure that's heavily qualified speculation.

Thompson would get killed in a race against Sen. Russ Feingold. That leaves governor.

Talk around political campfires this weekend is that Thompson is being asked often and is seriously considering a 2010 run for governor, no matter what any declared candidate says.

Clean it up. Tom Barrett gets that, though he seems a tad busy. Obama gets that. And so does Tommy Thompson.

No Religious War

America does not fight religious wars, nor should we have religious escalations. The last thing we need now is to make this a Christian v. Islam thing.

Jason Leopold has a piece noting Mikey Weinstein, the founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, weighed in on the shooting rampage at Fort Hood.

Weinstein called upon President Obama to immediately issue a statement as Commander-in-Chief making it clear that there would be a zero tolerance policy against any member of the US military 'inflicting harassments, retribution or reprisal against an Islamic member of the US military.'

Obama issued a statement earlier Thursday condeming the shootings.

Weinstein, whose civil rights organization was recently nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace prize, said Obama must state, unequivocally, that the US does not judge the worth of a 'service member based on his or her religious faith.'

Weinstein's group has exposed the meteroric rise of fundamentalist Christianity within the US military and has called attention to the fact that military personnel have sought to cast the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as a crusade between Christianity and Islam.

Terrorsim and Propaganda

One appreciates the initial restraint by the U.S. military officials in reporting the mass killing at Fort Hood correctly described as terrorism by commentators. Circumspect and factual, the facts came out few but solid.

Now, suddenly this morning, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, Fort Hood's base commander, tells CBS News that the presumed shooter is rumored to have said, 'Allahu Akbar' (Arab for 'God is great')during the shooting but Cone cannot confirm this.

What is the brass doing repeating rumors as the nation and stricken families ask 'why?' When the administration is deliberating the course in Afghanistan that has the brass pushing for a major escalation against some noun with a vaguely Islamic flavor?

Reporting a rumor seems a bit strange in light of the fact that during the first 12 hours, the brass was silent on the narrative of events and motivation. Now, the brass seems more interested in repeated rumors with no context, and no mention of the culture at Fort Hood.

Point being it's not beyond Pentagon and its lackeys to be utterly full of crap as they handle a crisis at a huge military base charged with maintaining military readiness during two politically unpopular wars.

Solid Pride

As cable-TV know-nothings wail on about Virginia and New Jersey, Ruy Teixeira and Alan Abramowitz offer a sober analysis in the Times in Teixeira's column.

Sustaining their analysis are the people in Madison out for President Obama's visit to Madison yesterday.

Striking was the look in the eyes of several black women I saw, at street corners and lining the street of Fish Hatchery Road near the intersection of Badger Road. The look in the eyes was unmistakable and universal: Determined pride. One woman was a former Madison school principle, another drove up from Racine, others are Madison residents of the neighborhood.

Black women, this fastest growing voting demographic will save this country.

Veterans for Peace No Good, Say Crats

Veterans Day parade excludes Vets for Peace. Enough said.

Open Letter to President Obama on Afghanistan

President Obama,

Welcome to Madison, Wisconsin.

Saw you that below-zero night in February at the Kohl Center last year, the night the D.C.-area primaries put you on track to win the nomination. Never seen an event like that night; one of the guys I was with looked over at me and said "Bobby," a clear reference to the idea that we were electing someone to stop war and serve people and everyone believed it.

I have to say, not crazy about reading the newest DoD news that Combat Advisors See Afghan Troops in Action. Sounds like a lot of crap to me. Or the latest DoD release, DoD Identifies Marine Casualty. That's a waste of another good man.

As you make your deliberations on the future course of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, please consider the words of a Vietnam War Marine combat veteran who served after Bobby was taken from us in 1968.

"Ever wonder how so many 'warriors' [Generals] got so chummy with a government full of civilian draft dodgers? … Think of how much fun it is sending others out to fight unplanned and even utterly purposeless wars when you live in world dripping with nothing but the best life can give and still be called, not only a warrior but hero to boot. .... Now consider Afghanistan where two in a hundred can read. Ask a farmer if he is part of an Arab plot to plant sleeper cells across Europe and the US to kill millions of civilians so America will send thousands of troops to his poor and isolated country and blow up his hut? You are, of course, talking to someone who has never traveled more than 10 miles in his life.”

The brass didn’t elect you; we did. And killing poor people is not what we had in mind. Bring the troops home, yes we can.

Prediction: Wisconsin Overturns Gay Marriage Ban in 2010

***Prediction—Four-to-three; Wisconsin's gay marriage ban overturned next year.—Aware of the problems of predicting the votes of judges on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, note Justice Prosser's skepticism as he pressed DoJ asst ag Lewis Beilin in a dialogue on interpreting, and formulating a method of interpreting the purpose—be it singular or multiple purposes—of a constitutional amendment.

Said Justice Prosser [begun at the 48-minute, 26-second mark], "How the heck do we figure out what the purpose of an amendment is? ... Again if I may, we get certified questions from the Court of Appeals all the time. We get questions posed and petitions for review all the time and we can rephrase those questions. There's considerable liberty in the Court in rephrasing the question to try to decide the case. Mr. McConkey is, for good or ill, is saying, 'here is a nice, clear-cut methodology, you look to the language and the relating clause of the [referendum] resolution and that will be your purpose.' You're saying, 'let's look at everything here, look at everything and then state the purpose.' I sort of agree with you in a sense, but it's so amorphous. Help."

Attorney Beilin's reply is less-than-specific, and certainly not convincing that the referendum's language is clear, of one purpose, and is a constitutional submission to the people of Wisconsin, much less a useful suggestion that establishes a rule of law in judicial policy in interpreting the "single subject" rule in Article XII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Oral Arguments Held on Marriage Equity Case

Oral arguments were heard before the Wisconsin Supreme Court on the Wisconsin gay marriage case, William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen, that could overturn Wisconsin's gay marriage ban in an extended hearing lasting some 98 minutes this morning.

Though perhaps the most contentious legal issue concerns conformity with the "single subject" constitutional mandate, and not the merits of equity, equal protection and due process, the political sides have been chosen: Hardline, social rightwingers against civil libertarians, political liberals and humanists.

Lester Pines, attorney for William C. McConkey, argued today that the "rights of voters" were unlawfully violated by the 2006 gay marriage ban amendment's resolution that was not submitted in proper form and presented to the voters in the 2006 election because the referendum "submitted two separate amendments."

"William McConkey was denied the right to fully participate in the direct democracy that was going on" during the referendum campaign because of the referendum's non-single-subject form that is prohibited under the "single subject" rule in in Article XII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, said attorney Pines. Pines also asserted a violation of free speech rights of McConkey's, later stating this injury and denial of rights contributed to his standing under dispute.

Standing

At issue also is the question of standing of plaintiff McConkey to challenge the referendum, but legal observers see a Court affirmation of McConkey's standing as likely.

Purpose of a Proposed Constitutional Amendment

McConkey is seeking also to establish rules of interpretation by the Court's investigation of the purpose behind Constitutional amendment referendum questions generally, that would allow the Court to read the "plain words" and "plain meanings" of the referendum language, using accepted rules of statutory interpretation that currently are used to determine statutory purpose, Pines argued.

Pines argued that there are separate purposes in the referendum reading: "Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?" [Emphasis added]

These two questions comprising two purposes are an "unconstitutional submission" in the 2005 referendum language, Pines said.

Wisconsin Department of Justice (DoJ)

Wisconsin Department of Justice assistant attorney general Lewis Beilin and deputy attorney general Raymond P. Taffora were present, arguing against McConkey, in favor of the referendum form and the resulting constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Attorney Beilin said that for McConkey to prevail he would have to convince the Court that the two referendum questions "have absolutely nothing to do with one another," and furthermore that the legislature's constructing the referendum questions should be given deference by the Court.

Beilin is asking for the Court's interpretation of purpose on the referendum by looking at "context," and deference to the legislature's wording of the referendum and contemporaneous sources of information.

Justice David Prosser said attorney Beilin's suggested method of interpretation appeared "amorphous."

Justice Bradley quoted from a contemporaneous source on information in a Racine daily newspaper article in which a legislator and sponsor of the referendum suggested she would vote differently on the two separate clauses of the referendum question.

Pressed for the "plain words" of the constitutional amendments comprising two precise propositions, Beilin said there are two propositions but "one subject ... that furthered the same general purpose."

Beilin said the overall purpose is to limit marriage as one man and a woman; and limit marriage status as one and one woman, as in the ruling of a Dane County Circuit Court judge.

Justice Abrahamson appeared to express skepticism toward a hypothetical level of generality to be used to ascertain the purpose behind a multi-question referendum.

Standing

Beilin said that McConkey does not have standing because McConkey has suffered no injury because he would have voted "no" on both propositions of the referendum, were the propositions presented separately. Beilin later stated that he advises against searching for "empirical evidence" on how Wisconsin voters would have voted were the two propositions presented singly. Beilin asserted that McConkey was not "personally and directly injured."

McConkey Rebuttal

Pines said on the manner of ascertaining the purpose of referendum questions that the DoJ proposes a "wide-ranging standard, really kind of a kitchen sink" analysis that would allow the court to do anything it wanted without rules of interpretation and guidance. Pines called this a "free-for-all" test as against an "organized test for determining purpose" advocated by McConkey.

Oral arguments can accessed at WisconsinEye.

The William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen case is drawing attention as gay marriage retains its status as a politically contentions issue used by the Republican Party.

A case synopsis should be available sat the Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Arguments schedules.
See also:

- Brief Looks to Doom Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban
- DOJ Files Anti-Gay Marriage Brief
- Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban May Go Down
- Objection, Compound Referendum

Oral Arguments on Marriage Equity Case Tuesday

Oral arguments are scheduled Tuesday, Nov. 3 for the marriage equity (gay marriage) case to be webcast on WisconsinEye before the Supreme Court at 9:45 A.M Central Time.

The William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen case is drawing attention as gay marriage retains its status as a politically contentions issue used by the Republican Party.

A case synopsis should be available shortly at the Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Arguments schedules.

One of the issues to be decided by the Court in McConkey is whether the referendum compound-question form is related to "a readily discernible single purpose."

It is not so related to a single purpose, in accordance with the "single subject" rule in Article XII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The language of the 2005 referendum reads: "Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?" [Emphasis added]

Representative of rightwingers' tortured arguments is the amicus brief filed by "Community Leaders Dedicated to Children ...":

THE AMENDMENT HAS A READILY DISCERNIBLE SINGLE PURPOSE.
Put simply, the second sentence preserves (and prevents dilution of) the public meaning and unique legal status of marriage between one man and one woman established in the first by prohibiting official sanction and endorsement of any legal status 'identical or substantially similar' to it.

The danger from such sanction and endorsement is not the extension to non-married couples of any particular assembly of 'benefits,' but rather the evolution of alternative 'substantially similar' statuses that would, if recognized for non-marital relationships, undermine the legal, social and cultural norms of marriage that have developed from factors unique to heterosexual relationships and the inherent needs of children for a married father and mother.

Everyone get that? Neither do I.

Neither does the Court that took this case to develop some rules of interpretation of the process that brings forth Constitution-amending referenda.

The Court faces the rightwingers' ludicrous proposition that the single purpose in this case is readily discerned as concern over the "evolution of alternative 'substantially similar' statuses that would, if recognized for non-marital relationships, undermine the legal, social and cultural norms of marriage that have developed from factors unique to heterosexual relationships and the inherent needs of children for a married father and mother."

An educated guess on the decision by the seven-member Court: Three to three with Justice David Prosser as the wildcard.

See also:
- Brief Looks to Doom Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban
- DOJ Files Anti-Gay Marriage Brief
- Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban May Go Down
- Objection, Compound Referendum

Military Pushing for Prolong Losing War in Afghanistan

President Obama is visiting Madison Thursday, a place renown for its anti-war sentiment among other notable accomplishments.

If I had a direct audience with Obama, I would ask him to read this piece, excerpted below, written by a Vietnam War combat Marine arguing for withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Military Pushing for Prolong Losing War in Afghanistan

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor, Veterans Today

Our professional military, cut from the same cloth that killed off a generation in Vietnam, is pushing for a decade of war in Afghanistan, a decade of promotions, massive budgets, big 'after retirement' defense contracting jobs and the adrenalin rush of sending others out to die. Stuck in a land-locked country with an enemy impossible to fight, and no cause of any kind to speak of, keeping a war going takes imagination and tons of lies and backstabbing. What group could be better at it than the Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon?

DEFINITION: PERFUMED PRINCE: a man who is seen as bureaucratic or careerist; a man who is said to be effete, feminine, ineffectual, vacillating, or cowardly; (hence) a member of the U.S. military leadership (at the Pentagon); top brass. (by Col. David Hackworth)

The military loved Vietnam. It was an endless round of single malt scotches at the club and teenage girls delivered by jeep or, if you had enough rank, helicopter by night. During the day there were photo opportunities with the troops between the 3 star meals and poolside chatter. American brass in Vietnam lived a lifestyle few could ever dream of, ease, comfort, rare occasions of heart pounding danger but no discomfort, no missed meals and every need, no matter how immoral, sick or disgusting, only a snap of the fingers away.