The end of the Teabaggers?

By Carl 

You may have blinked and missed it. At any rate, tomorrow will be a bellwether for this November, and 2016:

The race has been cast as yet another skirmish in the ongoing GOP civil war, pitting the establishment-backed Tillis against seven tea party challengers. It's true that Tillis has the support of prominent national Republicans -- including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- and the Chamber of Commerce.

But it would be too easy to frame a Tuesday victory for Tillis, if it happens, as a clean win for the newly emboldened Republican establishment. Tillis hasn't been forced to beat back a tea party challenge, because his opponents haven't put up much of a fight. They've also splintered conservative support.

He has two serious rivals for the nomination: Greg Brannon, a staunch libertarian tea party activist who wants to put U.S. currency back on the gold standard, and Mark Harris, a prominent Baptist pastor from Charlotte who spearheaded the 2012 passage of a constitutional amendment that strengthened the state's same-sex marriage ban. Like other insurgent Republican candidacies around the country this year, neither campaign has managed to stir the kind of grassroots passion that propelled so many tea party victories in 2010.

With memories of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock marked indelibly in the consciousness of the Republican Party – along with the "what if?" of two winnable Senate seats thrown away – the GOP establishment must be taking comfort in the fact that they've managed to ostracize and minimize the Teabaggers on this go around.

The follow up question, then, is "quo vadis?" Where are they going? [ed. note: I know, technically it's "quo eunt?" but...]

There's no place in the Democratic Party for them, and any third party bid will be doomed to irrelevance, as Duverger's Law comes into play, even with Koch and Adelson shoveling money into a Tea Party engine, at least at the beginning. They're businessmen. They'll stop the minute it becomes unprofitable.

Read more »

Religious belief doesn't trump law

By Frank Moraes 

The United Church of Christ (UCC) has been performing same-sex marriages since 2005. So they decided to pursue a legal challenge to North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriages. They are arguing that the state is violating their freedom of religion. That is too delicious not to talk about.

But I think the case is very clear. People's rights to free expression do not trump laws. The Rastafarians believe very much that they should be allowed to ingest cannabis, but that has never stopped one of them from being imprisoned for that "crime." So I don't think that the UCC has a religious right that trumps North Carolina law. Of course, there may be details in the law that would push me in the UCC's direction. But as it stands, it seems pretty simple.

I am just being consistent here. I also think all of these religious based attacks on Obamacare should have been thrown scornfully out of court at the very beginning. And there are lots of similar cases, like where a Christian pharmacist claims he has the right not to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. The Rastafarians have a far better claim to their drug rights than do hobby stores who want to micromanage their employees' healthcare coverage.

But given all the time and efforts that conservative Christians have put into destroying Obamacare using such arguments, you would think that they would be in support of the UCC. After all, it is a matter of religious liberty. It shouldn't matter that it is in the name of a specific policy that they don't accept. But, of course, it does matter. North Carolina Values Coalition (NCVC) executive director Tami Fitzgerald said in a press release that because a majority of the voters in the state voted for the law, the UCC should have no rights. She then went on to talk about how she was the ultimate arbiter of what Christianity is and that the UCC is just wrong.

Of course, when Hobby Lobby was before the Supreme Court, Fitzgerald was firmly behind it, urging people to Pray for Hobby Lobby. But I'm sure that is not the only bit of hypocrisy that Fitzgerald and the NCVC have in store. Right now it is all about the fact that 61% of the electorate of North Carolina voted to ban same-sex marriage. As soon as the people become in favor of same-sex marriage, she will be using a different argument. And it won't be long. Last year, the people of North Carolina were against same-sex marriage by a tiny 45%-44% margin.

We'll see what happens to this case. I wouldn't be at all surprised if conservative judges find that a same-sex marriage ban did not violate the UCC's religious rights even while they find hitherto unknown religious rights of hobby stores. Luckily, the same-sex marriage issue will be resolved by the people very soon. 

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Behind the Ad: American Idol's Clay Aiken takes a run at politics

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Clay Aiken campaign 

Where: North Carolina 2nd Congressional District

What's going on: Former "American Idol" star Clay Aiken (D) is running for a seat in the House of Representatives in North Carolina. But before you dismiss this as some kind of a stunt, as I was inclined to do, consider the analysis by the well-respected Cook Political Report. They write this about an interview they conducted with the candidate (which is behind a paywall, so I won't bother linking to it):

Aiken was not only polished and poised, but relaxed, free-wheeling, persuasive, and politically realistic. He spoke passionately and fluently on a range of issues, from trade promotion authority to No Child Left Behind to continuous coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. In fact, he was better-versed and more in-depth than plenty of state legislators we have met. And, he was just as comfortable discussing the voting intricacies of the 2nd CD's counties as he was recalling his route to Idol success.

Aiken is running against a Republican incumbent, Rep. Renee Ellmers, who will be very hard to beat, especially in a midterm.  But, and I wouldn't be the first to point this out, running a credible congressional campaign, even a losing one, could well help launch a long political career.

The Aiken ad focuses on his difficult upbringing as well as his more recent philanthropic work.

I should note that Aiken must first secure the Democratic nomination, which is at this point a competitive three-way race with the first round in a couple of weeks. If no candidate gets 40 percent, there will be a run-off in June.

Grade: It is an interesting thing when a "celebrity" runs for office, whether from the left or right. For some reason they have to go a bit farther than others to explain why they would do such a thing. It is as if to say, I'm not simply trying to keep the cameras rolling by other means. That's what this ad is. And on that, it does what it's supposed to do. C

 

Behind the Ad: Who's zoomin' who in the North Carolina GOP Senate race?

By Richard K. Barry

Tom Tillis

Who: Senate Majority PAC (Democratic super PAC)

Where: North Carolina

What's going on: Well, this one really climbs into the gutter. In this ad, the Democrats attack Republican state House Speaker Thom Tillis by drawing attention to the fact that "two former staffers were engaged in inappropriate relationships with lobbyists," as The Washington Post reports. One of the staffers was Tillis' chief of staff, with whom Tillis shared on apartment.

Tillis has said he wasn't aware of his chief staff's affair, despite the two of them living together. The affairs were revealed in 2012, and Tillis was criticized for giving the staffers severance pay when they were forced to resign.

If you haven't been following the U.S. Senate race in North Carolina closely, it is shaping up to be a tough one for Democratic incumbent Sen. Kay Hagen, at this point a likely toss-up. Tom Tillis is considered the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, which is also being contested by physician Greg Brannon, Mark Harris, a Baptist minister, and nurse Heather Grant. The Tea Party is split between Brannon and Harris.

As for the details of the dirty dancing, this was reported by local North Carolina media:

The incident referenced in the commercial came to light just before the May 2012 legislative short session. Charles Thomas, who was Tillis' chief of staff and roommate, resigned after admitting to a romantic relationship with a lobbyist for the Home Builders Association. The affair was problematic both because Thomas was married and because of the perception that Thomas could have used his role to do favors for the lobbyist.

Days later, Tillis' policy adviser, Amy Hobbs, resigned after volunteering to Tillis that she, too, had had a romantic relationship with a lobbyist. The story surfaced again two weeks later when it was reported Tillis paid roughly $19,000 in severance to the two staffers in question.

That Democrats are attacking Tillis in this way suggests they take him seriously. 

Grade: I know that progressives are supposed to be okay going after Republicans on questions of morality because conservatives are usually so damned sanctimonious. I'm still a little uncomfortable with it, though it is true that these were not simply extramarital affairs, but involved lobbyist, so that's not good. Does the work? Yeah, probably, maybe, I don't know. C

Behind the Ad: Republicans are so sad Obamacare had a poor launch. Really

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Thom Tillis U.S. Senate campaign

Where: North Carolina

What's going on: State Speaker Thom Tills is one a few Republicans who hopes to challenge Democratic Sen. Kay Hagen in North Carolina. This week he will begin running his first ad, which, predictably, centers on the Obamacare.

This is what Tillis wants the voters of North Carolina to believe:

Obamacare is a disaster, but the president won’t admit it. The debt is out of control, and neither party has stopped it. Kay Hagan has enabled the president’s worst ideas. She refuses to clean up his mess. So you and I have to clean up hers.

Yes, well, get used to hearing that.

Hagan is certainly vulnerable, and the race to unseat her will be one of the most competitive. In fact, as The Hill notes, "it currently holds the title of the most expensive Senate race of the midterms, with outside spending topping the $2 million mark halfway through the cycle."

At his point, both Rothenberg and Cook have it listed as 'lean Democrat."

As for Tillis, who the hell spells Thom with an h?

The Supreme Court's obliteration of the Voting Rights Act spurs the Republican assault on voting rights

By Michael J.W. Stickings

If you care about democracy, and equality, and fairness, and justice, if you're just a good and decent person who cares about your fellow human beings and think that they, like you, should be treated with respect and dignity, that their voice, like yours, matters and should be heard, then this is one of the scariest political headlines you'll ever encounter:

Republicans Across The South Promise Quick Action After SCOTUS Ruling

And what Republicans are planning, along the lines of what they've been doing, is pretty scary shit too:

Across the South, Republicans are working to take advantage of a new political landscape after a divided U.S. Supreme Court freed all or part of 15 states, many of them in the old Confederacy, from having to ask Washington's permission before changing election procedures in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.

After the high court announced its momentous ruling Tuesday, officials in Texas and Mississippi pledged to immediately implement laws requiring voters to show photo identification before getting a ballot. North Carolina Republicans promised they would quickly try to adopt a similar law. Florida now appears free to set its early voting hours however Gov. Rick Scott and the GOP Legislature please. And Georgia's most populous county likely will use county commission districts that Republican state legislators drew over the objections of local Democrats.

Voting rights, thy days are numbered. Except, of course, for those enjoyed by privileged Republicans.

North Carolina goes south

By Mustang Bobby

(Ed. note: For more on this effort to use "Nullification" to circumvent the separation of church and state, yet another Republican assault on the Constitution, see my post from Wednesday. -- MJWS)

North Carolina won't have a state religion after all. Well, at least not this year. Yet.

North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis's office said Thursday that a resolution asserting North Carolina has the power to set an official state religion is dead, and won't go any further.

The resolution, filed by two Republicans from Rowan County, declared "each state is sovereign and may independently determine how the state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion" – thereby claiming the federal government and courts have no authority to decide what is constitutional.

The bill's primary sponsors were Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, a tea party member. Eleven other legislators signed the resolution. Legislators introduce hundreds or even thousands of resolutions every year, honoring constituents or declaring their stances on issues, but they carry little legal weight.

Warren said in a statement that the bill was only intended to allow Rowan County officials to open their meetings with prayer, not to establish a state religion.

Instead, they've turned their attention to another GOP obsession (no, not gay sex): voter suppression.

Read more »

North Carolina Republicans launch formal assault on the Constitution, seeking establishment of state religion

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Just in case you weren't quite sure Republicans are the party of Christian theocracy:

A bill filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide.

The legislation grew out of a dispute between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Rowan County Board of Commissioners. In a federal lawsuit filed last month, the ACLU says the board has opened 97 percent of its meetings since 2007 with explicitly Christian prayers.

Overtly Christian prayers at government meetings are not rare in North Carolina. Since the Republican takeover in 2011, the state Senate chaplain has offered an explicitly Christian invocation virtually every day of session, despite the fact that some senators are not Christian.

The First Amendment initially prohibited Congress from establishing a state religion at the federal level, but as a result of Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and other subsequent case law the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has come to apply to the Establishment Clause of the First, meaning that the prohibition against establishing a state religion applies not just federally but to the states as well. (It's called "Incorporation.") And there hasn't been a state religion since 1833 (Massachusetts).

The North Carolina proposal ignores all of this:

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people," the bill states.

"Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion," it states.

This is the "Nullification" argument that states' rights conservatives have frequently used to try to circumvent federal law, including with respect to slavery. Essentially, it posits the supremacy of the Tenth Amendment, and of course of the states themselves.

Read more »

A riddle for Karl Rove

By Comrade Misfit

Q: What do you call the candidate who gets 270 electoral votes?

A: The winner.

Rove, you may recall, formed a Super PAC, American Crossroads, and collected well north of $300 million to help the Republicans retake the White House.*

President Obama won 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. A 126-vote margin is not exactly chump-change results. Obama won the popular vote both times as well, something that Rove's candidate didn't do in 2000. Obama won more electoral votes than George W. Bush did in either of his elections. Going into the election, the only state that Romney won that was not seen as being firmly in his camp was North Carolina. But nobody really regarded North Carolina as one of the swing states this time. Obama won all of the swing states that were in play, to the point that he could have lost Ohio and Florida and still won.

I won't get into how everyone on the Republican side drank the Kool-Aid and ignored what the polling data was telling them. It is what one would expect from a party that prizes gut feelings and belief over hard numbers.

Rove's excuse for blowing close to $400 million boils down to this: It could have been worse.

How much worse? Obama shelled Romney. The Democrats, in spite of Rove's Super PAC, lost one Senate seat they held and picked up two they didn't. And Republican Super PAC spending so irritated the independent who won in Maine, Angus King, that he'll probably caucus with the majority.

In what reality does one take almost $400 million from people, deliver absolutely nothing in return, and not end up dead in the trunk of an old Crown Victoria on its way to the crusher?
____________________________________________
* Presumably he paid himself a really good salary for his efforts.

(Cross-posted at Just an Earth-Bound Misfit, I.)

New polls: Tight races in North Carolina and New Mexico

By Richard K. Barry

PPP is reporting a post-DNC North Carolina poll that is virtually unchanged from last week. It shows Barack Obama ahead by a margin of 49% to 48%, which is little different than last week's 48-48 tie. 

In responding to why there was no bounce for Obama, they write this:

North Carolina voters have simply proven to be pretty intractable. We have polled an Obama/Romney match up in the state 25 times since November of 2010. Obama and Romney have been within 3 points of each other 24 out of those 25 times. Sometimes Obama's up by a little and sometimes Romney's up by a little but it's never outside the margin of error.

They conclude their report with the observation that  "North Carolina's been a swing state from the start and it looks like it will be a swing state to the end."

PPP surveyed 1,087 likely North Carolina voters from September 7-9. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.0 percentage points. 

In New Mexico, where it has been assumed Obama is in a good position to take the state, things are tighter than some would have thought.

An Albuquerque Journal poll has the president ahead of Romney by only 5 points, 45% to 40%. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, is at 7% in the poll:

"When we look at the other polls that have come out over the last number of months, this race seems to be narrowing in New Mexico," said Journal pollster Brian Sanderoff.

Other recent surveys of the presidential contest in New Mexico by national polling firms found Obama leading Romney by as much as 13 percentage points, causing some political analysts to suggest New Mexico would break in Obama's favor without much of a campaign in the state.

Sanderoff said the Journal Poll indicates a notable shift in Obama's strength here. "Most pundits categorized New Mexico as 'lean Democrat,' but we might be moving back to battleground status," Sanderoff said.

You see, you can't take anything for granted.

The Journal poll was conducted by Research & Polling Inc. of Albuquerque from September 3-6. The sample is based on land-line and cellphone interviews with 667 likely voters across the state. The margin of error is +/-3.8 percentage points.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

In case you were wondering, yes, North Carolina Republicans are bigots

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Think Progress:

Emboldened by a recently enacted constitutional amendment prohibiting civil unions and same-sex marriage, North Carolina's Republican party adopted a platform yesterday that condones discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." The platform's Article Ill: Individual Liberty states:

Government should treat all citizens impartially, without regard to wealth, race, ethnicity, disability, religion, sex, political affiliation or national origin. We oppose all forms of invidious discrimination. Sexual orientation is not an appropriate category.

The document also argues that "The ideal environment for raising children is a two-parent family with a mother and father who are married and committed to that life-long relationship" and opposes "adoption by same sex couples."

What else is new?

North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue compares her anti-gay state to Mississippi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This past week, before her state's vote on Amendment One, North Carolina Governor Beverly Purdue, a Democrat, said that passing the amendment would be "bad for business," hurting the state's "brand." But she also rightly identified what the vote was really about, and that's more than just business: The vote on Amendment One was "about civil rights. It's about taking away rights of North Carolinians." It was "our Rosa Parks moment in North Carolina because it's about taking away civil rights."

And, yes, civil rights were taken away, much to the discredit of the entire state, even if many, including the governor, advocated valiantly against the amendment.

To her credit, Purdue -- who can speak freely in part because she isn't running for re-election, didn't let up as the week went on. On Friday, for example, she said this:

I think it's wrong for North Carolina, clearly and simply. People around the country are watching us and they're really confused, to have been such a progressive, forward-thinking, economically driven state that invested in education and that stood up for the civil rights of people, including the civil rights marches back in the '50's and '60's and '70's. Folks are saying what in the world is going on in North Carolina. We look like Mississippi.

Ouch. Mississippi. If that doesn't make North Carolinians shudder, I don't know what will.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/11/2058305/nc-governor-we-look-like-mississippi.html#storylink=cpy

Sharpening distinctions

By Infidel753

One of the few remaining Republican giants of the old school, Senator Richard Lugar, was teabagged into political oblivion this week. The Nutty faction of Republicans, no longer able to stomach Lugar's record of compromise with Democrats and concessions to reality, demanded a properly insane ideologue instead -- and they appear to have gotten one, in the person of new Republican candidate Richard Mourdock.

This was a sharpening of distinctions, the presentation of a starker choice, one which more realistically reflects the contrast between the parties today.  Moderates and centrists who felt comfortable voting for Lugar will feel much less so about Mourdock. Can the Democrats now pick up this seat? It's far from a sure thing -- Indiana's a pretty red state, and Mourdock isn't as obviously out in orbit around Pluto as, say, Christine O'Donnell was. But our chances have surely improved.

An even greater sharpening of distinctions took place this week around another hot-button issue -- gay marriage. North Carolina's already-infamous Amendment One passed, not only affirming the ban on gay marriage but also obliterating all intermediate rights such as civil unions and domestic-partner benefits (it has been claimed that many North Carolina voters favored such concessions and would not have voted for Amendment One if they had realized it prohibited them -- if so, let's hope buyer's remorse is settling in). Within days of this triumph for the Godhatesfagsian theocratic right, the President of the United States personally endorsed gay marriage. Again, a stark contrast, highlighting the real differences between the parties.

Some have argued that Obama was pushed into this move by Biden's recent remarks about gay marriage (the latter branded as a "gaffe"); others consider the administration too savvy to have let itself be put in such a position, and insist the whole thing was orchestrated. To me it seems just as likely that Obama had "evolved" to his newly-stated position some time ago, and felt it appropriate to make a public statement now in order to reassure a reliable but embattled constituency in the wake of the North Carolina vote.

Was it risky? I question how many extra knuckle-dragger votes the Republicans will really gain from Obama's announcement. Those who believe him to be a Muslim communist Nazi Kenyan America-hater have no doubt long been convinced that he's pro-gay-marriage whether he explicitly said so or not; their votes were in the bag for the Republicans all along. It's the less-motivated part of the left, the naïve both-parties-are-the-same cynics, the ones who aren't paying attention, who are more likely to be reachable here.

I myself, for example, have been somewhat relieved at the victory of the Sane faction of Republicans in nominating Romney -- while Obama is far better, and is guaranteed my vote, at least we don't need to worry about Bachmann or Perry becoming president. A site I regularly read to follow thinking among the Sane faction is the pro-Romney Race42012, far removed from the ravings of RedState or Hot Air. Yet even there, when Obama's announcement hit the news, the same old dehumanizing clichés and knee-jerk bigotries ambled forth (see comment thread here), knuckles dragging, to remind us that these people, whether Sane or Nutty, are The Enemy. (For the Nutty faction, there was this.)  One would have to be an impossibly naïve cynic to look at all this and still claim there is no meaningful difference between the parties.

Remember, getting people fired up is good for us. When turnout is high (2008), we win. When turnout is low (2010), they win.

As Mourdock himself recently said, "We are at that point where one side or the other has to win this argument. One side or the other will dominate." If that's what they want, I'm up for it. Let's make sure it's our side.

(Cross-posted at Infidel753.)

Romney wins, while North Carolina votes for bigotry and injustice

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For what it's worth, which isn't really anything, Mitt Romney won yesterday's North Carolina Republican primary. (He also won Indiana and West Virginia.)

Meanwhile, in bigger and rather more disturbing news, North Carolinians voted overwhelmingly for Amendment One, a proposed constitutional amendment stating that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

Which is to say, they voted -- by a 61 to 39 margin -- to enshrine bigotry and inequality in their state constitution.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in the state. So what was the point? Well, this goes much further.

As ABC News notes, there may be "some uncertainty among legal scholars in the state as to the extent of the law, and what types of partnerships might be affected, as the terminology in the amendment -- domestic legal union -- has not appeared in North Carolina statutes previously," but the intention of the amendment, and of its advocates, is clear.

As Joan McCarter of Daily Kos wrote before the vote, "this amendment would be the cherry on top of discrimination and threaten all domestic partnerships. There would be no more legal unions between unmarried people, gay or straight. It could take health care benefits away from families, it could take away domestic violence protections, hospital visitation rights, and all the very basic protections of civil unions." (See video below.)

This isn't so much about gay marriage as it is about anti-gay bigotry -- and more broadly about the imposition of right-wing theocracy on the state. There was no need whatsoever for this amendment, but the bigots, with Billy Graham front and center for their cause, have gotten their way.

As Joe summed it up: "Nobody on our side can say we're surprised, but we're all still saddened. And the march towards theocracy and sharia law continues."

North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue, a Democrat, said that passing the amendment would be "bad for business," hurting the state's "brand," but she rightly identified what this was really about, and that's more than just business: The vote on Amendment One was "about civil rights. It's about taking away rights of North Carolinians." It was "our Rosa Parks moment in North Carolina because it's about taking away civil rights."

And now there is a dark stain on the entire state. North Carolinians voted for not just for inequality but for bigotry and injustice -- plain and simple.

Other states are legalizing same-sex marriage and the country as a whole is coming to embrace it, with a majority supportive and the historical trend abundantly clear, but North Carolinians decided to reject progress altogether.

If this was their "Rosa Parks moment," they failed miserably. History will not be kind to them, and nor should we. They deserve our scorn.

While the struggle for marriage equality, for justice, must continue, stronger than ever.

There's craziness on the loose in North Carolina

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is what happens when the culture of fear takes over: 

Sanford, N.C. — An athletic and academic standout in Lee County said a lunchbox mix-up has cut short her senior year of high school and might hurt her college opportunities.

Ashley Smithwick, 17, of Sanford, was suspended from Southern Lee High School in October after school personnel found a small paring knife in her lunchbox.

Smithwick said personnel found the knife while searching the belongings of several students, possibly looking for drugs.

"She got pulled into it. She doesn't have to be a bad person to be searched," Smithwick's father, Joe Smithwick, said.

The lunchbox really belonged to Joe Smithwick, who packs a paring knife to slice his apple. He and his daughter have matching lunchboxes.

"It's just an honest mistake. That was supposed to be my lunch because it was a whole apple," he said.

Ashley Smithwick said she had never gotten in trouble before and was surprised when the principal opened her lunchbox and found the knife.

The teen was initially given a 10-day suspension, then received notice that she was suspended the rest of the school year.

"I don't understand why they would even begin to point the finger at me and use me as an example," she said.

This month, Ashley Smithwick, a soccer player who takes college-level courses, was charged with misdemeanor possession of a weapon on school grounds. She is no longer allowed to set foot on campus.

There are many nefarious forces behind this ever-growing culture of fear: news media sensationalism (hyping threats beyong all reasonable perspective), the cult of law and order, post-9/11 security obsession, a general disregard for young people and youth culture, etc.

In this case, it's school security run amok (as schools have been hyped up into cesspools of violence), with no apparent consideration for the specifics -- which clearly exonerate this young woman.

Those responsible for suspending Ms. Smithwick and potentially ruining her life, or at least her academic career, should themselves be suspended, if not fired, for abuse of power.

And, if need be, the governor should step in and make sure that these absurd charges are dropped, that Ms. Smithwick receives not just a formal apology but whatever reparations she may be owed, and that policies are put in place to prevent this sort of madness from recurring in future.

Republican lunacy, Birther-style

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You want a good indicator of just how far gone most Republicans are? In North Carolina, for example, only 24 percent of Republicans think that Obama was born in the United States even though the evidence clearly shows that he was born in Hawaii. One explanation is that most Republicans don't recognize Hawaii as part of the U.S. (you know, because of how "exotic" it is). A likelier explanation is that partisan groupthink and anti-Obama bias (much of it undoubtedly racist) has overcome the majority of the GOP, especially in the South. Either way, this denial of the truth in the face not just of overwhelming but of conclusive evidence indicates that Republicans are, by and large, a party of willful ignorance, to put it mildly, that should be nowhere near the levers of power. How can you be trusted to govern, after all, when you are so thoroughly divorced from reality?

1,000 bigots

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Who cares if "[m]ore than 1,000 people, many from Baptist churches across the state, stood on the ice-covered lawn outside the Legislative Building on Tuesday to demand that state legislators give them a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage"?

Is it really so hard to rally a thousand bigots in North Carolina -- or anywhere else, for that matter?

Ugliest Republican of the Day II: Elizabeth Dole

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I don't follow North Carolinian politics all that closely, so I'll let The Charlotte Observer explain:

In a new TV ad that must have the late Sen. Helms smiling and cheering from the great beyond, the Dole campaign has attacked her opponent, Democratic state Sen. Kay Hagan of Greensboro, as "godless." Hagan attended a September fundraiser in Boston sponsored by dozens of people and co-hosted by two persons associated with a group called Godless Americans PAC. Dole's ad says Hagan took "godless" money. Hagan's campaign says she did not receive money from the PAC, though she did get money from one of the co-hosts. She has demanded Dole halt the ad.

Hagan's attendance at any fundraiser and acceptance of a contribution is a fair topic for comment. Yet Dole has resorted to the Big Lie technique, morphing a kernel of truth into a monumental fiction.

How so? The Dole campaign stepped across a broad line, portraying Hagan as not Christian and suggesting she does not believe in God. The Dole ad shows a picture of Hagan while a woman's voice, not Hagan's, intones, "There is no God."

This is indecent. It is the modern-day version of [Helms's notorious] "white hands" ad, a lie born of Dole's desperation in a race in which she has trailed for weeks. It is also a deliberate attempt by Dole's campaign not just to distort the truth, but to shatter Hagan's admirable record as an elder for more than a decade in Greensboro's First Presbyterian Church, as a Sunday School teacher and a volunteer in her church's fundraising campaigns, worship services and community service programs.

*****

This ad is something else, an attack on a Christian woman's faith against all evidence to the contrary. It is wrong. It may well backfire on Dole.

It has no place in N.C. politics. Unless she admits this egregious, shameful mistake and acts appropriately, Elizabeth Dole has no place in N.C. politics, either

Very well editorialized. But I'd say she has no place in the Senate regardless. All this ad does is confirm what a desperate and vicious woman she has become. Let's hope the voters of North Carolina have finally moved past the divisive politics of Jesse Helms and reject Dole decisively on Tuesday.

(From AMERICAblog: "Hagan hits back on Dole." Effectively, I might add.)

**********

UPDATE: For more on the Dole-Hagan race, see CNN, out with a new poll that has Hagan up by 9 points, 53 to 44.

At WaPo, Cillizza has the two ads.