Watching both the local and national news, it's easy to get the impression that the Democrats are going to take a real beating in the upcoming midterm election. Helped in no small part to the occasionally shrill Tea Party movement, the perceived level of dissatisfaction would seem to predict another 1994, when the Republicans retook control of the House.
Predictions of the pollsters, however, aren't so clear. According to Gallup, midterm election results are driven by two factors: the approval rating of the sitting president and, although to a slightly lesser degree, the overall approval rating of Congress. In recent midterms, a president trending at a 50% or better experiences relatively small losses. For example, in 1990 George H.W. Bush enjoyed an approval of 58 % and lost only eight House seat. By contrast, a rating below the 50% threshold usually spells trouble. In 2006, an increasingly unpopular George W. Bush, with a rate of only 38% experienced a 30 seat loss.
President Obama's current approval stands right that 50% mark. Accurately predicting the events of the next five months is, of course, impossible but an economy showing steady, if painfully slow, improvement and relatively quiet international stage may enable the Democrats to emerge with most of their gains from 2008 intact.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
An Almost Breakthrough for Gay Americans
Just last night I was reading an online article (published last year) on the 40th anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City. Up until then, merely being gay was considered a crime. Police would routinely harass those thought to be homosexual and frequently raid suspected gay clubs on fabricated grounds, often using drug laws as a front.
The famous riot occurred, initiating a gradual cultural shift in the way gay people are viewed. Fed up with being constantly demonized, they demanded equal (not "special" as conservatives often like to claim) rights in housing, education and employment enjoyed by heterosexual Americans. The subsequent decades saw slow but steady progress in all these areas. Combined with growing scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined, gay citizens have achieved equality in nearly all sectors of American life
However, I say nearly all. Over this past weekend word leaked out from the White House that President Obama plans to nominate Solicitor General Elana Kagan to fill the seat on the Supreme Court being vacated by retiring justice John Paul Stevens. Speculation soon began to circulate about Kagan's sexuality. Several sources indicate that Kagan is gay and is in a committed relationship with her partner. Kagan herself has been silent on the matter, nor is her orientation being acknowledged by the White House.
Which goes to the problem. If Ms. Kagan is happy and fulfilled in her personal life, why is she still forced to hide this fact? Why are there whispers and speculation? If Kagan "came out of the closet"
and became the first openly gay Supreme Court appointee would this hurt her chances of confirmation?
Glass ceilings give way only after enduring numerous cracks. Are we finally on the verge of a long overdue cave in?
The famous riot occurred, initiating a gradual cultural shift in the way gay people are viewed. Fed up with being constantly demonized, they demanded equal (not "special" as conservatives often like to claim) rights in housing, education and employment enjoyed by heterosexual Americans. The subsequent decades saw slow but steady progress in all these areas. Combined with growing scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined, gay citizens have achieved equality in nearly all sectors of American life
However, I say nearly all. Over this past weekend word leaked out from the White House that President Obama plans to nominate Solicitor General Elana Kagan to fill the seat on the Supreme Court being vacated by retiring justice John Paul Stevens. Speculation soon began to circulate about Kagan's sexuality. Several sources indicate that Kagan is gay and is in a committed relationship with her partner. Kagan herself has been silent on the matter, nor is her orientation being acknowledged by the White House.
Which goes to the problem. If Ms. Kagan is happy and fulfilled in her personal life, why is she still forced to hide this fact? Why are there whispers and speculation? If Kagan "came out of the closet"
and became the first openly gay Supreme Court appointee would this hurt her chances of confirmation?
Glass ceilings give way only after enduring numerous cracks. Are we finally on the verge of a long overdue cave in?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Fieger's Decision Not to Run Helps Democrats' Chances
In a recent appearance on "Flashpoint," an interview show on WDIV-Channel 4, outspoken Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger announced his decision not to run for governor. During the interview, Fieger said he was interested in running, "but because I'm outspoken, it would be very easy for professional politicians to make me the issue."
Talk about an understatement. Most Michiganders can vividly recall Fieger's ill fated run for the job in 1998, when he was the Democratic nominee against a well positioned John Engler. Engler took 62% of the vote in that election, a real landslide. By then Fieger had burnished not one, but actually two reputations--that of an effective civil and criminal defense attorney, AND that of a verbal flame thrower. During the campaign, he claimed his opponent John Engler was a "product of barnyard miscegenation" and during a radio interview refereed to a group of judges with the Michigan Court of Appeals as a "group of jackasses" by overturning a 15 million dollar judgement he had won in a medical malpractice case.
With that type of baggage, and the propensity to blurt out more off the cuff zingers, can Fieger really be considered a viable candidate for the state's highest office? Ideology aside, voters might admire flamboyance in celebrity attorneys or movie stars, but always seem to expect a certain reserve amongst officeholders--which is perhaps a holdover from an era when politics was a much more civil activity than today.
Although the Democrats might be in for real rough sledding this year, their shot at victory is certainly better by nominating someone other than the famed attorney from Southfield.
Talk about an understatement. Most Michiganders can vividly recall Fieger's ill fated run for the job in 1998, when he was the Democratic nominee against a well positioned John Engler. Engler took 62% of the vote in that election, a real landslide. By then Fieger had burnished not one, but actually two reputations--that of an effective civil and criminal defense attorney, AND that of a verbal flame thrower. During the campaign, he claimed his opponent John Engler was a "product of barnyard miscegenation" and during a radio interview refereed to a group of judges with the Michigan Court of Appeals as a "group of jackasses" by overturning a 15 million dollar judgement he had won in a medical malpractice case.
With that type of baggage, and the propensity to blurt out more off the cuff zingers, can Fieger really be considered a viable candidate for the state's highest office? Ideology aside, voters might admire flamboyance in celebrity attorneys or movie stars, but always seem to expect a certain reserve amongst officeholders--which is perhaps a holdover from an era when politics was a much more civil activity than today.
Although the Democrats might be in for real rough sledding this year, their shot at victory is certainly better by nominating someone other than the famed attorney from Southfield.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
50th Anniversary of the Pill
The latest issue of Time has a very interesting cover story by Executive Editor Nancy Gibbs on the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill. The piece gives a concise, but still comprehensive historical overview of the development of the Pill and the early controversy surrounding it, most notably its initial condemnation by most major religious denominations.
Even today, these critics like to point to what they perceive as negative social trends that occurred during the 1960s and suggest cause and effect. Increased sexual promiscuity, a sudden spike in divorce rates and assorted other social ills are all attributed to the the availability of oral contraceptives, merely because they appeared at roughly the same time.
Recent research, however, suggests a strong correlation between women's access to family planning and their attainment of higher levels of education. Gibbs cites Harvard economist Claudia Goldin who offers an example:
"From 1970 to 1980, Goldin notes, women went from comprising 10% of first year law students to 36% and from 4% of business school students to 28%. 'I've taken a lot of grief by people who insist the Pill had nothing to do with this, it's all the women's movement,' she says. But her research showed the connection between the point at which different states allowed access to the Pill and the progress women made in those states."
Most women who use the Pill, however, are not concerned with its politics. They simply view it as a tool to control their own fertility, one of the most intimate and private choices anyone can make. In 1965, the Supreme Court, in Griswold vs. Connecticut struck down a law in that state prohibiting the use of contraception by married couples. In doing so they ruled that the Constitution does indeed contain an inherent right to privacy, something all of us so rightly cherish today.
Even today, these critics like to point to what they perceive as negative social trends that occurred during the 1960s and suggest cause and effect. Increased sexual promiscuity, a sudden spike in divorce rates and assorted other social ills are all attributed to the the availability of oral contraceptives, merely because they appeared at roughly the same time.
Recent research, however, suggests a strong correlation between women's access to family planning and their attainment of higher levels of education. Gibbs cites Harvard economist Claudia Goldin who offers an example:
"From 1970 to 1980, Goldin notes, women went from comprising 10% of first year law students to 36% and from 4% of business school students to 28%. 'I've taken a lot of grief by people who insist the Pill had nothing to do with this, it's all the women's movement,' she says. But her research showed the connection between the point at which different states allowed access to the Pill and the progress women made in those states."
Most women who use the Pill, however, are not concerned with its politics. They simply view it as a tool to control their own fertility, one of the most intimate and private choices anyone can make. In 1965, the Supreme Court, in Griswold vs. Connecticut struck down a law in that state prohibiting the use of contraception by married couples. In doing so they ruled that the Constitution does indeed contain an inherent right to privacy, something all of us so rightly cherish today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
