Yes-23 » The Other

THE RACE: US presidential politics is lurking just offstage as Obama hosts 2 world summits

Lady Kathleen — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:09:03 +0000

President Barack Obama has trouble closing his umbrella as he prepares to board Air Force One before his departure from Andrews Air Force Base, Md., Monday, May, 14, 2012. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
(Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP / May 14, 2012)

Possibly Related Posts:

Politics stall West Virginia’s invitation to Big 12

Lady Kathleen — Tue, 15 May 2012 11:58:40 +0000

The expected invitation of West Virginia to the Big 12 Conference appears to have been put on hold by political football.

One day after the Big 12 reportedly approved West Virginia to replace Missouri, multiple media outlets reported that a high-ranking politician may have stalled the conference’s expansion plans.

Big 12 officials were expected to be in Morgantown, W.Va., on Wednesday for a press conference to announce the Mountaineers had been approved as the conference’s newest member.

However, the New York Times reported that Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, had lobbied conference officials – and Oklahoma president (and former senator) David Boren in particular – to invite his alma mater, Louisville, instead of West Virginia.

That report set off outrage in West Virginia, with both state senators joining the fray.

“The Big 12 picked WVU on the strength of its program — period,” West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller said. “Now the media reports that political games may upend that. That’s just flat wrong. I am doing and will do whatever it takes to get us back to the merits.”

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin released a statement in which he said McConnell’s alleged lobbying could warrant a Senate investigation.

Manchin said McConnell’s mistake was continuing to lobby for his alma mater after the Big 12 presidents had already approved West Virginia.

“I am not accusing Senator McConnell,” Manchin said. “I would expect McConnell to lobby for Louisville, but not after the Big 12 makes its decision. The Big 12’s commitment was stronger than just verbal to WVU.”

The Big 12 lost Nebraska to the Big 10 and Colorado to the Pac-12 last year. It will lose Texas AM to the SEC next year and will add Texas Christian next year.

Missouri’s departure left the Big 12 with nine teams – three less than required for a conference title game in football.

Possibly Related Posts:

Politics in the Diagnosis of Addiction

Lady Kathleen — Tue, 15 May 2012 11:58:39 +0000

The New York Times’ Ian Urbina — who was previously known for his work on fracking — has cast his eye on the politics and economics of the redefinition of addiction currently taking place in the revision of the psychiatric “bible,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM 5, due out in May of 2013.

Urbina focuses primarily on the economic implications of the expansion of the addiction concept. In the first place, “addiction” will replace a differential diagnosis of “dependence” and “abuse.” (How many people were aware that the current DSM-IV does not use the word or the concept “addiction”?) One function of this shift is that, since people can now be assessed as being more or less addicted, rather than suffering from a less serious condition like “abuse,” more people will receive the addiction label.

In addition, for Urbina, DSM 5 “would expand the list of recognized symptoms for drug and alcohol addiction, while also reducing the number of symptoms required for a diagnosis.” This raises for Urbina the concern that there will be an expansion in both “rehab” style and pharmaceutical treatments, a clearly money-making motivation for, and consequence of, the DSM’s revision. Urbana indicates in his article’s lead paragraph:

In what could prove to be one of their most far-reaching decisions, psychiatrists and other specialists who are rewriting the manual that serves as the nation’s arbiter of mental illness have agreed to revise the definition of addiction, which could result in millions more people being diagnosed as addicts and pose huge consequences for health insurers and taxpayers.

Urbina quotes experts who feel that this is both good (since it allows more people to receive help) and bad (since it labels more people with a psychiatric diagnosis requiring treatment) — the yin and the yang of our always-expanding concern about, and definition of, addiction.

But Urbina’s focus on economics is too narrow. The reductive view of addiction and the quick-fix pharmaceutical treatments that currently prevail in American psychiatry stem mostly from a simplistic, wishful belief in straightforward medical solutions for mental illness and whatever else ails us. Writing at the same time in the Times as Urbina, Dr. Allen Francis — the former chair of psychiatry at Duke who headed the task force that created DSM-IV — has relentlessly criticized DSM 5 because “it will introduce many new and unproven diagnoses that will medicalize normality and result in a glut of unnecessary and harmful drug prescription.” But, according to Francis, “Some critics assume unfairly that D.S.M.-5 is shilling for drug companies. This is not true. The mistakes are rather the result of an intellectual conflict of interest.”

In his article, Urbina highlights the role of the central figure in DSM-5′s redefinition of addiction, University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist Charles O’Brien, head of the addiction working group. Urbina reports, “Some critics of the new manual have said that it has been tainted by researchers’ ties to pharmaceutical companies.” But Urbina — unlike Francis — seems to support this view. He points out that O’Brien “has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Aventis, all of which make drugs marketed to combat addiction.” (For his part, according to Urbana, O’Brien says, “that he had never made any money from the sale of drugs that treat craving.”)

My own concern about the addiction task force’s efforts and the ultimate categories and criteria it formulates is that these reify the shifting social and historical process of defining addiction into an immutable biological one. Given that addiction researchers and clinicians claim the mantle of science, the highly capricious and ideologically driven nature of the redefinition process is almost stunning. This issue is best represented in the Urbina article by quotes from Dr. Howard B. Moss, of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (“NIAAA”), the federal government’s alcohol research agency.

For its part, the NIAAA has recently redefined the course of addiction in the case of alcoholism by pointing out that most people who fit the diagnosis of alcoholic in DSM-IV outgrow the disorder, most without actually ceasing drinking. And this will certainly be the case when the definition of addiction is expanded to include less severe cases of substance abuse. But, then, why define them as addicts? The large majority of this group (close to 90 percent in the NIAAA’s research) recover without entering rehab or Alcoholics Anonymous.

So Moss’s reactions to these new developments in re addiction take on special meaning. And Moss is highly critical of the role O’Brien has played in adding “craving” to the list of criteria for addiction, one that isn’t present in DSM-IV. (Disclosure: I was an adviser in the creation of the substance use disorders section of DSM-IV.) The significance of craving is that DSM-IV focuses on the impact of substance use, measurable changes in behavior and consequences, rather than on subjective states like “craving,” which are hard to define and identify.

Moreover, craving carries ideological baggage. It is associated with the disease view that addiction is an uncontrollable force, often permanently present in people’s lives, unlike the view the NIAAA’s research indicates of addiction as a highly variable syndrome that shifts as people’s life circumstances improve, and particularly as they mature.

Urbina ends his article with his interview with Moss:

[Moss] described opposition from many researchers to adding “craving” as a symptom of addiction. He added that he quit the group working on the addiction chapter partly out of frustration with what he described as a lack of scientific basis in the decision making. (emphasis added)

“The more people diagnosed with cravings,” Dr. Moss said, “the more sales of anticraving drugs like Vivitrol or naltrexone.”

We see here the return to the financial incentives at work in the DSM committee’s efforts with which Urbina began his article. But of greater interest to me (as I wrote Urbina in an email about his article):

The whole issue of the centrality of “craving,” given “opposition from many researchers to adding ‘craving’ as a symptom of addiction,” indicates the ideological nature of the debate. I would really be curious as to who was in the addiction group and according to what expertise they were selected, given that making a decision to include gambling is such a large, epistemological one.

My comment about gambling is due to DSM 5′s expanding the addiction concept beyond substance use — something I have advocated since my 1975 book Love and Addiction. This expansion is an inexorable trend that will accelerate in the future. And this for me engages the entire debate about the nature of addiction, since the inclusion of gambling addiction in DSM 5 does not seem to sit well with the entire “chronic brain disease” approach in the United States.

As I ended my email to Urbina, “I think it’s safe to say, however these matters end up, they’ll be just as hotly debated going forward to 2030 or whenever DSM 6 is created.”

Researchers and clinicians (those associated particularly with the new medical specialty of addiction, the American Society of Addiction Medicine, led by the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Nora Volkow) claim the mantle of science for their medical initiative in defining and treating addiction. The see-sawing battles and divergences in opinion over the meaning of addiction, however, describe an ideological tussle among warring worldviews, not something we ordinarily think of in association with medical advances. But this conceptual struggle is inescapable when dealing with America’s volatile history of, and attitudes towards, substance use.

In other words, the meaning of addiction is a never-ending American, and thus worldwide, cultural debate.

For more by Stanton Peele, click here.

For more on addiction and recovery, click here.

Books by this author

–>

This Blogger’s Books from

Follow Stanton Peele on Twitter:

www.twitter.com/speele5

Possibly Related Posts:

Religion and politics

Lady Kathleen — Sun, 13 May 2012 11:51:22 +0000

If you’re attuned to national politics — or read our letters to the editor — you might get the impression that America is overwhelmingly Christian and getting more so by the day.

Not so, according to a new book by Mark Chaves, a Duke University professor of sociology and religion.

Using data collected between 1972 and 2008, Chaves said America is not only losing its religion, but also has lost confidence in religious leaders and wants them to be less involved in politics….

…Fewer Americans approve of their religious leaders getting involved in politics. In 1991, about 30 percent of Americans strongly agreed that religious leaders should avoid political involvement; by 2008, 44 percent felt that way.

I strongly doubt the converse — that more Americans agree that political leaders should avoid any religious involvement — is true. It does seem as if there are fewer religious leaders rising to prominence based on their politics, in the way Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson did 20 and 30 years ago. But I suppose that remains to be seen for 2012. Some of the leading Republican candidates are clasping their Christianity close so far and there’s nothing wrong with that. It will be interesting to see if a candidate’s piety factors in the campaign.

Of course, there is reason to doubt some of the survey results. According to the book, 40 percent said they went to church every week, but only 25 percent actually did.

Possibly Related Posts:

Article source: Bing Polictics

The Politics of Anambra Central Senatorial Zone [analysis]

Lady Kathleen — Sun, 13 May 2012 11:51:21 +0000

The Politics of Anambra Central Senatorial Zone [analysis]

Apr 20, 2011 (Daily Independent/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) –
Anambra State is of strategic importance to Nigeria. The state has the largest market in West Africa, which boosts our oil-based economy. In addition to this, the state produced political icons who helped to positively shape our politics and contributed to national development. Just think about the late Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Late Dr. Chuba Okadigbo, Nwafor Orizu and others.

The present Anambra state was carved out of the old Anambra state in 1991. It is bordered by Enugu state, Imo state, Kogi state, and the River Niger is the natural boundary that separates the state from Delta state. The state has untapped natural resources as well as distinguished individuals who are stars in their areas of specialization.

The computer whiz-kid, Philip Emeagwali, hails from Onitsha, Anambra state; Chinua Achebe, the father of Modern African ficition, is from Ogidi, Anambra State; Chief Emeka Anyaoku, international diplomat, is a native of Obosi in Anambra state and others I cannot list here for reason of space .

Since the beginning of the fourth of republic, the politics of Anambra state is characterized by intrigue, violence, and unhealthy competitiveness. The preponderance of intellectuals and political desperadoes who are political actors in the state account for the intrigue and competitiveness that characterize the politics of the state.

Until Mr. Peter Obi first emerged as our governor through judicial means, the god father phenomenon wrecked havoc in the state. Dr. Chinwoke Mbadinuju fell out with his god-father, and development was put in abeyance in the state. In 2003, Dr. Chris Nigige, the icon of road rehabilitation, in cahoots with his political god-father, rigged the 2003 governorship election in his favor. But the tenacious and indefatigable Mr. Peter Obi, the current governor of Anambra state, took him to court and ousted him from office via judicial means. Dr. Chris Ngige contested the February 6, 2010 governorship election and lost to Mr. Peter Obi.

Dr. Chris Ngige alleged fraud in the election and went to court to challenge Mr. Obi’s victory. The court had not concluded the case before Dr. Ngige threw his hat into the ring with regard to the 2011 Anambra central senatorial election.

His action depicts his desperation for power, and political ambivalence. A desperate man is not incapable of compromising on his moral-code and issues that will affect his people. Thrusting power into the hands of a political desperado is akin to giving a lunatic a bomb. We remember vividly how Dr. Ngige went to Okija shrine and swore allegiance to his political god-father, Mr. Chris Uba, in order for him to win the 2003 governorship election. His fight with Mr. Uba cost Anambra state millions of Naira, and temporarily stalled growth in the state.

During the electioneering for Anambra central senatorial seat, Ngigie’s supporters flaunted his sterling records in the area of road rehabilitation during his illegal occupation of the government house in Awka.

But, the fact is that his revolutionary works in the area of road repair cannot secure him victory over Professor Dora Akunyili. Professor Dora Akunyili is the mother Theresa of our times, who saved the lives of millions of people by running fake drug manufacturers out of Onitsha town. Again, the gutsy and forthright Akunyili has won the hearts of Anambrarians by firing the memo to FEC, which saved Nigeria from disintegration. The country would have been dismembered had Akunyili not written the letter to FEC, Urging it to do the right thing and install Dr. Good-luck Jonathan as our president.

Now, Dr. Chris Ngige has resorted to political shenanigans and gimmickry to stop Akunyili’s ride to victory when it’s clear to him that he will soon kiss the political dust.

Dr. Chris Ngige is crying wolf when there is no wolf in sight. Dr. Ngige and his allies are alleging that Mr. Peter Obi, the current governor, put pressure on INEC officials for them to declare professor Akunyili the winner in the 2011 Anambra central senatorial election. They said that he is trying to influence the result of the election in favor of Akunyili by trying to offer bribe to Dr. Anene,the former returning officer.

Dr. Chris Ngige and his allies who are making that wild allegation are being mischievous. Mr. Peter Obi is known for his unimpeachable moral -code, and respect for the rule of law. Is Dora Akunyili not the island of integrity? Alongside professor Akunyili, the Island of integrity and competence, Ngige is far behind Akunyili in terms of popularity. Professor Akunyili will take Dr. Chris Ngige to the cleaners in any election that is free and fair. So, why should Akunyili try to use underhand means to win the senatorial election?

In Anambra state, the traducers and enemies of Akunyili are murderous fake drug manufacturers who are sulking and licking the wounds inflicted on them by the conscientious Akunyili.

Again, some male chauvinists who are with atavistic and provincial mind-sets and ideas consider women to be inferior to men. They still feel that the place of a woman is in the kitchen. It is the sentiment that reigns among them in the Onitsha main market, and surrounding towns. These uniformed men who are steeped in provincial ideas see Akunyili’s vying for the senate seat as an anomaly and an affront to the men-folk.

The re-run election for the Anambra central senatorial zone will take place in affected areas in the state in the future.

So, let us offer Professor Dora Akunyili a chance to give us qualitative representation at the senate. Millions of Anambrarians have queued up solidly behind her. Akunyili’s victory in the forth-coming Anambra central re- run election is a foregone conclusion.

Chiedu Uche Okoye wrote in from Uruowulu-Obosi Anambra State

[ Back To Election 2008 Technology Impact Community's Homepage ]

Possibly Related Posts:

Politics 2012: Nebraska, Oregon next stops for train to RNC

Lady Kathleen — Sun, 13 May 2012 11:51:20 +0000

The dance before the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., in August has become more of a cakewalk for Mitt Romney.

With U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas remaining as the lone major challenger, Romney has become the presumptive party presidential nominee, needing fewer than 200 delegates to reach the required 1,144 votes necessary to seal the deal. Paul, however, is working the state party caucuses to try to accumulate delegates as well heading into the convention, but has fewer than 100.

As of Thursday, CBSNews.com indicated Romney had 934 delegates and Paul had 92.

Up on Tuesday’s dance card: Nebraska, with 35 delegates, and Oregon, with 28 delegates.

Voters in Nebraska Tuesday pick their candidates to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Bob Nelson.

In the Republican race, two big names endorsed two different candidates.

Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice presidential candidate, backed underdog state Sen. Deb Fischer.

In a letter, Palin said, “We admire your conservative principles and know that you will not go to Washington to amass great wealth or power,” the Omaha World-Herald reported. “You will go to Washington to serve the people of Nebraska, protect our Constitution and work for common sense solutions to help restore America. We are happy to support you and have asked SarahPAC to send a financial contribution to your campaign.”

Fischer faces state Treasurer Don Stenberg and state Attorney General Jon Bruning, who picked up the endorsement of former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who last month ended his bid to be the party’s standard-bearer in November.

“Jon Bruning is a trusted conservative who is unapologetically pro-life, will fight to reduce the size of the federal government and will ensure that the government spends less and does not tax more,” Santorum said in a statement.

The winner could face former Gov. Bob Kerrey, who will be trying to keep Nelson’s seat in the Democratic fold. Kerrey, who also once represented Nebraska in the U.S. Senate, faces four challengers on the Democratic ballot.

Bruning began as the front-runner in the GOP tilt, and even his chief rivals acknowledge he still leads the pack, the World-Herald said.

Bruning also has proven to be an adept fundraiser, swamping his opponents, the World-Herald said. As of the end of March, Bruning had raised $3.3 million, compared with $628,000 for Stenberg and $356,000 for Fischer.

While Bruning has outraised his rivals, some observers note the field has been leveled by the infusion of cash from outside political committees backing Stenberg.

The Senate Conservatives Fund, created by Tea Party leader U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, has pumped at least $1.3 million into the race, mainly in television advertisements touting Stenberg as a “genuine conservative.”

Also, the anti-tax Club for Growth spent $720,000 in the race, also primarily on television ads critical of Bruning’s conservative bones.

Kerrey, too, also has benefited from donations from people or groups outside of Nebraska, The New York Times reported. Kerrey collected $30,000 in recent days, including a $1,000 donation from Barbra Streisand and $5,000 from S. Parker Gilbert, the former chairman of Morgan Stanley.

Fischer’s camp says she’s still in it, pointing to a campaign-commissioned poll in April that indicated Bruning led with 30 percent support, Stenberg had 21 percent and Fischer was at 19 percent, but improving. More important, the Fischer poll indicated 28 percent of likely Republican voters were undecided.

“Momentum is on our side,” Fischer campaign manager Aaron Trost told the Omaha newspaper.

Even though Fischer’s poll indicated the race may have tightened, it still gives Bruning a huge edge, said Tim Hill, a political scientist at Doane College in Crete, Neb.

“It’s not insurmountable …,” Hill said, cautioning, “For Bruning to lose a lead like that, he’d have to really [do something] to lose it.”

Nebraskans also will vote on a constitutional amendment that would change the term limits for state lawmakers from two terms to three, KETV, Omaha, said.

Voters approved a two-term limit in 2000.

Oregon

The 5th Congressional District in Oregon is perhaps the state’s most competitive, but observers say they would be shocked if incumbent Kurt Schrader, a Democrat, didn’t win in November.

They look to Schrader’s 5-percentage point victory during what President Obama called a “shellacking” in 2010 by Republicans and no GOP opponent has recently reported any substantial money, Roll Call reported.

Plus, the contest so far has avoided national attention.

In the statewide attorney general’s race, Democrat Ellen Rosenblum is ahead of primary rival Dwight Holton — or former federal prosecutor Holton leads retired Appellate Judge Rosenblum, depending on the poll, The (Portland) Oregonian reported.

However, no matter who was leading in the run-up to Tuesday’s primary, the polls seem to agree at least 50 percent of likely primary voters remain undecided.

Rosenblum’s poll, conducted in early May, showed her taking a 32 percent to 17 percent lead over Holton.

Holton’s pollster, however, showed him ahead of Rosenblum 27 percent to 23 percent.

No one filed in the Republican primary for the office. The Oregonian said the winner of the Democratic primary could take office as soon as July 11, the day outgoing Attorney General John Kroger takes over as president of Reed College.

Possibly Related Posts:

Iowa’s politics-free redistricting faces test

Lady Kathleen — Fri, 11 May 2012 11:41:36 +0000

Click photo to enlargeDES MOINES, IowaIowa residents figure they’re immune from the bare-knuckles, once-a-decade redistricting fights of other states, where incumbents use the process to solidify their re-election chances while parties scramble for any advantage.

But in this rural Midwestern state, politically relevant on the national level mostly for hosting the first caucuses of each presidential election, redistricting is less about politics and more about nonpartisan fairness.

That could be about to change.

For the first time in two decades, Iowa is losing a seat in Congress because population growth has been heavier elsewhere. That, combined with what some experts say is a national trend toward transparency, could present the biggest challenge yet to a redistricting system enacted in 1980 that allows three nonpartisan staffers to draw the lines.

“That’s going to be a more potentially controversial decision, getting rid of one seat and moving other seats around to swallow up territory that is lost,” said Bruce Cain, a political science professor at the University of California-Berkeley . “It’s going to be a more severe test of the system than if Iowa was adding a seat or staying the same.”

While the state lost a U.S. House seat once before with its current nonpartisan system in place, Cain said the political climate was less contentious in 1991 when the Legislature accepted the first congressional map presented by the panel of an attorney and two

geographers.

Although Iowa is the only state where a completely nonpartisan panel redraws the lines, others have tried their own variation of taking the process out of the hands of state lawmakers. These panels still include political appointees but aim to make sure one party doesn’t have complete control.

In California, voters approved a 2008 initiative removing the process from the Legislature after previous gerrymandering of political boundaries left the state with oddly shaped districts and little turnover between the parties. For the first time this year, a 14-member citizens panel with representatives from all partieseven the smaller oneswill handle the task of drawing congressional boundaries.

Arizona enters its second round of redistricting using a five-member commission made up of four citizens appointed by legislative leaders from both parties. Those four then choose the fifth member. In the past, the panel has included two Republicans, two Democrats and one independent.

And while the Legislature still has control of the process in Florida, voters there approved two constitutional amendments last November prohibiting the drawing of districts to favor incumbents or one party. Even with those new rules, there is much room for interpretationand court challenges.

Other states have considered changing the redistricting system without much success.

In Indiana, Todd Rokitanow a member of Congresswas an outspoken advocate of banning political data or voting patterns during the map-drawing process when he was that state’s secretary of state. During a 2009 speech to the Indianapolis Rotary Club, he called the state “the wild west of redistricting,” complaining that the only rule governing the process is that districts have to be “contiguous”and there’s little clarification about what that means.

But Rokita’s proposal got little traction in the Legislature, and now he represents a congressional district that resembles a disjointed array of Lego blocks, spanning from the state’s northwest corner to south central Indiana. His office declined to make the congressman available for an interview but released a brief statement saying his position on redistricting hasn’t changed.

According to the National Council of State Legislatures, 37 states rely on their legislatures for drawing maps while 13 use some sort of separate commission. Of those, Iowa’s is the most detached from politics, said Morgan Cullen, an NCSL policy analyst.

“It’s completely unique to Iowa and a lot of other people look to it as a model,” Cullen said.

Three of Iowa’s five congressional districts are currently represented by Democrats, so if they lose a seat they also would lose their majority in the state delegation. This week, the Census is releasing local population numbers for the state to begin the process.

Sam Roecker, spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party, said it’s too early to speculate on which seat will be eliminated.

“We just have to wait and see what the map is and take it from there,” Roecker said.

House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, said Iowa’s process doesn’t allow the process to become “consumed” by partisan politics.

“If the objective is to create a wholly partisan model where one party controls it than this system is not designed to support that,” Paulsen said.

Even in Iowa, the final maps must ultimately be approved by the Legislature once the panel’s work is finished, but little political posturing has occurred over the past three decades. Cain, the Berkeley professor, said the process isn’t “completely antiseptic,” but it’s close.

It wouldn’t work most places, he said, because Iowa “lacks the kind of racial, economic, ethnic and regional diversity” of larger states on the coasts or in the South.

“If you tried to impose something like that in California, the various interest groups would go ballistic because they don’t trust bureaucrats to do this,” Cain said.

Iowa’s system was enacted after the state Supreme Court rejected maps drawn my lawmakers in 1970.

Ed Cook, the attorney who will be involved in redrawing the map, said Iowa’s method “provides for a fairly efficient way of resolving redistricting.” He said the agency expects to submit its initial proposal to the Legislature by April 1 and that it will not discuss possible scenarios before then.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D- Council Bluffs, said the fairness in Iowa’s system is evident by turnover at the Statehouse in elections following redistricting.

“The deck is not stacked by the way people draw the boundaries,” he said.

Possibly Related Posts:

Politics of Gay Marriage: Top 9 Things to Watch For

Lady Kathleen — Fri, 11 May 2012 11:41:34 +0000

President Obama made history at the White House yesterday when he told my GMA co-anchor Robin Roberts that he supports same-sex marriage. But how will the politics play out come November? That’s the question we’re tackling today on the Bottom Line.

Strategists on both sides of the issue – and from both Presidential campaigns – have told me the politics are likely to be a wash. Hard to read – and certain not to supplant the economy as the campaign’s top issue. No question that’s right. To borrow a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld, Obama’s shift raises more “known unknowns” than firm conclusions. So I have more questions about the politics of same sex marriage right now than answers.

Here are my top nine:

#1 – Will this fire up Christian Conservatives who have had some real qualms about Mitt Romney and skepticism about his Mormon faith? Enough to put them enthusiastically in Romney’s camp in solid numbers?

#2 – Did this cost President Obama North Carolina? We saw the results of the referendum on Tuesday with 79 percent of the electorate supporting a ban on same-sex marriage. Additionally twenty percent of voters in the Democratic primary voted against Obama, which could show that he’s got some trouble in a state he won four years ago.

#3 – Will this motivate under 30 voters enough to get their turnout back to 2008 levels? We know they haven’t been “fired up” yet, but it’s also true that young voters are driving support for gay marriage. According to our ABC News/Washington Post poll 61 percent of voters under the age of 40 support same-sex marriage compared to only 40% of voters over the age of 65 who support it. Will Obama’s shift make them believe again that he’s the candidate of “hope and change?”

#4 – On the flip side, how much will older voters be turned off? Are they more likely to focus on Obama’s stance on gay marriage, or Romney’s plans for Medicare? That’s the key question for this group – and how they turn could make the difference in the mega battleground of Ohio. Same goes for Iowa – and Obama’s marriage shift could put Wisconsin in play for Romney too.

#5 – A majority of African American voters are against gay marriage, but will Obama’s support for this issue reduce turnout in the black community in November?( I doubt it)

#6 – And what about Hispanics? President Obama was counting on their vote in the Southwest, specifically in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. But many Hispanics are Catholic and culturally conservative. Could this issue somehow tamp down turnout for the president in those key states?

#7 -Six of Obama’s top bundlers come from the gay community. Will this increase their pull in the campaign? And will it open up more contributions, especially in the Obama aligned Super PACS which have been lagging in fundraising compared to the Republican aligned Super PACS?

# 8 -Voters tend to punish whichever candidate seems to be putting the issue of same-sex marriage front and center in a political campaign. By November will it still be front and center? If so, will voters blame Obama for his switch – or buy his argument that Romney made it a national issue by supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages everywhere?

# 9 – The President told Robin that he wants to leave the question of same sex marriage to the states for now. But will he face pressure to have the Justice Department join litigation seeking to strike down state bans? That could be the next front in this war.

Those are my nine questions. Let me know yours. I’d love to hear some of your answers too.

Possibly Related Posts:

Mel Martinez’s move changed face of Florida politics

Lady Kathleen — Wed, 09 May 2012 11:37:02 +0000

Republican Martinez’s December 2008 announcement that he would not seek a second term created a domino effect that led to an election year unlike Florida had seen in more than a century.

If Martinez had just stayed put, Gov. Charlie Crist probably would have run for re-election. Same with Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink and Attorney General Bill McCollum. Instead, Florida has a new U.S. senator, a new governor and three new Cabinet members.

And it was a year when Tea Party fervor over federal spending helped Republicans take back four U.S. House seats, including two candidates considered safe when the election cycle began.

“We could write a book, couldn’t we,” said Deborah Cox-Roush, the state GOP’s vice chair. “It was an unusual year and one we might not ever see again. It’s a second chance and we have to work very hard to make sure that we keep the momentum going into 2012.”

The year began with political pundits assuming that McCollum would be the Republican facing Democrat Sink for governor. Then Naples businessman Rick Scott shook things up by investing tens of millions of his own dollars to defeat McCollum in the primary and later to beat Sink.

Despite repeatedly raised questions about massive Medicaid fraud at the Columbia/HCA hospital chain while Scott was CEO, Scott was able to buy name recognition through television ads that portrayed him as a political outsider who would use his business experience to turn around the state’s economy. His catch phrase, “Let’s get to work,” was heard over and over again.

The Senate race also had several twists and turns. When the year began, Crist was struggling to maintain his lead over former House Speaker Marco Rubio, a Tea Party favorite who quickly gained support by criticizing President Barack Obama’s spending policies and Crist’s support of Obama’s $787 billion federal stimulus package.

Rubio began raising more money than Crist and the once-obscure candidate was getting national attention. When he passed Crist in the polls, speculation began that Crist would run as an independent candidate. Crist finally made that announcement in late April, just before the deadline to get on the ballot.

On the Democratic side, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek struggled to gain attention, but still remained the presumptive nominee. That was until billionaire Jeff Greene got in the race on the final day to qualify and began spending millions of dollars on ads.

Greene took a lead in the race and appeared heading toward victory, but his campaign ended up faltering in a circus-like atmosphere with stories about his ties to former boxer Mike Tyson and troubled actress Lindsay Lohan. Greene’s efforts to talk about policy were often sidetracked with questions about excessive partying on his yacht and similar issues.

Meek won the nomination by a landslide, 57.5 percent to 31 percent, but trailed badly throughout the general election. As Crist tried to pull votes away from Meek, there was pressure on Meek to drop out of the race so the split Democratic vote would not help Rubio.

Meek stayed in, and Rubio won by a wide margin, taking about 49 percent of the vote compared to Crist’s 30 percent and Meek’s 20 percent.

Republicans were able to take advantage of anti-Democratic Party backlash and easily swept all three Cabinet seats, with Pam Bondi winning the attorney general’s race, Adam Putnam winning the agriculture commissioner position and Jeff Atwater earning the chief financial officer seat.

In the House races, Republican Dan Webster knocked Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson out of office after one term. Republican Sandy Adams did the same to Rep. Suzanne Kosmas. Allen West used the Tea Party movement to easily beat Rep. Ron Klein by nearly 9 percentage points.

Possibly Related Posts:

Just Released: A Royal Courtly Fable

Lady Kathleen — Wed, 09 May 2012 11:37:01 +0000

Lady Kathleen has just released a new E-Book called A Royal Courtly Fable. It can be purchased here for a small fee of $2.95. This E-book is fiction that was based on true life.

Here is the preface from the book:

This is one of those once upon a time stories, which happens to be true. This is a story that has its ups and downs as well as its good and it bad parts. May perhaps we should call it the never-ending-story as well, because as long as the author lives, then so does the fable.

All of her life, Lady Kathleen had dreamed of living in a long ago realm where there were Kings and Queens as well as friendly Dragons. And the lands were filled with Knights and Wizards. Where she would live in a wonderful castle, now the castle did not have to be huge, just medieval style. Of course the wars would be left to the men to fight if they must, but it would be my preference that there were no real wars, just more the friendly jousts and festivals.

Well this fable is the life span of Lady Kathleen, where the base of the fable is true, it has been fabled to make it enjoyable.

Purchase it here Get your Copy Today!!

Possibly Related Posts: