More on Kim Davis (Kentucky County Clerk Refusing to License Same-Sex Marriages)

A recent development in the (unfortunately) ongoing saga of Ms. Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is that she received a visit from Mike Huckabee, a former US state governor and currently a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
 

I think it is shameful and outrageous that Ms. Davis receives encouragement in her defiance of the law from a politician. This would seem to show that Mr. Huckabee has either no knowledge of, or no respect for, how the US system of government works. The US Supreme Court is just what its name suggests--supreme. As the Court's decision in the recent same-sex marriage case implies, there is no exception recognized for personal preference, even on grounds of "conscience"--even though many on the Religious Right have been arguing for, and trying to enact into state laws, exceptions on the basis of "religious freedom" which would simply mean license to ignore various anti-discrimination laws (for example, laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation)--and would thus translate to freedom to discriminate.

 

Mr. Huckabee, Ms. Davis, and others of their persuasion must realize that we live in a secular society. Our government is not one of religious law. They seem to wish for a government in the US which is based o n "Judeo-Christian" law and which thus would be a theocracy--even at the same time that they deplore theocratic societies and governments which are being established in Muslim areas of the world, such as ISIS, ISIL, boku haram, and so forth. The negative example which those authorities show us, of what theocracy means, seems to be a lesson lost to those who want a Christian theocracy in the US.

 

Copyright (c) 2015.

Help Prevent an Extreme Right-Winger from Being the Next US President

First, I don't really aspire to being a political pundit—but I do have this one thought to share. It occurred to me that the presidential election is next year, and candidates are already preparing.

Now, it's conventional wisdom in politics that an incumbent has every advantage, not the least of which is that he (or she) has the necessary fund-raising machinery in place.

However, as to recent presidents of the US: we are used to the idea of presidents serving two terms, but in the last few decades there have been several that failed to get elected to a second term. There was Jimmy Carter, who lost to Richard Nixon in 1968. There was George H.W. Bush, who lost to Bill Clinton. And, if you want to count him, there was Lyndon Johnson, who, before the 1968 election made the famous speech, "I will not seek, nor will I accept, the nomination of my party for President of the United States."

I think that Barack Obama is by no means a shoe-in for a second term. Again political wisdom is that the economy is always the primary issue—at least if it is not doing well. And the US economy, and the jobs situation—rightly or wrongly—is perceived as unsatisfactory, and Mr. Obama (again rightly or wrongly) gets the blame.

Not to mention all the sentiment against him stirred up by the Tea Partiers and other far–Right Wing types. Even many of those who supported him at one point have become disillusioned.

I'd say Obama has less than an even chance. Given that, I suggest to liberals that they consider voting in the Republican primary election, next year, to help advance the candidacy of whichever Republican presidential candidate is the most moderate or centrist. If many people did this, it might help prevent a very far-Right candidate from being the next president.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein

How Three Republican Presidents Got Elected

Perhaps arguably, three of the last four Republican presidents to be elected--Nixon, Reagan, and G. W. Bush--stole their elections.

First, Richard Nixon. A week before the presidential election of 1968, Hubert Humphrey achieved a big lead over his opponent, Nixon, by finally distancing himself from President Lyndon Johnson and his Vietnam War policies. Peace talks between the North Vietnamese and the Americans were underway in Paris at the time.

Then, on the very eve of the election, Richard Nixon persuaded the premier of South Vietnam to withdraw from the peace talks by promising him a better deal if he, Nixon, got elected.

This act on Nixon's part might have constituted treason, and Nixon had no standing to interfere in such talks. As a result, Nixon won, very narrowly--by half a percentage of the vote, the smallest margin of victory ever.

And, as a result of Nixon winning and the peace talks having come to an end, the war went on for another seven years and thousands more Americans were killed.

Of course that is not the only wrongdoing that Nixon ever did. Much earlier, when he was running for Congress, he accused his opponent of being a Communist. When a journalist said to him, "But Mr. Nixon, you know that [your opponent] is not a Communist," Nixon said, "Yes, but I wanted to win." That should speak for itself.

And, for those who know history or can remember back 40 years, Nixon gave us the Watergate scandal, which would have gotten him impeached if he had not resigned to avoid it. Mr. "I Am Not a Crook" was indeed a crook.

Okay, now Reagan, who did something similar. University students in Iran, during that country's revolution which ousted the Shah and brought in the current "Islamic Republic," had captured a number of Americans from the US embassy and were holding them hostage. Then US President Jimmy Carter had been powerless to get those hostages released.

Behind the scenes, and again illegally, Reagan (then candidate for US President) got the Iranians to promise NOT to release the American hostages until after the US presidential election was over. That helped continue the image of Carter as helpless in the face of the hostage "crisis" and helped Reagan get elected. Not coincidentally, the hostages were released on the very day that Reagan was inaugurated.

And--again parallel with Nixon--once in office Reagan continued his illegal acts. In the scandal called "Irangate," Reagan's staffers were illegally selling arms to Iran in order to get money to aid the so-called Contras in Nicaragua, in defiance of the US Congress, which had voted that no aid should be given to the Contras. (The Contras were right-wing forces trying to overthrow the Leftist government in Nicaragua. Seems that rebels whom our government wants to support are "freedom fighters," but when we are not on their side, they're rebels or some such.)

And last but not least, George W. Bush. (Hopefully you remember this one.) In the election of 2000, the results of voting were very close and the outcome depended on the vote count in Florida. There were a lot of ambiguous ballots, which were being manually examined. (Remember "hanging chads"?)

The matter at one point was under the control of the (Republican) Florida Secretary of State. Plus, the governor of Florida just happened to be George W. Bush's brother!

Many ballots--from areas which might have favored Gore--were not recounted because the recount was halted by the Secretary of State. And then, the US Supreme Court, with a Conservative majority, ruled that Bush should be President. Many Americans were very angry at that, and considered that Bush had stolen the election.

Update, October 11, 2011
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says this, in a recently published memoir, about the Bush campaign's petition to the Supreme Court to stop the Florida vote recount:

By a five-to-four vote, the court granted the stay [that is, stopping the recount]. "What I still regard as a frivolous stay application kept the court extremely busy for four days," he writes. He adds that no justice has ever cited the opinions that provided the basis for their ruling.

Kinda of makes it sound like it was politically and partisanly motivated, doesn't it?

Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein