Anti-Gay California Senator Comes Out of the Closet

California State Senator Roy Ashburn (Republican) recently came out of the closet. Ashburn, however, has a long history of voting against LGBT rights initiatives.

Ashburn disclosed his sexual orientation following a recent DUI arrest. Prior to his arrest, Ashburn was seen partying at a Sacramento gay bar.

Ashburn disclosed his sexuality on a radio show:

I am gay. . .Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long. But I am gay. But it is something that is personal and . . . I felt with my heart that being gay didn't affect -- wouldn't affect -- how I did my job.

Through my own actions . . . I made my personal life public.

Perhaps Ashburn's drinking problem relates to his effort to lie about his sexuality. If so, coming out, as an abundance of psychological literature reveals, might improve his mental health.

Judicial Death Watch? Senator's Comments Raise Eyebrows

Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky raised eyebrows recently when he predicted that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently had surgery for pancreatic cancer, would soon die and that this would present an opportunity for a conservative judicial appointment.

Here's a clip from the article:

During a wide-ranging 30-minute speech on Saturday at the Hardin County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Bunning said he supports conservative judges "and that's going to be in place very shortly because Ruth Bader Ginsburg. . .has cancer."

"Bad cancer. The kind that you don't get better from," he told a crowd of about 100 at the old State Theater.

"Even though she was operated on, usually, nine months is the longest that anybody would live after (being diagnosed) with pancreatic cancer," he said.

While it is true that Supreme Court observers have often expressed concerns about Justice Ginsburg's health, this is the first time I have heard a public official predict that she will die. It seems a tad uncouth.

Now, He's Tainted: Senator Burris Says He Tried to Raise Cash for Blagojevich

Senator Roland Burris has admitted that he tried to raise money for former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich prior to receiving the Senate appointment, but after Obama's election victory. Previously, I argued that the Senate lacked the capacity to block him from taking the seat, based on the publicly available evidence. I stand by that conclusion. But this situation certainly smells bad.

The Senate could choose to expel him, but presumably explusions must relate to post-appointment behavior. Whether or not he committed perjury depends upon the specific content of the questions the Blagojevich impeachment committee asked him and the sworn statements he provided. But, if things continue they way they have so far, I suspect he will step down.

Is this scripted? If so, there is one wicked writer in the universe. This is exactly why defense lawyers ask clients to tell them "everything" they know about the situation prior to trial. Tune in for more drama.

Update: Keeping Things in Perspective
A really bright friend agreed with me that Burris is in trouble, but he also reminded me of my and his previous positions on the matter of campaign contributions and other assistance in exchange for appointments and other political favors. Substantively, it is difficult to distinguish what Burris has done (assuming he only tried to help get campaign donations for Blagojevich) from what politicians legally do everyday.

For example, New York Governor David Paterson will probably get campaign assistance from Kirsten Gillibrand, whom he chose to replace Senator Hillary Clinton. Many commentators have openly argued that Paterson should have picked Caroline Kennedy for the position precisely because she could use her deep political and financial contacts to help advance his own career. And despite the absolutely nasty competition between Obama and Clinton, she is his top Cabinet member. Clinton campaigned for Obama and headlined fundraisers on his behalf (as did former President Clinton) prior to his election victory. Her efforts helped to make sure that the Democratic Party remained unified. In exchange for her "contribution" to Obama, she received a high-level position. Does anyone really believe Clinton would be Secretary of State had she not campaigned on behalf of and helped raise money for Obama?

Senator Clinton. . . Bill?

Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac have an Op-Ed in today's Washington Post in which they advocate replacing Hillary Clinton with husband Bill in the Senate, should she take a highly speculated offer to serve as Secretary of State for Obama. I am not sure what to make of this. Are the authors seeking attention through a "stunt"? Does the Washington Post desperately need to shift papers and generate web traffic? Or, is this a brilliant idea, assuming that Bill could suppress his ego and accept the position if Governor Patterson decided (or was forced) to appoint him? I think I will not touch this beyond simply raising questions. Doing more requires too much thought for a holiday!