Daily Caller Hit Piece on Media Matters Misses Target (UPDATED)

The conservative blog Daily Caller has published a "hit piece" on Media Matters.  Media Matters is a liberal watchdog that seeks to uncover inaccurate reporting in the media -- especially conservative media such as Fox News.

Tucker Carlson and Vince Coglianese wrote the hit piece. Relying exclusively on anonymous sources, they make several allegations about Media Matters and David Brock, its founder. Carlson and Coglianese portray Brock as someone who suffers from extreme paranoia, which leads to "erratic" behavior.  In particular, they allege that at times he has feared that someone wants to attack him.

Carlson and Coglianese also allege that Media Matters "coordinates" its activities with the White House.  To support this allegation, they claim that Media Matters staff participate in weekly media calls with White House staff, interact with persons from the White House (including former staffer Anita Dunn), and meet regularly with individuals from other liberal organizations to strategize about the framing of public policy. Allegedly, unnamed White House staff attend these policy meetings.

Assuming all of the allegations in the article are true, Carlson and Coglianese fail to do one important thing. They do not rebut or even attempt to rebut any of the reporting that Media Matters has made regarding inaccurate or misleading comments in conservative media. While Carlson and Coglianese obviously want to discredit Media Matters, their article falls far short of this goal. Instead, they only succeed in portraying themselves as disgruntled conservatives who lack the capacity for substantive engagement with Media Matters's reporting. This sensationalized article does more to discredit Carlson and Coglianese than Media Matters.

Finally, Carlson and Coglianese's portrayal of seemingly ominous meetings between staff from Media Matters  and the White House is laughable. That White House officials meet with members of nonprofits and supportive constituents is a longstanding feature of our republican form of government. It is not the sign of nefarious liberal plot. Elected officials meet with and represent the people of the United States -- including liberal organizations like Media Matters.  Lacing this part of the story with the word "coordinating" does not add anything of substance.

Even if these meetings could compromise the objectivity of Media Matters, Carlson and Coglianese have not demonstrated that they have. Instead, they have chosen to write a salacious story, rather than intelligent analysis.  Everyone knows that Media Matters is a liberal watchdog. Carlson and Coglianese, however, have not shown that it is an inaccurate watchdog.

UPDATE: Conservatives have responded to my arguments (on Twitter) with two points. Both arguments fail.

First, conservatives argue that Media Matters is a news website and as such, it should not meet with the White House to discuss policy matters and design the framing of public policy proposals. This response fails because Media Matters is not a news website. Instead, it analyzes conservative news reports for inaccurate commentary. The "about us" section of the Media Matters website clearly describes the organization's activities:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

Policy groups often meet with presidents and other elected officials. This is not inappropriate. As representatives of voters, presidents routinely meet with constituents and supporters to discuss policy matters. For example, President George Bush met with the NRA-ILA (the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association) and other conservative organizations during his tenure.

Second, conservatives have endeavored to find meaning in the allegations the article makes regarding David Brock. While these claims might provide salacious enjoyment for some readers, they do not discredit the analysis that Media Matters compiles regarding inaccurate reporting by conservative media.

Robert Gibbs Tries to Walk Away From His Criticism of Liberals

Robert Gibbs' harsh criticism of liberals has drawn fire from progressive bloggers. Now, he has attempted to clean up his comments. Gibbs released a point of clarification to Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent. Gibbs says that his comments were "inartful":

I watch too much cable, I admit. Day after day it gets frustrating. Yesterday I watched as someone called legislation to prevent teacher layoffs a bailout -- but I know that's not a view held by many, nor were the views I was frustrated about.

So what I may have said inartfully, let me say this way -- since coming to office in January 2009, this White House and Congress have worked tirelessly to put our country back on the right path. Most importantly, to dig our way out of a huge recession and build an economy that makes America more competitive and our middle class more secure. Some are frustrated that the change we want hasn't come fast enough for many Americans. That we all understand. . . .

In November, America will get to choose between going back to the failed policies that got us into this mess, or moving forward with the policies that are leading us out.
So we should all, me included, stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we've come too far to turn back now.

My Take
Gibbs' effort to clean up his comments will probably fail for two reasons. First, this is not the first time that senior White House officials have blasted liberals unfairly. Emanuel infamously called liberals "fucking retards." David Axelrod said that liberal critics of President Obama's failure to lobby for the public option were "insane." And Gibbs himself said that Howard Dean acted "irrationally" when he urged Congress to reject the moderate healthcare compromise originally proposed by a small group of moderate Senators.

Second, while the White House has had harsh words for liberals, it has not equally condemned moderates who have blocked or watered down favorable legislation. The White House seems to target liberals for criticism, while racing to make agreements with the center. Perhaps this is what the White House feels it needs to do to get Obama reelected. But this does not make liberal criticism of the White House unprincipled or unwarranted.

Statement By White House Official Shows Contempt for Electoral Process

Ben Smith of Politico says that Rahm Emanuel a senior White House official called him last night and condemned labor unions for pumping money into the Arkansas Democratic Senate primary. Incumbent Blanche Lincoln, who had the support of President Obama and former President Bill Clinton, defeated challenger Bill Halter in a run-off election. Labor unions strongly backed Halter.

Lincoln opposes several initiatives backed by labor groups, and she has sparked criticism among more liberal factions in the Democratic Party. Despite all of the melodramatic reporting of a surge of anger against incumbents, Lincoln won the election 52%-48%.

Now that Lincoln has actually won the election, at least one of her supporters in the White House has begun to gloat. According to Smith, the unnamed White House official made the following analysis of union support for Halter:

Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise. . .If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November.

This reasoning is horrific on many levels. Most importantly, it shows a great disrespect for the political process. Although I do not believe it is inherently unethical for presidents to favor political candidates, the idea that private groups waste money by supporting their preferred candidates (as opposed to White House-endorsed contenders) shows great deal of contempt for the political process.

Eddie Vale, a spokesperson for the AFL-CIO had sharp words for the White House official. Vale says that the labor union is not beholden to Democratic Party:

If that's their take on this, then they severely misread how the electorate feels and how we're running our political program. . .When they say we should have targeted our money among some key house races among Blue Dog Democrats — that ain't happening."

Labor isn't an arm of the Democratic Party. . .It exists to support working families. And that's what we said tonight, and that's what we're gong to keep saying.

Amen.

Final Take
The White House quote looks like a signature Rahm Emanuel hit. Agreed?

"Healthcare Lite": Does The White House Have a Fallback Position?

According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House has prepared a scaled-down healthcare reform package that would accomplish far less than the Obama administration's current proposal. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, however, says that this is not true.

Klein chides the Wall Street Journal for pushing the idea that the White House is considering "health-care lite." Klein, however, concedes that since August, the White House has debated the merits of a lighter reform package.

According to Klein, Rahm Emanuel pushed the idea of aiming low, believing that comprehensive reform either could not pass or that it would cost Democrats votes in the midterm elections. The Wall Street Journal also reports that Emanuel pushed a smaller package, but the article states that he did not design the alternative policy. Klein says that Emanuel pushed the idea again after Scott Brown won the Massachusetts senate race. According to Klein, however, advocates of the comprehensive plan won the debate on each occasion.

The Wall Street Journal article relies on anonymous sources. Klein's does too, but Klein's sources are from within the White House, while the Wall Street Journal does not cite White House sources -- even anonymously -- a factor that for Klein raises suspicion of attempted "sabotage."

Query: Dana Milbank's recent Washington Post article that reads like a personal marketing statement for Rahm Emanuel also states that Emanuel pushed a much smaller reform package. According to Milbank/Emanuel, President Obama's failure to listen to Emanuel was a terrible mistake. Could the Wall Street Journal article represent a last-ditch effort by Emanuel's people to bring attention to healthcare lite?

Update: Klein says that the Wall Street Journal has now updated the article without saying so; the new version drops a quote from an anonymous, senior White House official. But the clever Klein made a screen-capture of the original article.

Finally: White House Offers Detailed Healthcare Reform Plan

As promised, the White House has released a detailed proposal to reform the nation's healthcare and insurance systems. The White House proposals seeks to bridge the gaps between the House and Senate bills. The White House, however, used the Senate bill as a model.

Here are some of the substantive changes, as summarized by the New York Times:

To begin with, Mr. Obama would eliminate a controversial special deal for Nebraska — widely derided by Republicans as the “cornhusker kickback” — that called for the federal government to pay the full cost of a Medicaid expansion for that state. Instead, the White House would help all states absorb the cost of the Medicaid expansion from 2014, when it begins, until 2017.

And while the president adopts the Senate’s proposed excise tax on high-cost, employer sponsored insurance plans, Mr. Obama makes some crucial adjustments based on an agreement reached in January with organized labor leaders, while also trying to avoid the appearance of special treatment for unions. Most crucially, the president would delay imposing the tax until 2018 for all taxpayers, not just for health benefits provided through collectively-bargained union contracts. . . .

And the bill offers the Senate’s less restrictive language on abortion; it does not include the so-called “Stupak amendment,” which would bar insurers from offering abortion coverage to anyone buying a policy with a federal subsidy. The absence of the Stupak provision, named for Representative Bart Stupak, the conservative Michigan Democrat, could complicate matters for Mr. Obama in the House, where conservatives, led by Mr. Stupak, are adamant that the provision be included.

Mr. Obama largely adopted the Senate’s approach to paying for the legislation, including a proposed increase in the Medicare payroll tax for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and for couples earning more than $250,000.

He opted for the Senate’s proposal to create state-based insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, rather than a single national exchange as proposed by the House. . . .

Until now, President Obama has remained fuzzy regarding the specifics of healthcare reform. Instead, he has supported broad and general proposals and left much of the details to Congress.

Many critics contend that his muted voice on the issue has allowed conservatives to distort the terms of the debate and made the White House come across as lacking leadership. A recent Newsweek survey shows that respondents oppose the Democrats' healthcare proposals -- until they hear the details. These results suggests that people generally lack knowledge of the actual details regarding healthcare reform.

Some liberals are upset that President Obama accepted and promoted compromises (on matters like the public option) to appease moderates like Senators Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu. This new proposal might not alleviate the Left's frustration with the White House. But, perhaps, it will help provide the final political push to pass some semblance of reform.

Stunning News: White House Might Actually Release a Specific Position on Healthcare Reform

The White House recently sent out invitations for yet another round of talks regarding healthcare reform. A few bloggers -- and now mainstream media sources -- have noticed that the invitation includes the following language: "[W]e will post online the text of a proposed health insurance reform package" (emphasis added). If this in fact happens, it would represent the first concrete and specific legislative position on healthcare reform by the White House.

Many critics have faulted the White House for not taking specific positions during earlier stages of the reform process. Other commentators believe that White House leadership is essential to break the deadlock and to reach a compromise between the disparate House and Senate bills.

Perhaps, the White House has now stepped up to the plate. Or maybe this was the strategy all along -- for the White House to remain stealth until all of the "bloodshed" happened in the House and Senate and in public discourse. The merits of this possible strategy are certainly debatable.

Note: I first read about this last week on Nate Silver's blog. Ezra Klein reported it in the Washington Post today.

Did White House Dismiss GLBT Critics As Being Part of "Internet Left Fringe"?

Is there a grand leftwing conspiracy harassing President Obama? Maybe, according to a report by NBC news.

John Harwood, CNBC's Chief Washington Correspondent, reports that the White House is unconcerned with "the Left." Harwood, responding to a question regarding yesterday's GLBT rights march in Washington, explains that Obama is "doing well with 90% of Democrats" and that the White House views "this opposition" as part of the "Internet Left fringe."

Harwood also reports that one White House "advisor" told him that "those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult." I have several responses.

First, it is unclear whether the White House advisor used the "Internet Left Fringe" language, but it definitely clear that someone in the White House believes that the Left is merely a political irritant.

Second, it is unclear whether the "fringe" language was directed towards GLBT protesters alone or to the Left as a whole, but many bloggers have interpreted this as a slight to GLBT demonstrators. [Update: Harwood says that the phrase describes the "grumbling" Left in general.]

Third, the "pajamas" language is absolutely bankrupt and really demonstrates how "elite," "out of touch" and smug some politicos are. The "demeaning your critics" card is an old and pathetic approach to debate.

Fourth, the belief that Obama would do something extraordinary for progressives actually got him elected, in part. So, it is extremely ironic for this unnamed White House source to dismiss Leftists as pajamas-clad imbeciles.

Fifth, I am a proud member of the Internet Left Fringe (if that means "progressive critic of Obama"), but I never put much stock in the sweeping liberal rhetoric that surrounded Obama's election. I agreed with Hillary Clinton who said that "you campaign in poetry but govern in prose." I said a long time ago that the liberal euphoria surrounding Obama's candidacy was misguided and that Obama was going to govern from the center because the country was politically divided and that he was a moderate -- at best.

Nonetheless, I have always argued that progressives must push President Obama to implement progressive policies (which involves more than speeches). The history of progressive change in this country has always involved progressive social movements pushing moderate presidents and other politicians for liberal policies. The White House official's comments demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of history.

The comments also contradict the nation's current political climate. On some issues, like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a majority of Americans support the "liberal" outcome (repealing the discriminatory policy). So, by remaining sluggish on this deficit-neutral policy, Obama is catering to military brass, not to the public at large. Of course, a fight with the military brass could erode some of Obama's public support, but this does not mean that GLBT people who want an end to discrimination are fringe elements. Instead, we are simply reminding President Obama what he said before he was elected and issuing him a "call for action."

Here is the NBC footage, courtesy of YouTube:

Twilight Zone Alert: Conservatives Suddenly Oppose "Indoctrination" of Children

President Obama is scheduled to deliver a video message to school children next week. The message, billed as an event to inspire interest in education among students, has created controversy.

Educators, the Department of Education and the White House crafted educational materials to accompany the event. One question in the materials asks students to describe how they could "help" President Obama. It is unclear who designed this particular question, but it has has led to projectile vomiting among conservatives. In response, the White House has instructed educators to delete the offending materials.

Conservatives' Sudden Opposition to "Indoctrination" of Children
Personally, I find the idea of a video message from a president to the nation's young children a bit creepy. I found it even creepier, however, that President Bush was reading stories to children during and after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

But conservatives' sudden opposition to "indoctrination" of children is absolutely laughable -- and pathetically hypocritical. Conservatives have no problem with school officials leading children in Christian prayers or telling them the scientifically impossible myth that the Earth was created in 6 days by an omnipotent being who needed to "rest" after completing the project. They think it is faaah-bulous to force kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag. And they favor blatant restraints on students' First Amendment rights -- particularly when those students do not subscribe to socially conservative notions of morality. Yes -- conservatives are the ones trying to beat the admirably tolerant "Gay/Straight Alliances" out of public schools and to punish students who protest wars and who make political statements favoring drug use. But now, indoctrination is a terrible social harm.

Give me a friggin' break!

Obama and Gates: Two Unlikely "Race Men"

A week ago, the news circuit was ablaze over the arrest of Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates, a black man who teaches in the school's African and African American Studies department. Cambridge police arrested Gates after a neighbor called 911 to report a possible, though uncertain, burglary at his home. It turns out that Gates had to enter his home forcibly due to a malfunctioning lock on his front door. Despite identifying himself as the lawful occupant of the house, police initially did not believe him and subjected him to great scrutiny. After Gates protested his treatment, Officer James Crowley arrested him for "disorderly conduct."

Crowley said that he acted responsibly because the 911 caller said a "black man" was attempting to break into the home and that he only arrested Gates after he started behaving badly. The 911 tape, however, does not comport with the officer's description, and the caller has come forward to deny making a racial identification.

The District Attorney subsequently dropped the charge against Gates "in the interest of justice." Also, in a joint statement, the city and police department described the incident as "regrettable and unfortunate."

Two Unlikely Race Men
The arrest of Gates has led to a national conversation about race. Many commentators believe that race shaped the outcome of the scenario and that the arrest was another example of racial profiling. Others, however, dismissed this narrative and argued that police did nothing wrong when they responded to the 911 call or when they arrested Gates.

Upon reading some of the early articles regarding Gates' arrest, I felt that much of the analysis suggested that Gates -- an elite professor -- sustained an even greater injury from alleged racial profiling than poor and middle-class blacks who could inevitably detail numerous encounters they have experienced with police officers. I have discussed several of my own encounters with colleagues since the Gates incident. Being a law professor, however, does not make those moments worse. In fact, I probably escaped a lot of injury because I am both a lawyer and professor.

Gates
Although the incident has led to commentary regarding race, Gates is an unlikely symbol of racial protest. While Gates teaches in a race studies program, his work has focused much more on examining the historical aspects of black art, rather than examining issues of racial inequality and injustice (Note: I recognize that black artists have often focused on racial inequality). Gates shies away from controversial and socially damning commentary, which undoubtedly makes him attractive to faculty members at the numerous elite institutions where he has taught.

Many black men, most recently Colin Powell, have argued that they have learned to become extraordinarily humble in the presence of police in order to avoid an arrest -- or even worse outcomes. Although I believe that the First Amendment gives all of us the right to harangue cops, the Constitution has failed to prevent many angry cops from engaging in abusive and racially discriminatory behavior. Many whites report that they too submit to cops, but for black men, humility can mean life or death. It does not carry such stark choices for whites.

Obama
During a press conference on health care last week, a reporter asked Obama to comment on the arrest of Gates. In response, Obama said Crowley acted "stupidly." While I would not have chosen that word to describe Crowley's behavior (I can never imagine a situation requiring that I turn "stupid" into an adverb), the president's conclusion was not beyond the realm of reasonable commentary.

In fact, Obama was somewhat guarded, given the circumstances. The police arrested Gates after responding to a call that suggested someone could have been burglarizing his own home. Gates was arrested for protesting his treatment by the cops too zealously. But "protesting" police behavior is not a crime. Indeed, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has placed severe limits on the state's ability to enforce the "disorderly conduct" statute, given the First Amendment issues it implicates. Furthermore, the city and police department described the arrest as "regrettable and unfortunate," which suggests that it was not a reasonable outcome under the circumstances. Finally, the District Attorney sought dismissal of the charge "in the interest of justice." Given these reactions and the First Amendment, one could reasonably (even if inartfully) argue that Crowley acted "stupidly."

When Obama initially discussed the Gates incident, he did not accuse Crowley of racial motivation. Instead, he spoke about race in an abstract manner, saying that "racial profiling" continues and that he had sponsored legislation in Illinois to stop the practice. Obama's tepid racial analysis mirrors his general strategy on race. President Obama has sought to invoke race in ways that are ceremonial (e.g., celebrating MLK's birthday) or abstract (saying "we" all need to do better on race or that "racial profiling" still occurs). At the same time, Obama seeks to remain very distant from the thorny subject of racial politics (such as affirmative action) which causes discomfort among many whites.

During the presidential campaign, many of Obama's supporters and members of the news media (who were often indistinguishable), described him as a "post-racial" candidate. That description, however, ignores that subtle ways in which Obama used race to his advantage (e.g., emphasizing the "historic" nature of his campaign and downplaying race to comfort whites).

Despite his racial tightrope walk, Obama's comments regarding the Gates incident sparked controversy. Some commentators argued that he should not have placed blame with Crowley, arguing that Gates could have overreacted to the situation, causing his arrest. Some dismissed the relevance of race altogether. Others criticized Obama even as they openly praised racial profiling as a law enforcement tool.

Faced with criticism (which he seems to hate and want to avoid like the plague) on an issue (race) that he wants to ignore whenever possible, Obama backpedaled -- to such a degree that he invited both Gates and Crowley to the White House for a beer. Both individuals accepted, and tonight, the three men will come together for some hops.

Jake Tapper of ABC News has posted some interesting information on his blog that makes the presidential happy hour even more farcical than it already is: "The president, we are told, will be drinking Bud Light, Crowley will have Blue Moon, and Gates will have Red Stripe -- Red Light and Blue." Bleh.

My Take
Gates absolutely had the right to protest the incident, and I believe that race probably factored into his arrest. Once Crowley (finally) accepted the fact that Gates was not a burglar, he should have simply left the scene. But the "uppity" Gates harangued him, which by the officer's own admission led to the arrest. That race could have influenced the officer's conduct does not make him an awful or incompetent individual. Instead, it demonstrates the subtle or unconscious operation of race, even among generally well meaning individuals.

Gender probably mattered as well. The battle between two men - one black, the other white -- over "public dignity" and power is a classic one.

Regardless of whether race was a factor, I agree that the officer acted inappropriately in arresting Gates (so ignore the race angle if it bothers you). The First Amendment permits all of us to criticize cops, especially on political issues such as racial justice. Despite this fact, the President will chug a brew with both Gates and Crowley in order to make everyone "get along" after he almost talked about race. Perhaps the trio will exchange a few manly slaps on each others' arms and share "high fives" as they laugh the regrettable and unfortunate incident right out of their hair.

Obama will likely escape the messy racial thicket that he has spent a lot of time and energy avoiding. And while his backpedaling on this issue might help him politically, it does not give serious treatment to the important issue of race in our society. Consequently, the president's behavior is regrettable and unfortunate.

Dissenting Justice on the DOMA Brief, Part II: The Legal Arguments

Yesterday, President Obama hosted members of GLBT rights organizations at the White House. Formally, the meeting commemorated "LGBT Pride Month." Underneath the surface, however, the meeting served a different purpose. Obama convened the gathering in order to alleviate growing anxiety among GLBT organizations concerning his commitment to gay rights.

Although Obama promised to seek the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the military continues to discharge personnel based solely on sexual orientation, and the Department of Justice recently filed a brief that defends the constitutionality of DOMA. The government's defense of DOMA led to stinging criticism of President Obama by many prominent GLBT rights advocates.

[Note: A previous blog entry on Dissenting Justice analyzes the political rifts the brief caused. This essay and a subsequent one examine the legal content of the brief.]

DOMA 101
DOMA contains two major provisions. One section of the statute declares that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages that other states consider legitimate. This part of the law purports to authorize states not to extend "full faith and credit" to same-sex marriages.

The other important section of DOMA adopts a heterosexual definition of "marriage" for federal programs. This part of the law denies same-sex couples any benefit (or obligation) that federal law extends to married couples, such as health care, joint-tax filing, etc.

The Brief
The government's brief argues that DOMA is constitutional in all respects. Surprisingly, the full faith and credit arguments have received the heaviest criticism -- even though this particular part of the statute is not really the most damaging to same-sex married couples. In the absence of DOMA, states that disapprove of same-sex marriage would probably still decline to recognize these marriages, which would lead to the same type of litigation that DOMA has already caused. Furthermore, it is likely that the Supreme Court -- not Congress -- will probably have the final say on what the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires of states in this setting.

The denial of federal benefits, however, is solely within the control of the federal government. According to the President's own previous statements, DOMA denies over 1,100 benefits to same-sex married couples. Even if individual states recognize same-sex marriages, DOMA still makes those marriages meaningless for purposes of federal law.

Standard Full Faith and Credit Analysis or Equating Same-Sex Marriage and Incest?
The Constitution requires states to give "Full Faith and Credit. . .to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. . . ." Based largely on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, states traditionally have recognized marriages performed in other states.

The government's principal argument in defense of DOMA's full faith and credit provision contends that courts have allowed states to deny recognition of marriages from other states that violate their own "public policy." The relevance of the public policy exception to same-sex marriage has received an enormous amount of attention from legal scholars. Furthermore, the government's discussion of the exception represents a fairly routine way of analyzing the legal issues presented by the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Despite its unexceptional nature, this section of the brief has inflamed many GLBT advocates because the Department of Justice cites to a series of cases that apply the public policy exception and allow states to deny recognition of certain marriages. These cases include an incestuous marriage between an uncle and his niece, a marriage involving a 16-year-old, and a marriage between first cousins.

John Aravosis at Americablog wrote a very critical analysis of this part of the brief which makes the following observations: "Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children. . . .Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional. . . ."

These arguments, however, severely misrepresent the content of the brief. Certainly, the precedent deal with incest and age requirements for marriage, but these cases merely support the proposition that states can object to marriages that contravene their own public policy. They do not, however, turn on the general morality or desirability of the particular marriages, which were in fact legal in the "home" states. Instead, the cases conclude that where a public policy conflict exists, states can deny recognition without violating the Constitution. Finally, the brief never equates same-sex marriage with incest or "child rape" -- neither explicitly or implicitly.

These cases do not necessarily justify the nonrecognition of same-sex marriage by states, but they also do not substantiate the deepest public criticism of the brief by GLBT advocates -- that the Department of Justice brief compares same-sex marriage to incest and child rape. This argument is simply wrong.

Other scholars who advocate GLBT rights have taken a similar view. Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a longterm proponent of GLBT rights, describes the arguments by Aravosis and many other critics as "irresponsible attacks." Also, Chris Geidner, author of Law Dork, wrote an extensive essay that responds to the distortions Aravosis made and continues to make.

I enjoy reading Americablog, and have previously cited to it. I abhor and have criticized the homophobic linkage of same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia. I was also one of the first bloggers to question Obama's commitment to GLBT rights, which I continue to do. Nevertheless, the DOMA brief, though awful in many respects, does not equate same-sex marriage with incest or child molestation.

Concluding Thoughts
Although many pro-GLBT advocates have unfairly criticized the Obama administration's defense of DOMA's full faith and credit provision, they are generally correct in condemning the government's argument that DOMA does not deny equal protection to same-sex married couples. In fact, if courts accept the equal protection analysis in the DOMA brief, this would represent a major setback for GLBT rights and would have negative implications beyond DOMA.

Accordingly, the Obama administration's equal protection position absolutely conflicts with his campaign promises -- although during yesterday's meeting, he downplayed any inherent conflict between his defense of DOMA and his "commitment to reversing this law." Obama's words, however, do not stand up to honest scrutiny. Alas, in the interest of space and time, I must defer my analysis of the equal protection arguments to another day. Stay tuned.

Rush: The New Bush

It didn't take long for the White House to begin distancing itself from the Democrats' effort to smear the GOP by attacking Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday, Politico.Com -- indisputably an Obama-friendly zone -- published a very persuasive article that links the recent flurry of discourse surrounding Limbaugh to a strategy orchestrated by Democratic Party operatives, including Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg.

White House: Part of the Limbaugh Strategy
The Politico article also concludes that the White House embraced the Limbaugh strategy. Specifically, White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs agreed to utilize it.

On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel described Limbaugh as "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Tuesday, Gibbs snidely commented on Michael Steele's "apology" to Limbaugh (which Steele only offered after taking the Democrats' bait and condemning Limbaugh during a CNN interview). And yesterday, the Washington Post published a 2-page op-ed by David Plouffe, Obama's presidential campaign manager, which describes Limbaugh as the "Minority Leader."

By the end of the day, however, the White House attempted to distance itself from the flap it helped to create. Gibbs for example, stated at a press conference that his criticism of Limbaugh and other media personalities was "counterproductive."

Why Beat Up Limbaugh?
Limbaugh is not a politician, but he is an influential voice among the rightwing. The GOP needs conservative voters, but it also needs to make its image more moderate in order to win national and state elections. The Democrats want to complicate this task by portraying the party as extremely conservative and "out of touch" with Americans.

During the last eight years, Bush -- and Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Rice -- served as the poster child for Democratic anger. Disappointment with Bush helped Obama and other Democrats win their respective elections. The Democrats realize that creating a political "enemy" can allow them to energize and organize voters to support the party and its candidates.

Why I Do Not Like This Strategy
There's a greater likelihood that Obama will invite me to the White House to "live-blog" his daily activities than there is a chance that Limbaugh and I will agree on any important social issue. I find Limbaugh and his views distasteful, hypocritical, and [insert many other negative adjectives]. But I vehemently disagree with this strategy, despite its potential effectiveness in helping Democrats. Here's why.

Distraction
First, this strategy fuels sensationalism and detracts from very important social issues. Rather than discussing deep social problems, the Democrats are creating a new poster child of evil to bash and demonize. Meanwhile, unemployment is soaring (especially in communities of color), people still lack health care, the stock market is plunging, the country is fighting two costly and deadly wars, and Osama bin Laden is somewhere tiptoeing through the tulips.

Despite this terrible reality, Rush Limbaugh, rather than complex social issues, captivates the Democrats and media. That is absolutely indefensible, and it betrays voters who thought they were getting change, rather than "more of the same."

Party versus Policy
Second, this strategy elevates the Democratic Party, not liberal policy. One could argue (as some readers have) that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the passage of liberal reform. I disagree with this idea. Instead, I believe that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the reelection of Democratic politicians, which will allow them to increase their own political and economic power.

Electing Democrats does not guarantee that liberal reform will take place. This is particularly true when party officials convince voters to treat politics as a battle of personalities rather than a battle over policies and principles. Both sides are guilty of this (think, "slimy neocon rightwinger" versus "looney tree-hugging liberal"). With many liberal voters and social movements fixated upon beating up Republicans and cheering for Democrats, Democratic politicians can avoid implementing true liberal reform and can even get away with continuing practices that progressives condemned during the Bush administration (such as rendition).

Democrats will only "support" enough liberal issues to secure their reelection. If they can improve their party's "brand" and their own election prospects by bashing Limbaugh and other Republicans, then this is an easier and less-expensive route to political success. It is certainly easier than planning and implementing strategies that address entrenched social problems.

Makes the Other Party Look Good
Finally, the Democrats' demonization of Limbaugh risks making the GOP look better in the eyes of voters. At a minimum, it allows Republicans to claim a higher moral ground and, perhaps, to mend their image.

Today, the Washington Post contains an op-ed written by Representative John Boehner, the House Minority Leader. Although I highly doubt that Boehner and I agree on many social issues, I prefer his analysis much more than the anti-Limbaugh lunacy emerging from my own party. The Democrats' foray into dirt allows Boehner to take the moral high ground, which he does when he offers the following sober analysis:

In the first two months of 2009, the Democratic Congress and the White House have spent more money than the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the response to Hurricane Katrina. After they doled out taxpayer dollars at such a blistering pace, the instinct of many inside the Beltway is to do what's most convenient: desperately try to change the subject by creating straw men -- called "the party of no" -- to rally against.

And in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh, and away from a debate about our alternative solutions on the economy and the irresponsible spending binge they are presiding over. This diversionary tactic will not create a single job or help a single family struggling in today's economic crisis. And that is where our focus should be.

Boehner, a politician, contends that Republicans offer better solutions for today's problems. I disagree with this assertion, but I certainly prefer his analysis over Limbaughmania.

Remember the Drama Over Those Missing White House Emails?

On another blog, someone questioned my liberal credentials because I methodically point out the blatant inconsistencies in the LOUDNESS of liberal criticism of Bush's policies compared with liberal silence or defensiveness when Obama replicates these same practices. But with new material emerging on a daily basis, I find it hard to let go of this role.

Bush's lack of transparency made him less than human to many liberals. [Editor's Note: For the literalists, that was sarcasm.] One issue that provoked liberal outcry during his administration centered around the loss of millions of White House emails. Although the Bush administration reported that it recovered and made public many of the emails, two advocacy groups that have sued the government say that the White House has not done enough. Recently, however, the Department of Justice decided to maintain Bush's position that the court should dismiss the lawsuits.

The Department of Justice wants to win cases. It represents the government. It is not "evil" for lawyers to argue for the dismissal of lawsuits against their clients. Lawyers have a natural and fixed desire -- and an ethical obligation -- to provide zealous advocacy for their clients. Accordingly, I do not disagree with the DOJ taking a firm stand defending the White House against the email litigation.

Nevertheless, if McCain had continued along this path, we would have heard numerous cries that he was "more of the same." Now, we only hear scattered criticism. What justifies the divergent reactions?