Raising a (half) glass to the Legislature

Well the hostage crisis legislative session is over, and now it is time to grade the folks on "temporarily" reside on Capitol Hill every winter.

In no particular order...

• Liquor reform: The nation's most popular governor finally got something he wanted, an update to our liquor laws to make them more like the rest of the country. Gone are "private clubs," which were really just bars that were required by law to charge a cover fee. Ditto to the silly stickers on booze which did nothing but give you cache that you bought your alcohol at the state stores rather than smuggled it in (and cost the state $1M/year in printing costs). Same goes for the so-called Zion Curtain that made places separate their bar from the rest of their resturant with a glass wall. In exchange, there are tougher penalties for repeat DUIs and scanning of IDs of people who look like they might be under 35 (aka possibly faking). If only the weak beer rule would go away, along with the "no bar hopping" zoning rules, we would be just like everywhere else. This will be good for tourism, which in turn is good for the state's economy.


• ethics reform: very minor improvements were made, and relucantly as well (I have to say I am dissipointed in Sen. Ross Romero (D-SLC) for putting his foot down at one year). The revolving door of legislators turned lobbyists is now delayed by 1 year...and it barely passed. Why does this matter? Former Speaker Greg Curtis is now a lobbyists for tabbacco interests, and "surprisingly" ciggarette taxes didn't happen this year, the only politically popular tax, along with a host of other anti-smoking bills.


• The Budget: no thanks to Reps. Bishop and Chaffetz (as well as Sens. Hatch and Bennett), a half a billion dollar plug was put into the state budget from the federal stimulus package, enabling previously draconian cuts to important items like education to became more limited and precise. Still, another half billion had to be cut, meaning some government workers lost their jobs in a recession, and some good programs were harmed with the bad ones that were cut. Still, it could of been worse.


• Tone: Sen. Bramble tried again to get back at teachers unions and the PTA for supporting the anti-voucher referendum. The anti-union bill (I think succeeded) but the PTA bill went down in flames. Sen. Buttars was an offensive moron again, but other than that, legislators got along much better and tried working with the other side in a constuctive fashion. I hear that everyone was much more relaxed and content going into the last day, and no stunts were pulled. They even ended "early," which always makes legislators less grumpy.

Overall, not as bad as it could have been, but it certainly could have been better. I still think the fiction of a part-time legislature should be ended so that the "saved by the bell" excuse will go away and people can honestly say why a bill was killed.

AG stands for Aspiring Senator

Two years ago, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff visited my State and Local Government law class to discuss how he handled the Polygamous theocracy in Hildale, Utah and what powers the state and county officials had to reign in rouge city officials who obeyed Warren Jeffs over the law. It was an interesting talk, and I commend Shurtleff for the work he did regarding polygamists, especially when you contrast it with the heavy-handed and disastrous approach of his counterparts in Texas.

Shertleff's shtick is always "aw-chucks" country boy whose charm and false modesty is supposed to grow on you. The prior fall, he was very good at debating the other candidates for the AG position at my law school as well using that approach.

After his lecture to my seminar, there was time for questions, so I asked: "The old saying goes 'A.G. stands for Aspiring Governor'" He then chuckled, I continued, asking him if he had plans for future statewide office like Governor. He replied with some trope about finishing out this term as A.G. which would be his last and denying any ambitions for anything else.

Since he is a politician, and a pretty successful one at that, I didn't expect the truth, but I did want him on the record as pretending he didn't want to go higher than A.G.

Potential challengers from his own party have already started lining up for the 2010 race and none is bigger than Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who huddled with some D.C. fundraisers Wednesday, while in town for a meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General.

"I've always wanted to serve in the Senate," Shurtleff told The Salt Lake Tribune .

The attorney general isn't a candidate yet -- at least formally. He wants to run and believes he has the makings of a formidable challenger, but isn't ready to commit out of concern for his family.

"I've still got a 12-year-old, a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old. We are not going to move," he said. That means, if elected, he would have to commute back and forth each week. "Is this the right time for my family?"

He has sought advice from Utah Reps. Jim Matheson and Jason Chaffetz, who commute to D.C. during the week and fly back to their young children on the weekends.

That's right, the same Matheson that he falsely maligned back when it was politically convenient to do so. Yeah, Shurtleff is a real family man who isn't a hack, I get it.

Shurtleff said he has also done some "significant polling" and the results make him only more eager to run.

"He [Bennett]'s vulnerable. He knows it," he said.

A number of Republicans are thinking about challenging Sen. Bennett from the right, and the party's rules are kooky enough that one of them might force Bennett into a primary election. And Shurtleff would be one most capable of tacking back into the mainstream.

Beyond Shurtleff, Mike Lee, who was Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'former general counsel, and former Juab County Attorney David Leavitt, have expressed interest in running for Bennett's seat.

Originally, Shurtleff's political plan was to serve out his term and then take a shot at running for governor. But that changed last fall, when Congress passed the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Bennett was one of the key Senate Republicans negotiating that plan.

"People are pretty upset with that bailout. Now that they know he had a role in it, they are not happy at all," Shurtleff said.

He said he also is unhappy with the way Senate Republicans operated under former President George W. Bush.

"They were just spending us into oblivion," he said.

After Shurtleff floated his name as a potential candidate, Bennett gave him a call and asked him to serve as the co-chairman of his re-election campaign.

Ah, so right-wing "populism" it is. Bennett, with his Appropriations Committee membership, has made it his job to bring home the bacon for Utah, while Hatch gets his celebrity "friends" out of jail.

While one state's bacon is another's pork, most states are want to part with their own Senator Pothole. Alaska didn't part with Ted Stevens until AFTER he had been convicted of seven felonies, and even then it was extremely close. It takes decades for senators to build up seniority on important committees like Approps. That's why Sen. Clinton is now Sec. Clinton, she wanted to be a player in the health care reform legislation but senate lions like Sen. Kennedy (class of 1960) told her hands off.

The point is, I doubt Bennett will lose. If he really was that vulnerable, you would hear talk that Jim Matheson was thinking about running. As it is Jim seems content to stay put, unless something opens up.

Will Bishop and Chaffetz stand against Utah's Fourth?

Most of you who have been following the quest for Utah to get that 4th seat that was so narrowly denied to it in 2000 are also aware that the bill in Congress that would give Utah its extra seat is a debatable constitutional issue.

Now that the Senate has passed a bill that gives Utah another seat, DC a seat, and forces DC to end its restrictive gun laws, passage of a DC-for-Utah bill seems inevitable and since Obama was a co-sponsor, it will become law in the next few months. All of this means a constitutional challenge will occur in the next few months as well, and the issue will go before the U.S. Supreme Court perhaps as soon as October, who will have to decide whether the part of the Constitution that basically allows the Congress to do whatever it wants with the District of Columbia trumps the part of the Constitution about the make-up of the House (that is, its members have to be from States).

But in the law, and especially in Chief Justice Roberts' jurisprudence, anyone challenging the facial constitutionality of a bill must have standing and the issue must be ripe. Now for those of you who didn't go to law school, that means there needs to be a real party in interest whose injury is real and would almost immediately harm the party seeking to overturn the challenged law. So a U.S. Senator does not have standing, nor your average voter in any state or protectorate other than D.C. and Utah (under Roberts' other case law, but who says you have to be consistent versus politically expedient?). No, it would have to be a member of the U.S House whose vote is being diluted by 2/437ths (I am not good with fractions) due to two more members being added to the House. And since everyone except me thinks it will be a wash partisan wise (i.e. 1 GOPer from Utah, 1 Dem from DC), the national political parties also don't have standing.

So that leaves U.S. House Republicans that voted against the bill. And strategically, it is best to have the lead Plaintiffs be not someone like Minority Leader John Boehner from Ohio, but Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz from Utah, so that it doesn't look like big states against Utah and DC. The question is, are these two men ready to be the poster boys of a cause to reduce the potential voting power of their state? Do they want to be the ones that will tell voters in Utah that Utahns really only need them and Jim Matheson to represent them in the House, and that they should just wait until 2012 like good children? Good luck on running statewide when a senate seat opens up or Huntsman steps down.

More on that box

So I am in line for security here at the airport and occured to me
that I didn't finish my thought on Buttars. It defies belief that GOP
senators thought that Buttars would refrain from making outrageously
homophobic comments (the kind that gets you national attention),
especially given the push for the Common Ground Initative.

They knew or should have known this blow up was going to occur, so it
leads me to believe Waddoups et al wanted it to happen. To distract
the public from massive cuts and payback to the teacher's union.

Otherwise, it makes no sense. And good for McCoy for calling their bluff.

Can't keep crazy in a box

OK, so I couldn't resist posting about Utah State Sen. Chris Buttars after I read the latest article by SL Tirbune Reporter Robert Gehrke. It explains why Sen. Buttars was babbling on and on about free speech:

Senate leaders disciplined Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, not for anti-gay comments he made in a recent interview, but because he violated a deal with leadership that he not talk about gay issues, a senator said Saturday.

The irony here is Buttars didn't need to talk about "them gays," thus far, every single one of the Common Ground Initiative bills have gone down in flames, despite the fact that they are popular with Utahns and Utah's popular governor.

Perhaps Buttars is his own worst enemy, and one of these very reasonable and moderate proposals will have renewed life in the legislature. Although I think that sadly the most popular things to do in the legislature is a) whatever ex-Speaker Curtis likes b) cut budgets c) bash teh gay and d) give the gun lobby whatever it wants.

"It [Buttars being stripped of his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee] happened, not because he said a lot of things wrong, but because he decided to be the spokesman [on gay issues] again," [Sen. Howard] Stephenson [(R-Draper)] said.
[...]
"I think the bulk of people in Utah agree with 90 percent of what he said," Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, said on Stephenson's radio show.

That right there is the problem with this whole thing in a nutshell: they agree with Buttars, but he is a dristraction from their agenda. That and Sen. Stephenson has his own radio show. Gee, I wonder who has the advantage in that primary or general election.

Utahns [heart] TRAX/FrontRunner

Sometimes, it seems that forcing something on people that you know they will like really is a good idea.

A survey by the University of Utah's Center for Public Policy & Administration finds overwhelming public support for continued investment in rail transit projects. Among 1,002 residents polled statewide, 79 percent said continued funding for rail projects either is very important or somewhat important.

Among the 546 interviewed within the Utah Transit Authority's service area, that support spurted to 81 percent, said Jennifer Robinson, associate director for the U.'s center.

That is a huge level of support. And it reminds me of the astounded repeated mantra of a local news reporter on election night a few years back, who kept saying that Utah taxpayers had voted to increase their taxes for light rail. Clearly, he had either voted against it, or disbelieved the polling, or both.

People who live in the southern suburbs love the fact that they can take light rail to work, or a Jazz game, or to the U, to the SLC Temple, the Nutcraker, etc. People who live in the northern suburbs are starting to enjoy FrontRunner, and soon people from Provo to Draper will love it too. Out of towners will love taking TRAX from the airport to their hotel downtown.

Now I could dwell on the latest follies of the Utah Senate with their designated moron D. Chris Buttars, or the much-too-soon death of Utah Jazz owner/genius businessman Larry H. Miller, but on this sunny Saturday, I would rather focus on positive things.

next up, health care for all?

Now that the stimulus package was passed with Sens. Al Franken or Ted Kennedy being able to vote (that's right, thanks to court rulings there is virtually no way Coleman wins his election contest)...it is on to the next big challenge: affordable, quality health care for every American.

OK well, actually there is still a budget to pass...which is why the what's in or out of the stimulus package didn't give me much heartburn. And that doesn't need 60 votes, just 51.

And as messy and "bad process" as it is, the budget can be a vehicle to pass pieces of health care reform. Already, sCHIP was expanded and health care records have money to be digitized to reduce errors and save costs. Money can go towards giving every American company state, and individual the ability to buy into the federal employees' plan at a sliding scale. Or giving Medicare the ability to negotiate prescription drug prices like the VA does. Or fixing Medicare part D in other ways to get rid of the 50 gillion different plans that make no sense and eliminate the so-called donut hole of coverage.

And then we can rehash the Edwards-Clinton-Obama debate of how you get everyone covered: mandate or affordability first. Shockingly, Utahns agree with Clinton, but maybe because Romney supported it in Massachusetts (before he ran for president).

As you know from paying your bills, private insurance sucks. It fights you at at every turn to not have to pay whatever it is you need, it screws up when it bills, it sends you fake bills. I could go on and on, but every one has insurance horror stories because the system is disfunctional with reverse preverse incentives. The current system is crippling our competitiveness with other countries who do over universal coverage. Just ask GM.

Utah animus

"Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests." -- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)

While Justice Kennedy was talking about an amendment before Colorado voters, he might have well been talking about the rationale behind the shooting down of each piece of the Common Ground initiative that has come to a vote this year at the legislature.

Common Ground foes argue that extending rights to same-sex couples or recognizing sexual orientation as a protected class undermines Utah's constitutionally enshrined edict that marriage is only between a man and a woman. They warn that even seemingly benign gay-rights measures put Utah on a "slippery slope" toward a court ruling that would legalize same-sex marriage, like in California last year.

"I don't use this word lightly: That's false," says Clifford Rosky, a family law professor at the University of Utah's law school. "Utah courts can't ignore the Utah Constitution."

Even though they know there is no way that these bills effect the same-sex marriage ban in the constituation, they want to claim otherwise because these "traditional marriage supporters" really just think gays and lesbians are icky to some degree. Enough that they believe homosexuals shouldn't be able to visit their partner in the hospital when the partner is sick, or sue when their partern gets hit by drunk driver, or collect on insurance from their partner.

And the Sumpremes have said not liking a group of people is not good enough reason for denying them rights that other people have.

like 1993 all over again

Obama hasn't even been in the Oval Office a month, and I am beginning to see Bill Clinton's disasterous beginning repeated.

I read George Sephanopolis' book "All too human" this summer and was struck by how many early mistakes the Clinton Administration made and how that limited their ability to get their agenda through. Some was self-made stupidity like making an off-hand comment about gays in the military and letting it spin out of control during the transition, then handing the keys over to Colin Powell on the issue. But many were Republican made, like "nanny-gate" that did in many designates for cabinet posts.

16 years later, it was bad tax filings. Not that Republicans made these nominees file erroneous taxes or hire illegal aliens for nannies, but that in the overall picture, these issues are not that important to these candidates qualifications. And the true goal in both situations was not to get a better qualified nominee, but to make the new Democratic President look bad and weaken him.

Republicans remember 1994 and 2002, the lesson they learned was not to compromise with Democrats and the American voter will reward them.

Obama needs to learn the lesson of 2005, if you stand up and ask what the American people think, you can stop silliness like social security privitization. He has high approval ratings and a large majorit of people want this stimulous bill done NOW not in general, so press your case Mr. President.

sympathy for the lobbyists

The Salt Lake Tribune is doing a series of exposes critical stories puff-pieces on lobbyists.

Sure, lobbyists are people too and they should be able to talk to legislators and try to convince them by the power of her ideas. But they shouldn't have more access than citizens and they shouldn't be able to get access because they are related to a famous person, like Sen. Hatch.

the legislators are in the details

The public just got a sneak preview of the ethics bills that the leadership of the Utah House approve. And I have to say there are some genuinely good things in there, like a 1 year prohabition of lobbying by ex-members, ban on personal use of left over campaign cash, and gift ban on anything over $10 (excluding meals, but +$15 meals would have to be disclosed).

But as usual, there was no consultation with House Democrats, and it appears very little with rank-and-file Republicans either. But the best part was at the end of the article:

Representatives asked how the bill would affect legislators who are also registered lobbyists and Dee punted. "Perhaps the different body needs to address that," he said. Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, is also a registered lobbyist for the Utah Taxpayers Association.

Classic.

Utah Representatives against (increased) representation

In all of my blabbing about how stupid it was for Rep. Chaffetz to go against the DC/Utah seat bill, I forgot there was an inaugual member of the Utah Representatives against (increased) Representation: Rep. Bishop

New Rep. Jason Chaffetz says the bill is unconstitutional, and Rep. Rob Bishop, who voted present on the legislation last time, questions whether it would even help Utah since the state likely will get a fourth member anyway.

"The value for Utah is well past," Bishop said Tuesday. He said he wasn't sure whether he was against the bill, but ticked off reasons why he wasn't backing it.

Yeah I am sure he will either vote against it or do the brave thing a vote present. I would rather have a sure seat now than wait 4 years for a likely seat. Bishop is even lamer than Chaffetz, who at least is hiding behind a pluasable constitutional law argument.

So why do 20% of the Utah delegation not support a bill that would increase the power of their state? Is it because they don't want competition for running for Governor or Senate when Hatch or Bennett retire/die? Do they hate D.C. that much? Are they afraid that Jim Matheson will run in the redder district and another Democrat will win the bluer seat after redistricting? Someone please explain this to me.

the end is the beginning

s it bright where you are
And Have the people changed
Does it make you happy you're so strange
And in your darkest hour
Now all secrets fade
We can watch the world devoured in its pain

--The Beginning is the End is the Beginning, Smashing Pumpkins.

Remember this time of year eight years ago? Bill Clinton was doing his midnight regulations and pardons, his 11th-hour Middle East Peace attempt had failed, and Yasser Arafat had declared the Second Infidata, and what almost was a lasting peace broke out into all out war right when the U.S. was transitioning from Clinton to Bush.

That following summer, I was an intern for Rep. Jim Matheson, and us lowly House interns got ask Colin Powell some questions. Someone stood up and said, "what about Israel/Palistine?" The Secretary of State gave us the standard B.S. line about how it is a "top priority" of the Bush Administration. Sure was, that's why they never did anything but photo ops for years while the people living in the land of Caanan suffered and died at the hands of Hamas, random terrorist groups, or the IDF.

Hamas is using the people of the Gaza Strip as props in the political moves to gain more power. They approved of more rocket strikes into Israel. And Israel is equally political in this incursion which they admit will not remove Hamas or the rockets or anything else. But hey, an election is comming up for PM, and all of the potential candidates are trying to out Hawk each other, reality be damned.

Obama should dispatch Bill Clinton to get a temporary end to the fighting. I always find it embarressing when the French trump us diplomatically because the U.S. is too preoccupied to get seriously involved.

what a year

Can you believe it is the end of 2008 already? The year has gone by slowly and quickly at times, but I guess since I am getting older, time moves more quickly in relative terms. In the last few years, I have been countercyclical in the sense that I started to law school when George W. Bush got his second term, I got two great jobs as everyone else seemingly began to lose theirs. Part of me feels guilty for this fact, that I am somehow causing it. Like those sports fans who insist that if they don't watch a game just so, their team will lose.

There are so many good stories nationally and locally to follow but of late, I have dropped the ball given my new employment. Currently, I am in the eye of the storm and so I can peek out and say hello to whomever still reads my ramblings.

I am still bubbling with things to say about all of these topics de jour and maybe some day I will have time to spill them out on to this blog. Until then, enjoy celebrating an arbitrary ending to an arbitrary year where so much changed for better and for worse. Stay safe and let's hope and pray and work to make 2009 much better for those suffering from the effects of years past.

Happy Christmas Eve

I saw this snowman and his snowdog (complete with twine leash) while walking my own dog last night.

Drive carefully and best of luck on your travels.

backup quarterback

I know, I know tired old sports analogy, coming right up.

So have you noticed that Senate Republicans appear to be gearing up to get a scalp in January, namely Eric Holder, Obama's nominee for Attorney General? As much as I am sure the nation would love to watch a political "scandal" version of "I love the 90s," I think Obama has other plans.

Namely, his old Harvard Law School buddy Rep. Arthur Davis (D-AL) is waiting the wings to be his disignee instead of Holder. Why else would Obama have asked for the FBI to do a background check on Davis, and why else would Davis agree to do it? There isn't another appointment left open that Davis would be willing to trade a safe House seat for other than to be A.G.?

I think Obama's people are considering weather to cut Holder loose and go with Davis, and whether the risks of having a nasty confirmation fight outweigh the risk of changing nominees.

ever to true to Brown

Since my boss is stuck in Twin Falls or some place and the office shut down at 4, I decided to head home early and read the backlog of magazines.

I started to read about Thomas Tamm, one of the whistle blowers on the NSA's illegal wiretapping that eventually hit the New York Times and three things jumped out at me:

1. I have walked by the payphone Tamm used to call the Times many times, and I hope in the future it will become as famous as the Watergate landmarks of Washington, or the Hilton where Reagan was shot.


2. While the FBI may be terrible at stopping terrorist attacks, or finding the anthrax mailer, they are terrific at making your life miserable in hopes that you will confess and they can be done with it.



3. Tamm himself, after graduating from Brown University in 1974 and Georgetown Law three years later, chose a different path in law enforcement.

   I am proud to say I am a fellow alumnus.

Spiting his face

Can you believe that we are half way through December? It seems there is not enough time in the day to do all of the things I need to do, at work and at home. And the things I used to do, like post to this blog, have unfortunately fallen by the wayside. So while I haven't as much time as I would like to digest the day's news and commentary, one thing I read recently struck me:

Jason Chaffetz is determined to continue the legacy of Chris Cannon by being as overly partisan and embarrassing to his state and constituents as Cannon was. Case in point: Utah's mythical 4th seat.

[Caffetz] is breaking with the rest of the state's delegation by saying he opposes a plan that would give Utah a fourth seat in the House and add a seat for the District of Columbia.

Republican Jason Chaffetz says he's opposed to the bill because he believes giving Washington, D.C. full voting rights in the House is unconstitutional.

Jason cares more about continuing to disenfranchise overwhelmingly Democratic and not coincidentally overwhelmingly African-American D.C. than he cares about increasing his state's power in the House. Is he worried that Jim Matheson would take one seat and a Becker/Corroon-type would take the lean-Dem seat?

We all know the constitutionality argument is a smokescreen for something else. Jason's ideological peers are the same congress-critters that voted to intervene in a lawsuit between the husband and parents of a brain-dead woman, the same ones that voted for the Military Commissions Act (which stripped detainees of the writ of Habeas Corpus without a state of civil war or invasion), the same ones that looked the other way or promoted bills that would condone or allow the U.S. government to torture people (in clear violation of signed treaties, which have equal force as the constitution itself).

So why cut off another seat to spite your state? To me, no other explanation makes sense besides the partisan one: if D.C. gets a seat, that is one more liberal Democrat in the House. He probably figures that Utah will get that seat in 4 years anyway, so why give up a seat to D.C.? How about because now the Democrats can give D.C. its seat without giving Utah one? Or making D.C. a state, and therefore also creating 2 more Democratic senators?

The news out of Minnesota sounds like Al Franken has a pretty good chance of pulling out a narrow victory, making 59 members of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate (including Lieberman and Sanders). All you need therefore is one scared GOP senator to vote with you to overcome cloture and the Dems could pass it even with a filibuster threat.

And there are plenty of those. Specter looks like he will get serious challenges from the left and right, if he decides to stick around (he has stage 4 Hodgkins's Disease)...and Pennslyvannia has gone Democratic since 1992. There are numerous other senators in bluing states that could be picked off on an issue by issue basis.

Jason, in short, is a freshman GOP House member during worst time to be a conservative partisan-hack back bencher. But he seems determined to stay as clueless as Cannon.

all over but the constitutional amendments

Over half the states in the union (29) have articles in their state constitutions banning gay marriage, including, most recently, California. Arizona was the only state in which such an amendment actually failed any time it proposed, but then it passed this year. Only two states allow actual marriages (Connecticut and Massachusetts) and a handful more allow civil unions for same-sex couples. So why are gay rights advocates feeling positive? Time, in short, is on their side.

The GLAAD poll -- conducted the week after voters outlawed gay marriage in California, Arizona and Florida -- shows that majorities of U.S. adults support expanding hate-crime laws to include gay people (63 percent), offering some type of legal recognition to same-sex couples (75 percent) and extending rights to fair housing and employment to gay and transgender people (51 percent). Nearly 70 percent oppose laws -- Utah has one -- that prevent gay and lesbian couples from adopting children.
...
GLAAD's [poll also found] that 47 percent of U.S. adults back gay marriage -- with 49 percent opposed (within the poll's 2 percent margin of error).

So that means that people alive today are becoming more and more tolerant of gay rights in general, but gay marriage itself is still off on the horizon.

Results, drawn from the Big Ten Battleground Poll, indicate that support for gay marriage will get a notable boost if the state's high court rules in favor of it. And, a majority of Iowa voters under age 30 are already in favor of gay marriage, suggesting that support for it could grow as time goes on.

Battleground polls were conducted Oct. 19-22[, 2008] in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota, home to the 11 universities in the Big Ten Conference. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent.

I remember seeing similar polling in Massachusetts in 2003 after Goodridge came down. The majority of younger voters supported gay marriage, their parents' generation was split, and their grandparents' generation was overwhelmingly opposed.

In sum, the culture wars are for all practical purposes over and those dirty hippies have won. While supporters of the mythical 1950s style Ozzie and Harriet family values might score victories now, their supporters are shrinking--both the number of evangelicals are shrinking as well as those left of the Greatest Generation. This is why supporters of such bans seek constitutional amendments and not legislation, not because they fear the courts (which they could pack via political victories in legislative and gubernatorial races), but because constitutional amendments are, in theory, more permanent and more difficult to undo.

But I fully expect that in coming years all this will rapidly change in favor of gay rights, including the right to marry. When this tipping point will occur, I cannot say, but anywhere from 5-20 years from now, I predict that gay people will be marrying everywhere...yes, even in Utah.

No shame

There's a joke I heard recently: two LDS missioniaries go in for a visit with a family. After a while, the hostess remarks that the
rumors aren't true, Mormons don't have horns. "No, we just saw them down," says Elder Smith. "Go ahead, feel," he says, leaning his head towards her. "I don't feel nothin'," she remarks. "Not even a little embarressed?" Asks Elder Smith.

OK that was a long windup to the point of this post: the shameless hipocrisy of ex-Rep. Enid Greene Waldholtz Mickelson. Enid came out of hiding to denounce Obama's AG designate Eric Holder as a "lawbreaking opportunist". This from a woman who violated FEC regulations by dumping over a million dollars of illegal funds to get elected, only to blame her husband and cry on national TV when she got caught (and prosecuted by Holder). "Ms. Kettle, may I introduce you to Mr. Pott? ... Oh I see you've met already."

"I think [Holder] has absolutely no moral or ethical integrity and shouldn't be attorney general," Enid told the Tribune's Ed board. She has to oblivious, right? No, she is anything but dumb, which is why the whole Joe-did-this-behind-my-back-he-tricked-me defense is remains laughable today. I mean, even Republican hack Hatch supports Holders nomination.