The Ashford Zone | Page 545

Prop 8 Court Challenge Primer

Ken AshfordMarch 5, 2009Constitution, Courts/Law, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

Today is the day of oral arguments in California Supreme Court, as justices hear challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by citizen vote last election. Prop 8 prohibits gay marriages.

Four of the seven justices were convinced last spring that a prohibition on same-sex marriage violated a "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." But that is not the legal issue here.

Bear with me now. This isn't too complicated.

The central issue is about whether the change to the Constitution was procedurally legal, not whether the gay-marriage ban violates a "constitutional right". Specifically, the justices must determine whether the Prop 8 initiative (which reads in full "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valild or recognized in California") represented an amendment to, or a revision of, the state Constitution.

It was presented to voters as an amendment, which can change the Constitution through the initiative process with a simple-majority vote of the people.

A revision, however, would need to be placed on the ballot with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. The only other potential avenue for a revision would be for it to arise during a state constitutional convention.

The distinction, in simple terms, is between the tinkering of the constitution (amendment) and an overhaul of its fundamental underpinnings (revision).

Prop 8 opponents (i.e., gay marriage supporters) are making the argument that Prop 8 is (or should have been) a revision, not an amendment. Prop 8 supporters, naturally, are trying to convince the court of the opposite.

So although four of seven justices were opposed to a prohibition on gay marriage, they were "overridden" by the electorate. Now, the justices' task is to determine whether the electorate, as opposed to the Legislature and electorate, had the power to make that change in the first place.

The amendment/revision issue is a different legal question, and the 4-3 split isn't (and shouldn't be) in play. Of course, the amendment/revision issue touches on the whole "fundamental rights" issue, so the opinion is likely to discuss that at length.

In summation:

The pro prop. 8 arguments

This is a constitutional amendment and it was properly filed and approved by voters
It added just 14 words to the constitution and contains no redistribution of powers among the state's branches of government
It's a simple constitutional change by the people in response to a ruling of the California Supreme Court

The against prop. 8 arguments

This was a constitutional revision which was not filed properly — it should've been approved by a 2/3 vote of the legislature before going to voters.
The court considers gay people a vulnerable class group shouldn't have rights stripped away by a slim majority.
We're a democracy, but a constitutional democracy. There are checks and balances on majority power and the court must protect us all from the tyranny of the majority.

The "alternative" against prop. 8 argument (offered by ACLU and other gay rights groups)

Some natural rights, like marriage, are completely inalienable and the people, by a majority vote, can't take them away from a minority and neither can the government – by a revision or amendment — without compelling justification. (This is what the CA Attorney General says and he finds some support in Article I of the California Constitution.)

What the court has already said

Sure, gays are a "suspect" class (that means they've already be subject to discrimination in the past and likely will be again), and the California constitution, through its equal protection clause, guarantees all people the fundamental right to marry.
But a constitutional revision has always been, at least to the court, something that "creates far-reaching changes in our government framework." most, prop. 8 doesn't seem to fit into the category.

The outcome? Your guess is as good as mine, but I tend to think Prop 8 opponents will lose. Prop 8 will not be recognized as a "revision", i.e., something that "creates far-reaching changes in our government framework." The result will be a setback for gay marriage advocates, but rest assured, it won't be the end of the struggle.

The Court is required to issue a decision within 90 days of hearing the arguments, so a same-sex marriage ruling is expected by June.

UPDATE: UMinn law professor Dale Carpenter watched the oral arguments to get a bead on where the justices were going:

I’ll predict without confidence that: (1) the court will hold that Proposition 8 was a valid amendment, but (2) will also hold that the 18,000 same-sex marriages entered between June and November continue to be recognized and valid in California.

It seemed to me that Chief Justice George and Justice Kennard, both in the 4-justice majority in last May’s marriage decision, were quite skeptical of the argument that Prop 8 was a revision requiring prior legislative approval. Maybe they were being devil’s advocates. But losing those two votes, if they’ve been lost, probably means losing on the challenge to Prop 8.

In principle, the justices’ votes on whether there is a right to same-sex marriage and on whether a proposition repealing that right is an amendment, are independent questions. A judge could believe there’s a fundamental right to same-sex marriage but that the state constitution liberally allows amendments by simple majority votes. On the other hand, a judge could believe there’s no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, but think that once the right is recognized, the elimination of a fundamental right for a suspect class is such a monumental act, and is fraught with so many dangers if allowed to stand as a precedent, that it can be accomplished only by revision.

The main hope, such as it remains, for opponents of Prop 8 lies in the recognition of several justices today, including at least one who dissented from last May’s decision, that Prop 8 is unprecedented and thus calls for a new articulation of what constitutes a revision.

He adds:

One more brief note from today’s argument. If it wasn’t clear before today, it is now clear that Attorney General Jerry Brown’s role in the case has not only been unhelpful to the petitioners, but has undermined it. His view is that Prop 8 is an amendment rather than a revision “under existing cases” but that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it took away a right that is on an unspecified and growing list of “inalienable,” natural rights that can never be taken away by any constitutional change process. Brown thus undermines the petitioners on their strongest argument (the constitutional-procedural one) and offers instead a much weaker one (a constitutional-substantive one). It was plain in oral argument that none of the justices were buying it, and that Brown’s lawyer, given an impossible position to defend, could not defend it.

Memo To The Media

Ken AshfordMarch 5, 2009Economy & Jobs & DeficitLeave a Comment

From kos:

Dear media,

95 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut with Obama's budget. So framing this as a tax hike makes you look pretty stupid. And dishonest. And wrong. So stop it.

Hugs and kisses,

kos

He's right. It should be noted that Obama's budget not only should be viewed as a tax cut, but one of the largest tax cuts in American history.

And the 5% of the wealthiest who get a hike? Well, that doesn't kick in until 2011, and even then, it only returns their tax rate to what it was before Bush/Cheney took office in 2000.

So, you know, a little perspective and honesty would be nice.

Jim Cramer vs. The White House

Ken AshfordMarch 5, 2009Economy & Jobs & Deficit, Obama OppositionLeave a Comment

Perhaps jealous that Limbaugh is getting all the attention, CNBC's Jim Cramer lashes out at the White House and, in particular, White House spokeman Robert Gibbs.

Cramer has been on a tear against the White House recently. Gibbs was recently asked about Cramer's criticism that Obama's budget was "one of the great wealth destroyers of all time", and he responded: "I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to to make some of the statements… And you can go back and look at any number of statements he's made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too."

Yesterday, I noted a couple of Cramer's gloriously failed predictions. But Jon Stewart really ripped Cramer and CNBC in general last night. Enjoy:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM – Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

But getting back to Cramer's rant today, he seems to have swallowed the KoolAid that the stock market is the only thing worth considering. If it goes down, like it has been since Obama took office, that must mean that Obama's policies are to blame, according to the Cramer mindset.

What Cramer seems to not realize is that there are two financial realities, not one. There are the economic problems of Wall Street, to be sure. But there are also the economic problems of Main Street. The two have a complex symbiotic relationship. Cramer, of course, loves Wall Street bailouts, but when money is spent to provide jobs? Eh, not so much.

Wall Street indicies like the Dow Industrial Average fail to capture the extent of the problem. For one thing, being an average, it says nothing about the distribution of wealth in this country. And if there's one thing we have learned over the past eight years, a huge income disparity eventually comes around to bite everyone, wealthy or not, in the ass.

Furthermore, what is the Dow? Well, as Stewart reminds us, it's a number which we use to represent how the stock market is doing, but it is not the stock market. It's 30 out of thousands of stocks. And who trades on the stock market? Mostly financial wizards like Cramer. They may trade our money from our 401(k), but they still make the trades. And they buy and sell based on their predictions of what is good and bad for the "economy" — and (like Cramer) they define "the economy" as the Dow.

[UPDATE: For some interesting reading on this, check out the lecture by Business Week economist Michael Mandal as summarized by Matt Yglesius. Mandal's thesis is simply this: just as real wages really didn't rise much from 1997-2007, the increases in the stock market during that time period were not really real. There was no acculmulation of wealth from actual productivity and labor — it was largely based on phantom debt (from consumers and companies), and foreign investment in the belief that our economy was skyrocketing through the roof].

Put another way, Cramer needs to brush up on the definition of the word "indicator", and think long and hard about what the Dow indicates, and who is doing the majority of indicating. The Dow is relevant, but it is not the singular word on the state of the nation's economy.

I don't necessarily blame Cramer for his shortsightedness. He's a financial advisor Wall Street guy. That's his balliwick; of course he's going to be Wall-Street-centric. But it's also the cause of his myopia.

A Word On Health Care

Ken AshfordMarch 5, 2009Health CareLeave a Comment

Obama is spending the day convening a health care summit with about 150 elected officials and representatives of groups that have much at stake in the outcome, so that's the political topic du jour.

Republicans have weighed in, and the nuttiest (so far) is Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), who went on MSNBC to explain his opposition to Obama’s stated goal of comprehensive health care reform. In dissing the reform, Wamp told MSNBC that health care is a "privilege", not necessarily a right:

WAMP: Listen, health care a privilege. […]
MSNBC: Well, it’s a privilege? Health care? I mean if you have cancer right now, do you see it as a privilege to get treatment?

WAMP: I was just about to say, for some people it’s a right. But for everyone, frankly, it’s not necessarily a right.

Wamp went on to explain why health care isn't necessarily a right for everyone: "Half of the people in this country who are uninsured choose to be uninsured".

Well, just because people choose not to have health insurance doesn't mean that health care isn't a right. By analogy, a lot of people still believe they have the right to free speech, even if they choose not to speak.

But the bigger issue here is that Wamp is just simply wrong. 64 percent of American workers who are uninsured are not actually offered an employer-sponsored health care plan. In all, just 20 percent of uninsured workers who are offered employer-sponsored coverage decline to participate.

So, once again, Republicans simply don't "get" the problem, so they would be hard-pressed to come up with a solution. Once again, they have nothing in their bag of tricks other than to decry "socialism" and "resdistribution of wealth" and lamenting the fact that government is taking on a bigger role in ensuring health care to its citizens.

And once again, they are out of lockstep with the majority of Americans:

Seventy-two percent of those questioned in recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say they favor increasing the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans, with 27 percent opposing such a move. Other recent polls show six in 10 think the government should provide health insurance or take responsibility for providing health care to all Americans.

***

The poll also indicates that health care is tied as the third most important issue for President Obama and Congress to deal with over the next year. Forty-eight percent said dealing with health care was extremely important, tied with education and trailing only the economy and terrorism as the most important issues.

Lipstick, But Not Much Pig

Ken AshfordMarch 5, 2009Economy & Jobs & DeficitLeave a Comment

Steve Benen wrote the post I would write if I had more time:

I don't doubt for a moment that there were probably some wasteful spending projects in the stimulus package. Likewise, it seems plausible that there's some "pork" in the omnibus spending bill, too.

But have you noticed how difficult it's been for conservatives to come up with real, credible examples? Given all the spending involved, it should be a lot easier.

The list of failed examples is getting rather long. Disney-to-Vegas HSR? Doesn't exist. The gang tattoo-removal program? Money well spent. Marsh-mouse preservation? Doesn't exist. Disaster insurance to livestock producers? A sound investment. Volcano monitoring? Seems like a pretty good idea.

John McCain also blasted "$1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah." Matt Yglesias, without the benefit of a Senate office staff, spent a few minutes on Google and discovered that Mormon crickets are reaching high levels in Utah, and destroying large areas of alfalfa fields. Given the impact on the area and industry, "$1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah" doesn't sound especially wasteful.

McCain also condemned "$951,500 for the Oregon Solar Highway" as #1 on his list of the "porkiest" projects in the omnibus bill. Again, this hardly sounds like an outrageous expenditure.

The Oregon Solar Highway is "the nation's first solar panel project on a major U.S. highway," which seeks to use a row of solar panels about five feet wide and two football fields long to feed electricity directly into Portland General Electric's systemwide grid. It is meant to "account for 28 percent of the energy needed to power lights that illuminate the highway's sweeping interchange at night."

A pilot program for no-emissions alternative energy on a federal highway, costing less than $1 million, is the single most offensive "pork" project in a spending bill? In some ways, doesn't that prove the opposite of McCain's point?

To me — and I don't think I am alone on this — a "pork" project is one that provides no social utility at all, like the famed "bridge to nowhere". Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the projects listed above are worthwhile or not, but they are all arguably worthwhile. Reasonable people can also quibble about the amount spent on each of these projects, the extent to which they will (or won't) provide jobs, and other tangetial matters. But to label those projects as "wasteful pork" is to close one's mind to the potential benefits they provide.

It should also be noted that Republicans claim there is 7.7 billion in pork. The entire stimulus package is almost 900 billion. So, even by their estimates, less than 1% of the stimulus bill is "pork". That's their idea of "loaded with pork". And (as Benen notes) much of that 1% isn't necessarily pork at all.

UPDATE: $1.7 million for a pig-odor study in Iowa? Now that's pork, some would say. Ha ha ha. But to the people in Iowa, it's no joke. North Carolina knows this, too: it's not just a problem of smell — it's an environmental issue, too.

Boehner’s Take

Ken AshfordMarch 5, 2009Economy & Jobs & Deficit, Obama Opposition, RepublicansLeave a Comment

Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Democrats' Diversionary Tactics":

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.

At the risk of being obvious, a couple of things need to be pointed out to Boehner.

(1) As I mentioned in a post yesterday, it strains credulity to pin the Limbaugh-as-de-facto-GOP-leader on Democrats. The power vacuum in the Republican Party was not created by the Democrats, save for the fact that the American public overwhelming supported Democrats in the last election. Nor did Democrats somehow compel Limbaugh to fill that vacuum (anyone with even a passing knowledge of Limbaugh knows that he grabbed the limelight and nobody put a gun to his head). Nor did Democrats make Limbaugh say that he hopes Obama fails. Nor did they invite Limbaugh to be the keynote speaker at CPAC where he rallied the conservative troops with incidiary language. Nor did Democrats have any role in the repeated ring-kissing and apologies that noted Republicans have given to Limbaugh these past few weeks.

Sure, Rahm Emanuel and other Democrats have been asked by the media to weigh in on the Limbaugh prominence, and that has in a small way helped to keep the story alive. But Republicans, like Michael Steele, are talking and debating about Limbaugh just as much, if not more, than Democrats. So the idea of it being a successful "carefully calculated campaign" is giving far too much credit to Democrats, and too little credit to Limbaugh's self-aggrandizing nature.

(2) As the Boehner sees it, Democrats don't want to talk about their economic policies, so they're talking about Limbaugh instead. Ridiculous. First of all, Americans largely approve Obama and his economic policies. Why then, would Democrats want to cast the spotlight on Limbaugh, who clearly doesn't approve of those policies?

Until people like Boehner understand that they have a problem, offer something other than being the "party of no", and start looking in the mirror instead of blaming others, they're going to spend a long time in the wilderness.

No, The Taxpayers Didn’t Foot The Bill For This

Ken AshfordMarch 5, 2009Obama & AdministrationLeave a Comment

Malia and Sasha's new swingset on the south grounds of the White House outside of the Oval Office:

Da Debate Bait

Ken AshfordMarch 4, 2009Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

El Rushbo, today:

But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show?

***

Let's go ahead and have a debate on this show. No limits. Now that your handlers are praising themselves for promoting me as the head of a political party — they think that's a great thing — then it should be a no-brainer for you to further advance this strategy by debating me on the issues and on the merits, and wipe me out once and for all!

Just come on this program. Let's have a little debate. You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the Americans that don't agree with you how wrong we all are. You're a smart guy, Mr. President. You don't need these hacks to front for you. You've debated the best! You've debated Hillary Clinton. You've debated John Edwards. You've debated Joe Biden. You've debated Dennis Kucinich. You've debated the best out there. You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age. I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity. Don't send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding — and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel. He's got things to do in his office. These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chum.

It would be entertaining for Obama to take the bait — or de-bait, I guess — and wipe the floor with Limbaugh.

Of course, Obama won't and shouldn't. The whole point of Rush being the de facto leader of the GOP is that he is small. Not in size, but in stature. Rush is an entertainer and a loudmouth. That is the best the party has to offer. So for Obama to actually debate Rush is to suggest that he is something more.

Rush instinctively knows this. He will soon crow that Obama was "chicken" to debate him. For Rush, this is about ratings. He is an entertainer. And his call to debate Obama will keep the media circus running for (yes, sorry to say) another 24 hours. Tomorrow, he will say something else, which will (he hopes) propel his place in the spotlight well into the Sunday talk shows.

Besides, there was a debate about Obama's policies versus conservatism. It happened last November. Obama won, as did a majority of House and Senate Democrats. Perhaps Rush missed that.

By the way, Rush also said today:

Let's talk about your stock market. By the way, Mr. President, I want to help. Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.

There's no "up and down" here. We have a plunge.

The Dow was up almost 150 points today. At one point, it almost broke 7,000 (up 280 from today's open).

RELATED: The DCCC is having some fun with all the Republicans rushing to Rush's feet to apologize.

FURTHER THOUGHT: The Politico reports that this whole "Rush As GOP Leader" is an Obama/Democratic "plan".

Bullshit, I say. Did Carville or Begala force Rush at gunpoint to claim that he "hopes Obama fails"? Did Rahm Emmanuel create the media circus that resulted from Rush's comment? Did any Democrat operative or Obama advisor prepare the text for Rush's speech at CPAC earlier this week?

At best (or worst, depending on your point of view), Democrats have seized on an opportunity. But Rush himself created that opportunity.

Why Women Don’t Contract HIV As Often As Men

Ken AshfordMarch 4, 2009Health CareLeave a Comment

It's because of Ben & Jerry's and L'oreal. Really.

The Electronic Babysitter

Ken AshfordMarch 4, 2009Sex/Morality/Family Values4 Comments

I read somewhere (on her blog perhaps, or maybe some Facebook survey) that my friend Heather does not intend to have Cassie (her almost one-year-old) watch television in her infancy.

A little extreme, I thought. Maybe even counter-productive to her development. I mean, it largely depends on what she watches, but I couldn't see the harm. I mean, aren't those DVDs specifically designed for babies a good thing?

Turns out that I was, as I often am, wrong:

(CNN) — Watching television does not make babies smarter, according to a study released this week in the journal Pediatrics, adding to existing research that challenges the usefulness of baby educational videos and DVDs.

Researchers from Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School reached this conclusion after monitoring more than 800 children from birth to 3 years of age.

"Contrary to parents' perceptions that TV viewing is beneficial to their children's brain development, we found no evidence of cognitive benefit from watching TV during the first two years of life," the authors wrote.

Educational DVD and videos geared towards enriching babies and toddlers, such as "BabyGenius," "Brainy Baby" or "Baby Einstein," which proclaim to "encourage discovery and inspire," have no benefits, researchers said.

This echoes a similar finding published in the August issue of Pediatrics. Researchers from the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute found no evidence of benefit from baby DVDs and videos and suggested that it may be harmful. Infants who watched the videos understood fewer words than those who did not watch them.

Pediatrician Dr. Michael Rich, a co-author of the latest study from Boston, calls baby educational DVDs and videos "just wasted time."

"At the very best, they steal time from much more productive cognitive developmental activities," he said. "Ultimately, what it's about is to make parents not feel guilty about an electronic baby sitter."

Good thing I don't have kids.

Obama And The Stock Market

Ken AshfordMarch 4, 2009Economy & Jobs & DeficitLeave a Comment

US News & World Report, yesterday:

Jim Cramer, at the beginning of CNBC's Mad Money, reported that President Obama "actually said it was a good time to buy stocks," and added, "Given that it was Obama who knocked the whole darn thing down, he might have some inside information that he's done enough damage for now. …

Blaming the plunging Dow — even the plunging Dow of the last few days — is silly. The Dow dropped yesterday, for example, largely on the news that AIG would need more bailout money. Obama had nothing to do with the perilous state that AIG is in.

Furthermore, the Dow will continue to go down, I suspect, until credit frees up from the banks, and employment rises. Obama's policies cannot make this turnaround happen overnight.

That said, if Obama can be blamed for day-to-day downturns in the stock market, shouldn't he be given credit when the stock market goes up…. like today?

Dow Jones Industrial Average

(DJI: ^DJI)

Index Value:	6,891.77
Trade Time:	2:09PM ET
Change:	165.75 (2.46%)
Prev Close:	6,726.02
Open:	6,726.50
Day's Range:	6,726.42 – 6,900.21
52wk Range:	6,661.74 – 13,191.50

Just asking….

FURTHER THOUGHT: We all remember Jim Cramer's sage advice in 2007 to buy Bear Stearns even though it was heavily leveraged in subprime mortgage-based toxic assets, don't we?

We Didn’t Die On Monday

Ken AshfordMarch 4, 2009DisastersLeave a Comment

But it was a close call….

Rude Pundit On The Yoo Memos

Ken AshfordMarch 4, 2009ConstitutionLeave a Comment

It's NSFW or the faint of heart, but he's right on target. Here's a taste (and you've been warned):

The Rude Pundit has always looked on the Constitution fondly, like an old lover who occasionally calls to reminisce about all those wonderful steamy evenings in fine hotels in Boston and Philadelphia, that passionate headboard-thumping sex, the mornings in each other's arms, romantic, simple, idealized in memory, yet still viscerally exciting to recall. A Bush administration conservative, though, looked at the Constitution like a one-night stand bar pick-up that they can tell their buddies about later, high-fiving one another over tales of how one degraded that bitch, made her feel like shit as he fucked her in the ass and then said how fat she was, tied her up and pissed on her, and then took cell phone pictures of her when she finally passed out with her arms and legs still roped apart, laughing because, well, she may be a person, but why not use her 'til she's used up?

***

The memos themselves are little doorways into the fact that, until they were repudiated, the executive branch of our government, post 9/11, decided that the Constitution was for suckers and bin Laden's bitches and, like that beaten bar pick-up, just there to use to get its rocks off.

Look at the June 27, 2002 memo. There, in giving Constitutional cover to the idea that the laws of the United States do not apply to the President as long as some vauge idea of "war" is occurring, Yoo writes, "The fact that a detainee is an American citizen, thus, does not affect the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to detain him, once it was been determined that he is an enemy combatant." They don't need to have done anything to be so determined, just have been "associated" with whoever has been vaguely defined as the "enemy." Or as Yoo says, "Nothing further need be demonstrated to justify their detention as enemy combatants."

***

The Rude Pundit has mentioned the 2002 memos because they were not written in the heat of the desperate flailing about that the Bush administration engaged in after 9/11. These were considered actions by people who truly don't give a sad rat's fuck about what makes America American.

Read the whole rude thing.

Bush Reference In “For Now” Remains (For Now)

Ken AshfordMarch 4, 2009TheatreLeave a Comment

Playbill:

Despite a contest to find a new lyric for Avenue Q's closing song, "For Now," the creators of the Tony-winning musical have decided to keep the George Bush reference in the show.

The lyric, which originally stated, "George Bush is only for now" has been slightly revised to "George Bush was only for now," according to The New York Times.

A different lyric, "Prop 8 is only for now," will be used when the tour of the puppet-friendly music plays California.

When the departure of former President George W. Bush was imminent, the producers of Avenue Q launched a contest to replace the "For Now" lyric. Over 2,000 entries were received, and the judging panel — including Q creators Robert Lopez, Jeff Marx and Jeff Whitty and the show's producers — selected four possibilities that were tested over several performances to "gauge the response and audience reaction, and determine which lyric emerges as the most satisfying," according to a previous press statement.

The contest lyrics tested follow:

"Recession"
"Prop 8"
"This show"
"Your mother-in-law"

In a statement Avenue Q book writer Jeff Whitty explained that during testing four different "For Now" lyrics, "we discovered there is nothing like the strong response the Bush line gets from the audience."

Yeah. "Recession" strikes me as a bit of a downer actually. "Prop 8" is cute, although I'm sure lots in the audience won't get it.

Rush Is Still Topic #1

Ken AshfordMarch 4, 2009Obama Opposition, RepublicansLeave a Comment

Everyone is giving their two cents. I guess it doesn't matter what people say, because as long as Rush occupies the center stage as the de facto leader of the GOP, the worse off it is for the GOP.

You can peruse the links (from Memeorandum) below, but the general landscape is this: The Republicans are divided about whether to embrace Limbaugh and his followers, repudiate Limbaugh and his followers, or try to remain on the fence. The Democrats (with a few exceptions) are eating popcorn, enjoying the infighting (and occasionally spurring it on).

Washington Whispers:

GOP to Michael Steele: Quiet About Rush Limbaugh or You're Fired — Apology to Rush Limbaugh aside, new Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is coming under fire from his own GOP troops to shut up and focus on his job of organizing the party and raising money, not fighting with his own political kind.

Discussion: Crooks and Liars, DownWithTyranny!, Jack & Jill Politics and Hot Air

RELATED:

Peter Daou / The Huffington Post:

Why on Earth Are Democrats Legitimizing and Empowering Rush Limbaugh? — I don't buy into this ‘brilliant’ strategy of elevating Rush Limbaugh in the hopes that it will tarnish Republicans. — Focus relentlessly on the disastrous Bush presidency to tarnish Republicans, yes.

Discussion: CNN, FiveThirtyEight.com, Jules Crittenden, No More Mister Nice Blog, Liberal Values, skippy the bush kangaroo, Hold Fast, pandagon.net, Liberty Street, The Impolitic, Open Left and Booman Tribune

Greg Sargent / The Plum Line:

Limbaugh Attacks Stephanopoulos, Says ABC Falsely Reported That Eric Cantor Disagreed With “Fail” Remark — Okay, the Limbaugh wars have just taken yet another weird new turn — Rush is claiming that a high profile GOP leader who appeared to disagree with his professed hope that President Obama …

Discussion: Washington Monthly and The Moderate Voice

Greg Sargent / The Plum Line:

Rush Refuses To Say Whether Successful Obama Fix Of Economy Would Be Good For The Country — Okay, as noted below, I somehow ended up in an extended email exchange with Rush Limbaugh. In it, Rush repeatedly insisted that his desire for President Obama to fail didn't mean he didn't want the country to “succeed.”

Discussion: Wilshire & Washington and Think Progress