I have been, from the beginning, a proponent of Congress doing something to tame the economic meltdown our country is experiencing right now. I have fought people on the left who are dissatisfied with a recent measure to bail out Wall Street, arguing that this impending collapse will harm much more than Wall Street if it is allowed to happen. And yesterday, a bill, fashioned after a much touted agreement among the bipartisan Congressional leadership and the White House came to the floor. A bill that would put $700 Billion on the line to buy up bad assets from banks and free up capital so the economy and credit can start moving again was put before the House of Representatives.

The bill failed. 205 Yea, 228 Nay. The bill failed mainly because the Republican leadership failed to deliver the votes of their members. The Democratic leadership delivered well beyond a majority of their caucus for a bill that no one was happy with yet most thought was necessary to act swiftly.

CNN's Campbell Brown, take it away! Bravo, and hat tip to The Jed Report!

This is from Sunday - yes, September 21, 2008. This Sunday. John McCain still things deregulation was good for our economy. Here's his breathtaking arrogance for you to enjoy: Incredible, isn't it? This guy, who thinks deregulation was still a good idea, even in hindsight, wants to be in charge of steering our economy. It seems the economic meltdown of the past week has left John McCain unphased, and his insane views unchallenged. But then, what else do you expect from a guy who owns 9 houses and 13 cars? John McCain is so out of touch, it would be funny if he wasn't running for President. But this isn't funny. It's dead serious. Well, I hope this makes it into an ad. Paging Obama campaign!

If you know me, or read my blog to any length, you know that I'm a proud liberal. I wear that as a badge of honor. But sometimes, the whining of some on the left just gets to me. Let me show you what I am talking about. I blogged about the statement from Speaker Pelosi about her principled stand against a blank check to the Bush administration to deal with the recent financial meltdown. Now, I'm also a frequenter on Daily Kos. In a recommended diary, the Daily Kos community delved into the discussion. For the most part, the discussion was positive, but there are just some people who find pleasure in constantly whining about even good moves from Democrats. I understand the mistrust of the Congressional Democratic leadership among rank-and-file liberals. We have been let down too many times. But some seem to think that's their license to constantly put down Pelosi and the Democrats, even when they are doing the right thing, and make pronouncements and predictions about how inevitable Democratic capitulation looms. Here are some of the comments:

"I say dump [Pelosi]." "Pelosi follows the wind. I say send her back to California." "If she demonstrates some willingness to stand on principle even when that means leaning against the wind, she'll start to earn back some respect. Slowly." "Absolutely! Saying "Bipartisan" is the giveaway that this is going to be an ugly capitulation to the Repub crooks who engineered this mess, IMHO." "ometime later this week, deaniac83 will learn the hard lesson every left/liberal/progressive leanrs: nancy Pelosi is not your friend. she will stab you and everything you stand for in the back and sell you down the river."

Oy! The constant whining! No wonder the Democratic leadership doesn't want to cooperate with the left. What do they get in return when they do something good? Constant whining, predictions of capitulation, demoralization and call for their heads. There is a whole perfectionist bunch on my side of the isle, and I don't like that attitude one bit. These whiners care more about complaining and bitching and moaning than what's actually going on. They cannot understand that an imperfect person can do good things. This is incredibly frustrating. If the progressive movement does not learn to be pragmatic, the entire movement is at risk. If we are more interested in calling for the heads of our leaders than rewarding good behavior along with accontability for poor judgment, we will once again be relegated to the fringe. If we demand perfection to the point that we let it be the enemy of the good, we will get the bad and the ugly. We need to do less whining and more winning.

In the wake of last week's collapse of the American financial markets, the Bush administration yesterday sent its proposal to Congress. In it, the Bush administration asked for - exactly the thing that has screwed up everything in this country - a blank check to spend $700 Billion with absolutely zero oversight, no protections for struggling homeowners, consumers, labor or the taxpayers. In other words, their proposal is give the Secretary of Treasury $700 Billion to spend as he sees fit, and hope for the best. You can read the entire 3-page (yes, 3-page) proposal from the administration on CNN.com. The Bush administration may not understand it, but that's not how things are supposed to work in America. Congress is not an ATM that rings anytime George Bush looks at it. At least, it's not supposed to be. Congressional Democrats want help for everyday Americans and not just Wall Street, a reasonable limit on executive pay packages (that can span $10-100 million a year to run a company into the ditch) for companies that accept this massive taxpayer bailout, consumer protections and help to enable struggling homeowners to stay in their home. Needless to say, the Administration is none too happy about that. Well, today, the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told the Bushites to stick it. She released a statement standing by the outlined principles:

Congress will respond to the financial markets crisis by taking action this week in a bipartisan manner that will protect the taxpayers' interests. The Administration's $700 billion proposal does not include the necessary safeguards. Democrats believe a responsible solution should include independent oversight, protections for homeowners and constraints on excessive executive compensation. We will not simply hand over a $700 billion blank check to Wall Street and hope for a better outcome. Democrats will act responsibly to insulate Main Street from Wall Street. As we proceed to deal with this crisis, this is clear recognition that the party is over for the Bush Administration's anything goes, failed economic policies that have damaged our economy, undermined the middle class and further pointed out the need for a New Direction.

This is the right move on the part of the Democrats and the Speaker, and she needs to hear from the American people that we stand behind her principles. You can contact the speaker on her website. Please do so and let her know you will stand behind her as she fights for protections for Main Street and not just Wall Street. Here's the URL to contact Speaker Pelosi: http://speaker.gov/contact/ Here is what I wrote to the Speaker:

Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing you to applaud your statement today about the Bush administration's $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan. You are absolutely correct that the Administration plan does not include the necessary safeguards to ensure the protection of the American taxpayer. Nor does the proposal include any help for real Americans who are hurting right now on main street. Congress must ensure that proper consumer, labor, homeowner and taxpayer protections are included in a final version of this bill. Additionally, corporations that look to the taxpayer for bailing them out must accept reasonable limits on executive compensation to ensure that we the taxpayers are not subsidizing the indulgences of the Wall Street corporate bosses. Your statement today gave me hope and please know that this American stands squarely with you on this matter.

And after you have contacted the Speaker, please contact your representative in the House and your Senators and let them know you will not tolerate a bill that includes nothing but a blank check for Wall Street.

So yesterday, the Courage Campaign - a wonderful progressive organization - emailed its members and asked to vote on whether or not the Courage Campaign should call for a Constitutional Convention for the State of California. Here is the page where you can weigh in. I did weigh in. Here is what I said:

California's system of government is broken. Requiring a 2/3rds vote to pass a budget is the height of insanity. And the governor should not be allowed to slash the wages of state employees just because he feels something is wrong with the legislature. We need a brand new system that ensures equal protection under the law, forces our politicians to balance the budget, sets up a progressive tax system, etc. A new Constitution/amendments need(s) to seriously update our system of governing by initiatives. It should take a lot more signatures than 7% of voters to get things on the ballot. We also need to reform our system of recalling people from office (a much higher threshold than the current system) and to ensure that the state's Constitution cannot be amended through the whim of a contemporary majority - it should require a 2/3rds vote in each house of the legislature to place one on the ballot, and a 2/3rds or 3/4ths vote from the people.

Please vote and if you agree with me, ask for the Courage Campaign to call for a Constitutional Convention for the State of California.

I have no words. John McCain thinks Spain is in Latin America (for key Spain stuff, cue to about 2:58): Incredible. John McCain is completely oblivious that the host is talking about Spain - not tough talk on Latin America. This, supposedly, from the one who says he needs no "on the job training" to be president.

You have to watch this (it's about a half hour): Wow. Just wow. I am impressed by Sen. Clinton's grace, her gravitas, and her intellect. Hillary Clinton is a legend - and not just among women. She is now showing us why. Thank you, Hillary! Sarah Palin likes to mention Hillary Clinton in her stump speeches in a naked attempt to get disaffected Hillary voters, and in it she shows tremendous condescension for women - as if women are going to flock to just any woman candidate because of her anatomy and not her issues. And I will be waiting for the debates for Joe Biden to deliver the line to Sarah Palin:

Governor, I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine. And you, Governor, are no Hillary Clinton.

The California state budget is 79 days late. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) has declared a state of fiscal emergency and ordered cuts in pay for millions of innocent state workers. State Controller John Chiang (D-CA) took a courageous stand and refused to comply with the governor's orders. The legislature - which is Democratically controlled but requires a 2/3rds vote to pass anything money related - has been hamstrung with Republican opposition to the Republican governor's own original budget. Finally, they approved a bad budget that gives way to deep spending cuts instead of asking the state's wealthy to pay their fair share. They approved a bad budget, but probably the only one they could get through. Gov. Schwarzenegger has now announced that he will veto the budget. Here's his announcement: Part I: And, Part II: Now of course, vetoing a budget is kind of meaningless, since it takes the same two-thirds vote to override the veto as it takes to pass the budget in the first place. And sure enough, legislative leaders from both parties have said they plan to do just that. And the governor has in turn threatened to veto hundreds of other bills and derail the legislature's agenda. But I have to provide the governor some cover, even as a Democrat. He has some solid, principled, valid points. If you haven't listened carefully to Part II, please do so now. He is opposed to the rainy day fund that's being set up being used for any purpose anytime. And he's right. Rainy day funds should only be used in crisis situations, and then only to cover what is absolutely necessary (like public safety, education, hospitals), not in lieu of hard choices that should be made (like some hard cuts or some tax increases). He also wants to stop kicking the can down the road. I'm not saying I support the veto, and as a matter of fact I do not; I am saying he's got some valid points. The Democratic leaders have a good point too: if the Republican governor could deliver some Republican votes on his own budget, this crisis might well have been averted. Indeed, it possibly would have been. We need a big overhaul of our budget system in California. First thing, and I am probably going to anger some on the left by saying this, get rid of autopilots of the budget while you build a rainy day fund. Get rid of these automatic formulas that make spending go up no matter what happens with respect to revenue. Make central priorities: public safety, education and health care, but no damned automatic increase formulas. Make the legislature and the governor we elect do their damn jobs. Then, figure out a fairer taxation system that shifts a greater burden to the wealthy. And finally, get rid of this insane 2/3rds requirement to pass a damn budget. And even more finally, pass a meaningful balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the state that mandates that the legislators, the governor and cabinet officials (a) cannot take days off once the budget is overdue until it actually passes, (b) are not paid until the budget passes once it's overdue and (c) can't borrow money from next fiscal year's revenue to pay for this year's expenses. Please, get over whatever your ideological hangover over the budget is and become a pragmatist. We are going to have to fix this mess, and ideologues have no place in doing that.

Obama delivers masterfully. The money quote:

Now he [McCain] tells us that he's the one that's going to take on te old boys network. Old boys network. In the McCain campaign, that's called a staff meeting.

Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard and current McCain advisor got herself into some hot water for admitting that John McCain and Sarah Palin are not qualified to run a corporation. She hung Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden on the same string. But of course, when someone on your own campaign says you are not qualified to run a business, you get a little extra milage out of it than when you say that about the opposing camp. Here's what Carly Fiorina said: McCain campaign is kicking her to the curb, and Obama and Democrats are rightly pointing out that if his own campaign adviser thinks that he and his running mate aren't qualified to run a corporation, how do they expect to run the largest money machine in the world, namely the US economy? But in it all, what's getting lost is something extremely valuable that Fiorina admitted:

Running a corporation is a completely different set of things [than running a country].

This is true. And this is a stunning repudiation of what has been the conservative Republican philosophy on government: that government should be run like a business. What Fiorina is saying is that that is in fact not true. She is breaking down the very basis of Republican economic policy. Let's examine how the Republicans have used the "government as a business" analogy to subvert the proper purpose of government: I. Government Should Not Provide Social Safety Nets If the government is a business, then its purpose is to sell things (goods or services for money), not to provide charity. Social Security, Medicare, disability insurance, welfare assistance, etc. are all examples of the government acting as a social contractor (in conservative view, charity) rather than a business, and therefore all these things should be either eliminated or privatized. It's not the job of government to help people in need because that is a waste of taxpayer money (investor's money) since you spend it and get nothing back in return. Note that military spending fits this definition - since when you spend the Pentagon's money, you are technically getting a good (weapons) or a service (war, contract services) in return. However, the VA does NOT fit this definition. Once a soldier is out of the military, the money spent on them produces nothing that helps the business (government) be profitable. According to this philosophy, social safety nets are bad, and should be eliminated. But Carly Fiorina just poured cold water over this philosophy. Oops. If the government is not a business, the Republicans are going to need whole new justification for eliminating social safety nets, and they are running out of excuses. II. Unitary Executive (An All Powerful CEO) If the government is a business, the CEO (or in government's case, the President) is all powerful. He has the power to institute rules, break those rules, use the resources of the corporation (or government) in any way he sees fit, and he does not have to answer to anyone. Unless you are a public corporation, then you have to answer to a Board of Directors, who can only basically make hiring and firing decisions, and make some monetary decisions. Think of Congress as that Board. They can impeach the President and remove him from office, or control the purse strings. Other than that, the President is omnipotent. Just like the CEO can hire and fire anyone in the company and the loyalty of the management is to the CEO, the President is similarly in charge of hiring and firing cabinet officers, and those officers are loyal not the country but the President. Barring a Congressional prohibition of funds, the President can deploy any resources, including the military, in any way he sees fit. Again, Carly Fiorina, just by her simple statement that a country is not a corporation, just delegitmized the unitary executive as well. Oops again. What, then? What happens when the theory that government should be run like a business falls apart? Then you are left with the original purpose of our government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Hah! Who would have thought that the purpose of our government is spelled out in... the... Constitution? Guess what? It also turns out that the President is not a CEO. He can't do whatever he damn well pleases. He has to follow the law, and recognize that his is simply one out of three co-equal branches of government and his power is not limitless. It is checked by the other two. Suddenly, there is no more unitary executive. Suddenly, you have people asking questions about what the proper role of government should be, if it's not simply a giant corporations. Suddenly you have people asking for a government FOR the people. Suddenly you have people demanding that the government work for them, provide social safety nets for when times get rough and provide regulations to even the playing field of the free market. Suddenly, the quintessential governing philosophies of conservatism are endangered. Suddenly, the government is no longer a corporation. It is a public trust.

John McCain doesn't get it. Not only does he not get the economic devastation that's going on in this country - I mean, OK, I sort of get it, he owns 9 houses and none of those is in foreclosure - it seems that John McCain is out of touch even with how you speak about such a crisis. John McCain went out there on Monday - yes, THIS Monday, and said, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Say what? Is this pathological lying, or does he not watch the news? Barack Obama did not miss a chance to call out this astounding out-of-touch statement of John McCain. Ask yourself: Do you really want another Republican in stewarding our economy for the next 4 years?

Ben Smith of Politico.com reported yesterday that the Republican National Committee has a over six to one cash-on-hand advantage over the Democratic Natioanl Committee, despite Barack Obama's impressive showing of a record breaking $66 million raised in August for his own campaign.

According to Smith's reporting, the RNC has $110 million on hand, compared to $17.5 million for the Democratic National Committee.

So why does the RNC have this humongous money advantage while John McCain made the decision to accept the limits of public financing?

The disparity shows the Republicans' continued edge with the wealthy donors who can give in five-figure chunks.

So the Republican party is funded by the corporate bigwigs and the ultra rich. Contrary to the limit one can can contribute to a federal candidate ($2300 for the general election), fat cats can give up to $28,500 per person to a national party committee (i.e. the DNC, DSCC or DCCC). The same people who have made out like bandits because of the policies of the Republican party are now rewarding them to try to hang on to power. Anyone who still believes that the Republican in this election may remotely be the change candidate is high.

While the Republican National Committee continues to benefit from fat cat and lobbyist contributions, Barack Obama put his party where his mouth is:

Barack Obama does now, and will continue to have the money advantage in terms of candidate vs. candidate. And that's a good thing. The candidate can do everything the party can, but not vice versa:

The party money, though, is not worth as much as the campaigns' hard money, because it can't be spent as directly on the campaign, particularly when it comes to media. That was illustrated last month by RNC-funded ads that included confusing, digressive attacks on random Democratic senators, including Byron Dorgan, to fulfill campaign finance rules.

So, even though the Republican party has a huge cash advantage, it does not translate into as big an advantage on the campaign ads. So what are the Repubicans going to be using all this dough for? For ground operations.

Yes, there's going to be GOP get out the vote efforts. But I am thinking $110 million buys you more than GOTV and voter registration and paid staffers. It buys you ... it buys you this (no I'm not talking about buying the book). It buys you voter suppression. It buys you voter caging. It buys you mailers you can send to black soldiers' homes here in the US - soldiers who are deployed overseas and when the mailers come back, you challenge their votes. You can buy caging. That's what you can buy with $110 million. When you cannot win an election fair and square, $110 million will help you make sure the people who aren't likely to vote for you either don't get to vote at all or if they do get to vote, they don't get to have their vote counted.

So what can you do about it? Plenty, it turns out:

Sign up to get involved with Obama's voter protection program. This is especially for you if you are an attorney.

1-800-DEMVOTE. This is the official DNC Voter protection hotline. Memorize it. Give this to every Democratic voter. Let them know they have the law on their side.

Visit the DNC Voting Rights Institute and become informed.

Contact your local Democratic party and become a poll-watcher. Go in teams. Set up a phone tree. Use the cameras in your phone to take videos/pictures of any irregularities.

And last but not least, DONATE! Donate to the Democratic Party or to Barack Obama.

Bottom line, the Republicans are not going to have a candidate money advantage, but a party money advantage. And they can use that money not only to aide McCain but to hurt American voters. Let's make sure that does not happen.

Obama nails it.

It's early Sunday morning, and I am looking around the web on what is going on on what I consider a more important issue than this year's presidential election: protecting the right to marry the person they love for every Californian. On May 15, the California Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry was a fundamental right under the equal protection clause of the California State Constitution. Now, conservative reactionary right wing fundamentlists hate groups have put on the ballot something called "Proposition 8", a ballot initiative that would write in the Constitution of our state discrimination against same sex couples and remove this fundamental right. What's more hideous is that these right wing fundamentalist groups see clearly that the future is free from their form of hatred and prejudice. Polls have found that two-thirds of young people in California oppose Prop 8 and support the right of all loving (adult) couples to enter into marriage, and so, they are putting on an effort to spread their hatred among people my age. They are funding this website, iProtectMarriage.com, where they have picked and recruited some young folk who either have sold their soul for money, or are too happy to have an avenue to spread hatred. I for one would like to know if these people are actually Californians and where in California they are registered to vote. But here, I will take on their arguments one by one. One, the most insidious of their lies: that homosexuality is a choice, that people can change it and as such the prohibition against same sex marriage should not be seen as akin to the prohibition against interracial marriage. The first counter on this is that this is a flat out lie. I am gay, and I can tell you emphatically that it is as engrained in me as my race (Asian Indian), my gender (male) and my number of toes (10). Secondly, the real argument is not whether sexual orientation can be changed but whether it should, even if that were possible. I would like to ask the people of color that take great umbrage on the website at the suggestion of comparing the prohibition against gay marriage with that against interracial marriage, if you could change your race, would you? Some might say you can change your outward racial appearance ... ask Michael Jackson. Would it be ok for other people to suggest that you do so? Would it be OK for the state to deny you rights because you refused to change your race, in the imaginary event that it were possible? If you cannot answer 'yes' to all three, you are all hypocrites. Third, what does whether something like race or sexual orientation can be changed have to do with restrictions of marriage law, anyway? If you are someone who opposes same sex marriage and supports interracial ones - and maybe you are even someone who is in love with someone not of your race - why can't you just find someone your own race to fall in love with? Hmm? Why can't the state tell you to find someone of your own race to marry? Obviously, that won't be an impediment to what you seem to think is the primary purpose of marriage: having children. No? Oh, I see. You don't want the government telling you who you can and cannot fall in love with. And when you do fall in love with someone, you don't want the government stopping you from getting married. But you are perfectly willing to impose those exact things on gays and lesbians. Did I say you are hypocrites? Two, same sex marriage isn't a civil right because that would make incest, polygamy and marriage with a child also civil rights. First of all, if you want to talk about polygamy, I suggest you look within your own ranks, religous fundamentalists. It does not take gay marriage to sanction polygamy, as polygamy has existed in more societies than same sex marriage ever has. Same is the case with marrying off children and incest. So, look in the damn mirror first. I did not want to have to do this, but since the Catholic Church is behind efforts to stop same sex marriage on these grounds, let me point the finger in the Church leadership's eyes and take them on a time machine few years back when the scandal of Catholic priests sexually abusing children - especially young boys - became legendary. But going back to the issue at hand, marrying children is never a civil right because children cannot enter a contract on their own. Marriage is a contract. Children have limited ability to give informed consent, hence cannot enter into a contract. That ends the argument right there. Incest can be mostly attributable to the same issues - where the freedom of consent may be jeopardized by pressures of family, and it has socially produced more abuse than anything else. Same for polygamy. But again, I point to you that NONE of these are even remotely related to same sex marriage, since all of these things have happened without same sex marriage. So spare me this "the sky is falling" bullshit. Three, who'll think of the children? Children can't grow up without a mom and a dad! This is of course a lie. We all know conservative concern for children are all crocodile tears once the children are out of the womb. Nonetheless, I will address the merits. No comprehensive study has ever shown that children are in fact worse off with two same sex parents than with two opposite sex ones. Period. It is not the gender of the parents that matter - it is the love and care and support they are able to provide for their children. It's not even just the number of parents. A vast number of things, including resources and support available to the children and the parents both in school and in the community matters. The economic condition of the parents matter. Conservatives are quick to point out the plight of fatherless children, but they are hard pressed to address the fact that children become fatherless (or lack one parent) largely in communities that are devastated by economic hardships and a lack of the ladder of opportunity. They are quick to chastise children born out of wedlock, but refuse to understand the importance of comprehensive sex education. They are quick to condemn communities pleagued with gang violence, but will not recognize the need for economic support in schools for after school programs. So, yes, spare me the crocodile tears. If you are concerned about children, shed your dogma and provide support for all parents, all children in all communities so they can all have a better shot at life. Four, gasp, the children again! Kindergarteners might have to be taught about same sex marriage! Oh, the horror! How horrible it would be if our children were taught that the two mommies of their friend Johnny love him just as much as the mom and dad of their other friend Jill love her! Listen, if kindergarteners are taught about marriage at all - then yes, they should be taught about all marriages and all families. But why do I get the feeling that kids 2-6 are not usually taught about intricate details of what goes on in Mom and Dad's bedroom? Basically, they are trying to insinuate that little kids might be taught about homosexual sex. What the idiots don't realize is that by that, they are saying that kindergarteners are currently taught about heterosexual sex. Which is false, of course. Five, health! Heterosexually married men live longer, healthier, happier, richer lives. Duh. What they won't tell you, of course, is that pretty much all the data available is on heterosexually married men, and pretty much none on gay-married people. Meaning that there is no basis for comparison. And that's even besides the point. If we found out, for example, that men married to older women live longer, healthier, happier, richer lives than men married to younger women, should we ban heterosexual marriages where the female partner is younger? It's just a stupid, idiotic argument that has no bearings on the issue. Six, and here's the hammer - attack on religious liberty! Oh, no!! If gay marriages remain legal, these idiots claim, that Churches and other religious organizations that refuse to marry gay couples could be sued. Umm, no. Plenty of religious institutions right this minute refuse to sanction many heterosexual marriages that are sanctioned by secular state law in California. Catholic Churches doctrinally do not sanction second marriages (after a divorce) but the state of California does. No one is screaming that the Catholic Church should be sued because it won't allow some marriages legally allowed in California. Many religous houses of worship do not allow interreligious marriages - both partners must of the particular house's persuation. But the State of California allows interfaith marriages just the same. Conversely, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Church has been blessing same sex marriages for a long time - marriages which, prior to the Supreme Court decision, were not recognized by the state of California. So this idea that religious houses of worship would or could ever be forced to comply with the marriage laws of the state is absolutely ludicrous. The second argument on religious liberty is that doctors will no longer be able to discriminate against same sex couples because of their religious convictions - in cases like, say, artificial insemination for lesbian couples. Yes, that's true. Doctors do not practice medicine under a license issued by the Church. They practice medicine under a license issued by the State of California. And that means they will need to conform to the laws of the state. If you are a doctor and your religion tells you not to treat people of another faith, you need to find another line of work, because you are about to lose your license. It is no different for this case. If you are a licensed professional who is unable to meet the requirements of that license, it's time for you to find another line of work. My Appeal: If you live in California, please support the right of all loving couples (adults) to be married if they choose. VOTE NO ON PROP 8. In the end, even though sexuality is not a choice, marriage always is. And the fundamental right to choose to enter into that special covenet and contract should belong to all Californians, regardless of the gender of the person they love.

Sen. Obama is a man of principles. I heard his call today to 'back off' the story about Sarah Palin's 17-year old unmarried daughter being pregnant. Now, I think from his viewpoint, he is consistent, and I join with countless Americans in wishing Bristol health, happiness, and the full enjoyment of the miracle of birth that she is about to experience. I stand in awe of the miracle of life and the bond between an expecting parent and her soon-to-be-born child, I wish her and her baby the best.

The issue is not Bristol Palin. The issue is Sarah Palin and the party that is about to hand her its vice presidential nomination. We are talking about a political party and a candidate that backs unscientific, unrealistic, and unworkable abstinence-only policies instead of teaching comprehensive sex education. We are talking about a party that considers two loving people of the same sex unfit parents.

First, Sarah Palin is an advocate of abstinence-only programs, and opposed to comprehensive sex-ed. MSNBC reports:

Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race. In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, Palin gave this response to the following question:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

I think it is a legitimate political and policy question: Governor, how do you expect abstinence only education to work for millions of children across this nation when it wouldn't even work for your own daughter?

People to aspire to lead on the basis of conservative ideas of the imposition of their set of moral codes on the rest of our families must answer for their personal family failures, for the people must know how they are able to campaign on those values when the same have failed their own families so horribly?

Oh, by the way, McCain is pro-abstinence-only as well:

NBC's Abby Livingston adds that a McCain spokesperson in May 2007 said the Arizona Republican supported abstinence-only education, too. "Sen. McCain believes the correct policy for educating young children on this subject is to promote abstinence as the only safe and responsible alternative. To do otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand they should not be sexually active, but on the other here is the way to go about it.

And what of the 2008 Republican platform that was just approved today? It says:

We renew our call for replacing "family planning" programs for teens with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.

Obviously, not only do these programs the GOP advocates not work for the general public, it doesn't even work for the loudest and proudest of those that preach it. I say this again: the party and the ticket that seek to define, regulate and impose upon the personal and family lives of Americans based on their own moral codes must answer for their own personal and family failures when pitted against those same values. Not because we want to see them personally hurt, but because this makes them hypocrites.

Now, these are also the same people that would deny a child a loving home with parents, should those parents happen to be of the same sex. We are told how same sex households are bad environments to raise kids - meaning, of course, in transmitting those narrowly defined conservative, strict (im)moral code. John McCain is against adoption by gay parents, as he said in an interview with the New York times:

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

So, presumably, does Sarah Palin - although no specific statements are available, she is virulently conservative and anti-gay, and you cannot be a darling of the social right wing without having that quality.

And the 2008 Republican Platform? It rails against Massachusetts' policy of ensuring adoption providers using state funds do not discriminate based on the gender makeup of a couple:

we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples.

And

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character.

Expressly defining a "two-parent" family to also be an opposite-gender one.

I do not believe it is off limits to the political discourse of this nation to ask the political party that aspires these values supposedly to protect families and children from becoming socially corrupt and build the characters they believe in, why their own methods so often fail to produce their own desired characters in the families of their most revered? I think that's a legitimate question. I think that's a mandatory question when social repression is the motto of an entire political party.

So while we all can feel the joys and pains of Bristol Palin and sympathize and celebrate with her, we do not have to let these regressive conservative imposition of their values on rest of society go unchallenged.