Notes From D. R.

Open Mouth, Insert Foot

US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says judicial activism is just fine and dandy. Guess this gives away how he'll vote in two high-profile cases involving the use of racial quotas in public schools...

Fighting Back

Will Massachusetts really go through with a plan to crack down on illegal immigration? Or will Governor-Elect Deval Patrick give in to far-left pressure to abandon the plan? More from the AP.

UPDATE: More evidence that Patrick plans to permanently obey the wishes of the far-left?

Weekend Box Office: Three Feet High And Rising

Happy Feet tops the charts for a third week.

Culture Club

It can be argued that in 2006, racism is dead in America, but "culture-ism" is alive and well.

To the extent that racial bias against blacks persists in the United States, it is largely due to white rejection of the negative, destructive, and ignorant elements of "black culture." It is evident that blacks who reject the negativity of "black culture" are embraced by the mainstream, while blacks who embrace such negativity are rejected by the mainstream.

A few weeks before the historic 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, a caller to Howie Carr's popular radio show claimed that Deval Patrick would win because he was perceived by white voters as a "non-threatening black man." The caller suggested that Patrick's soft-spoken nature and professional and educational accomplishments would make him an irresistible choice for Bay State voters.

While the caller's depiction of Patrick was fairly blunt, he wasn't far from the mark. Patrick and his friend, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, have become political superstars in part because they are seen as classy, sophisticated individuals who happen to be black. If they were perceived as representatives of the negative side of "black culture," they would have been abject failures in the political arena.

There are plenty of white people in Massachusetts who enthusiastically supported Patrick but who would never think of driving through one of Boston's predominately black neighborhoods. Is this merely a reaction to the racial makeup of those neighborhoods, or is it really a reaction to cultural dysfunction (illegitimacy, crime, etc.) in those neighborhoods?

One reason why the fight against the destructive elements of modern-day "black culture" is so important is that a negative reaction to those negative elements by whites will harden racial attitudes and further psychological segregation between the races. One cannot blame Bill Cosby for his crusade against the seedier elements of modern-day "black culture." Destroying the destructive aspects of "black culture" is, in fact, a civil rights crusade.

Currently, there's a controversy over rapper 50 Cent's recent assertion that Oprah Winfrey panders to white people on her show. The 50 Cent-Oprah "feud" is a perfect example of the problems caused by the negative aspects of "black culture." Oprah has worked hard to destroy white American stereotypes of blacks in general and black women in particular, while Mr. "I Got Shot Nine Times" has reinforced such negative perceptions of blacks. Who has done more to advance the cause of civil rights in America? Since when is embracing class and decorum pandering to white sensibilities? Would 50 Cent argue that Lena Horne was trying to pander to white people as well?

American society will never truly get beyond racism until we root out the more distasteful aspects of "black culture"--the negative elements that reinforce stereotypes and harden racial perception. As the old song goes, we must accentuate the positive--and definitely eliminate the negative.

A Christmas Story

Is there really a "war on Christmas"? Yes and no.

Over the last few years, many conservative commentators, most notably Bill O'Reilly, have argued that the American left has been engaged in a deliberate attempt to "crack down" on Christmas by legally challenging the placement of Nativity scenes on government property, pressuring stores to use the phrase "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in their advertising, and the like. O'Reilly in particular has asserted that the "secular progressive" movement has attacked Christmas as a way of reducing the influence of Christianity in America so as to allow for greater acceptance of liberal concepts such as same-sex marriage and euthanasia.

Have there been efforts by entities such as the ACLU to get rid of Nativity scenes in the public square? Yes.

Have PC-obsessed stores gone the "Happy Holidays" route? Indeed.

However, O'Reilly and company fail to see the forest for the Christmas trees.

Much like the effort by College Republican groups to use satire to condemn racial quotas, the effort to mount a defense in the "War on Christmas" is doomed in part because, on this issue, the right has yet to figure out how to respond to a hostile media culture. How can you make the case that liberal entities want to remove Christmas from the public square when the press will simply respond with charges that you're a "Christianist"--a charge that large segments of American society will buy without an effective reply?

In addition, the right's "War on Christmas" argument presupposes that only left-wing entities want to remove Christmas from the public square. While Rush Limbaugh is not wrong to assert that those who dislike public expressions of Christmas tend to be liberal Democrats, there are plenty of folks on the libertarian right who aren't thrilled by public expressions of Christianity, and thus don't mind efforts to diminish "the reason for the season." I have never heard O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or any other conservative dedicated to fighting the "war on Christmas" point this out.

Ever since the "war on Christmas" controversy heated up, I've noticed that the libertarian right hasn't joined the fight against those who wish to secularize the season. Why is that? And why haven't Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et. al. criticized the libertarian right for failing to stand up against the "Happy Holidays" crowd?

It's tough to lead a fight when your tactics aren't right. O'Reilly and other supporters of the presence of Christmas in the public square have yet to figure out a way to respond to assertions by the press that they're religious cranks, and they have yet to challenge the libertarian right to enlist in the effort to defend Christmas. No wonder religious-right figures like Cal Thomas are somewhat disdainful of the pro-Christmas crowd; their tactics have led to a political quagmire.

It shouldn't surprise you that the left regards conservative efforts to thwart the "war on Christmas" as little more than a large-scale right-wing publicity stunt.  Conservatives like O'Reilly have a solid case to make against efforts by left-wing entities to "phase out" Christmas. However, instead of making a strong case in the court of public opinion, O'Reilly and company are acting like Chris Darden and Marcia Clark.

Fight! Fight!

If you thought that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasn't going to be the ultimate anti-Bush partisan, think again. More from Michelle Malkin and the Washington Post.

UPDATE: Conduct unbecoming from newly elected Virginia Senator Jim Webb. More from George F. Will.

Comeback Trail

Can former US Senate candidate Michael Steele lead a Republican resurgence in Maryland?

Cozy Relationship

Don't expect Mass. Gov.-Elect Deval Patrick to stand up to the state's powerful unions...

Potholes In My Lawn

If you didn't think the Boston Globe regarded Mitt Romney as a vile human being before...

UPDATE: More from the Globe, Howie Carr and Mass. GOP News.

Would We Rather Switch Than Fight?

It's hard to believe that it only took five years.

The enemies of the United States--those who executed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and those who either financially or ideologically supported those attacks--evidently only had to wait a half-decade before a significant portion of the U.S. population folded, and decided that a fight against terrorism wasn't worth winning.

With the call to cut and run from Iraq louder than ever before--from the American press, from the strident left, and from voters who chose to put Democrats devoted to defeat in control of the Senate and House of Representatives--it is unquestionably clear that those who believed that the U.S. would not have the stomach for a protracted fight against terrorism were correct in their conclusions.

Who would have thought, in the wake of September 11, that so many Americans would be lulled into believing that if we did not confront Islamic terrorism and the sponsors thereof, those who embraced extremism would never bother us again? Who would have thought that so many people would ignore the obvious logic of shattering the financial foundations of terrorism--a foundation of which Saddam Hussein was clearly a part? Who would have thought that hatred of George W. Bush would supersede contempt for the religious fanatics whose desire to destroy the United States remains unquenched?

You can't help thinking that the likes of Hussein, Osama bin Laden,  Mahmoud Ahmaninejad and Hugo Chavez are having a huge laugh at America's expense right about now, as they witness the mainstream press, members of the Democrat Party, and war-weary American voters demand that Bush abandon Iraq. Our enemies always saw the United States as the greatest paper tiger in world history. Declaring defeat in Iraq validates their view.

The deafening decree--"Leave Iraq Now!"--indicates a world upside down. It's as if we've entered an alternative universe in which John Kerry actually won the 2004 Presidential election. From coast to coast, there is this bizarre desire to quit, to lose, to give up, to forfeit, to fail. Are we all Cindy Sheehans now?

It's amazing. Our enemies only had to wait five years before 9/11 faded from our consciousness. They knew it was only a matter of time before a significant portion of the U.S. population saw enough bloodshed. And so, President Bush's claims to the contrary notwithstanding, the premature abandonment of Iraq seems inevitable.

Five years ago, it seemed that we would be unified in the face of the terrorist threat. On September 12, 2001, it appeared that all Americans, regardless of race, creed, color, religion and age, had resolved to face down those who wished to destroy America and those who supported that amoral ambition. Looking at where we are now, five years ago might as well be five hundred years ago.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Post and National Review.

O? No!

It was just a matter of time before Illinois Senator--and self-professed Christian--Barack Obama drew heat for his stance on abortion...

Gross Domestic Product

Is opposition to same-sex marriage primarily based on the "ick factor"?

Despite the fact that American culture is clearly moving in a libertarian direction with regard to homosexuality, there is still a discomfort in some quarters with the idea of intimacy between members of the same gender. There are plenty of folks who cannot embrace the notion that such intimacy is in any way, shape or form "natural."

However, are those who perceive homosexuality as "not natural" the only ones who reject same-sex matrimony?

It's inaccurate to say so. The reality is that, while there are those who steadfastly oppose gay marriage because they cannot accept societal approval of behavior they consider unnatural, there are also large numbers of people who reject gay marriage for legal, not moral, reasons.

Supporters of same-sex marriage often claim that the controversial 2003 Goodridge ruling authorizing gay marriage in Massachusetts is nothing more than the modern-day version of the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws forbidding marriage between members of different races. However, as opponents of same-sex marriage frequently point out, the Loving ruling did not fundamentally alter the one man-one woman marriage dynamic.

There is a legitimate concern that, once a precedent redefining the parameters of marriage has been established, further "redefinitions" are inevitable, potentially allowing the legitimization of polygamy and marriages between very close relatives. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made it clear that marriage is a civil right that cannot be restricted because of sexual orientation; if that is indeed the case, then how can the civil right of marriage be restricted because of numbers or familial closeness?

Because American culture leans libertarian in its view of homosexuality, opponents of gay marriage must emphasize that their views are not based on bigotry or the aforementioned "ick factor," but on a reasonable concern about just how far American jurisprudence will go on the matter of marriage. Objecting to same-sex marriage on moral grounds--i.e., not wanting to have society officially approve behavior viewed as morally erroneous--will become increasingly difficult as the society continues to move in a live-or-let-live direction; as Boston political commentator Jon Keller recently suggested, we live in a time in which many heterosexual unions can be considered "unnatural."

In 2006, the burden is not on supporters of same-sex marriage to prove that such marriages benefit society; the burden is on opponents of same-sex marriage to prove that their beliefs are not rooted in anti-gay animus. Thus, supporters of traditional marriage must make it clear that their views are not based on a desire to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens, but to ensure that American jurisprudence is not altered in such a way as to make matrimony meaningless.

UPDATE: Hub Politics on gay marriage in Massachusetts.

SECOND UPDATE: The gay-marriage controversy continues in the Bay State. Plus, the American Spectator on the politics of same-sex marriage.

THIRD UPDATE: The Boston Phoenix condemns a black anti-gay-marriage activist's role on Mass. Gov.-Elect Deval Patrick's transition team. I don't understand the point of the criticism. Patrick made it clear that he wanted to have a diverse transition team. "Diversity," as understood in the modern political sense, means among other things the inclusion of blacks. Many blacks happen to oppose same-sex marriage for various reasons. Thus, if Patrick wants to have a diverse transition team, the law of averages dictates that he will have on that team blacks who oppose same-sex marriage. What is Patrick supposed to do? Not have a racially diverse transition team? More from the AP.

Great Expectations

Is Deval Patrick a role model?

It may be too soon to answer that question. However, it's already obvious that, for some families in Massachusetts, Patrick is seen as the only adult figure suitable for their children to pattern themselves after.

One reason why some Bay Staters are hoping that Patrick does not fail in the Corner Office is that they perceive the Governor-Elect as someone to look up to: a man who made it out of the depravity and despair of Chicago's South Side to become a corporate titan, a civil rights crusader and the CEO of the Commonwealth. In an age of drug-addled sports heroes, thuggish rappers, deranged comedians and crooked Congressmen, it's hard to blame these people for hoping that Patrick doesn't let them down.

Don't think for a moment that African-Americans are the only ones hoping that Patrick doesn't drop the ball. There are plenty of whites, Asians and Hispanics who feel that role models are few and far between. They also feel that Patrick could inspire their children to achieve, to excel, to become better.

We live in a culture in which excellence is mistaken for elitism. To be sure, some of Patrick's supporters have themselves pushed the idea that there is something fundamentally perverse about the concept of being the best, and about the idea of meritocracy.

However, it's also true that in order to achieve the success he's enjoyed, Patrick clearly had to be the best. He had to excel. He had to be twice as good. Thus, there are plenty of Bay Staters hoping that he continues to be twice as good in the Corner Office.

Patrick wasn't wrong to imply that there are plenty of people who are investing their hopes and dreams in him. In a culture that seems to reward backward behavior, Patrick is being looked upon as a man who could move the culture forward.

One can't ignore the political double standard involved in the perception of Patrick as a role model. If Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, etc. were all Democrats, they would all be held up as role models as well. The double standard that benefits the likes of Patrick won't go away anytime soon. Neither will the pressure on the new governor not to let down those who believe in him.

UPDATE: More on Patrick. Plus, what would Deval make of the new controversy concerning the alleged underrepresentation of nonwhite attorneys at big-name American law firms?

SECOND UPDATE: Patrick vs. the press? More from the Boston Herald.

Guess He Didn't Get The Blue Carpet Treatment

Rapper Snoop Dogg arrested on illegal handgun possession charges in California.

Judge? Not!

Corrupt federal judge-turned-Congressman Alcee Hastings will not receive a desired chairmanship in the new Congress. More from the New York Times and Washington Post.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Could Kerry Healey re-emerge in 2007 as Deval Patrick's critic-in-chief?

Patrick's own desire to preserve his future political career may be enough to prevent him from moving too far to the left, but if it does not, I wouldn't be surprised if Healey reestablishes herself as a one-woman "watchdog agency" monitoring the Patrick administration.

With nothing to lose, Healey could consistently call Patrick out on his excessive liberalism, possibly setting herself up for a 2010 rematch with the Together We Can Man. While the notion of Healey running for governor again seems far-fetched now, stranger things have happened in Massachusetts politics--and if Patrick repels the electorate by lurching left, Healey will be perfectly positioned to lead the state back in the right direction.

As a Patrick critic, Healey will be able to rehabilitate her image, learning from the mistakes she made on the 2006 campaign trail. If she was too harsh, too negative, too abrasive this year, she'll be more reasoned, more restrained, more personable--and more appealing to the Bay State electorate.

Everyone assumes that we won't have Kerry Healey to kick around anymore. Everyone assumes that there are no second acts in Massachusetts politics.

What if everyone's assuming the wrong thing? What if Healey takes advantage of Patrick's political mistakes to become the odds-on favorite in an election rematch? What if Healey, four years from now, becomes the candidate seen as no ordinary leader?

Little Miss Sunshine

Did Kerry Healey really run an excessively negative gubernatorial campaign?

It is now an article of faith in Massachusetts that Healey lost the 2006 gubernatorial race to Deval Patrick because of an unreasonably low-class campaign. According to the conventional wisdom, Healey engaged in off-the-charts demagoguery and borderline race-baiting, while Patrick ran an uplifting, civil campaign appealing to mankind's better instincts.

Whenever I hear this conventional wisdom being espoused, I can't help thinking of Hollywood producer Robert Evans' famous saying: "There are three sides to every story--your side, my side, and the truth." It's inaccurate to characterize Healey's campaign as flawless, but it's also inaccurate to characterize her campaign as the ultimate in political depravity. The truth, as they say, lies somewhere in between.

Healey wasn't wrong to emphasize Patrick's attitudes concerning crime and punishment. The issue of crime is never irrelevant, and Patrick's support of a convicted rapist and his efforts to have a cop-killer removed from death row were pertinent issues. Healey ran an effective commercial highlighting Patrick's involvement in the Carl Ray Songer cop-killer case, and a highly controversial spot focusing on Patrick's efforts in the Ben LaGuer rape case. Looking back, it seems that the LaGuer commercial, now commonly referred to as the "garage ad," missed the mark and hurt Healey's campaign--but not for the reason everyone seems to believe.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims of figures such as former Patrick adviser Dan Payne, the "garage ad" represented neither deliberate nor unintentional race-baiting. However, the ad likely turned viewers off because it reminded victims of crime and their friends and relatives of the trauma they went through. Instead of turning those viewers against Patrick (because of his actions in the LaGuer case), the ad caused those viewers to perceive Healey as a candidate willing to exploit real-life crimes to gain political advantage.

Healey also wasn't wrong to label Patrick a "tax-and-spend liberal"; considering Patrick's well-documented scorn of tax cuts, such a depiction was not inappropriate. However, Healey failed to come up with a response to those who argued that Patrick's corporate background made him an unlikely tax-and-spender. She never emphasized that there are plenty of hardcore left-wingers in the corridors of corporate America (Ted Turner, anyone?) and that Patrick's private-sector success did not mean he wouldn't be a public-sector failure.

Frankly, as Patrick would say, Healey was doomed. Anti-Mitt Romney sentiment in this state was at the boiling point, and nothing was going to stop Healey from being scalded. Even if she had forcefully condemned Romney's anti-Massachusetts remarks, it would not have been enough to dampen voter enthusiasm for Patrick.

Healey was linked to the Legacy of Mitt--and as it turned out, fifty-six percent of the electorate considered that legacy a bitter one. While she clearly made significant mistakes in her campaign, it's a distortion to claim that her "over-the-top negativity" was the primary factor in her loss. She did not become our next governor principally because of the Bay State's contempt for the man who could become our next President.

Sound Check

A new voice takes over for longtime Boston radio newsman Gary LaPierre. More from the Boston Herald and Globe.

The Last Chapter

Novelist Bebe Moore Campbell passes away at 56.

The Last Boy Scout

If there's one thing that will prevent Massachusetts Governor-Elect Deval Patrick from going too far to the left once he's in office, it's the knowledge that if he does so, not only will he restrict himself to one term, he could possibly end up undoing Democrat dominance of Bay State politics.

Patrick is actually in a very precarious position as he heads into the Corner Office. While progressive activists are hoping that he fulfills all of their blue-state desires, Patrick is under internal pressure not to damage his future political career by turning himself into Mike Dukakis Jr. If Patrick does give in to fierce external pressure and governs from the hard left, not only will he wreck the state's economic, educational and legal system, he will also create the circumstances necessary for a GOP resurgence in the Commonwealth.

Prior to Patrick's victory, the Bay State right warned the electorate about what happened to this state during the dark Dukakis years. If Patrick allows "moonbat mania" to run wild during his first term, voters who didn't buy the "Deval is a whacko" argument will be so horrified that they'll turn to a revived state GOP for real change and real leadership. (Of course, the state GOP must have the right leadership in place for that to happen.)

A far-left Deval plus a far-left state Legislature will inevitably equal more Republican representatives and senators, along with another GOP governor. The last thing Patrick wants is to be the person blamed by history for allowing such an event to happen.

It can be argued that Patrick's history indicates that once in office he will not be able to resist the urge to govern from the hard left. Yet one cannot underestimate Patrick's intelligence. Would he really want to undo his party's dominion over state politics by going crazy-left? If so, he'd be the dumbest Democrat in decades.

Remember how Chris Gabrieli appeared to gain momentum in the Democrat primary by promising centrist leadership and claiming that it didn't matter whether an idea was a Democrat or Republican idea, so long as it was a good idea that generated results? Don't be surprised if Patrick decides to govern as Gabrieli would have governed. Do be surprised if he dictates his own downfall by duplicating Dukakis.

UPDATE: Virginia Buckingham on Patrick.

Everything In Moderation?

The New York Times asks: What happened to the Republican Party in New England?