The Prop 8 case now makes three consecutive judicial opinions holding that laws prohibiting same-sex marriages have no rational basis. Interestingly, all three were authored by judges who were nominated or appointed by Republicans. Today’s Northern District of California opinion was authored by Judge Vaughn Walker, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Last month’s District of Massachusetts opinion was authored by Judge Joseph Tauro, who was nominated by Richard Nixon. The Iowa Supreme Court (unanimous) opinion was authored by Justice Mark Cady, who was appointed by Republican Governor Terry E. Branstad.

“Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination – one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit”

What the what?

“Lott’s comment implied that the country would have been better off keeping segregation and enforced white supremacy. What Reid said isn’t within a lightyear of that,” – Ramesh Ponnuru.

One guy is talking, perhaps inelegantly, about why he’s whole-heartedly supporting our first black president; the other is wishing the country had elected a racist. That’s exactly the same thing!

Dear Josh,
I’m disappointed with your post on Reid’s now-famous remark.

You state that “Reid’s was an offensive remark.” That is just not true.

Even George Will can see that Reid’s remark was not offensive at all (I’m sure you’ve watched the video of him arguing with Liz Cheney on this point).

It’s true that “Negro” is archaic, and shouldn’t be used. But that doesn’t make Reid’s remark “offensive.” Far from it. (And I don’t know what on earth you mean by “race-tinged.” How is it “tinged”? The comment is _about_ race.)

Calling Reid’s comment racist and offensive is part of something much bigger. Reid was calling out American racism. He was saying — correctly — that America is a nation that does not easily elect a black President, because we are still a fairly racist country, and that Obama had a better chance than most black candidates because of his skin color and way of speaking. This is a (true) comment about racism in America. The right LOVES to argue that pointing out racism in America is racist. (“We are shocked, shocked. How DARE you suggest that America is racist? Certainly none of my friends are racist. Maybe you ‘liberal elites’ are, but we’re not.” That’s basically the gist of Liz Cheney’s commentary today on this topic.)

In other words, the right is on a mission to argue that people who complain about or notice racism are racist.

If they can’t call such a comment racist, they at least want the media to call it a “racial” remark, as though that’s a bad thing one step shy of racist, rather than being a neutral description of any commentary about race. When you say “race-tinged” I hear the same thing — you’re unintentionally supporting a narrative in which calling out racism in America is “racial” or “race-tinged” or ultimately “racist.”

Please don’t feed this monster! Listen to George Will for once.

Talking about racism does not make you racist; advocating racism does.

I think this is probably the best explanation of the difference between Reid and Lott. It’s amazing how many different chatters are being led around by the nose on this one.

TPM Reader PH adds some more thoughts …

Whenever one of their side is brought down by corruption or racism, they have to then spend the next three decades looking for superficially similar circumstances that might allow them to take their revenge.

At root the problem is that for the GOP, politics simply do not matter, it is all about their side vs. the opposition. Having no principles themselves, they can’t imagine that principles might drive the decisions of anyone else. So they see the removal of Lott as nothing more than the Democrats managing to astutely exploit an unfortunate remark. They simply can’t get the idea that anyone might have been genuinely offended by Lott’s racist views.

A lot of the media shares the same blindness. They could not understand why the Clinton impeachment failed, because like the GOP they could not see the difference between lying about a blow job in a trumped up court case bore no relation to Nixon’s crimes. There are
days on which I feel sympathy for the economic circumstances that the Web has created for the establishment media, and then there are days when I look at the lousy job they did and my sympathy evaporates.

I don’t think I agree that Republicans lack any principles. I do think he’s right on the mark though in really never understanding what happened with Lott. To many of them, it really was just a matter of a clumsy remark that ended his career. The idea that people were not comfortable with having a crypto-racist who maintained active ties to white supremacist groups as the senate majority leader just didn’t compute.

I confess to feeling only slightly more rational than “Misery’s” Kathy Bates.

I want to strap Ellen Goodman into a chair and make her keep writing columns.

Goodman, whose prose has graced newspaper pages for more than four decades, allegedly wrote her last column on Jan. 1 – a proper end to a new beginning.

I use “allegedly” in the hope that she was only kidding.

No one who has labored under the cudgel of relentless deadlines begrudges Goodman her hard-earned respite. Retirement seems too old a word for one so young in spirit. Too end-of-road when so much lies ahead for a woman much burdened with talent and wisdom.

Like many regular visitors to the nation’s op-ed pages, I’ve “known” Ellen Goodman most of my adult life. Hers was a friendly face on a page that primarily featured stern men during a time when women’s opinions were valued only insofar as they pertained to recipes and cleansers.

On matters worldly, women were deemed not up to snuff. Or, on the flip side, human concerns related to home and family – traditionally “women’s issues” – were considered relatively unimportant, unworthy of the “thinking” pages of higher (read: masculine) brows.

How things have changed, and not just a little bit because of the trailblazing work of one Ellen Goodman.

Ellen’s moment in American journalism happened to correspond with the movement that liberated women. It was, and is, profoundly odd that what freed women from the tyranny of low expectations and limited opportunity was viewed by so many as a “women’s movement” rather than a human rights imperative that also relieved men from the burden of manliness.

I say this with an involuntary smirk of irony, for I have found plenty to criticize in that so-called women’s movement – hence my book, “Save the Males” – and frequently have been at odds with Ellen. In countless newspapers, we have been paired as opposites on op-ed pages by editors who insist on a left and a right version of life.

I am also a fan of manliness – at least of the Judeo-Christian variety – and harbor great suspicion toward men who declare themselves “feminists.” Nothing quite invites despair as the sight of a 20-year-old usher bearing a lapel pin reading “Vagina Larry” at one of Eve Ensler’s annual soliloquies of self-worship, “The Vagina Diatribes.” I mean, “Monologues.”

Suffice to say, I do not confuse myself with the Kathy Bates of “Fried Green Tomatoes.”

Alas, life is not a matter of left and right, but of something in between, and this is where Ellen has spent most of her time. Instead of drawing lines in the sand, she crafted sand castles of wit and charm. Her gift was proffering poignancy without pique in a snark-free zone.

Even if one disagreed with her conclusions, Ellen offered reasoned arguments that often pierced the armor of our own defenses. She was a skillful wordsmith, yes, but more than that, she was a consummate columnist. It is not so hard to write a column for a few weeks or even a year. The trick is writing quality columns year after year. For decades, Ellen managed to draw readers in, take them for a spin through her thoughts, and leave them wishing the ride hadn’t ended so soon. That is called magic.

As a fellow columnist, I am indebted to Ellen for clearing some of journalism’s underbrush and marking the trail with good humor. As a woman, I’m grateful to her for helping us recognize women’s issues as universal concerns. As a human being, I’m sorry to see her cursor go dim.
Today, we accept the gifts of the women’s movement without much notice. We expect to see women in equal numbers to men in most endeavors, though I still would argue that the sexes are not always interchangeable.

We also expect to see women on the op-ed pages, though there are still fewer than men. Here is how far we’ve come: Sixteen years ago when I first became syndicated, editors would bark at the noble salesperson, “We don’t need Parker; we got Goodman.”

One woman was as good as another, in other words.

We know that just ain’t so, but we didn’t always. For this, we can thank Ellen Goodman, too.
Best of luck in your second act, Ellen. If I may be permitted one final burst of Batesian inspiration, break a leg.