David Boaz

When Washington Post racing columnist Andrew Beyer says “democracy,” he means “communist country”:

At a time when the populations of Arab countries are seething with resentment against their own leaders, the rulers of Dubai don’t hesitate to engage in self-indulgence on a gargantuan scale. They are unembarrassed that this money is derived from the natural resources of their country — resources that, in a democracy, would belong to the nation.

He’s writing about the use of oil wealth to build a powerful and expensive stable of racehorses. He’s right that in a free society, all that oil wealth wouldn’t belong to a small group of hereditary rulers. But countries that declare that their natural resources “belong to the nation” end up poor countries.

I have an op-ed in the Washington Examiner on Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and various contractual arrangements:

This amendment goes too far. But even its first sentence — the ban on gay marriage — is unworthy of a state that was the birthplace of American freedom. It is a cruel irony that this amendment to restrict contract rights and exclude loving couples from the institution of marriage is to be added to Virginia’s Bill of Rights, a document originally written by the great Founder George Mason.

Mason’s eloquent words inspired Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence and James Madison in writing the Bill of Rights for the U.S. Constitution. We should not add language to Virginia’s Bill of Rights that would limit rights rather than expand them.

Gay marriage is not legal in Virginia, and there’s no prospect of changing that in the foreseeable future, whether by legislative or judicial action. Ballot Question No. 1 is unnecessary and will create legal uncertainty.

A big tip of the hat to John Tierney for his column today. It’s hidden behind a TimesSelect wall, but here’s a selection:

These federal intrusions are especially scorned by independent voters in the Western states where Republicans have been losing ground, like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Montana. Western Democrats have been siphoning off libertarian voters by moderating their liberal views on issues like gun control, but Republicans have been driving libertarians away with their wars on vice and their jeremiads against gay marriage (and their attempt to regulate that from Washington, too).

Libertarian voters tend to get ignored by political strategists because they’re not easy to categorize or organize. They don’t congregate in churches or union halls; they don’t unite to push political agendas. Many don’t even call themselves libertarians, although they qualify because of their social liberalism and economic conservatism: they want the government out of their bedrooms as well as their wallets.

They distrust moral busybodies of both parties, and they may well be the most important bloc of swing voters this election, as David Boaz and David Kirby conclude in a new study for the Cato Institute. Analyzing a variety of voter surveys, they estimate that libertarians make up about 15 percent of voters — a bloc roughly comparable in size to liberals and to conservative Christians, and far bigger than blocs like Nascar dads or soccer moms.

Find the study here.

Is it possible to embarrass Republicans Apparently not. As they get more desperate about their prospects in the midterm election, Republicans have become ever more hysterical in their denunciations of the Democrats. The Republican National Committee’s ad depicting a scantily clad blond flirting with Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) at a …

Is it possible to embarrass Republicans? Apparently not. As they get more desperate about their prospects in the midterm election, Republicans have become ever more hysterical in their denunciations of the Democrats. The Republican National Committee’s ad depicting a scantily clad blond flirting with Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) at a Playboy party has gotten the most attention. But it’s not the worst.

Take the latest charge that Sen. George Allen (R-VA) has leveled at his opponent, Vietnam veteran and novelist James Webb: Allen is shocked, shocked to find sex scenes in Webb’s novels. Or at least, since Allen doesn’t claim even to have read a novel about the Vietnam War, he’s shocked to have been told that there are sex scenes in realistic novels about men at war. His campaign “leaked” the text of Webb’s bestselling novels to the Drudge Report Thursday night, having failed to persuade any journalist that it was a real story. By noon Friday, Rush Limbaugh was in full-throated outrage: “Get the kids away from the radio,” he warned listeners. He was determined to read the sexually explicit bits of Webb’s writing. “I don’t think you understand the importance of this,” he declared. Having listened to him, and read Saturday’s Washington Post article on the topic, indeed I don’t.

And then there are the various ads Republicans are running around the country. Honestly, if you didn’t know better, you’d think that Republican politicians are obsessed with sex. In Wisconsin, an ad for challenger Paul Nelson declares, “Rep. Ron Kind pays for sex!” with XXX stamped across Kind’s face. As the Washington Post reports, ” It turns out that Kind — along with more than 200 of his fellow hedonists in the House — opposed an unsuccessful effort to stop the National Institutes of Health from pursuing peer-reviewed sex studies.” Meanwhile, in New York, the National Republican Congressional Committee “ran an ad accusing Democratic House candidate Michael A. Arcuri, a district attorney, of using taxpayer dollars for phone sex. ‘Hi, sexy,’ a dancing woman purrs. ‘You’ve reached the live, one-on-one fantasy line.’ It turns out that one of Arcuri’s aides had tried to call the state Division of Criminal Justice, which had a number that was almost identical to that of a porn line. The misdial cost taxpayers $1.25.” In North Carolina, challenger Vernon Robinson’s TV ads blare, “If Brad Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals.”

And let’s not forget Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who is holding up President Bush’s appointment of a federal judge on the grounds that she attended a commitment ceremony for two lesbian friends. What’s the matter with Kansas, indeed? And what’s the matter with the Republican Party?

The establishment media are swooning over Deval Patrick, former civil rights chief in the Clinton administration and now on the verge of being the first black governor of Massachusetts. The New York Times says, “Mr. Patrick’s greatest assets include his charismatic personality, inspiring speaking style and biography.” The Washington Post …

The establishment media are swooning over Deval Patrick, former civil rights chief in the Clinton administration and now on the verge of being the first black governor of Massachusetts. The New York Times says, “Mr. Patrick’s greatest assets include his charismatic personality, inspiring speaking style and biography.” The Washington Post reports long-time non-voters in tears over his “message of optimism, his personal charisma and his uplifting personal story.” David Broder hails him as “New Star among the Democrats.”

But Deval Patrick’s personal story isn’t quite so uplifting to advocates of equality under the law. When he was named to be assistant attorney general for civil rights by President Clinton, after Lani Guinier’s nomination was withdrawn under fire, he came under the same sort of criticism. Clint Bolick, then with the Institute for Justice, called him “pro-quota” and a “stealth Guinier” who held the same views but lacked the same paper trail.

After Patrick took office, he seemed to confirm Bolick’s warnings. In 1995, Bolick called him “a master at using the threat of expensive litigation to extort concessions from municipalities and organizations.” (Alas, none of these op-eds and news articles from the 1990s seem to be online, but they can be found in Nexis.) He testified in 1995 oversight hearings that Patrick was “shedding any pretense of impartial law enforcement in favor of unbridled ideological activism” at the Justice Department.

Bolick wasn’t alone in his criticisms. “Deval Patrick has committed the Clinton administration to a vision of racial preference that fulfills the most extravagant fantasies of a conservative attack ad,” wrote Jeffrey Rosen in a 1994 New Republic article. “Rather than honestly confronting the costs of affirmative action, Patrick has blithely endorsed the most extreme form of racialism.” Nat Hentoff denounced one of Patrick’s most famous cases, when he sided with the Piscataway, N.J., school board’s decision to fire a white teacher in the name of “diversity.”

These days, Patrick endorses the standard tired litany of big-government liberalism: more tax money for middle-class housing, more tax money for low-income housing, more tax money for schools, more tax money for jobs and education for ex-cons, more tax money for alternative energy. Oh, and property tax relief. But his record suggests a propensity for more authoritarian policies to ensure that his moral vision prevails.

As for the title, a tip of the hat to Marion L. Starkey, author of the acclaimed book, The Devil in Massachusetts, about Massachusetts leaders who would go to extraordinary means to root out the merest allegations of sin.

Parade, the nation’s largest magazine, goes cuckoo for communism in its latest movie picks:
With its sweeping themes of freedom and social change, Warren Beatty�s Reds (Paramount, $20) is more relevant than ever. Nominated for 12 Oscars, the historical epic adventure, set during the Russian Revolution, also is a terrific love story.

Parade, the nation’s largest magazine, goes cuckoo for communism in its latest movie picks:

With its sweeping themes of freedom and social change, Warren Beatty’s Reds (Paramount, $20) is more relevant than ever. Nominated for 12 Oscars, the historical epic adventure, set during the Russian Revolution, also is a terrific love story.

NPR has a report this morning that it’s looking more and more like Fidel Castro is terminally ill and will not return to power. NPR and Reuters both suggest that younger brother Raul Castro may open up the economy and even the political system to some extent.

Meanwhile, after 47 years …