The courts giveth, the courts taketh away...

Aside from the fact that the courts have no legitimate role to play in deciding policy, there is a practical reason that pro-gay marriage groups should avoid trying to win their fight through the courts. The title above says it all, and the gay marriage movement has now suffered four defeats in about a week.

You need to change hearts and minds, folks. Absent that, no legitimate change is possible. The courts cannot solve this issue, or any issue, definitively.

Tuesday's Primary

After a three week break, this Tuesday will see a primary. The State of Georgia will be deciding who will face off in the following races:

Governor
Incumbent Sonny Perdue (R) will face Ray McBerry (R), who seems to have found a way to have his name listed as Ray "States Rights" McBerry. I have a feeling this isn't going to be a very challenging primary for Perdue.

On the Democratic side, Secretary of State Cathy Cox will be facing off against Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor, as well as Bill Bolton and Mac McCarley. I strongly suspect that whoever wins will be cannon fodder for Perdue, but the fact that two of these challengers have won statewide office in Georgia makes it at least possible that they could take Perdue out with a strong enough campaign.

Georgia CD 4
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D), who has become rather infamous for trying to beat up a Capital Hill policeman earlier this year, faces two challengers: John Coyne III and Hank Johnson, Jr. Coyne has made barely any money, but Johnson has made about 50% of McKinney's total. She should cruise to victory despite the police scuffle. The winner will face Catherine Davis (R) in November.

Georgia CD 6
Congressman Tom Price (R) faces John Konop on Tuesday. Price is wiping the floor with Konop in the fundraising battle ($1.85 million to $80,000), so this doesn't appear to be a very serious challenge. The winner will face Steve Sinton (D) in November.

Georgia CD 8
Former Congressman Mac Collins (R), who served in Congress for 12 years before honoring a self-imposed 6 term limit and retiring, is trying for office again, facing James Neal Harris in the primary. Collins has made well over $1 million for this race, while Harris' financial statement is not available (leading me to believe he doesn't have much at all). The winner will face Congressman Jim Marshall (D) in November.

Georgia CD 9
John Bradbury (D) faces off against Bob Longwith (D) to determine who will face Congressman Nathan Deal (R) in November.

Georgia CD 13
Congressman David Scott (D) faces Donzella James (D) on Tuesday night, but James doesn't seem to have much of a chance of unseating Scott. The winner will face Deborah Honeycutt (R) in November.

Hurrah for Bridge Trolls

This has absolutely nothing to do with Politics, but I really don't care. I had to post it somewhere.

2008 Dem Primary Mess

It sounds like things are going to get a little bit messy as states fight for priority within the Democratic Primary system. Anyone with even rudimentary civics knowledge knows that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are the first two "official" events of the presidential election year. Now, it sounds as if that is likely to change.

The Democrats want to insert a southwestern state (rumored to be Arizona or Nevada, but possibly Colorado) into the process between Iowa and New Hampshire, and follow those shortly thereafter with a stand-alone southern state (either South Carolina or Alabama) before opening the process up to other states. New Hampshire politicos are in a fit contesting the changes, South Carolina is upset that it may be losing its importance, and southwestern states are fighting over who gets the coveted post-Iowa spot. In other words, it's a mess.

I have a couple of thoughts regarding this. First, it really is bizarre that Iowa and New Hampshire kick of this process at all, isn't it? Can you get two states less representative of the nation as a whole? I understand the "retail-politics" argument to taking two small-ish states, but it still seems bizarre. Injecting the southwest into the process makes sense, because it is a rapidly growing area. But, honestly, isn't that just adding in more controversy? Where is California in this process? New York? Florida? Generally speaking, by the time the states with the bulk of the population weigh in, an aura of inevitability has set in. Survive Iowa, win in New Hampshire, rack up a couple of victories in the first-round, and it's over. Why not start off with a bang in California?

Second, is it time to consider a national primary day? I'm not sure I favor this idea, but I thought I'd throw it out there. We have one day to decide who the President is, so why not one day, nationally, to decide who the nominee is? There are multiple arguments against this, including the idea that weeks of primary campaigning serve as the kick-start process to the national Presidential campaign. However, if the national primary were held in May, the candidates would have plenty of time to run a national primary campaign and get themselves known. It would require different tactics, but it would be manageable. Of course, it would also mean that they would probably set up shop in California and New York, letting states such as New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina rot...

I don't have a solution, and I don't even necessarily think the process is completely broken now. I believe it starts too early, but that's a minor quibble; better it start early, allowing time for people to familiarize themselves with the candidates, than not start until quite late, allowing for unwelcome surprises. There's no question that it will interesting to see what both parties do in the maneuvering that will take place up to the start of the primaries in (yipes!) only 18 months.

Bush Veto Forthcoming?

Somehow, President Bush has managed to make it through nearly 6 years as the President without having vetoes a single bill. That in itself is remarkable. The President is now threatening to veto a bill providing for increased funding of stem cell research, and I have two basic questions:

1.) Is the President's veto threat credible, considering he has never vetoed a bill?

2.) Why choose to make a stand on this issue, now?

The legislation must be supported by the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, or it wouldn't have ever been brought up for a vote. Bill Frist, Senate Majority leader, is purportedly a supporter of the bill. This seems a good way to bring negative attention to an issue that I suspect fractures Republicans much more deeply than it fractures Republicans. If I were the Democratic party, I would be thrilled right now that this legislation is set to pass the Senate comfortably, and that the President was going to take such a firm stand on it. If the veto happens, many Republicans will have to make a tough decision on an override vote, if one is forthcoming. I suspect that standing on principle could lose them some support amongst moderate voters. On the other hand, supporting the research could cost them points with the base. Tough call.

The Return of Tom DeLay

Read about it here.

This strikes me as very bad for a Republican party that wants to distance itself from any hint of corruption. The man can make money hand-over-fist, but I think he's a drag to the Republican party and I'm guessing there aren't a lot of people in the leadership of the party who want to see him return to elected office. He works better as a martyr, raising money and giving speeches behind the scenes.

Incidentally, I think he's in for a surprise if he actually runs for his old seat. My prediction is that he'll lose the race to Nick Lampson if he goes for it.