Meghan McCain Quotes of the Week: Bras, Bugs, & Beta Males

Unfortunately, Meghan McCain’s boobs can’t really talk, but thankfully, Meg’s Twitter feed is such a treasure trove of good quotes, they really don’t have to.  Politico even put one of Meghan’s tweets in its “Politi-quotes: The week in one-liners,” but I think she deserves a whole list to herself.

First, there was Politico’s pick, Meg’s tweet about killing a cockroach in her sink.  Funnier than that, though, were her followups.  Apparently, this one spurred a flurry of cockroach fun facts:

WHAT? @HeyDaveJ Tip: Put a paper towel over the cockroach before you kill it. They carry eggs on their back, and that way they don’t spread. 9:58 AM Jun 27th from web

stop tweeting me about roach eggs people! good lord, I just killed one! 10:18 AM Jun 27th from web

I have to give Meg some props here.  Even though she said “Ewww!”, she did kill the roach herself.  Several years ago, I had a girlfriend who made me drive 2 hours to the City so I could kill a roach that she had trapped under a glass.  To be fair, the thing was the size of a Rottweiler puppy, but it was also missing a bunch of legs.

Now, killing is second nature to Meghan, putting her even more squarely in the “Cool Chick” category, the kind of girl that every guy wants to have a beer with, then have breakfast with.

My favorite Meg quote (aside from her perceptive take on our Meg story) was this 2-Tweet decimation of her conservative critics:

I love people that tell me “I’m doing damage to the GOP”, yeah cause Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Sen. Ensign, Gov Sanford and the entire Bush administration have nothing to do with the GOP’s problems, no…it’s my 5″1 ass in a pushup bra thats the real problem with the GOP… about 19 hours ago from web

She’s right, of course.  The problem isn’t her ass, but the GOP’s habit of telling people what to do with their own asses, while stealth-hunting extracurricular booty.

Finally, she launches a funny one-liner at Hot Air blogger Allahpundit, who self-deprecatingly refers to himself as a “beta male”:

@allahpundit I don’t like beta males darlin’, I am a lot of a lot to date and guys gotta be able to handle it! 12:41 AM Jun 27th from web in reply to allahpundit

At least now, he’ll know who to call if he needs some exterminating done for him.

Other highlights this week include her run-in with an unhinged taxi driver, smackdown of a jerky Twitter troll, and coinage of a great Battlestar Galactica-related catch phrase.  What I’m saying is, you’re missing out on a full life if you don’t follow Meg’s Twitter feed.

Daily Kos Founder Twitter-Feuds with Meghan McCain Over Gay Marriage

This kind of thing really makes me mad.  I’m going to try to be chill, but there might be profanity below the fold.

Meghan McCain was tweeting about a Washington Monthly article that named her as a “meaningless” advocate of gay marriage:

It was pretty meaningless to hear Meghan McCain urge her Republican Party to come around on gay marriage. It seemed a bit more important when Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s campaign manager, gave the GOP the same advice.

But in terms of influence in Republican politics, Dick Cheney is on another level.

While their point is that Cheney carries more political weight, their swipe at Meg was gratuitous and inaccurate.  Meg has done more than most to publicize marriage equality, and not in the ugly, Perez Hilton way.  To call her meaningless, or all of the other non-Dick people who work hard to achieve equality for everyone, is just wrong.

So, when Meg pointed this out on her Twitter feed, here’s the response she got from Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas:

markosm

Before I comment further, and before I get to Meghan McCain’s statement on this feud, let me lay out the rest of the Twitter conversation for you, in chronological order: Continue reading

Dick Cheney In a Tie With President Obama on Gay Marriage

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in an appearance today at the National Press Club, offered support for marriage equality

:

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” replied the former V.P. “As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.”

As someone who believes that marriage equality is a civil rights issue, I might quibble with the details of Cheney’s statement, but the spirit is the same. Good for him.

I would like to point out to others, like Sam Stein and my friend Lee Stranahan, that Cheney’s position is not more liberal than President Obama’s. I would place them in a tie. While that doesn’t grant the President “head of the table” status at our next “Drinking Liberally” meeting, it is more accurate.
Cheney’s statement would seem to necessarily include opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, which matches the President’s stated support for a legislative repeal of DOMA.

The President is also on record as opposing Proposition 8, and does not support bans on gay marriage. It is noteworthy that both Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod claim not to have spoken to the President about the California Supreme Court’s decision upholding Prop 8.

I do agree with Lee about this:

…his position on this issue is wrong and looking more wrong as the weeks progress. The best place for a politician to be on civil rights issues is slightly ahead of the curve and that moment is now. President Obama is still currently on the wrong side of history. He needs to reconsider and lead.

As I’ve said before, the President can’t continue to try to thread the needle here, yet claim leadership on gay issues. That kind of leader doesn’t end up in a tie with Dick Cheney.//

// //

Tommy on: Daily Dose:

Proposition 8 Ruling is a Catch 88

Proposition 8 Ruling is a Catch 88

Posted:
05/27/09
Filed Under:Gay Rights, Supreme Court <!– Filed Under: –> <!– Filed Under:Gay Rights, Supreme Court –>

See what I did there? It’s like a Catch 22, only 4 times as bad. Worse, really, but 88 went well with the rest of the headline.

In rendering its decision to uphold Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court ignored not only their own precedent but their reason for existing. Upon advice of counsel, I decided to bite the bullet and try to wade through the 136-page Prop 8 decision to find out where the whole thing went wrong. After doing so, I can only conclude than that the court wrote their decision to fit a pre-ordained outcome.

That outcome was best described by Below the Beltway’s Doug Mataconis (and others, I’m sure) as “splitting the baby,” a reference to the story of Solomon as directed by Quentin Tarantino.

In order to arrive at this decision, the court faced a number of obstacles, but I have isolated the moment at which they went from torturing logic to putting it out of its misery.

As Ed Rawls noted, the court rests its entire decision on the distinction between a constitutional amendment and a revision. This is sleight of hand, however, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion. The real issue is whether Proposition 8 violates the inalienable rights of liberty and due process. If it does, then Proposition 8 is necessarily a revision, not an amendment. Furthermore, the distinction is rendered moot, because it is unconstitutional on its face.

To illustrate, you couldn’t amend, revise, or Martinize a constitution to legalize the murder of a certain class of people.

The court had already ruled, in the Marriage Cases, that marriage inequality makes same-sex couples a suspect class, that it violates the privacy, liberty, and due process clauses of Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The court even cites, extensively, the decision in the Marriage Cases.

Furthermore, in the Marriage Cases, the court made a clear distinction between the right to marry, and the right to be afforded the rights and privileges of marriage without calling it marriage, which already existed. In other words, the point of the Marriage Cases was the right to marry, not the right to separate but equal marriage. That means that the Prop 8 court had to escape its own precedent in order to uphold Prop 8.

In order to do so, the court relied on this bit of Orwellian logic: (page 34-35)

Because in common speech the term “right to marry” is most often used and understood to refer to an individual’s right to enter into the official relationship designated “marriage,” and in order to minimize potential confusion in the future, instead of referring to this aspect of the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process as “the constitutional right to marry,” hereafter in this opinion we shall refer to this constitutional right by the more general descriptive terminology used in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases – namely, the constitutional right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.

In other words, just because you have the right to marry doesn’t mean you get to call the product of that marrying a marriage. It would be like a defense attorney saying, “Just because my client murdered the victim doesn’t mean you get to call it a murder. We prefer soul/body disunion.”

There are a host of other problems with this decision, but this is the poisonous tree.

As Rawls points out, Judge Moreno’s dissenting opinion clearly explains how the majority has given undue deference to the amendment as “the will of the people”:

The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. I therefore dissent. …

The equal protection clause is therefore, by its nature, inherently countermajoritarian. As a logical matter, it cannot depend on the will of the majority for its enforcement, for it is the will of the majority against which the equal protection clause is designed to protect. Rather, the enforcement of the equal protection clause is especially dependent on “the power of the courts to test legislative and executive acts by the light of constitutional mandate and in particular to preserve constitutional rights, whether of individual or minority, from obliteration by the majority.”

Finally, the court’s contention that Prop 8 doesn’t violate Article 1, Section 7, but rather “carves out a narrow exception,” is a terrifying prospect. Will the court approve future amendments to re-dub children of same-sex unions “fagbabies,” or to narrowly exempt individuals in same-sex unions from the designation “human?”

The California Supreme Court has twisted itself into disgraceful knots in order to avoid doing its job. Perhaps in a thin-skinned attempt to avoid the label of “activist,” they have created a new one, the “inactivist court.”// //

Tommy on: Daily Dose: