TITLE: Remembering
DATE: 09/11/2006 11:19:15 PM

Five years ago, I was working for the Tribune Chronicle in Warren, Ohio. Right about now, I was helping finish up the first zone of the Sept. 12 edition, after having been at work since 10 in the morning.

On Sept. 18, 2001, I wrote about that day. Though it was missing the perception and perspective that time provides, it remains my most vivid, and somber, memory of that day.

* * * * *

The Longest Day

I was up late Monday night (actually, early Tuesday morning), returning to my apartment — like most other nights — from putting out the paper. Being a copy editor at a morning newspaper gives me a somewhat nocturnal existence.

Tuesday was Election Day for voters in Massachusetts and New York City, and I had something to say about it. So — like many other nights — I wrote. Nothing special. In fact, most of it was pretty bad. But I wrote until the last moments of night, going to bed a little before 7 a.m. Tuesday. No need to wake before work that day, I figured I could sleep until 2 or 3 in the afternoon.

My sleep was cut short.

The phone rang.

Not even looking at the clock, I ignored the call, knowing it was some telemarketer I had no desire to speak with.

Then my cell phone rang.

My best friend.

It was 8:58 a.m.

“Turn on the TV.”

“What?”

“Now.”

MSNBC — the channel on when I had turned the TV off the night before — gave me my first view of the horror. For all my life, I will never forget the image so many of us saw that morning.

I also will never forget my half-asleep reaction from the relative safety of my Ohio home. The voice that came from my mouth was one I have never heard before — and hope to never hear again.

“Oh my God. Oh my God!”

Within moments, I was called into work.

I called my mother on the way there. I checked in with her and then called my friend again. The drive to the newspaper had me listening to the radio and my friend from Washington, D.C., report about smoke rising from behind the Old Executive Office Building — the earliest mentions of what soon turned out to be the flight hitting the Pentagon.

* * *

About 9:30 a.m., I arrived at the newspaper.

A special edition was to be put out by noon, and with the news changing by the minute, the task was not a simple one.

In addition, I had to make a decision that taught me more about journalism than any class or experience before Tuesday had ever suggested.

I could not feel.

I could not let the event hit me — in any true, emotional way — until after I was done for the day.

As we prepared the special edition, I did just that. I didn’t think anything other than checking the Associated Press for the latest updates, reading and editing local coverage, writing headlines and laying out pages.

There was the “buzz of the newsroom” I had loved since my first day at the paper.

I never would have guessed how empty and horrid that buzz could be.

As we went through the motions, as the terror became clear, as the towers crashed and the rumors swirled, our reality was singular. Our responsibility was awesome — yet depressing.

We were pressed against the glass — looking through the window for the community — hoping to accurately and objectively portray the day’s events, a simple phrase that took on a whole new meaning Sept. 11.

Regardless of how tight we pressed against the glass, we also were powerless.

We were not the doctors, police or firefighters rushing to the scene. We were not the local ambulance company hurrying to help. We were removed — and yet in the middle of it all.

After we finished the special edition, we at the copy desk were able to slow down for a few hours before beginning the next day’s paper.

* * *

Occasionally contributing to the editorial page, I sat with some of the editorial board as we discussed the next day’s editorial.

“Flatten Afghanistan — just go in and flatten it,” said one particularly ready-to-strike and half-serious editor.

I was disturbed, but not sure how I could speak — at my age — about an event with which I had little or no benchmark for comparison.

I remembered getting videotapes and recording the CNN coverage of the Gulf War as I attended middle school. I knew nothing then — and I knew less now.

All of a sudden my earlier dismissals of international politics and foreign nations were worse than simple-minded — they were arrogant, they were wrong, they were dumb.

With the surety only naivete can provide, I spoke.

“We can’t do that. They are just as innocent as the people in the towers.”

The discussion continued and my mind reeled:

What would it mean?

Was this war?

The hawk editor said it was war; I countered that it was an “act of war,” a distinction I desperately clung to in my 23-year-old mind.

As we talked, an editorial position became clear — and was echoed by many papers and the Bush administration in the next days.

I wasn’t willing to give up Afghanistan so easily, and other editors filed closer to me than to the hawk. We settled on those countries “who supported these terrorists or aided in the attacks.” I thought I was satisfied, but I wasn’t sure.

I wasn’t sure of anything.

* * *

Some lunch and down time later, the evening began.

The stories kept coming; the horrors kept building; the fears kept growing.

Being a rather cynical staff, we wanted to see Bush. Hell, we wanted to see Cheney. I think we all wanted to see anything resembling what has now become either “normalcy” or “life before Tuesday.”

As the paper came together and the images were placed with the stories, the “big picture” started to form.

A man falling — diving — from one of the towers.

The fire, blood, smoke and darkness of “ground zero.”

The Pentagon — which I had always seen as our military’s central fortress — becoming a misnomer, with fire trucks aiming their hoses at its missing side.

As the night came to a close, the last few of us sat watching the TVs, looking to find something — what it was, I am not sure.

Maybe some were looking for a way to avoid facing the reality.

Maybe some were trying to find some meaning.

Maybe some were hoping a counterattack quickly would be under way.

Maybe we just didn’t know what else to do.

* * *

Finally, about 2 a.m., I headed for home. I drove that drive I have driven five nights a week for the past year and a half thinking about everything and nothing at all. More than once tears started to well up.

I started thinking about people. Earlier in the night, I had read of Barbara Olsen’s death. The wife of the nation’s Solicitor General, I often had shouted obscenities her way as I watched her on Chris Mathews’ “Hardball.”

She called her husband before she died — from the plane. I had read it, and now I could get nothing else in my mind.

But then there was something else.

My friends.

I had talked to or gotten e-mails from nearly all my close friends in D.C. And to my knowledge, I knew no one who worked in or with the Pentagon in any way.

In New York, I knew one friend was OK. After returning home and checking my e-mail, I knew another was shaken, but fine physically. One other friend had not e-mailed — and despite wanting to hope for the best, I considered the worst.

As I read Wednesday’s online versions of The Washington Post and The New York Times, it hit.

It was 3:30 a.m.

I was not a journalist now.

I started crying.

I hurt. I had no concept of what had happened — and yet I felt it all hitting me at once.

The morning a distant memory, I called the friend who had woken me to this terror nineteen hours ago.

I cried; he comforted.

Then we talked of our fears of the day, our fears of tomorrow, anything to keep the voices going.

Eventually, we hung up, ending a long call on the longest day either of us have ever known.

I went to sleep.

Like a reverse nightmare, I hoped when my eyes shut that the terror would disintegrate.

It didn’t.

It won’t.

About 9:30 p.m. Monday night, two people stand looking at the White House from the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Yes, I have been a bad Law Dork.

But, I’ve been writing plenty, at Metro Weekly, where I had been freelancing, then was working part-time, and — finally — earlier this year started working full-time.

On Monday, for example, I began with “DADT Talks at White House and on Hill,” covering the meetings regarding a possible “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy repeal compromise. Then, I followed up with the brief “Pushing Forward on DADT Repeal Compromise,” addressing a letter sent to the White House from the leading trio of pro-repeal lawmakers. Finally, I ended the day with “White House Signals Support,” which covered the Administration’s endorsement of the repeal compromise and several LGBT groups’ reactions to that support.

Unfortunately, days like that have left me with little time to devote to Law Dork.

I do, however, ask that you continue to check out my work, which is published nearly daily (if not multiple times a day, sch as Monday) at MetroWeekly.com and, if you live in the D.C. area, each Thursday in print. Also, if you’re not following me on Twitter and you want to keep up with me, you should be following me. Finally, I will update here as I find reasons (and time!) to do so, which is primarily when non-LGBT topics or Ohio-centric issues come to the fore.

If you have any other ideas of how I can use this space — I’m thinking about a weekly photo journal update, perhaps — please leave the idea in the comments section.

Thanks to everyone who has been so truly supportive of me as I spent the past 15 months feeling my way out and about back in the blogosphere, then on Twitter and, eventually, to D.C. It’s been — and will doubtless continue to be — quite a ride, so please do keep up!

Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner: Starting dominoes or playing chicken? (Photo c/o The Plain Dealer.)

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner just sent out her thank-you message to her email list from her unsuccessful U.S. Senate primary against Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, now Ohio Democrats’ nominee to face Rob Portman in the fall.

She’s not happy. And, progressive as ever.

With no mention of Lee.

In her words:

Dear [name],

Thank you for your amazing support of my race for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Ohio.

Our campaign broadened the progressive base in Ohio. We fought to make people matter more than money. We were outflanked in money, endorsements and establishment pushback.

With the support of a broad and diverse group of activists and supporters like you who helped us get our message to other Ohioans, we pulled off a campaign that has amazed many.

We were outspent 4 to 1 overall and on broadcast media 100% to 0. We can take what we learned and help new candidates of all races, nationalities, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and age become part of our government, so that our government looks and thinks more like us. Please keep up the fight. You can be certain I will.

Thank you again for all you have done.

Sincerely,

[signed]
Jennifer Brunner

Garrison

Democratic Ohio state Rep. Jennifer Garrison announced this afternoon that she is no longer seeking the Democratic nomination for Ohio Secretary of State, the position currently held by Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Jennifer Brunner.

On her Facebook page, she wrote:

I would like to thank all of the wonderful people in Ohio that supported me in my campaign over the last 6 months for Secretary of State. I announced today that I am no longer seeking that office, but will always be working to help the people of this region and state.

Marc Kovac broke the news this afternoon, announcing that she would not be seeking the Sec of State nomination or to retain her House seat.  Ohio Daily Blog has Garrison’s full statement.

Garrison’s views on LGBT and choice issues had caused quite a stir both upon her entrance to the race and when Franklin County Commissioner Marilyn Brown dropped out of the race.  Of Garrison’s entrance in the race, I wrote at the time:

Ohio is not a liberal state, by any means, but I’m still not sure that Garrison can win a statewide Democratic primary in 2010.  If anything, Garrison’s announcement may have been the best way either to drive up interest in Brown — or to lead some other Democrats to consider jumping in the race.

Not quite, but . . .

Right now, it looks like the leading options to replace Garrison are Sharen Neuhardt, who fared poorly in her 2008 U.S. House race against U.S. Rep. Steve Austria when all other Democrats in Ohio had enormous success, and Franklin County Clerk of Courts Mary Ellen O’Shaughnessy, who lost two races for Franklin County Commissioner (1992 & 2002) and a run at Congress in 2000.  The Cleveland Scene reported earlier this week that Neuhardt has taken out petitions for the race.  [UPDATE: Multiple people are reporting to me that O'Shaughnessy is making the phone rounds today, letting people know that she, too, is in the race.  The Dispatch more or less reported this as a "soon-to-be fact" on Friday.]

My question is simple: Why either of these people?  As Marilyn Brown has amply proven, it’s not enough to be a progressive.

Particularly when entering the race this late — relative to, say, the long-raging U.S. Senate battle — the Democratic replacement for this race needs to stand out if he or she is to have any real shot at defeating the Republican, former House Speaker Jon Husted.  I see one of two ways that this could work: (1) The person has a name that Ohioans know, someone who starts out with some name recognition to go after Husted with some power from the very start, or (2) the person is an “outsider” who can enter the race with non-political credibility for the job in a way that would depoliticize the Democratic side of the race against Husted.

My pick for 1 would be attorney John Gilligan (bio), who I understand from several people already has considered the race.  My pick for 2 would be Ohio State Law Professor Dan Tokaji (bio), author of the Equal Vote blog and someone who I know personally and greatly respect.  I’ve not spoken with either person about the race.  They are emblematic of my views on the type of candidate Democrats need to compete in this race in light of today’s news.  There may be others who fit the bill.

Thoughts?

In May, the Democrat-controlled Ohio House passed a bill providing for a state model policy on teen dating violence prevention, specific requirements for local school boards to adopt in their policies and inclusive definitions to ensure that all Ohio students would be protected.  In December, after the Republican-controlled Senate got their hands on it, the Governor signed a bill that contains none of that and merely requires local school boards to adopt a policy addressing teen dating violence prevention.

The house bill, passed on a 62-35 vote, was short and simple, requiring the Ohio Board of Education to “develop a model dating violence prevention policy to assist school districts in developing their own policies.”  The local school boards then, for grades seven through twelve, would have been required to then establish a dating violence prevention program, several requirements of which were provided for in the bill.

Additionally, the House bill defined “dating partner” as “any person, regardless of gender, involved in an intimate relationship with another primarily characterized by the expectation of affectionate involvement whether casual, serious, or long-term.”  It also defined “dating violence.”  This provided some very real protection for LGBT students that they otherwise would be unlikely to get if their local school districts were to define such terms themselves.

The Ohio General Assembly

The bill then was introduced to the Republicans-controlled Senate, where it sat for months.  Finally, on November 18, with co-sponsorship by Education Committee Chair Gary Cates, a Republican, the bill was reported from the Education Committee, with the State Board provision and local requirements stripped from the bill.  What this meant was that there would be no model policy put forth by the state and that each district would devise one of its own making.  This “compromise” also led to the co-sponsorship of two other Republicans on the committee, Sens. Carey and Gibbs, however, as well as the three Democrats, Sens. Sawyer, Fedor and Morano.

Then, the bill proceeded to the Senate, where it was “recommitted” to the Education Committee on December 9.  At this point, although not clear at whose request, even the definitions were removed and the bill was re-reported out of the committee.  The bill, with no model policy, no local requirements and no definitions was then passed by the Senate on a 32-0 vote on December 16.

The House quickly concurred to the Senate’s changes on December 17 on a 74-22 vote, and the enrolled bill was sent to Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat, on December 22.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland today signed the bill into law.  Although the first bill listed in the Governor’s news release, his office provided no quotation to be used by the media about the bill’s enactment and no response was given to an e-mail seeking comment from his office this evening.

It’s not really a wonder why.

* * * * *

What is confusing, however, is how the Senate Education Committee compromise couldn’t pass the Senate.  With twelve Democrats and three Republicans in committee already on board, only two more Republican votes were needed for the bill to pass.  It seems to me that Sen. Goodman’s vote could be presumed, and it’s not hard to imagine at least one other Republican going along with a bill that already had 3 Republicans on board.

At that point, the question is who got to President Harris.  Either Harris personally didn’t want the bill to come to the floor with the inclusive definitions, or someone convinced Harris to get them out.

So, which is it?  And if it wasn’t something Harris wanted personally removed, who did?  Sen. Husted, running for Secretary of State seems to be a more likely vote yes than someone fighting to rid the bill of the inclusive definitions.  If not Husted, who?  Sen. Seitz?  Coughlin?  Schuring?  Someone outside of the Senate?  Kasich?  Portman?  DeWine (Kevin or Mike)?  An organization like CCV?  [UPDATE: Also suggested is that Sen. Cates himself may have been pressured to pull the bill back to remove the inclusive definitions.]

The point is that someone or some group took an inclusive bill that had already been amended to reach a “bigger government Democrat”-”smaller government Republican” compromise.  The only purpose for recommitting the bill to the Senate Education Committee was to remove the inclusive definitions that provided much-needed protection for LGBT students.

Who wanted them gone?

[UPDATE: Thanks to Bil and the Bilerico Project folks for giving me the opportunity to cross-post this over there, helping to spread news about this new law -- and its limitations -- to their great audience.]

She’s so special that she even got the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

I love to hear about JFK! He had dog named Pushinka that was a gift from Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev. When Pushinka arrived, the President had him checked for spying devices because it was during the Cold War. My family takes good care of me and has me checked out, too – but not for hidden microphones.

I’m thankful I have a family and home. Many Ohioans are thankful for what my mom did to make sure our elections and state records are safe and reliable. Just think of what she could do if we sent her to the U.S. Senate! That’s why we need all you other underdogs (and big dogs, too) tohelp her with a donation.

I didn’t like it last time, and I don’t like it this time.  I get that her fund-raising is not what one would hope, but repeated fund-raising emails from a dog is just absurd.  If Jennifer Brunner wants to be a United States Senator, I would hope that her campaign — which initially started as being a message-based enterprise that was outpacing her primary opponent, Lee Fisher, on message at every turn — reflected that desire.  There are some animal lovers who might like such a targeted, cutesy message, but it’s clear this is going to her entire e-mail list.

If Brunner wants the DSCC to take her campaign seriously — which its chair is not doing — she probably should start by doing the same herself.

The full e-mail, in all its canine glory, is below the jump.

* * * * *

Dear Chris,

I’m Laney, the underdog. I wrote to some of you earlier. Thanksgiving is a good time to remember the things we’re thankful for–I’m thankful for my home and my family.

It wasn’t always so good for me. I started out as an underdog. A lot of people didn’t think I could be a top dog, but my mom did.  My mom is one of those rare people who sees the potential in everyone, and she didn’t gave up on me. Her name is Jennifer Brunner. She sees the potential in Ohio, too, and she’s running for the U.S. Senate where some say she is the underdog.

Now, I don’t just live with people, I have two dog brothers, Jake and McGuffey, who live with us, too.  Jake is older and kind of bothered by things like Guffey and me wrestling and stealing each other’s bones. But Jake has learned to put up with us, kind of like voters put up with politicians who wrestle to live up to their promises and play games of one-upmanship. I guess Jake figures, like voters, he can’t change the status quo.

Once in awhile, though, someone comes along who does change the status quo, because she knows it’s right and has the courage to do it. My mom is one of those leaders.  She isn’t a politician who just does what the pollsters want her to do. She does what she believes is right.

She cleaned up Ohio’s elections, for one thing.  She helped businesses by making it easier for them to file all sorts of paperwork they need and to get information about Ohio’s people that will help grow jobs.

She’s so special that she even got the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

I love to hear about JFK! He had dog named Pushinka that was a gift from Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev. When Pushinka arrived, the President had him checked for spying devices because it was during the Cold War. My family takes good care of me and has me checked out, too – but not for hidden microphones.

I’m thankful I have a family and home. Many Ohioans are thankful for what my mom did to make sure our elections and state records are safe and reliable. Just think of what she could do if we sent her to the U.S. Senate! That’s why we need all you other underdogs (and big dogs, too) to help her with a donation.

Please give her $25 or $50 or pledge $10 a month starting now. You won’t be sorry. I’m not. And when she’s our Senator, Ohio will go from being an underdog to being the new top dog. She’s top dog in my book, and in your book, she’ll be a great U.S. Senator.

So, please give to her campaign today.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Laney (the Underdog)

Buckeyes jumped in Mirror Lake as part of the Beat Michigan Week antics. (Photo by Nick Geidner via Flickr.)

OK, so it’s not the usual Law Dork fare, but it is a Friday, and I suddenly became aware that I will be away from Columbus for the OSU-Michigan game for the first time since moving there in 2002.  My brother, Nick, is a Ph.D. student at OSU and took this (and many other) pictures from the Mirror Lake jump that the kids do — and, even though I never jumped, it definitely made me miss Columbus.

The spirit of the city surrounding — and in support of — the Buckeyes is a sight to see.  Yes, it’s sports fanaticism, but there’s something about college sports fanaticism that I find to be better than other sports fanaticism.  The connection to the university and to the education that takes place there allows the athletics engagement to expand into something more than simply that.

It’s a community created by sports, but with an inherent recognition of the academic community with which it is inextricably intertwined.  I spent tailgates with other law students, with med students, with people I knew through that academic community.  It’s an exciting place to be, regardless of one’s interest in sporting events generally.

And, yeah, college players are hot.

Go Buckeyes!  Beat Michigan!

The previous method of execution included a three-drug protocol applied intravenously.  The first change to the execution procedure includes the adoption of a one-drug protocol, using thiopental sodium alone, applied intravenously.  Pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride will no longer be used as a part of the process.  In the event that an IV site cannot be established or maintained, then I have authorized the use of an intramuscular injection of midazolam and hydromorphone as a back-up means of carrying out the execution.

Apparently, Ohio is the first state to move to a one-drug procedure, which prompted an interesting comment from one observer:

“This is a significant step forward,” said Ty Alper, Associate Director, Death Penalty Clinic, U.C. Berkeley School of Law. “Paralyzing inmates before executing them – so we can’t tell whether they are suffering – is a barbaric practice, and Ohio should be commended for stopping it.”

Ohio Public Defender Tim Young, however, maintains that problems still exist:

“I would like to congratulate the State of Ohio, as it has finally recognized that by going to a single, massive dose of an anesthetic, it will greatly reduce the risk of torturing people to death.  I continue to have concerns, however, that there are no limits on how long or how many times the execution team can try to gain IV access.”

1. Maine: Question 1 — Residents are being asked to vote No to preserve the marriage bill passed by the legislature and signed and supported by the governor earlier this year.  Activists have been raising money aplenty on both sides, but Mainers are an independent bunch.  The polls have tightened significantly, and the direction of the polling continues to show the effectiveness of “recruiting the kids” campaigning that many of us thought went out with Anita Bryant.  A victory here would both be a very real victory for the people of Maine, but also a signal to supporters of marriage equality that the tales told be our opponents are losing steam and that we can win this struggle.  A loss will, as usual, lead to second-guessing and re-calibrating for the next time.
2. New Jersey: Governor — Chris Christie sounds like someone who has few friends.  He just seems like a bit of a jerk.  Jon Corzine is a slick, political guy who, fortunately for me, takes positions on issues — including marriage equality — that gel with mine.  This is the race that will be blown up to mean Everything for 2010.  It doesn’t, but it will be spun that way by the winner, so I’ll be watching this very close race to see who gets to have that message.
3. New York: The 23rd Congressional District Special Election — Wow.  The local Republican Party’s nominee to replace President Obama’s Army Secretary John McHugh, a Republican, endorsed the Democrat in the race on Sunday after suspending her race on Saturday because the far Right had backed her Conservative Party opponent.  This race puts soap operas to shame. It seems likely that Doug Hoffman, the Conservative, will defeat Bill Owens, the Democrat, but Dede Scozzafava’s endorsement of Owens could make this race a tighter one than we think. Regardless of the victor, this is a race to keep in mind as teabaggers and others talk about the ascendancy of the far Right. The long-term implications, though, of Hoffman’s win could be an even further narrowing of the GOP’s messaging, which isn’t going to win races across the country.
4. Virginia: Governor — As Creigh Deeds (D) heads to what seems to be an all but inevitable defeat in Virginia, the question will be: Why?  How, after trending more blue in recent elections, did Bob McDonnell (R) slide to an easy victory?  Many people already have started to give their more-informed-than-mine opinion on that question, but the real question for tomorrow will be what effect Deeds’ flagging campaign will have on the rest of the ticket.
5. Virginia: Attorney General — Particularly Democrat Steve Shannon’s campaign against Kenneth Cuccinelli (R) to serve as the Attorney General of Virginia.  Cuccinelli is a scary man.  And I’m not alone in having — or expressing — that opinion.  The Washington Post called him “worrying” in its endorsement of Shannon and expressed concern over his “sometimes bizarre and incendiary ideas.”  If Cuccinelli finds his way to the A.G.’s Office, many will look to Deeds and wonder whether Terry McAuliffe would have been any better — at least at stopping the bleeding.
6. Washington: Referendum 71 — The referendum asks voters to Approve the measure to keep the domestic partnerships approved by the legislature.  It is likely to succeed, and domestic partnerships will be in Washington state to stay, but we’ve been surprised before so the troops out there are going to keep going ’til the very end.  Recall that Washington is a vote-by-mail-only state, and ballots just need to be postmarked by Election Day, so it’s possible that the result could be a while coming.
7. Georgia: Atlanta Mayor — Mary Norwood, currently a member of Atlanta’s City Council, could become the city’s first white mayor since 1973.  City Council President Lisa Borders and former state lawmaker Kasim Reed, who already were trailing Norwood, have picked up little support from undecided voters in the past month.  A candidate, though, needs to receive a majority of the vote to avoid a December run-off, which Norwood might not reach on Tuesday.  The recent entry of the state Democratic party into the race in support of Borders and Reed because of questions about Norwood’s political affiliations has sparked a flurry of last-minute interest and should make hitting the 50+1 mark difficult for Norwood on Tuesday.
8. Michigan: Kalamazoo Ordinance 1856 — Residents are being asked to vote Yes to keep Kalamazoo’s twice approved ordinance for housing, employment, and public accommodation protections for LGBT residents.  This is the third of three LGBT issues on the ballot across the country this fall, so equality advocates are keeping an eye on this race as well.
9. New York: New York City Mayor — As Nate Silver has noted, Mayor Michael Bloomberg almost certainly will win re-election.  But, in an odd year and being New York City, where the winner is a de facto national figure, it’s worth seeing if Bill Thompson, Bloomberg’s Democratic challenger, upsets him.
10. Ohio: Issue 2 — Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland endorsed this constitutional amendment put on the ballot by the General Assembly, but many of the measure’s biggest opponents are the liberal base of the Democratic Party.  Issue 2 places in the Ohio Constitution, an Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, whose sole purpose is to supersede and prevent a planned attempt to bring a statutory issue to voters in 2010 similar to the humane cages measure approved by California voters in 2008.  I have written in support of a No vote on this issue previously and, though likely to pass, I’d like to see the issue gain less support than the Governor and agri-business supporting the measure are expecting.  (Ohio’s Issue 3 — relating to casinos — likely will be closer and is more controversial within the state, but I find the issue less interesting than everyone else does, so I’ll leave it to others to comment on that.)

What races are you watching?

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) (Image from the AP.)

Today, Sen. Arlen Specter caused a bit of a kerfluffle with his announcement at The Huffington Post that he had changed his mind on the Defense of Marriage Act.  He wrote:

The time has come to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Enacted 13 years ago when the idea of same sex marriage was struggling for acceptance, the Act is a relic of a more tradition-bound time and culture.

He went on to express support for all other legislative priorities of the LGBT community, including the hate crimes measure President Obama is to sign into law on Wednesday, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Chris Bowers, writing at OpenLeft, criticized this move:

Arlen Specter is engaging in some of the more absurdly bald-faced flips that I have ever seen a candidate engage.  He does not care about policy or ideological consistency–only about getting elected.

This all might be tolerable if Specter was simply saying that he was representing the majority wishes of his constituents.  However, he keeps claiming that these about-faces are based on principle. Again, if Specter were to admit that his highest principle is getting elected, I would agree with him.

I’m certain it’s a political move, but I think that’s missing the point.  When it comes to LGBT issue support, we need to support growth.  We need to embrace evolution.  (That doesn’t mean support his candidacy; there’s a clear difference there.)

In Ohio, there’s a Democratic candidate named Jennifer Garrison who is a state representative running to be Ohio’s Secretary of State.  Garrison originally won her seat, in part, by sending out a mailer criticizing the Republican incumbent for voting against the state’s DOMA bill. Yes, you read that right: The Democrat was the “anti-gay” candidate in the race, while the Republican was the “pro-gay” candidate.  When Rep. Garrison first announced her candidacy for Secretary of state, I wrote that I was unsure whether she’d even be able to emerge victorious from a primary.

Since then, Garrison supported and spoke out in favor of Ohio’s sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination bill, attracted the endorsements of a majority of the Democratic caucus in the state House and convinced her primary opponent to drop out of the race.  Having cleared the field, Garrison could have gone into general election mode, but she didn’t.  Garrison and her campaign have begun taking steps to introduce herself to the LGBT community and to discuss the hurtful past the community has had with her.  Though I am not yet a Garrison “fan,” by any stretch, I definitely view her now as far less of an anti-LGBT politician than as one who wasn’t educated on our issues, has moved on them and is capable of further movement.

The same is true across the nation, and we will miss the opportunity of our age if we can’t find a way to remain critical of our politicians without completely demeaning their progression on LGBT issues.

Here are two stark numbers that show why we need to be OK with “flip-floppers” on LGBT issues:

• Only 20 of the DOMA repeal co-sponsors (H.R. 3567) are straight and not from the West Coast, New England or BOS-NY-WASH area.
• More than 60 of the ENDA co-sponsors (H.R. 3017) are from that group.

As the White House readies its signing ceremony for the Defense Authorization Act and President Obama’s remarks on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act becoming law, it is very clear that our movement toward equality is both geography-based and issue-based.  The issues on the coasts are simply in a different place than the issues further inland.

Roughly one-third of the co-sponsors of ENDA are from the South or inland.  Only one-fifth of the co-sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act come from those areas.

Simply put, “changing hearts and changing minds” will require a lot of “flip-flopping.”

But, as we advance equality, this is flip-flopping I can believe in.