The replacement ad for this pulled ad, from the RNC, is not going to be run by Tennessee TV stations:

At least two Tennessee stations are refusing to run a new Republican National Committee ad attacking Dem Harold Ford, Jr., saying that they want more factual documentation of the ads from the RNC before running them, a Ford senior adviser, Tom Lee, has told Election Central.

Abortion pills for kids? How do they dream up this stuff? The Party of Hate.

He said it:

John Kerry, who Sullivan supported, isn't for gay marriage: "The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position." Or, as he said on another occasion: ""I'm against gay marriage, . . . Everybody knows that." Are there any Democratic candidates in contested races who are pushing gay rights and gay marriage? I can't think of any. Certainly, as I noted before, Harold Ford isn't among them. And Hillary Clinton isn't beyond reproach: "The executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda gay rights group has described Sen. Hillary Clinton as 'a complete disappointment.' . . . Clinton opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex. During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act."

Who am I to argue with the Professor? Maybe he should drop Hostettler a line and straighten him out.

More from the Party of Hate, an ad in an Indiana congressional race:

Pelosi will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda, led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of Congressman Frank's home," the narrator says. . . . "I know what you're thinking," the narrator says. "Is this true? Well, do you feel lucky? Go ahead, vote for Brad Ellsworth. Make Nancy Pelosi's day."

Honestly, I don't know how a reasonable intelligent person can be a Republican. I wonder if even Barack Obama can find common ground with Hostettler, the GOP congressman running this ad.

Via atrios, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down its decision on gay marriage. Quoting the syllabus:

HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

I got an idea, why don't we call them civil unions.

Greg Sargent writes about a new GOP Corker ad in the Tennessee Senate race:

Okay, so Election Central has just obtained a radio ad which you've got to hear: It actually has what sound like tom-tom drums playing in the background every time the ad talks about Dem Harold Ford, Jr. The ad -- which says it was paid for by the campaign of GOP Senate candidate Bob Corker -- can be heard right here.

I listened and can't say that I am hearing what Greg is hearing. But maybe this copy is not a good one. See why I say so on the flip.

Via Susie at Suburban Guerilla:

In the past, Democrats and other critics of the war who talked about benchmarks and timetables were labeled as defeatists, defeatocrats or people who wanted to cut and run. So why shouldn’t American people conclude that this is nothing from you other than semantic, rhetorical games and all politics two weeks before an election?”

- David Gregory at today’s press conference.

From Mark Schmitt on the Tennessee Senate GOP ads:

[L]ook at the independent ad in question. Then look at Republican Bob Corker’s own ad, here.

The independent ad begins with an African-American woman saying, "Harold Ford looks nice. Isn’t that enough?" The Corker ad begins with an African-American man saying, "Whoo, he looks good on TV!" (Apparently that’s the basis on which black people decide who to vote for. I did not know that.) It ends with someone else saying, "but he looks good on TV."

In between, the two ads have a virtually identical rhythm and look -- very short, person-on-the-street clips, alternating white and black, men and women, in a staccato rhythm, all cheerful and direct. . . . Together . . . these two ads sure look like a well-coordinated attempt to echo a single coherent message: He’s a pretty boy, he’s not from here, has weird values, ("He’s just not right," the independent ad concludes).

It's been a while since we checked in with Schapelle Corby who is doing 20 years in a hellhole of an Indonesian prison.

Schapelle describes her conditions in a new book to be published in two weeks. Australia's Women's Weekly pubished an excerpt today. The article is not online, but quotes from it appear in the news.

The intersection between freedom of association and government employment can be tricky to navigate. A teacher can’t be fired for exercising her right to support the NAACP, but what if the teacher joins a cult that advocates the sexual enslavement of children? The Constitution protects the right to associate with others for the “vigorous advocacy” of “lawful ends” (NAACP v. Button), but it doesn’t protect membership in a criminal conspiracy.

Standing between these extremes is Robert Henderson, who lost his job as a state trooper when the State of Nebraska discovered his membership in a white supremacist organization: the Knight’s Party, an offshoot of the KKK.

The Web site's sponsor, the Knights Party of Harrison, Ark., is run by Thomas Robb. [Arbitrator] Caffera described the Knights Party as an attempt to "cloak the 'friendlier face' of the Knights Party from its ultimate corporate parent, Robb's faction of the KKK."

This “friendlier” version of the KKK may or may not advocate unlawful behavior, but white supremacy presupposes the suppression of equal rights for nonwhites. Since police officers are sworn to uphold the law (including the Constitution), it’s easy to understand Nebraska’s concern that Henderson’s interest in subverting civil rights renders him unfit for his job.

I have just returned from working the past three days in gorgeous Telluride. A huge thanks to Big Tent for keeping TalkLeft current on political issues in my absence.

I probably won't resume blogging until the morning as I have a few hundred work and blog related emails to read first, many voicemails to listen to, a lot of mail to open and family members to check in with.

For the past 30 years, my heart has belonged to Aspen, but I have to say, Telluride is one of the most charming, laid back, beautiful towns anywhere. I'm just glad I don't have to choose between them.

And yes, this is an open thread.

I gave discussed George Lakoff before and much of this post will sound familiar. But Lakoff has a new post that, I think, illustrates my earlier points. Lakoff writes:

The right wing has worked for decades to alter the meanings of concepts that define our way of life. The Bush administration's distortions of language are a culmination of these efforts. To restore the meaning of values such as respect for the rule of law and reverence for human life, we all must do our part. We have many strong progressive leaders who are working to reclaim these concepts, but, as in the election at hand, they can succeed only when we are all fully engaged in this struggle.

Fair enough. Nothing to quarrel with there. Now let's consider what Lakoff specifically proposes.

In my earlier post on Andrew Sullivan, I argued that regarding the philosophy of federal government, there are no conservatives. I argued that FDR routed the conservative movement during the New Deal and that the idea of a philosphy of conservatism as generally understood simply does not play a role in our mainstream political discussion.

I think this reply to Sullivan from Ramesh Ponnuru makes my point. There is no overarching discussion or debate on the role of government, but rather whether supporting a particular position on an issue is "conservative" or not, without reference to what a conservative philosophy might favor.