"Read 'em and weep..." *

Two strong columns in today's WaPo, not to miss.

Kathleen Parker :
... There are now so many RINOs wandering the barren plains that, banded together, they might even form a critical mass. A base, if you will. If only they weren’t so attractively independent. The individualist nature of those most likely to be drawn to the Republican Party is such that they tend not to gather in groups. Ostracized by their own tribe, they feel alone in their exile.
...
[T]hey lack the necessary grandiosity to recognize how fabulous they are. Ever seen a RINO in one of those silly hats that screams: “I Belong! I Am A Member Of The Party!”? No. They tend to be discreet — strangers in a strange land, keeping a low profile and an eye cracked for signs of fellow travelers.
...
We fetishize politics and political display in this country, or at least the media do. But The Normals really are not so interested in politics as guerrilla theater as programmers, consultants and spinners seem to think they are. Most would like the country to rock along without drama — operating within a reasonable budget, with respect for privacy and the rule of law, compassion for the disadvantaged and an abundance of concern for national security, including border control but not necessarily drone attacks on citizens.
...
Thus, what has become glaringly clear is that RINOs need to stop being so normal and grant their better angels a sabbatical. Forget taking back the country. Start by taking back your party. Do it for your country.


Ruth Marcus :
Will President Obama say to the Supreme Court what he said to the American people in his second inaugural address about same-sex marriage?

Obama’s remarks were striking, on several levels. First, that he dared to broach what was once a hot-button issue in such a high-stakes venue. Second, that he phrased the argument for same-sex marriage so passionately. Third, and perhaps most important, that he did so in a way that conflicted with his previous discussion of the issue.

Even as he completed his evolution in favor of same-sex marriage, Obama had earlier framed the issue as a matter of democratic choice: a right he supports but one that should be left to individual states.
...
Second-inaugural Obama sounded far different. “Our journey is not complete,” he said, “until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

The law professor-turned-president understood full well the constitutional implications of this statement. Obama could have spoken about gay rights generally. Instead, he used language that directly implicates the question of marriage equality.

And language that is hard to reconcile with his previous, leave-it-to-the-states approach. The 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws means mandating the same treatment in Mississippi as in Massachusetts, whatever those states might do on their own.

Obama knew this, and something else: The Supreme Court is about to confront the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The case involves California’s Proposition 8, the voter referendum overturning the state Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

The justices can decide the Prop 8 case without answering the ultimate question, either by deciding that those defending the measure lack legal standing or by focusing on the unusual facts of the case, that same-sex couples in California enjoyed the right to marriage before it was taken away. Indeed, at this stage in the fast-changing legal debate, a narrower ruling would probably be the wiser course.
...
A president who speaks so eloquently at his inaugural cannot allow his administration to remain silent before the court, where words are translated into reality.

-----------------------------

* Not literally.  It's a card-playing phrase.  Like "doubling down" ...