In the 2nd District race, they give the nod to Shevawn Akers and Brannon Dunn. Here’s what they had to say about Akers:

Of the three, Akers has the most varied experience and is running the best campaign by far. A social worker with a master’s degree, she has volunteered her time to all sorts of good causes and progressive politics, from fighting breast cancer (she’s a survivor) to promoting walking trails.

She wants to advocate for parks in the 2nd District, where she says public amenities such as basketball and tennis courts have not kept pace with population growth. She’s also an advocate for affordable housing.

Lawless has been a welcome asset to the council in her two terms. The director of Lexington’s Rape Crisis Center for many years, she has demonstrated an admirable, and necessary, tenacity in dealing with some of the district’s more intractable problems, including the impact on neighborhoods of outsized, inadequately maintained student housing owned by absentee landlords, decaying infrastructure, parking and traffic…. She has demonstrated the persistence and willingness to dig into the gritty details of city services that make an effective council member.

Spires, like the other challengers, is in her first race for a public office, although she has been active on a variety of boards in the community and in her neighborhood association. Spires and her husband have been foster parents for a number of children and she serves on the city’s Commission on Youth Development and Public Safety. Both have given her a unique and deep insight into services the community does — and does not — offer for children. It would be a welcome expertise on the council.

 

[On another note, why can't the tv stations figure out better video systems for video sharing? It makes no sense. They work in video!]

Rep. Ron Paul is sort of, in a sense, ramping down his presidential campaign; he’s not going to campaign anymore in the states that still haven’t held primaries or first-stage caucuses, although he’ll continue to fight for delegates where the rules allow for contested caucuses and conventions.

Dave Weigel suspects that the timing may be related to coming primaries in Paul’s Texas and his son Rep. Rand Paul’s Kentucky; contesting and getting clobbered in those states might be an embarrassment for the libertarian crusader. Could be, but I think it’s more straightforward. With the media no longer paying any attention to the primaries, there’s really not much of a point in maximizing vote share.

There’s also not much point in caring. Ron Paul, to be sure, has some interesting ideas. His army of dedicated idealogues are, really, among the most informed of the political class America calls citizens. They care and they care deeply. But Ron was never the vessel of their beliefs, and they make a mistake if they believe he is, and Rand is hardly a chip off the old block but rather a shadow of the old man — they make a bigger mistake by transmuting the two.

Anyway, the only point to this post is that Kentucky’s primary, yet again, doesn’t matter.

We’re disappointed but not shocked.

There are four candidates. Daniel Cooper, Rock Daniels, Stephanie Spires and the incumbent, Diane Lawless. The top two vote getters go on to the general.

Asked why the current councilmember, Diane Lawless, should be replaced, Mr. Daniels responded in part:

Also our current council member was quoted in the Herald Leader to have “lost or mistakenly shredded” documents which cost the city $100,000 in legal fees and audits.  In the business world there are consequences for not showing up for your job and continually making huge mistakes.

Daniels is referring to the fraud investigation conducted in 2010 after the Newberry administration stonewalled the City Council. Here’s what the Herald-Leader reported in October 2010:

The city subsequently spent more than $50,000 in legal fees over the documents as the council investigative committee sought them from the city’s internal audit board, which said they were confidential. Luallen’s audit will cost the city an additional $50,000.

Several council members and the mayor questioned auditor Brian Lykins, a member of Luallen’s staff, about Lawless’s statements. Lykins said the auditor’s staff went through all the documents and found the fraud allegations. He had copies made and gave the originals back to Lawless.

She was told the documents included questionnaires about fraud allegations. But Lykins said he did not know whether Lawless understood their importance. “We do, because we deal with documents like that all the time,” he said.

Lawless said she took the documents home, and either threw them away or shredded them. She did not know what she had until the state auditor’s office called her on Aug. 13 to question her about them.

And here’s what the official report (PDF) from Auditor’s office states:

On May 6, 2010, a Council member met with executive staff within the APA and provided copies of the FY 2008 and FY 2009 FRA questionnaires. This Council member requested the meeting to discuss a list of issues related to LFUCG. These issues included KLC insurance, risk management, and that the Director position in risk management was being eliminated. After this office determined on June 3, 2010 to perform an examination of insurance procurement issues, the Council member was asked the source of the FRA questionnaires. The Council member, who also served on the Council’s Special Investigative Committee, stated they did not realize that these documents were the documents that were being requested by the Special Investigative Committee and must not have realized the significance of the documents. The Council member could no longer locate the copies of the documents and did not know the source of the documents.

Returning to Mr. Daniels’ statement for the purposes of clarity, it is at best a stretch to say that Lawless cost the city $100,000.

The investigation occurred and the costs added up because the Newberry administration blocked the investigation at every turn. Indeed, the very fact that there was a $100,000 investigation is due to Newberry’s own actions. Joe reported on this mercilessly at the time and the entire ordeal is one reason why Jim Newberry is no longer the mayor of Lexington. The actions he and his adminstration took cracked his support on Council, turning political allies and their support bases against him.

Further, Ms. Lawless requested the meeting, as the Auditor’s office reports, and provided the documents in a slew of other documents on a slew of different issues. And no where in the Auditor’s report does it suggest that the documents Ms. Lawless unkowingly had were the cause of the fraud investigation brought on by the Newberry Administration’s intransigence.

To suggest malevolence in the subsequent “losing” of the documents seems odd. Why would a councilmember provide documents knowing what they were and then not use them in the heated investigation in which she was a vital part?

To suggest sloppiness is the best a charge that could stick, yet recall the Herald Leader report:

But Lykins said he did not know whether Lawless understood their importance. “We do, because we deal with documents like that all the time,” he said.

Attempting to claim the documents Lawless handed over to the auditor’s office and her action in handing them over, and letting them be copied along with all the other documents she gave them, somehow cost the city $100,000 is strange.

And it excuses the real culprit. Had the Newberry administration simply provided them up-front months before — and they knew exactly which documents the investigative committee was asking for — there would have been no need for the $50,000 investigation or the subsequent $50,000 audit.

And if the Newberry administration’s stance that the documents were confidential and that the investigative committee had no business looking at them was in fact sound, then presumably had Ms. Lawless realized she already had them and tried to use them, this would have resulted in further blockades and legal wrangling from the Newberry administration at still further exorbitant cost to the city.

None of this is to say that Mr. Daniels’ assertion is wholly incorrect, but it lacked context and needn’t stand on its own without such context when that context is readily available.

Ms. Lawless has been asked for comment and we will post that if and when it is provided.

In a party in which small government, low taxes, and shaking up the mainstream is supposedly the driving force — if the Tea Party were actually in control and not just the GOP establishment — Kelly would be the resounding winner of this three way.

The Herald talks with each of them.

Andy Barr, as usual, comes off as a wide-eyed boob whose own ideology, whatever it is, is lost in a litany of Tea Pandering and the same old talking points that have so clearly failed in the past.

Curtis Kenimer seems… inconsequential.

And Patrick Kelly seems like the next overwhelming wave in the Rand Paul tsunami:

Kelly, 26, said he feels good about his chances in the Republican primary because of “strong grass-roots support.”

“I worked hard in 2010 for the successful campaign of U.S. Sen. Rand Paul and met a lot of good people,” he said. “Also, many people know that Barr can’t beat Chandler, so I expect they will give me a chance.”

And more!

Kelly said he is the candidate “closest to the Tea Party.”

“Rand Paul is my role model,” he said. “As one person, he has changed the discussion in Washington to smaller government.”

If elected, Kelly said, he would vote for and support a balanced budget amendment, never vote for an unbalanced budget, never vote to raise taxes, vote to gradually change the eligibility requirements for Social Security and oppose abortion.

That’s Rand Paul. Your Senator. He’s all sarcastic and funny. The audience is all “Ha-ha-ha.” And you’re, like, not as stupid as all that. Which makes that video just as funny. Or creepy.

Rand is like, “Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer.”

But who would ever call Rand Paul ‘cynical’?

Or was that the joke?

Because either that’s supposed to be funny or we’re all supposed to be laughing at those fairies who want to marry each other just like they want to redecorate your living room or pick flowers instead of cheering on WWE wrestlers in speedos rubbing their hot, muscular bodies against each other.

And if we’re being homophobic — and Rand Paul and his yuckety-yuck audience certainly are — does this line of attack even make sense? The American People are supposed to believe simultaneously that gays are promiscuous predators and monogamous marrying types?

Which one is more terrifying? That gays have sex with multiple partners just like straight people or that gays could actually love each other just like straight couples?

Anal-yzing Rand Paul’s comedy routines is a particularly pointless task but if we must, let’s look again at Rand Paul’s joke:

Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer.”

If President Barack Obama had never said he was for gay marriage, then by saying it that actually would make his views “gayer.”

If, on the other hand, you want to argue that President Obama always believed this but had just never said it then, unfortunately for you, that merely makes his views “just as gay.”

The good Senator from the great state of Kentucky (a close personal friend of mine, we became intimately acquainted in an airport) goes on in that video to misinterpret both President Obama and the Bible by stating that his version of the Good Book doesn’t have any of the wild, crazy ideas that Obama’s does.

But if you look at what the President said:

And– you know, I– you know– you know, we– we’re both– practicing Christians. And– and obviously– this position may be considered to put as at odds with– the views of– of others. But– you know, when we think about our faith, the– the thing– you know, at– at root that we think about is not only– Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf– but it’s also the golden rule, you know? Treat others the way you’d want to be treated. And– and I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids. And– that’s what motivates me as president. And– I figure the more consistent I can be– in being true– to– to those precepts– the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband, and– hopefully the better I’ll be as a president.

So Rand Paul’s version of the Bible doesn’t include the Golden Rule. He’s never heard of it.

Based on his record and his platforms, that’s hardly surprising.

The head of the equally homophobic “Family Research Council” hit the Sunday morning talk shows and rebuked Rand for his hate-filled vitriol:

“I don’t think this is something we should joke about. Ah, we’re talking about individuals who feel very strongly one way or the other, and I think we should be civil, respectful, allowing all sides to have the debate, I’m glad that’s what you’re doing here this morning, but I think this is not something to laugh about, to poke fun of other people about.”

Meanwhile in a show of man-on-man love, the head of the Republican Party refused to condemn his Senator’s hate-speech:

RNC chairman Reince Priebus on Sunday ducked two questions about whether Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) recent controversial remark on gay marriage was appropriate.

“I don’t know what Rand – what he meant by that,” Priebus said. “You know, I’m here to defend – I’ll defend the Republican Party and I can defend our nominee Mitt Romney.”

And seriously, how gay is that, two men flaunting their manlove for each other in front of the entire nation?

[JOE HAS MUCH MORE ON THE SUBJECT AT LEO]

Here in Lexington two young lovebirds got all gussied up for their high school prom only to get turned away at the door. In response, they danced in the parking lot with 100 friends.

Which is a pretty beautiful way to spend your prom.

From the Herald:

Hope Decker, 18, a senior, and sophomore Tiffany Wright, 16, had already gotten their dresses for the event, but Friday afternoon they were told by school administrators they could not attend as a couple because of the church’s stance on same-sex relationships, Wright said.

“I would understand and respect the school’s decision if they truly upheld church teachings,” Wright said Sunday night. “They didn’t forbid the entrance of all the couples who’ve had premarital sex and all the kids who planned to get drunk after the prom.”

Read it all and here’s the video:

Three political newcomers say their community activism and personal experiences have prepared them to best represent the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council’s diverse 2nd District.

Councilman Tom Blues, who has represented the northwest section of Lexington since 2007, is not seeking re-election.

Shevawn Akers, Brannon Dunn and Lisa Sanden are running in the May 22 primary election. The top two vote-getters will face off in the November general election.

Read it all.

click to enlarge

The May 22nd Primary features the incumbent Councilmember — Diane Lawless — and three challengers: Daniel Cooper, Rock Daniels and Stephanie Spires.

Two weeks ago at a candidate forum in the basement of Woodland Christian Church on High Street, the four hopefuls answered a wide-range of questions in front of a pretty packed little crowd. There was a lot of agreement between the candidates based around a series of mostly good questions (the one exception being a question about how to stop people from drinking alcohol, a teetotaler notion that all candidates essentially ignored and instead focused on underage drinking and of-age campus binge parties).

The final question of the evening asked what each candidate saw as The Biggest Issue Facing the Third District. Both Daniel Cooper and Councilmember Lawless identified the police and fire pensions, with Lawless in particular digging into the specifics of the struggle to best balance all facets and interests of the issue and its overall affect on the city. Rock Daniels and Stephanie Spires also mentioned the pensions but both also listed a litany of other Big Issues — all of which, certainly, were of concern to the 3rd but by focusing their attention on listing all the Big Problems, they strayed from the point of the question.

Which is fine. Most everyone who’s ever had multiple tasks in front of them and asked which is a priority has been told they’re all priorities. That’s just life. Still, the question was about what THE central issue was, not what ALL the issues of concerns are.

Anyway. It was a good evening and informative.

Because the race has an incumbent and three challengers in a primary election in which there’s not much else going on (there’s a Republican congressional primary, there’s the exciting choice between Obama and no one on the Left and Romney and no one on the Right, and that’s about it), the mix of low-turnout with so many candidates means the race really could go any number of ways with vote-splitting.  The top two, of course, go on to the November general.

So… the good folks at Barefoot & Progressive (okay, it was just me) decided to ask each candidate the same basic set of five questions to dig a bit deeper into who they are and why they’re running. Rather than excerpt these responses or pick out specific parts, their answers (or lack of them) are posted here in full. It’s a long post but we don’t have to pay for ink or newsprint and if you’ve read this far into a post about the 3rd District City Council race, you’re likely to want to know what these four people stand for and what they have to say for themselves.

Daniel Cooper was the only candidate to not respond to the inquiry, just as he has not responded to KFTC’s own questionnaire.

Rock Daniels initially had not responded to KFTC’s candidate survey but subsequently submitted a full set of answers (you can see those here), provided the following responses to the B&P survey:

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: Why did you decide to run for public office?

ROCK DANIELS: I decided to run for local public office because I love my community and feel that we can work together to create a better Lexington.  By being involved on committees with the Downtown Development Authority, Lexington Art League, Lexington Charity Club and Lexington Bluegrass association of Realtors; I have had a unique opportunity to gain knowledge of  housing needs, charitable needs, development needs and the needs of our growing art community.  As a person who runs a successful real estate business, I believe that the business of local government should be run like a business with a system of checks, balances and accountability.  After realizing that I was the most qualified person to bring fresh ideas, fiscal responsibility and real results to this office; I decided to throw in my hat.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: What is the central message of your campaign?

ROCK DANIELS: I would like to bring fresh ideas, fiscal responsibility and real results to the third district.  This cannot be done in a vacuum.  We have to have a more transparent form of local government.  We should utilize things like social media and modern technology to create an open platform for citizens to voice what they would like to see change.  Local government is just like the business world in that most of the time people want to be heard and know that you are going to do something.  Better lines of communication between the representative and the citizens would help this office run in a more efficient manner.

ROCK DANIELS: I need to replace the current council member because I will bring a business approach to the job.  I will treat the business of local government like a business and be on time and present all the time.  The third district needs a representative that shows up to council meetings and represents the interest of the citizens.  After performing an open records request on April 23, 2012 I learned something very interesting about the attendance record of our current council member.  In the last year our current council member has been absent from council meetings more than any other member of council.  It is no wonder that the 5th district which is lead by Bill Farmer had their roads paved a year earlier than the 3rd district.  Bill was present and turned in the necessary paperwork on time to get the job done and the third district did not.  This job needs to be taken seriously and attendance is key.  Also our current council member was quoted in the Herald Leader to have “lost or mistakenly shredded” documents which cost the city $100,000 in legal fees and audits.  In the business world there are consequences for not showing up for your job and continually making huge mistakes.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: How will you improve the Council if elected?

ROCK DANIELS: First and foremost I will bring transparency to the issues that face the 3rd district.  I will listen to the citizens in the third district and work along side them to move the district forward.  I will also be present and on time all the time.  You have to be there to do the job.  I will also bring a business approach to local government.  This will help as we try to be more fiscally responsible and tackle tough issues such as police & fire pension plans, infrastructure problems, sewer problems and how to bring more retail business into our downtown.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: What is your relationship with the At-Large members, the Vice Mayor and the Mayor?

ROCK DANIELS: Jim Gray and I know each other well and have met one on one several times.  We have discussed many of the issues that face our great city.  He ran a successful construction business while I have a successful real estate business and we are in agreement that the business of local government should be run like a business.  This year when the Herald Leader did an article on Jim, they published a picture of the two of us talking about issues in the city.  I look forward to working with our mayor, his office and the rest of council to move the city in a positive direction.

The same five questions were posed to Stephanie Spires:

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: Why did you decide to run for public office?

STEPHANIE SPIRES: I had been approached several times by neighbors and downtown business leaders encouraging me to run for the 3^rd district council seat over the past couple of years. They argued that with my professional background, strong ties to the University of Kentucky, and understanding of historical renovation and restoration (we are renovating a 100-year-old student rental back to a single family dwelling) I would be an ideal candidate. Based on those conversations, I think they felt that we needed a council representative that was professional and accessible, and that they were frustrated with our current representation. Regardless of the argument, my answer was always no.

Last summer, I was appointed to the Commission on Youth Violence and Public Safety, created by Mayor Gray and Chris Ford, as a foster parent representative, and for lack of better words, I had an epiphany. My neighbors wanted me to run on the issues that I mentioned above, by how many other council members have children that fall into the at-risk population that the Commission was established to help or have children who frequent the community centers or play in the Police Activities Leagues (PAL)? I realized that I could bring a unique perspective to council as a patron of social services, parks and recreation, and other community programming, along with my background as a mother, small business owner, and community volunteer.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: What is the central message of your campaign?

STEPHANIE SPIRES: The central message of my campaign is Conversation and Collaboration. I think we need to ask ourselves some difficult questions, and begin working together to identify our priorities and plan for the future our city. During tough economic times, it is common to overlook important issues like infrastructure and find temporary fixes for problems like the fire and police pensions, but our community cannot continue to ignore these concerns.

The 3^rd district is a unique district made up of downtown, the University of Kentucky, and neighborhoods housing both students and families. The 3^rd district is the economic center of Lexington-providing jobs, education, and culture to our community.

If elected, I will work alongside our neighbors, community leaders, and university officials to restore our neighborhoods, examine historical and downtown design guidelines, promote green building initiatives, advocate for downtown businesses and events, and work to continue to build a strong Town and Gown community.

As a council member, I would be accessible to my constituents and their needs. Additionally, I would like to start something similar to Steve Kay’s Cornbread Suppers for the 3^rd district, where people can come together and discuss issues and concerns, as well as work together to find solutions.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: Why do you feel the current councilmember needs to be replaced?

STEPHANIE SPIRES: When I decided last fall to run for the 3^rd district council seat, I did not believe that Ms. Lawless would be seeking another term. She had been complaining of several illnesses and struggling to attend committee and board meetings and fulfill her obligations as a council member.

I think the 3^rd district needs a representative that is committed to the position and is accessible to constituents and community leaders.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: How will you improve the Council if elected?

STEPHANIE SPIRES: I think my background in organizational structure, will translate into more efficient council meetings and work sessions. Additionally, I feel that there is not a mutual respect amongst current council members and I believe council members must be respectful of each other’s talents, personal beliefs, and opinions, if we are going to have the tough conversations that are needed to build a strong foundation for Lexington’s future.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: What is your relationship with the At-Large members, the Vice Mayor and the Mayor?

STEPHANIE SPIRES: I would not say that I have a strong relationship with any of the At-Large members, the Vice Mayor, or the Mayor. I have met each of them several times and I believe we all have respect for one another. The Vice Mayor, Linda Gorton, does attend the same church as my family and her husband is in Rotary with me. The Mayor and I seem to share a lot of mutual friends and have met several times at community events and fundraisers. It appears that Mayor Gray and I share a love for the Arts and both recognize that supporting and strengthening the Arts, will strengthen our community and attract top professors, researchers, professionals, and companies to Central Kentucky.

I think the fact that Mayor and Council continue to appoint me to positions like the Lexington Public Library Board of Trustees and to the Commission on Youth and Public Safety illustrates that they have confidence in my ability to serve this community.

And finally, the responses of the incumbent candidate, Diane Lawless, who has served as the 3rd’s Councilmember since 2008. Two of the questions, obviously, were altered to reflect her current position as the incumbent.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: Why did you decide to run for public office?

DIANE LAWLESS: I have been involved in community work all my life. I never had any intention of running for an elected office. I graduated with a BBA from UK, and then got a Masters in Social Work. I started working at the Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center, first as a volunteer and then as the Executive Director for almost 30 years. After my retirement from the BRCC, several people asked me to run for the 3rd District Council seat. After much consideration, I decided to do it. That was in 2008. For me it has been a new way to use the skills I have acquired with my professional, political, and volunteer work since the 70’s for community service. I am currently serving my second term and am excited to have the opportunity to serve another 2 years.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: What is the central message of your campaign?

DIANE LAWLESS: Lets Do it Right. There has been too much “kicking the can down the road” and ignoring the critical issues that have faced our community. It has created infrastructure and financial issues and a decline in our neighborhoods and community. Demolition by neglect, flooding, allowing inappropriate housing additions, density in rentals, and the huge under-funded Police and Fire Pension funds to name a few. Now we are paying the price and, more than ever it is time for a transparent, financially responsible government, that has the political will to do what we have to to make the District and the Community all it can be.

I have worked hard to build relationships with UK, both students and the Administration. What is good for UK is good for Lexington and what is good for Lexington is good for UK. We are in this together. The 3rd District is the city in the city. Like our iconic rural landscape, when people see Urban Lexington, they see the 3rd District. I see both as the economic engine of the Community.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: Why do you think you should be re-elected?

DIANE LAWLESS: I am not sure I would put it in those words but I do know I have been responsive to constituents, I have gotten things done that everybody said couldn’t be done such as the moratorium on the building of “vinyl boxes” so they could be rented to large numbers of people in our neighborhoods that already had failing infrastructure. I have pushed for higher fines for code violations so it is too costly to let properties fall into such disrepair that they are demolished. I have worked to bring people together to solve problems. If you live in the District you are my constituent.

I can’t abide the waste of single tax payer dollar. I have never shied away from a challenge and will work hard to find solutions that are good for everybody.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: How will you improve the Council if re-elected?

DIANE LAWLESS: I am not sure any single Council Member can improve the Council. I will continue to be open, honest, and work cooperatively with the other Council Members. As they say, take the job seriously but not yourself.

There will be at least 4 new Council Members. There will be a new dynamic. As a CM, if I give my word, I stick with it, I don’t believe in blind-siding others on the Council and to be effective, you must be able to agree to disagree on some issues and work together on others. There is no reason for it to be personal.

If we all agreed on everything there would be no point in having a 15 member Council. I have found that the difference of opinions brings about compromises and ideas that make the best solutions and policies.

BAREFOOT & PROGRESSIVE: What is your relationship with the At-Large members, the Vice Mayor and the Mayor?

DIANE LAWLESS: I work well with the At-Large members, the Vice Mayor, the Mayor and the Administration. I think we all work in a collaborative manner. If we disagree I am not afraid to speak up and am always open to working through it.

There’s a lot in there. At the candidate forum, all four seemed genuine in their interest in the community and the district. Rock Daniels stressed his real estate background and the idea of running government as a business, just as he did here. Daniel Cooper, the youngest of the bunch, seemed dedicated and smart and he could have a future in politics (though it would be nice if he responded to surveys, but that’s his choice). Stephanie Spires was reminiscent of the version of Alison Lundergan Grimes who ran for but did not win the party nomination to succeed Kathy Stein in the state house back in 2008 (Kelly Flood won that one). Diane Lawless was impressive in her answers — though she often ran out of time, she did so by offering pretty comprehensive answers breaking down the work and struggles of the Council on each issue.

We’ll leave it here for now, as they say, and let you ruminate on it all. The election’s a week away. It’s silly season! Enjoy it.

Today he stood up for what’s right and if the two and a half hours of CNN and FOX I watched was any indication, no one quite understood why — two and a half hours of pundits proclaiming political opportunism, the ones on CNN saying that’s what people were calling it because they themselves didn’t seem quite ready to say what they personally believed and the ones on FOX trying every which way to convince themselves and their audience, plaintively, that that’s just what it was.

But if all their reasons were correct — that voters across the country have rejected it, that it will rally the right wing base behind an unpopular candidate whose own record is a reversed flip-flop, a regression from acceptance back to a thick layer of bigotry — then the question they are asking (What does it gain him?) is perhaps more accurately answered simply, “Peace of mind.”

For perhaps — and this is asking a lot of instapundits — he did it because it was the right thing to do. Maybe the smart guys on the TV have the political calculus just right and the obvious answer only fails to make sense because it just makes sense. Because it was the right thing to say, the right thing to do.

Friend –

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you’ll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I’ve gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn’t dawn on them that their friends’ parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,

Barack