There wasn't anything homophobic in the statements that Rick Warren made in this clip.

All he said was that everyone has temptations that God expects them to resist and homosexual impulses are no exception. You may not agree with him, but calling him homophobic because of this is just wrong.

Bateman also plays fast and loose with science. (Isn't that what the other guys are supposed to do?) His misuse of science is also self-contradictory. On the one hand, he wants to attack Warren by limiting genetic makeup to shoe size and on the other, he wants to say that being gay (which is not analagous to shoe size) is genetic. There ARE genetic traits that go beyond physical appearance. There are genetic predispositons to alcoholism, addiction, mood disorders, etc.... Bateman wants to have his cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work that way.

Is being gay genetic? No one can say with any certainty. Man has been struggling with the nature vs nurture argument for centuries and we are still nowhere close to solving it. The human brain, for all of its flaws, is still far too complicated for science to truly grasp. What we think we know about the brain and its workings today will probably be laughed at in 100 years in the same way that we mock phrenology today. The truth about homosexuality is probably somewhere in between nature and nurture. But the complexity of brain development and the fact that much of the brain's natural development occurs during the early years of a child's life, when the child is subject to enviromental influences, probably means that we never will know.

Was Obama's suggestion that the package should get 80 votes a sign that he is willing to pander to the right? OR, was it a firm challenge to the right? I suggest the latter.

After agreeing to add the middle class tax cut to the first stimulus package, Obama has already reached out the Republicans in the Senate. The polls show overwhelming support for Obama right now. I am not overly concerned that he will pander to the right in order to get the 80 votes. He shouldn't have to.

I don't think that the "80 votes" comment was a sign that Obama is going to give more to the right; it was a statement to the right that Obama has done his part in reaching out and has the public firmly behind him. If he fails to get 80 votes, it doesn't hurt Obama. It hurts the Republicans. I think that 80 is roughly the equivalent of a candidate talking up his opponent's debate skills or predicting an unreasonable margin of victory for the opponent in a primary- the goal is to set (unrealistic) expectations in the public's mind.

As long as the package has enough votes to get through the Senate, the "80 votes" challenge creates a win-win situation for Obama. If he gets the 80 votes (or close to it), then his first major act as President will have passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support. If he doesn't get anywhere close to 80, then the stage is set to target those Republicans in the Senate who are engaging in pointless obstructionism. A headline like "38 Republicans Vote Against Stimulus" would certainly hurt the GOP far more than it would Obama.

Despite my disgust with Harry Reid, I think that it that folding at the proper time is what is needed in this situation. The Illinois Legislature failed the people of their state and the country in their slow response to Blago's corruption. The Illinois Supreme Court failed the same people by refusing to declare Blago temporarily unfit to carry out his duties. And, perhaps most importantly, Roland Burris failed his state and his country by agreeing to accept a clearly tainted nomination out of blind, selfish ambition, knowing full well that Blago was using him because of his skin color.

The failures started well before Harry Reid. Turning Burris away at the door was the right thing to do. But legally, there is little that can be done to prevent Burris from eventually being seated anyway (unless the Democrats want to keep the issue in the court system until the 2010 elections). Burris is NOT "the junior Senator from Illinois" as he claims, but it is hard to see an outcome where he is not eventually.

Given the choice between a Constitutional battle over how much power the Senate has in turning an appointee away and finding a graceful way to seat Burris, seating Burris is the safer course. The question for Democrats is how to pull it off.

The case for turning Burris away Tuesday was solid. His documents are not in order and the law and Senate rules are on Reid's side. Just giving in now and seating him would be a disaster, but there is a path to seating him sooner rather than later that would save face for the Democrats. If Burris gets the Illinois Supreme Court to force the Secretary of State to sign off on his nomination, then the reason for Burris being denied entry Tuesday will go away and Democrats can seat him with much public grumbling.

If they seat him without the proper paperwork, they have no excuse for not seating Al Franken while the Coleman lawsuits go forward.

I do believe that when the Democrats do eventually seat Burris, it is imperative that they immediately begin a very loud, very public ethics probe into the process of his selection and let Burris serve with the knowledge that he could soon be kicked out of the Senate (which is easier to do than keeping him out).