First, Dear GOP, right now the field consists of Mitt Romney, for whom FLG will hold his nose and vote, and a bunch of other jackasses that will give FLG's vote to Obama. Gingrich? Santorum? Are you fucking kidding me?
Second, the idea that we should have mark-to-market taxation is fucking nuts. It would create so many complications, particularly liquidity issues when somebody has to come up with cash to pay tax on unrealized gains, that only a fucking tax lawyer could love it.
Third, as FLG has said before, he thinks courts ruling to allow same sex marriage is a terrible idea. He hasn't had a chance to see what the legal reasoning is to overturn prop 8, but he's skeptical of any ruling that overturns a constitutional amendment passed by a ballot initiative. It's too much of a shift of power from the people to the judiciary and judges should tread very carefully. (Just to be clear, FLG is aware of and understands the concept that an amendment to a state constitution regardless of how it passed can be in violation of the US Constitution. Moreover, he understands the idea of protecting minority rights in the face of the tyranny of the majority. He's just saying that it's dangerous ground, politically speaking, for judges to overturn the will of the people.) It's far, far better to have these things go through the legislature. Again, as FLG has said before, it's more expeditious to have judges find new rights in law, but in the long run it causes far more problems and distorts the entire judicial system. Prime case is Roe v. Wade, but the same thing applies in the California same sex marriage debate. The chances that California wouldn't have passed a same sex marriage bill in the near future is near zero. It's California for crissakes. Instead, the California Supreme Court steps in and rules that it's unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage, which let's not forget what prompted Prop 8 in the first place and kicked off this whole circus. And, as FLG has also said before, he's in favor of same sex marriage, but would've voted for Prop 8 as a rebuke to judicial overstepping. So, same sex marriage proponents in other states, please go through the legislature.
Lastly, FLG has been meaning to write about the HHS' refusal to carve out a religious exception to the mandate that health insurance cover contraception and other treatments related to reproduction. FLG's first thought was, what fucking sense does this make politically? Sure, maybe it will help Obama with some diehard pro-choicers, but it's going to piss off a bunch of other Democrats on religious freedom grounds. On net, FLG's guess is that it pisses off more Democrats than it helps. It's going to render conservatives apoplectic. Second thought - who exactly is the aggrieved party this is helping in consequential terms? By not allowing an exception, it allows people who have already willingly decided to work for the Catholic Church in hospitals, schools, charities, etc under the existing rules. Maybe there are some who would prefer that these services were covered under the health care, but FLG has to think that if it were really a make-or-break issue, then they wouldn't be working there in the first place. So, from a consequential perspective, it's benefiting people who would marginally prefer these services be covered and, FLG guesses, people who really want to work for the Catholic Church in some capacity, but up until now haven't because the contraceptive services coverage was a deal breaker. FLG doubts that's a huge constituency. Third - under what sort of vision of the free exercise clause does the administration think this is cool?