There’s no place for this.

Dan Manning, a Democratic military veteran running for Kansas’ 91st State House seat (based in Wichita), has reported receiving a death threat on his front door.

Manning was discharged from the military under the infamous Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and while his sexuality has not been a focus of his campaign, the motivations of the coward who left the threatening letter were plain:

Dan’s opponent is long-time incumbent Brenda Landwehr. Landwehr, a notorious far-right conservative, has been a vocal opponent of equal rights for gay, lesbian and transgendered Kansans. Since February, she has used Dan’s sexual orientation to stir up her constituent. She has gone so far as to use language that Dan was told was “too offensive” to repeat.

This weekend, the homophobia and name-calling took a dangerous and criminal turn.

Dan arrived home from work on Saturday to find a death threat attached to his front door. Crudely cut from newspaper headlines was a crass note that read:

“DISTRICT 91 Democrat Dan N. Manning, 29, production supervisor, manningforkansas.com”
“2010 State House Election”
“Will DIE”
“FaGIT”
“Kill”
“HOMO”
“MURDER”
“Head OFF”

[hat-tip Kansas Equality Coalition]

Manning has focused much of his campaign on job creation, education, and renewable energy. And as he explained to Think Progress (which has posted a copy of the letter), Manning does not believe his opponent or her campaign is behind the threat. He spoke out about the incident in an interview with KAKE News in Wichita:

["]Running as a gay man in Kansas and a Democrat, as well, I expected there would be some intimidation, some threats, but nothing I don't think ever really prepares you for that," he said. "It was still quite shocking."

The threats were concocted using newspaper or magazine copy of letters cut out and glued in formation to spell out certain words.

"I think it's important for people to know that there is still hate and bigotry alive and well in this country," Manning explained. "When something like this happens, I think it's important to call it for what it is."

Wichita police are investigating.

In politics, any time you can get your opponent to repeat your own talking points, you’ve got the upper hand.

That’s what if felt like the other day when the Republican State Leadership Committee publicized a new Siena College poll showing only 27% of New Yorkers want the closely-divided State Senate to return to GOP control. Another 33% wanted Democrats to expand their 32-30 majority, and 34% said they were happy with the narrowly-divided status quo. We had highlighted the same poll earlier in the day.

The RSLC was thrilled because in their minds, that meant a “Majority of New Yorkers Oppose Democrat Gains in State Senate.” But they neglected to mention one important detail: the narrowly divided status quo is one in which Democrats nevertheless have a majority. Which means two-thirds of New Yorkers want either a small Democratic majority or an expanded one.

Only a quarter of New Yorkers actually believe that a Republican-controlled State Senate would be good for the people of New York.

Maybe that’s why the RSLC linked to the Siena College media release - which doesn’t even mention the question about State Senate control – and not to the poll results themselves.

And unless there’s any confusion about who those “keep it closely divided” voters are really planning to vote for, that 27% support for a Republican Senate looks pretty close to a high-water mark for the GOP statewide. In every single statewide head-to-head Siena tested, no Republican candidate earns more than 29% of the vote.

This is the clearest evidence yet that New York voters are not prepared to hand their government back to the party whose total disregard for middle class Americans caused the economic crisis we find ourselves in, and whose leaders have spent the last two years obstructing Democratic efforts to fix their mess.

Another Republican running for state office has weighed in on Jeremy Walters’ reprehensible comments.

Dave Leach, who is running for Iowa state Senate, says that the Republican Party of Iowa erred in denouncing Walters for claiming that AIDS is a punishment from God for homosexuality.

The Iowa Independent has the latest:

Leach, who is running against Democratic state Sen. Matt McCoy in Senate District 31, said Walters statement was “theologically clumsy, but it seemed close enough to Biblical truth to not merit a censure from the Republican Party.”

“GOP head Matt Strawn is right in saying HIV does not discriminate; in other words, the fact that someone has HIV by no means proves they got it through sodomy,” Leach said in an e-mail to Strawn and The Iowa Independent. “But I don’t see that that is what Jeremy said.”

Whether the Bible says there is a connection shouldn’t matter, he said, since, “everyone knows there is this connection.”

From Leach’s email:

Everyone knows sodomites suffer [HIV/AIDS] far more than the rest of the population, and that sodomy’s practices, which are so embarrassingly unsanitary that you dare not detail them in one of your articles, would inevitably create such a disease if it did not already exist. It seems “inappropriate,” to use Strawn’s word, to apologize for saying what the Bible says, with which everyone agrees. It is “inappropriate” for anyone to ask such a thing. I am sorry that Jeremy gave up his ground, although at least he stood it for awhile, which is more than most will do.

You can learn more about Iowa state Sen. Matt McCoy, the Democrat Leach hopes to unseat this fall, here.

Leach recently directed his inflammatory rhetoric directly at Sen. McCoy. At a rally staged by the National Organization for Marriage at the beginning of August, Leach handed out campaign fliers and told The Iowa Independent, “I am running against Iowa’s chief sodomite.”

One Iowa is expressing concern over the increasingly violent rhetoric emerging in the Iowa GOP.

“Considering Leach’s background and his most recent statements, we’re beginning to see a disturbing pattern of Iowa GOP candidates who use violent rhetoric and misinformation as a political weapon,” said One Iowa Executive Director Carolyn Jenison. “These remarks fan the flames of bigotry and hatred and they have no place in our civic dialogue.”

So this is what it’s come to, just a few days removed from the 90th anniversary of the day the 19th Amendment was ratified. Elyse Siegel at the Huffington Post reports that Minnesota’s 56th District GOP committee wants you to vote Republican because they think their favorite conservatives look better in bikinis:

The nearly five-minute long spot is set to the tune of Tom Jones' "She's a Lady" and touts the physique of ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, along with that of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and other familiar female conservative faces.

Following a montage of images hyping the Republican looks, the music transitions to Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out?" before distorted snapshots of House Speaker Nancy Pelsoi, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Rosie O'Donnell's head photoshopped onto 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's body flash across the screen.

(First Lady Michele Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are also among the Democratic figures highlighted in the web ad.)

DFL State Chair Brian Melendez blasted the message of the web ad, calling it “Sexist and offensive.” He added that “The day when a woman was judged by her looks rather than her competence and intelligence should have passed three generations ago.” We would add that cheap-shot personal attacks against an officeholder’s family are supposed to be off-limits, too.

But then again, political instincts like those displayed by 56th District Republicans are probably one reason Democrats gained 32 State Legislative seats in Minnesota over the last two cycles (including both State House seats and the State Senate seat in district 56).

That’s because Minnesota voters have a long history of rewarding candidates who campaign respectfully of each other and punishing candidates who behave like oafs.

So by all means: stay classy, Minnesota Republicans.

A Republican candidate for the Iowa House has found himself under recent scrutiny for some reprehensible comments he posted on his Facebook page.

The Iowa Independent broke the story Tuesday, revealing that Jeremy Walters, who is running against the Democratic Majority Leader of the Iowa state House, posted some incendiary remarks regarding AIDS and homosexuality on his Facebook page last week (he’s since removed them in a belated fit of remorse, but that’s what screenshots are for). Walters wrote that when the Bible says homosexuals should be “put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” the “blood” is actually AIDS.

The folks at One Iowa were understandably upset about these reprehensible statements, and they swiftly demanded that the Iowa GOP denounce Walters’ musings.

Which the Iowa GOP did:

“Mr. Walters’ comments are inappropriate and in no way represent the beliefs of the Republican Party of Iowa,” Strawn said in a statement to The Iowa Independent. “HIV/AIDS does not discriminate and our hearts and prayers go out to any Iowa family facing this disease.”

Walters, meanwhile, stood by his statements:

Walters told The Des Moines Register that he has no plans to remove the posting from his Facebook page, saying it’s only offensive to gay rights advocates, “because they know it’s the truth. Truth does hurt.”

But by 6:50 p.m. Tuesday evening, he had removed the vile sentiments from his Facebook page. (This came shortly after the Iowa Republicans rescinded his invitation to staff their State Fair booth on Thursday and Saturday. There is no direct evidence that these events were linked, but we find the timing suspect.)

Walters also posted an apology of sorts (quoted directly, no edits):

I appologize for the mistake and if this statement offened anyone.
Both postings have been removed and these comments do not pertain to my campaign or the Republican Party of Iowa.My passion is to listen and learn from the people so I can represent them at the state house. Everyone makes mistakes, please forgive me.

One of the intrepid bloggers at Think Progress succeeded in contacting Walters, who took the opportunity to explain himself further:

WALTERS: I just felt people should know what’s in the Bible, you know, scripture…I’m sorry that I even posted that because now I’m getting all of this attention and it’s bad attention, it’s not good attention. What inspired me posting that is because I had a few friends who were both homosexuals and passed away form AIDS.

VOLSKY: I understand that you regret posting it…But do you still believe that AIDS is the result of the sin of homosexuality?

WALTERS: Well, I don’t want to say that I don’t. I just, like I said, had an experience of friends dying….But back to the posting, that post when I posted, I do feel sorry and denounce what I said.

VOLSKY: Ok, so just to be clear, you are denouncing what you said? So you no longer believe that AIDS is God’s way of getting back at the sin of homosexuality?

WALTERS: Well, you know, I want to say that I’ve been seeing a lot of people that are in that lifestyle become with HIV and AIDS, but like I said, you can also get it through dirty needles and things so…. I would have to say that I removed it because it was not right to post it on there and I shouldn’t be picking on their lives, because they’re not picking on my life. I should be an understanding person and not a hater.

Apparently, the Iowa Republican Party finds his contrition insufficient. Last night he lamented on his Facebook wall (again, no edits):

since everthing that happin Today. I am ban from any events that the Republican party puts on so now what? Am I a bad candidate I want to represent the people not myself.

Here’s a little more background on the political career of GOP House candidate Walters:

He has previously run three times in three different legislative districts, most recently losing to Democrat Geri Huser in House District 42 by more than 20 percentage points in 2004 and in the GOP primary in House District 62 in 2008. He later served as a precinct chair for Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s 2008 Iowa Caucus campaign.

Walters is currently running in state House District 67 and seeks to unseat House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Republican state Rep. Joe Driver of Texas just got some news that’s going to “pretty well screw" his week... or month.... or election cycle.

The AP wrapped up some solid investigative reporting this week on Rep. Driver’s billing practices and confronted the Texas Republican with the findings.

The veteran Republican legislator, faced with findings from an investigation by The Associated Press, acknowledged in an interview that for years he has been submitting the same receipts – for luxury hotels, airline tickets, meals, fees and incidentals – to both his campaign and to the Texas House. He has also been collecting thousands of dollars in state mileage reimbursements for travel in vehicles for which his campaign has shelled out more than $100,000 since 2000.

The AP's review of hundreds of pages of state and campaign travel records found that Driver double-billed for at least $17,431.55 in travel expenses, much of it at upscale out-of-state hotels, since 2005. The number could go higher, but House travel records before mid-2005 have already been destroyed. Driver has been in office for 18 years. The double-billing figure does not include the vehicle expenses.

Would you believe that he actually thought it was OK to line his pockets with taxpayer money by billing both his campaign and the state for his travel expenses? Or so he has the temerity to claim:

A conservative on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which oversees how state dollars are spent, Driver said he thought it was OK to bill two entities for the same expenses. He said he routinely pays hotels and airlines with donated political funds and then submits the same expenses to the state, taking the taxpayer money for himself.

"Now you're scaring the heck out of me," Driver told the AP, adding: "It pretty well screws my week."
…
Driver insists he thought the double-billing was perfectly appropriate – until talking about it with the AP.

"Well, it doesn't sound like it is now. If you bring it up that way," he said.

Rep. Driver, known for his diatribes against runaway government spending, will now likely become the subject of an investigation for violations of both civil and criminal law.

Rep. Driver joins fellow Republican state Rep. Linda Harper-Brown in the ethical shadows. In June, Rep. Harper-Brown got caught driving a $55,000 Mercedes Benz owned by an influential highway contractor that does over $12 million in business with the state of Texas.

This fall, “Double-Dip” Driver faces Democrat Jamie Dorris in the November general election. Democrat Loretta Haldenwang is challenging Linda “Harper-Benz.”

Residents of Missouri state Senate district 26 selected their Republican candidate for the seat on August 3. State Rep. Brian Nieves defeated local mayor Richard Stratman in a contest that became ugly and incendiary in its waning days amid accusations that Rep. Nieves repeatedly committed adultery and paid former Republican state House Speaker Rod Jetton (who is awaiting trial on felony assault charges surrounding a sexual encounter) as a campaign consultant.

But the accusations made before the primary pale in comparison to what Stratman staffer Shawn Bell is alleging occurred the day after (via TPM):

Bell alleges that, on his way home to Jefferson City on August 4th, he happened by Nieves' campaign office and noticed the car of Nieves' campaign treasurer, Dave Bailey, parked outside. Not seeing Nieves car, Bell told police he decided to stop to congratulate Bailey. But no sooner did he offer his congratulations to Bailey than he was surprised by Nieves. Bell says that Nieves called him a "little fuck" threw him across the room as Bailey closed the blinds. When Bell reminded him that they both were Republicans, he got an unexpected response.

He then pulled out a black gun out [sic] of his pocket and made sure that I saw it and set it on a table. He told me he was going to kill me. I began to curl up into a ball and break down in fear and was yelling for help. He asked if I was wearing a wire and I told him NO; that I didn't come to bring harm. He felt my chest, stomach and back to feel for a wire. He was still yelling at me and saying how back he was going to fuck me up. He head butted me on my forehead and It hurt but it wasn't full power. I have had a headache ever since. He also slapped me across the face several times (at least twice, maybe more) but also not to his full potential He then drug [sic] me into the next room that appeared to be a kitchen area with a fridge, tile floor, and a sink. He still insinuated that I had a wire and made me take off my shirt.

After that, Bell says Nieves mocked his weight and then forced him first to get on his knees to beg forgiveness and then to lie on the floor.

As I was laying down looking up at him, he began to talk about when he was in the Navy. He asked me if I had ever had the absolute shit kicked out of me and I told him no. He asked if I had ever been in a fight and I told him once when in college. He said that he grew up in the projects and that "niggers" used to jump him and kick and beat the shit out of him relentless. He said everyone needs a theaurapeutic [sic] ass kicking in their life and that he was about to give me one.

Bell said that Nieves told him Bailey wouldn't back him up in court, told him he was sick of looking at his chest and allowed him to get dressed. Nieves then reportedly told Bell to come into his office, where he demanded to know whether Bell had been the opposition researcher behind some of the allegations during the campaign. Bell told police he denied it, but that Nieves then went through the text messages in his phone and began writing some of them down, and then accused Bell of "flipping off [Nieves'] family while they were in the car on Sunday." When Bell denied it, Nieves accused him of calling Nieves' family liars. Then Nieves reportedly threatened Bell's boss James Harris, and told Bell that Harris was the adulterer. Finally, Nieves demanded that Bell apologize to Nieves' wife over the phone. After the phone call finished, Bell said Nieves asked for explanations of who certain people in Bell's phone were and said, if Bell lied, "he would fuck me up like the little pussy bitch I am." Nieves reportedly discovered Bell had asked people to "mess with" Nieves' Facebook page or call into his radio show as part of the campaign.

Bell told police that Nieves eventually calmed down and let him go after Bell promised not to tell anyone; after returning to retrieve his sunglasses, Bell went back to Jefferson City and told his boss, Harris, who told him to write up the account; as he was doing so, Harris asked him to come to his house and have a conversation with a lawyer. After that conversation, and one with his parents, Bell decided to file the complaint and pursue a restraining order.

You can read Bell’s full complaint here.

Nieves faces former Democratic state Rep. George “Boots” Weber in the November general election.

The Family Research Council tried to make hay with our Legislative Priorities Survey, which showed (among other things) that over 80% of our readers and newsletter subscribers consider equal rights "somewhat" or "extremely" important. The FRC headline? "Homosexual Agenda is Low Priority—Even for Democrats." Huh?

They got there, of course, by conveniently forgetting about the 33% in the “somewhat” category. By that standard, this Pew Poll showing that only 48% of Republicans strongly oppose same-sex marriage “proves” that opposing equal rights is low priority for Republicans. (To be clear, the Pew survey was a scientifically constructed poll - ours was a non-scientific, self-selecting survey.)

Now, as anyone involved in politics will tell you, 80% of respondents calling an issue important is pretty close to monolithic. Not quite as monolithic or as intense as our education supporters (who are staring down the barrel at billions in school cuts and hundreds of thousands of laid-off teachers) or our job promotion supporters (because of the recession), but overall support for equal rights was in the same ballpark.

So the FRC's glee was more than a bit puzzling. But it did remind us of a Boston Globe article last week about a university experiment exploring what happens when political ideologues are presented with verifiable evidence that something they believe is false:

The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

"Backfiring" would certainly explain the Family Research Council. They saw a document showing equal rights to be wildly popular among the progressive base, and they thought it proved the opposite. What's more, the FRC is based in Washington, D.C., which approved civil marriage equality last year. Yet faced with such compelling, empirical evidence in his own backyard that equal rights shouldn’t be a big deal, the author of the FRC’s blog post continues to suggest that homosexuality should be considered a mental illness and that gays are “ten times more likely to molest children” than straight people. Both claims have been thoroughly discredited and represent bigotry, plain and simple.

Sorry, but when the DLCC wants scientific commentary, we’ll find someone whose boss didn’t give $82,500 to David Duke or give speeches before racist hate groups identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Should no one meeting those strict standards be available, we'll settle for someone with a strong enough grasp of basic arithmetic that they can add two percentages together.

The far-right Republican platform-writers are at it again, this time in Montana, where the recently-adopted GOP platform fully embraces the idea of government officials policing people’s bedrooms:

(…)the Montana Republican Party has adopted a platform that would criminalize “homosexual acts”:

Homosexual Acts

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

Ironically, the platform uses some form of the word “constitutional” at least 10 times and even argues that constitutionality should be decided by the states. But the Montana Supreme Court struck down the State’s sodomy law in 1997 and ruled that it violated the constitutional right to privacy. [H/T Think Progress]

The Montana Supreme Court, of course, was about six years ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared state anti-sodomy statutes unconstitutional in 2003. In the facts surrounding that case, Lawrence v. Texas, a sheriff’s deputy had burst into the apartment of one of the petitioners and arrested them both under Texas’ anti-sodomy laws. It was literally a case of the government policing people’s bedrooms.

And speaking of Texas, the GOP platform there also seeks to turn back the clock and return to a pre-Lawrence authoritarian utopia:

The 2010 GOP platform in Texas supports laws that criminalize sodomy and suggests that straight people who support same-sex marriage should be penalized with jail time. The GOP platform was quoted as openly stating:

“We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy,” the GOP platform reads. Meaning that even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws last decade (ironically in a case that stemmed from Texas), Texas Republicans would like the state to have the power to criminalize LGBT folks for having sex.

Thankfully, this is one idea where Republicans are clearly swimming against the tide of equal rights.

Republican state legislators in Texas were busy last week.

State Rep. Todd Smith pushed legislation that would suppress voting.

State Rep. Linda Harper-Brown found herself under an ethics cloud for accepting gifts in an apparent conflict of interest with her position on the House Transportation Committee.

And State Rep. Wayne Christian was assembling a new platform for the Texas GOP.

The Texas Republican Party held their annual convention last week, and Rep. Christian chaired the Platform Committee, which came up with a 25-page manifesto proclaiming the state party’s allegiance to “freedom and opportunity,” among other things.

Some select items from the 2010 Texas Republican Party Platform (all emphases are added):

We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

We support an immediate and orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax.

We urge the Congress to defund, repeal, and reject the national healthcare takeover, also known as “ObamaCare” or any similar legislation.

Education falls under the 10th Amendment to our United States Constitution. Given this, the Department of Education (DOE) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have no jurisdiction and must be repealed.

We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state.

We deplore all discrimination. We also deplore forced sensitivity training and urge repeal of any mandate requiring it. We urge immediate repeal of the Hate Crimes Law.

We call on the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of these United States to clarify Section 1 of the 14th amendment to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a citizen of the United States: with no exceptions.

We call Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to restrain activist judges. We urge Congress to adopt the Judicial Conduct Act of 2005 and remove judges who abuse their authority. Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.

And these are only a few of the gems of the Texas GOP platform.

One plank in particular has a special significance in Texas statehouse elections this fall. Basically, it’s an enforcement clause that reads, in part:

The Republican State Chairman and county chairs are responsible for implementing this platform by requiring party candidates to indicate their positions on platform planks before their acceptance on the ticket … We support the withholding of campaign contributions to organizations or campaigns … who do not support the principles of the 2010 Texas State Republican Party Platform.

So all Republicans for whom Texans vote this November support privatizing Social Security, depriving the Supreme Court of much of its jurisdiction, repealing hate crimes legislation, generally altering the U.S. Constitution to suit their fancy… and that’s just for starters.

State Rep. Linda Harper-Brown is going to have a tough time with the conflict of interest plank.

[h/t Political Correction]