The Moderate Republican

Join the E-mail List!

If you want to get regular updates of the Moderate Republican, you can let me know by going to this link.

UPDATE: I'm having some trouble with the e-mail form in that it is not leaving and e-mail address. So, could you please write your e-mail address in the comments field? Thanks.

Start of a Moderate Movement?

It just gets depressing walking through Borders or Barnes and Nobles these days. I love to read books on politics, but what I see is pretty bad. Basically what you have are people like Michael Moore offering books such as, "How George W. Bush is responsible for the Kennedy Assasination, Watergate, the Challenger Explosion and Britney Spears," or something by Ann Coulter with a title that would go "Conspriracy: How the Democrats Plan to Cancel Christmas." (Okay the titles are made up, but they might was well be true.) These books serve to stir up the passions of the base, but they have no substance to them. If you want a sensible book about how to solve our health care crisis or bring democracy to the Middle East, you are out of luck these days.

What's sad is that our society is more geared to throwing red meat than it is in substantial, reasoned, dialogue. This at a time when we need some serious talk about the issues facing us, such as terrorism, health care and Iraq.

So, it's nice to read this commentary by John Gunyou, the city manager of Minnetonka, a Minneapolis suburb. Gunyou is writing for all of us moderates who are quite tired of the tirades of the left and right and just want people who will get down to work. He sets three simple things that moderates want from their politicians:

"First of all, we want you to stop trying to solve all of our problems. If you can protect our jobs, we can pretty much take care of ourselves. We do not want to dismantle government like Rush does, but neither do we want a slew of new programs. We expect you to fix the ones we're already paying for.

And finally, we believe in equity. We want people to pay their fair share for the government services and privileges they receive. We do not want undeserving people to get a free ride, but we do want the truly needy to be cared for. We're not really as heartless as Michael Moore makes us out to be. "

Sounds like a good plan. We want good government. We want our money spent wisely. Take care of the needy.

Here's to hoping that Gunyou is serious when he talks about starting a movement. Lord knows we need one.

More on the Kerry Speech

Before some people start thinking that my last post was a Kerry lovefest, I do want to address some problems I did have with his accpetance speech:

Iraq. He really did not say much here. In the past he supported upping the troop strength, last night he said nothing. What would the troops do there if he is President? How will he get others to pitch in? We are in Iraq for the long haul. He needs to explain what he would do different .

Outsourcing. Thankfully, he did not say anything about "Benedict Arnold" companies, but he is still talking about outsourcing like it is a bad thing all around. He knows better than that and is kowtowing to Labor. I've spoken about this before, but building products overseas make them cheaper here and give needed jobs to people in developing countries. What Kerry needs to talk about is how government will help displaced workers through education and giving them health care that is portable and doesn't end when the job leaves.

Social Security. I really don't get why Democrats get all nervous when anyone talks about even a partial privatization of Social Security. I mean, most people also have 401ks and pensions. Aren't those subject to the ups and downs of Wall Street? I'm not crazy about a total privatization, but a partial would help people like me that wonder if there will be enough benefits when I hit 65.

Gay Rights. A lot has been said that the President has not used the word "gay" in his speeches. Well, we heard only a vague reference to same sex marraige and no mention of gays from Kerry. I know, he doesn't want to look to "out of the mainstream", by talking about us. However, he could have shown some courage by talking about equality and that people should not be discrimated against simply because of their sexual orientation. If Barak Obama can talk about gays in his speech, then Kerry could say a few words.

I know why Kerry was vague on Iraq: he didn't want to piss off the delegates in Boston since many are against the war. I also don't expect him to say anything different concerning outsourcing or Social Security, again to not piss off the base. As for talking about gays. He better say something soon; people are trying to limit the freedom of a few and that must be called what it is:bigotry.

Kerry's Big Speech/Boston Wrap-up

I thought Kerry gave a very good speech. It was optimistic and that is what Americans go for. We are a hopeful people and we are inspired to do better because we are Americans.

Overall, the Dems ran a good convention. I had low expectations and I thought time would be spent on Bush-bashing, but there was very little of that. For the last four years, we have seen a party that was fixated on the mess in 2000 and their strong dislike of W. There wasn't much hope. What I saw in Boston was a different party. If Kerry and the Dems keep up this optimism, they just might win come November.

One Readers Reponse to the Name Change Idea

Editor's Note: You know, I wish we could see the passion in this e-mail used to build a moderate movement in the GOP.

I also wished I had kept my big mouth shut on the name change idea. :)

We are not in exile.

We are REPUBLICANS!

I agree that we are Republicans. But I wish that we were mad enough to take this party back from the extremists. I wish we were organized and patient to make the slow and steady gains we need. I wish we would devote this energy into supporting moderate candidates and finding moderates who will step up to the plate.

If we want this party to change for the better, then we need to put our anger into action and get busy changing this party. If we can't do that, then the words mean nothing.

Name Change: Bad Idea

Well, I asked for your advice on the name change and you all pretty much panned it-quite loudly. So, I guess it will remain.

Thanks for your responses, I think.

Name Change?

I'm thinking about changing the name of the blog. Here is one of the names I'm thinking about:

Republicans in Exile:I like this one because it signifies the state of moderate Republicans. No longer the leading edge of the party, we are on the margins. However, there is a lot you can do from there. I'm also reminded of my seminary years when I learned about the exiles of the Israelites and how stories were written to remind the refugees of who they were and "the good old days" when Israel was strong and faithful to God. We moderates and liberals are on the outside these days and yet we need to be reminded of the days when we had a stong voice in the party as hope for a future when the party again will be tolerant and centrist.

Let me know what you think. I will share more names later. Please feel free to share some ideas of your own. I need to get ready for work.

From Pedro, on the IndependentRepublicans List

US Rep. Marilyn Musgrave is the primary person behind the federal
marriage amendment. This summer she, along with radical anti-gay
activists, are planning a major offensive aimed at building support
for the marriage amendment and bringing it up for a vote in Congress.
The amendment is likely to gain steam now that Massachusetts
marriages are legal....

Please consider giving Bob Faust some financial support. If you have
any friends or family in Colorado, please let them know about Bob's
campaign so that we can help him purge a gay basher from the
Republican party and defeat her marriage amendment at the same time.

www.faust4congress.com

Democratic Convention Open Thread

So what are your thoughts on Boston so far?

A note for Support from Bob Faust

From the Republicans for Kerry website:

We Must Not Give Up
Bob Faust
July 22, 2004

I would appreciate any assistance you could provide to my campaign.

Bob is trying to stand up and challenge the Religious Right. Moderates need to support this guy.

Contribute to Bob Faust

Why We Need Moderates

It just gets depressing walking through Borders or Barnes and Nobles these days. I love to read books on politics, but what I see is pretty bad. Basically what you have are people like Michael Moore offering books such as, "How George W. Bush is responsible for the Kennedy Assasination, Watergate, the Challenger Explosion and Britney Spears," or something by Ann Coulter with a title that would go "Conspriracy: How the Democrats Plan to Cancel Christmas." (Okay the titles are made up, but they might was well be true.) These books serve to stir up the passions of the base, but they have no substance to them. If you want a sensible book about how to solve our health care crisis or bring democracy to the Middle East, you are out of luck these days.

What's sad is that our society is more geared to throwing red meat than it is in substantial, reasoned, dialogue. This at a time when we need some serious talk about the issues facing us, such as terrorism, health care and Iraq.

So, it's nice to read this commentary bu John Gunyou, the city manager of Minnetonka, a Minneapolis suburb. Gunyou is writing for all of us moderates who are quite tired of the tirades of the left and right and just want people who will get down to work. He sets three simple things that moderates want from their politicians:

"First of all, we want you to stop trying to solve all of our problems. If you can protect our jobs, we can pretty much take care of ourselves. We do not want to dismantle government like Rush does, but neither do we want a slew of new programs. We expect you to fix the ones we're already paying for.

And finally, we believe in equity. We want people to pay their fair share for the government services and privileges they receive. We do not want undeserving people to get a free ride, but we do want the truly needy to be cared for. We're not really as heartless as Michael Moore makes us out to be. "

Sounds like a good plan. We want good government. We want our money spent wisely. Take care of the needy.

Here's to hoping that Gunyou is serious when he talks about starting a movement. Lord knows we need one.

Can I Get an "Amen?"

Every so often I see a moderate Republican get the nerve to run in a campaign. It's usually a David going against a Goliath whether that is a popular Democrat or a very right wing Republican. Time and again, I'm told by moderates, that this person is not a credible candidate and not worth supporting.

And we wonder why moderates have no power in the party.

It's time that we stop with the defeatist talk and start believing in ourselves again and what we stand for: equality, decency, pragmatism and limited government. Yes, the moderate candidate we support may not win, but that's not as important as standing up for what you believe and try, try again. The reason the far right is in control of the party is beacause they kept trying and trying and losing and losing until they won. They were patient because they knew at some point they would win.

I'm saying all this because of an outstanding post by Bob Faust called "The Real Candidate." He is going up against Marilyn Musgrave, a far right Republican who is the author of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment in the House. He has not received help from the state GOP or even from gay organizations because they all believe it is a hopeless cause. Listen, it's not a hopeless cause. Bob is running against Marilyn because he believes gays should be treated as equals and that discrimation is wrong. Imagine, a Republican who supports gay rights!

We need to do what we can to help this guy win. Don't tell me he can't win. If you want the GOP to be forever controlled by the likes of Musgrave who will keep bringing the FMA up for a vote until it passes, then don't bother. But if you want to work for the day that such bigots are marginalized and have no major party to control, then let's work together to get Bob to Washington!

When British Conservatives Attack

You might think that conservatives in other parts of the world are 100 percent behind out president. You would be very wrong. In an earlier post, I talked about the fact that some Euroconservatives were less than thrilled with Bush. Now via Andrew Sullivan comes a statement from Michael Portillo, a star in the British Conservative Party. The whole statement is a money quote so just click on the link and read it yourself.

All I can say is ditto.

New Site for Moderates

You might want to check out a new website called OutragedModerates.org. It's run by a native North Carolinian who is a law student in New York. From a quick glance, it's pretty informative and it has a special peer to peer method of getting government documents. Check it out.

The Republican "Unbase"

Former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips writes in The Nation that for Kerry to win, he needs to tap into the disaffected Republicans who are disatisfied with not only the current Bush, but with the last occupant of the White House who has the name of Bush as well. He cites these voters supported Perot in 1992 and McCain in 2000. According to Philips, these "Republican dissidents" have their own agenda that is at odds with the current Republican leadership. Their agenda includes:

§ campaign and election reform,
§ opposition to the religious right,
§ distaste for Washington lobbyists,
§ opposition to upper-bracket tax biases and runaway deficits,
criticism of corporations and CEOs

These issues are not being addressed by the GOP, but they are by the Dems. In essence, Kerry has a chance to create "Kerry Republicans" in the way that Ronald Reagan created "Reagan Democrats" in 1980. Right now, it seems that Kerry is not doing much to reach to these disaffected Republicans. Phillips believe that to get these dissidents on board, Kerry will have to get angry:

"Back in 1992, Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot went after Bush with the gloves off, softening him up so that the Democratic nominee Clinton didn't have to do that much. In 2000 Al Gore didn't run a strong campaign--his occasional populism was as labored as fellow Harvard man Dukakis's in 1988--but some Republicans and independents had taken their cues from McCain. This year, by contrast, Bush had no primary challenge and will have no ex-Republican third-party opponent. Sure, some Republicans have attacked Bush through books, but while that's probably been worth a point or two, it's not the same thing.

To win this election decisively, John Kerry is going to have to feel the same outrage that Howard Dean felt, and he's going to have to express some of it with the same merciless candor that the Republican dissidents have employed against two generations of Bushes. In today's circumstances of a nation on the wrong track, most swing voters--especially wavering GOP men who grew up on John Wayne movies--will not be content with pablum."

Many people criticized McCain in 2000 when he went after the religious right and likened his campaign to Luke Skywalker going up against the Death Star that was Bush. However, such edgy talk made him an instant hero to this "unbase." If Kerry wants to gage how angry some Republicans are, he might want to check out Republicans for Kerry. There is anger here that would make you think you are among Democrats but you're not. Republicans are angry too and Kerry needs to tap into some of that Republican anger against Bush and use it to his advantage.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for article.

Notes from a Frustrated Conservative

I always get the sneaking the suspicion that people who read this blog think that I am really a closet Democrat or something. I know I'm not, but I guess my disdain for the President's policies and my pro-gay stance has people wondering. I tend to see myself as a conservative, but not in the way that they are usually characterized in the media.

I think when people see the words "conservative" it means a person who is bigoted against gays and probably other people and hates government. However, I don't think that is it's originally meaning. Conservatives tend to place a lot of reliance on tradition, but they are not traditionalists, who seem to worship tradition.

Take gay marriage. A conservative argument for it is that marriage is a tradition that is very important in society and it works. Gays want to be part of that tradition. They are not rejecting tradition, they want to join it because it works.

To me, conservatism is about realism. Conservatives don't think government is the solution to all life's problems, but it is a very important institution that maintains the stability of any society. They are also pragmatists in that they are more concerned with what really works and not clinging to idelogical dogma .

So is the GOP really a conservative party? I would say no. The people who run it today might be "political conservatives" but they are hardly conservatives in the tradition of Edmund Burke. They worship traditionalism, seem to want to government to impose a strict moral agenda and are so ideological you expect that people will be waving little red books at the New York convention in the tradition of Mao.

I don't know, I would like to take back the word and make it mean something more than a narrow-minded bigot. When I think of who is a true conservative, I think of someone like John McCain. He makes me proud to use that name.

If you want to read more thoughts on conservatism today, you might want to read Oxblog.

It Don't Mean a Thing if it ain't got that swing

A few weeks ago a friend of mine who is another moderate Republican, told me that he thinks the GOP in its current form is threatened by the Millenial Generation that doesn't have as big of a problem with gays or gay marriage for that reason. He thinks it will be while since they are not of voting age yet.

Well, the GOP may want to start worrying because according to Ryan Sanger of the New York Post, that time is now. He cites a recent poll done by National Public Radio that shows that only 45 percent of people aged 18 to 29 are against gay marriage compared to 75 percent of those over the age of sixty four.

Here's Ryan's money quote:

" The Republicans have put themselves on the wrong side of a generation gap. And it won't be easily papered over as today's young voters age into older voters — who are more likely to show up at the polls.

When it's one of your first presidential elections — as it is for me — it's no trivial matter that voting Republican means a vote for a party catering to the worst prejudices about our brothers, sisters, friends from high school, college roommates, co-workers, bosses, drinking buddies and the like. "

What happening in America when it comes to gays and gay marriage is not a revolution, but an evolution. Contrary to what the religious right says, there is no "homosexual agenda" trying to take over the nation. What is happening is that as more and more gays come out and live their lives publicly the more people see it as normal and the more they understand that same-sex marriage is not about destablizing hetrosexual marriage as it is about same-sex couples wanting to have their love respected by the state in the same manner as different-sex couples. The kids know this. They have gay friends or siblings or even parents.

The GOP can afford to ignore the young now because they don't vote as much, but as they age and vote more, the GOP will be in trouble unless it starts to become a party inclusion.

Here's to hoping for future leaders of the GOP who will have the courage to treat gays as full human beings.

A Republican Visits PFLAG and lives!

Bob Faust went to a forum sponsored by Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, or PFLAG. Here is his report:

"Just wanted to provide everyone with an update on the PFLAG forum (about 50 people attended) tonight. The forum was hosted by the Boulder PFLAG organization to discuss issues relevant to the gay and lesbian community. Boulder County, State and Federal Candidates attended (except Marilyn, Pete Coors and Bob Schaffer). Different questions were asked for the different races. Catherine Greener showed up as my support. Based upon her feedback, I did better than Bob Kinsey or Stan. Afterwards I had several people come up to talk about the campaign and they are happy to see a Republican trying to bring the party back to middle ground. They also said they would help spread the word in the 4th. Catherine, again, thanks for coming and the feedback.
I talked to Jared Polis (Polis Foundation) today and he said he has some folks who will provide some contributions to the campaign early next week. I told him we intend to make a hard sell the first week of August and needed funds to also run ads in the papers Sunday, August 8th. So we will see what Jared can do for us. For those of you who do not know Jared, he is a democrat and supports Stan Matsunaka. I think Jared like also realizes who ever wins the Republican Primary will win the November election. As to other activities, back to the letters to the editors. For now, there are no other candidate forums I am aware of.
I have also ordered yard signs, so those of you in the district who would like to place a sign in your yard, send me an email and I will get them to you when they come in next week. We have also posted two signs on I-25 and two signs on Highway 34 between Greeley and Loveland. AS soon as we can obtain permission from other people, we will post additional signs.
Thanks again for your support and I will keep you updated as things develop.
Bob Faust
Future Candidate from the 4th Congressional District

As we near the August 10th primary, people might want to consider donating to Bob's campaign.

Extra! Moderate Republicans want change!

If there is something that really bothers me is when pollsters and the media ignore moderate to liberal Republicans. In their mind, to be a Republican means being a right-winger. Which is why I'm thankful for a poll done in late May by the progressive (read:leftist) magazine, Mother Jones. Kudos to them for actually taking the time and including moderate and liberal Republicans.

The poll is quite interesting because it does reveal some disatisfaction with Bush among moderates in the party. For example, while Republicans overwhemingly support Bush, 34 percent of moderates believe there needs to be "a change of direction for the country." On Iraq, only 45 percent of moderates and liberal Republicans feel good about the Iraq war and barely half think the venture was a "wise investment" towards our national security.

What this presents is an opening for Kerry of course. Moderate Republicans are quitely (and sometimes not so quitely) dissapointed with the President. Kerry in essence needs to do a Reagan and go after these dissaffected Republicans in the way that Reagan went after working-class Democrats. I think Bush may have helped with his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, but Kerry needs to address issues that moderates want to hear, like taming the deficit and tolerance towards others.

Anyway, it was a worthwhile poll. You can take it yourself to see how you stack against others.

Money Quote from Andrew Sullivan

I will comment more on the FMA later today. I'm glad it was defeated and that there were some GOP senators who stood up to bigotry. Thanks especially go to my man, John McCain who as usual stood for decency and bravery. I think Andrew Sullivan had a great quote about how pathetic the GOP has become in this election year:

"All I can say is that, from one perspective, that of the gay community, president Bush has done what no Democratic candidate has been able to do for a couple of decades: he has united the entire community around the Democrats. The effort by many of us to persuade gay voters to consider the Republicans, to give Bush a chance, has been rendered almost comically moot this fall. Bush won a quarter of gay votes in 2000. I wonder if he'll even get a tenth of them this year. He deserves fewer."

This is one Republican who will not be supporting Bush in November. He had his chance, he blew it.

Another Gay-Friendly Republican

"I think they ought to be treated equally. Period," Ford declared. Asked specifically whether gay couples should get the same Social Security, tax and other federal benefits as married couples, he replied, "I don't see why they shouldn't. I think that's a proper goal."

-Former President Gerald Ford.

Quote from Lincoln Chafee

A Republican you can be proud of:

When asked to assess the political wisdom of debating the Federal Marriage Amendment, Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island said, "Nuts! To be seen as the party that's coming between two people that love each other doing what they want to do ... to me that's going to be seen as a liability, politically."

"Rain"Delay for November Elections?

You know, if we weren't living in such polarizing times, the thought of looking in to postponing the general elections in the event of a terrorist attack might be something to at least talk about. However, these are very polarizing times, and some already think this is part of some nefarious plan by the Bush Administration to subvert democracy.

Conspiracy theories aside, I think it might be a good idea to talk about this scenario. What would happen if a major attack hit a large city on or before election day? What if there were a high amount of casualities? Would it be wise to still have general election on that date? It's important to remember that on September 11, 2001, New Yorkers planned to vote in a mayoral primary. In light of the attacks, it was postponed.

Some people have said we have not called off elections when wars took place, but then a terrorist attack is different from a war. I would probably lean towards having the election anyway as a sign of strength. However, I think it is an important discussion to have in these dark times.

Bush and the NAACP

First things first: While the NAACP bills itself as "nonpartisan" the rhetoric coming from the group in the last few years shows they do have their leanings against the President. Since most African Americans are Democrats, it should be no suprise that the NAACP is pretty much a Democratic audience.

With that said, the President made a big mistake when he skipped the NAACP national convention in Philly citing a "scheduling conflict." Yes, a scheduling conflict. Uh huh.

The President has the dubious distinction of being the first President in over 80 years to not address the civil rights group and the President and his aides did not hide the fact that they thought it would be a waste of time. Look at this:

"The White House said Bush had a scheduling conflict, but Bush also has described his relationship with the NAACP leadership as "basically nonexistent" -- "You've heard the rhetoric and the names they've called me."

"The current leadership of the NAACP has certainly made some rather hostile political comments about the president over the past few years," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday.

So because they called him bad names that gives him reason to skip? Please. People always call presidents bad names, that's American. In every election, there are going to be people who don't like you. That's politics. But as President you have to be-well, presidential and keep good relations even with groups you don't like.

What this shows is that the President is not interested in at least trying to appear to build a bridge. Sure, the NAACP is not going to endorse him for President, but to put it in business terms these people are your bosses and if you get them really angry, they will fire you. Our President seems to think that the only people he should listen to is his far right wing base.

This is par for the course for Bush. When he was elected or whatever, he could have used the closeness and bitterness of the election to work with Dems to come up with an agenda both sides could agree with. He didn't. After 9/11, he could have again stepped up to be the leader for all of America. He didn't.

Mr. President, you are the leader of a nation of nearly 300 million people. Start acting like it.

Comment of the Day: Battling the "Wal-Mart Republicans"

"It's very refreshing to read sensible opinions coming from Republicans these days. Your party is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan. The level of diplomacy, bipartisanship, and respect that Ronnie brought to the White House and your party is long gone. The good will that Reagan brought to the WH and the GOP has been replace with zelotry and corporate greed. The only way to get back to those days would be to have McCain run. I think your party has been split into to camps. First is the old-line Republicans which post their messages here. You stand for small government, state's rights, individual liberties, etc. Then then there's the party of George The Selected which I lovingly call the "Wal-Mart Republicans. These people only understand black and white issues, there is no gray. In fact they don't have the analytical capacity to think in shades of grade. To them life is about having "good" and "bad" defined for them, being told what to think, and watching rednecks drive cars in circles for 500 laps. Bush, Cheney, and Rove have dragged your party into the cesspool of Pat Robertson and a second term will only prompt a wave of fascism this country has never seen.
I applaud your courage to stand-up amongst these Wal-Mart Repubicans and say that you don't like the direction W is taking your party and your country. God bless America!

Protecting Marriage from Box Turtles

"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."

-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation.

Why I Still Like McCain

There's been a lot of constrenation about John McCain doing a commercial for W. For some people this is nothing short of betryal. They think that McCain should be out there slamming Bush every chance he has and maybe should even just leave the GOP. I would suspect many of these folks wanted McCain to be Kerry's veep.

I have to say that McCain is still my man even if he endorsed Bush. Maybe it's the highly partisan environment that we live in, but just because he endorsed Bush doesn't make him evil or a lesser man; it makes him a Republican senator. Everyone knows that he's a maverick and it's pretty clear he has no love the President any more than Bush has love for McCain. He knows that he is Republican and to publicy stand against Bush might play well nationally, but not with the voters in Arizona. McCain will give Bush an endorsement, but this doesn't mean his reform-minded work in the Senate is over. He just has to play the party line.

I also think that McCain is an old-style politician in that he can reach accross party lines and make friends, but doesn't take things personally. He remembers when Washington was a more civil place. People seem to forget that he defended Kerry against partisan attacks. Kerry is a friend and he thought the attacks were unfair. I was glad he did that and it speaks more about who he is than him speaking in favor of Bush.

The other thing is that too many of us have wanted to see what we want to see in McCain. He became a political Rorshach test. Some have said that he is pretty much a Democrat, forgetting his pro-life abortion stance and his support for the Iraq war.

I think those who castigate McCain for his support of Bush seem to think that no sane person would ever support Bush. Well, many do. I don't know why some people would support W., but they do. That doesn't make them bad people neccesarily. They have their reasons and it might do well to ask them why they are supporting the President and for those who are supporting Kerry to explain why they are supporting their man.

Second, McCain did a call-in recently at a public radio station in Minnesota. He spoke about reform and about civility. He got to me with his hope for a better America and world.

I don't have to agree with everything this man does. I don't. I may think that his choice of endorsements is wrong, but at heart he is still a good man who wants to make this nation better. If we have become so political and polarized that we are ready to discredit a man like McCain for what some might view as a bad choice, then we are a sad nation indeed.

McCain Doubts, Moderates Grumble

It seems as though all is not well in GOP-land. Even though John McCain supports the President, he is having his doubts about W. As Robert Novak notes:

"Sen. John McCain, whose enthusiastic endorsement is being used in a television ad for George W. Bush, is privately advising colleagues that the president is not in good shape politically and faces an uphill fight for re-election.

McCain tells fellow senators that he is particularly concerned about his own state of Arizona, where he feels Sen. John Kerry will be hard to defeat. Although all polls show President Bush still ahead in Arizona, the White House has long been worried about retaining the state because of the rising Latino vote there. Losing Arizona would cast a cloud over the president's national prospects."

Maybe not that surprising. But what is interesting is as Andrew Sullivan has noted that fair-minded Republicans are making protesting the actions of the President with their pocketbooks:

"Moderate Republican senators grumble that some longtime contributors are refusing their usual contribution to the Republican presidential campaign. Their biggest grievance: Bush's endorsement of the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment."

There are times I get upset that moderates are not forceful enough against the religious right, but today I think I saw my faith restored, a little. As I read this, what came to my mind was that like many Americans, there are probably many Republicans who have a gay son or daughter, or a gay sibling or relative. This person may be partnered and live a happy life with this same-sex partner. I don't think it is too far a stretch that these Republicans see their loved ones not as sick, troubled monsters bent on destroying life as we know it, but as normal people, good citizens. They may not know what to think of gay marriage, but they do know that an amendment that bans gay marriage is mean-spirited. For them, this issue is not about constitutional law or about protecting marriage: it's personal. It's about a bunch of scared people who decide to go after other people who a different and about a President who decided to listen to the scared and hateful folk instead of the people who are different and yet just as American as anyone else.

Mr. Bush, you should remember that Republicans have gay children as well. When you pander to the Religious Right, you might want to remember that, because they will probably remember you come Election Day.

Today's GOP: Gays Ain't welcome

If you are in need of a laugh or maybe want to raise your blood pressure, you might want to read the response the GOP came up with to the choice of John Edwards as John Kerry's veep choice. They don't like him because he actually thinks gay people should be treated with respect! Here's a sample:

Edwards Said States Should Decide Civil Unions Status. “Palmieri said Edwards believes states should decide whether to allow civil unions, a legal status conveying many of the same benefits as marriage, that was first recognized in Vermont during the tenure of Gov. Howard Dean, a 2004 presidential rival.”

Translation: Who the hell needs federalism? State's rights? We don't need no stinking state's rights!

Edwards Said He Would Not Support Defense Of Marriage Act. “I want to say a word in answer to the question you asked very directly. I would not support the Defense of Marriage Act today, if there were a vote today, which is the question you just asked Senator Kerry. I’m not sure what he said about that, but I would not vote for it.”

Translation: We support bigotry...I mean protecting marriage. Don't you?

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In D.C.

Translation:If you get AIDS from a bad needle, well, you deserved it. You're a drug user and probably a homo to boot.

Edwards Believes In Right To Privacy When It Comes To State Sodomy Laws. ABC’s GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “Here in the state of South Carolina, it’s a felony for two gay men to have sex in their own home. Senator Edwards, do you support the right of the people of South Carolina to keep that law on the books, or do you think that under the Constitution there’s a fundamental right to privacy that protects that right?” EDWARDS: “I believe there is a fundamental right to privacy. I do not believe the government belongs in people’s bedrooms. I think that applies to both gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples.”

Translation: Privacy, schimvacy. We need to have the state come in and stop those nasty homos from, from , you know, doing it!

Edwards Supports Partner Benefits And Gays In The Military. MSNBC’s CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Are you for gay marriage?” SEN. EDWARDS: “I am not for gay marriage. I am for partner benefits …” MATTHEWS: “Are you for open gays serve in the military? EDWARDS: What I’m for is treating everybody exactly the same no matter what their sexual orientation.…”

Translation: If we let those gays in, our armed forces will suffer immensely. Just ask Israel.

This little press release says more about the current Republican leadership than it does about John Edwards. It shows a party so obsessed with homosexuality that it will castigate a man for his views and expose their own hatred.

I will say it again. No gay Republican should support this president. I will go even further: if you are a straight Republican with a gay friend or family member, please don't support Bush. He is supporting an agenda that will hurt the ones you love. I'm not asking for people to vote for Kerry, that something they have to decide for themselves, but don't support Bush. If you don't want to vote for the Democrat, vote third party of leave that ballot blank. Just don't support someone who wants to write discrimination into the constitution. Bush got 1 million gay votes in the last election. Let's see how he feels when he loses those votes in such a close race.

President Bush's Radio Address

It sounds like W. has Senator Rick Santorum as his speech writer. As you read this, notice that he never uses the words gay or lesbian even though homosexuality is what he is talking about.

"President's Radio Address

Thank you for listening.

A few points. First, what's all this with "activist judges?" Several of the justices on the Massachesetts Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans governors. I don't understand the far right's hatred of the judical system. They can talk about how unelected judges are ruining society. What they don't like is that the justices are people they can't sway with fear tactics in the way that they can the general public through referendums and votes. Using the courts exposes the weakness of their logic as was evidence in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down sodomy laws.

Also what does the President and his far right cronies mean by "traditional marriage?" In the Bible it was not uncommon to be married to more than one person. Should we go back to the times when women were property and not traeated as full beings?

And back to the non mention of gays and lesbians. Mr. Bush wants to have his cake and eat too. He can make this look like it is the work of "activist judges" and yet not look like he is being bigoted by not mentioning gays. He can like gays, but not have to give them equal rights.

However, he's not fooling anybody. I have no idea how Mr. Bush feels about gays, but this constitutional amendment is bigoted. As Andrew Sullivan points out in a recent posting, this amendment would do far more than just deny gay marriage. It would deny civil unions, domestic partnerships and other civil arrangements gays and lesbians have set up. This is not about protecting marriage but about denying rights. It's Jim Crow in drag.

The President is on the wrong side of history on this one. Any gay Republican worth his or her salt need to withdraw support from the President. He is not our friend.

Losing May be a Blessing in Disguise

In talking with other moderates, I've found many that are hoping for a Kerry win. Why you say? Are they nothing more than turncoats, RINOs?

No, many of these people are loyal Republicans. However, the think the current leadership is so far to the right that the only way to deal with them is to have them lose so that more moderate voices can take over. That was the thrust of a Salon story back in March. Now there was this interesting e-mail on Andrew Sullivan's website today. Take a gander:

""Andrew, like all of us you deserve a national party that represents faithfully at least most of your political philosophy. Right now that may not be either major party, but it could be the GOP after it is forced to engage in a real internal debate about its future and direction. In other words, a Kerry-Edwards win in 2004 might force the GOP to decide what it wants to be--the party of Pat Tillman, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, and Arnold or the party of Rick Santorum and Ralph Reed. Only faced with a loss in November will the GOP have the opportunity to have this dialogue. Imagine how engaged you will be, and how exhilirating that New Hampshire primary will be in 2008? But if Bush wins there is no chance that anyone will stop to ask the hard questions. The contradictions and the fissures will simply be papered over and the Santorums will continue their triumphal march, smug and unchecked. If nothing else, a Kerry-Edwards win in November does two positive things for this country: first, it gives the GOP a chance to pause and make intelligent choices, a chance to improve itself into something that Sullivan and Kaus and Simon might all feel comfortable in. Second, a Kerry-Edwards win puts a roadblock in front of Hillary Rodham Clinton for good. Win win, I say."

I'm beginning to think that this might be the only way to save the GOP. This election is pretty much a referendum on Bush's leadership and if he fails, then the neocons and theocons who have been heading the party over the last few years may well be discredited. If Bush wins in November, the purge of the Republican party could continue. When asked if the GOP support anti-gay laws like the Federal Marriage Amendment might alienate, gay Republicans, conservative commentator Paul Weyrich was quoted as saying, "Good Riddence."

This is the new face of the GOP: intolerant, ignorant, and spending money like Paris Hilton. It's up to the voters to decide if this is who we want governing our country.

Comment of the Day

"I am the founder of Oregon Mainstream Republicans. Originally, it was the Oregon chapter of the Republican Mainstream Committee headquartered in Washington, DC. The national office has gone defunct but there remain a number of ongoing chapters. None of them are effective in stirring sufficient numbers of moderate (mainstream) Republicans to take control of the party back from the theocrats (the American Taliban)and the Oregon group is a failure at it.

Vote Kerry/Edwards and help save the United States from theocracy.

Book Watch

For time to time, I want to use this space to make people aware of books worth reading. Last fall, I ordered a book called Conservatism Revisted by Peter Vierek. Even though it was written in 1949 and revised in the mid-1960s, it's an incredibly timely book. Viereck tells the story of a movement that had lost its way and needed to get back on the straight and narrow path. Here's a snippet of a review by an Amazon customer...

"In this book he explains his philosophy. Conservatism should be a moderate form of traditionalism. Opposing the extremes of the left as well as the right of the political spectrum in its admiration for the institutions that build America and preserved it from decaying into anarchy and chaos. Those institutions are the only way of preventing modern man of becoming a caveman again. They are threatened by totalitarianism that is trying to replace tradition by a abstract blueprint serving the selfish impulses of men. It should be the task of conservatives, liberals and the socialist parties in Europe to combat this Rousseauian dream."

When you look at the modern GOP these days, you can see that they are busy at helping us become cavemen once again. If you want to see a conservatism that is more Burkean than Darwinian, please pick up this book. I would suggest getting it used since it is WAY cheaper than new. You can order it by clicking the title above.

A New Moderate Republican Strategy, Continued

I've been re-reading Mark Kittel's article and decided to share some more parts of it. Here's goes:

"The fundamentalist plan is much more far-sighted than you might think. Most factions within the party are willing to set the goal of "Get a Republican" into office, and leave it at that, hoping that the mere fact that a senator or the president is a Republican will bring good results to the country. The fundamentalists have a much more powerful agenda: Get a conservative Christian into office, get conservative Christians into every possible political office, in order to promote a conservative Christian agenda. Fundamentalists dont vote for a Republican simply because he or she is Republican, and then hope for the best. They punish Republicans that don't agree with them by refusing to support them, hoping that the next candidate that comes along will have learned this lesson: Get with the fundamentalist program, or risk losing the election."

That's the plan we need to follow. We need to get moderate Republicans into office to promote a centrist agenda. If they don't follow that agenda, then they are voted out and we find someone who will support the moderate program.

Just read Mark and learn.

Can This Party be Saved?

Bob Faust thinks so. From a recent blog entry from Bob:

"The Republican Party is salvageable. However, for this to occur, the individual citizen who makes up the Republican Party will have to force the change. The “common” citizen will have to take an active role in the party. By participating in the caucus system or actively running for office, the “common” citizen can bring the party back to the moderate position. The problem is participation."

He goes on to say that besides taking an active role in the inner workings of the party, moderates need to put the country before the party:

"How do I see the common citizen bringing the Republican Party back to the moderate position and away from the extreme position? Through the vote. We moderate republicans have to vote for candidates who reflect our viewpoints, regardless of their party affiliation. Until we start electing officials who represent our viewpoint the extremism will control the party. We can no longer vote just Republican."

That might seem hertical, but true. Moderates can no longer simply vote for someone simply because they have an "R" next to their name. Just as the far rights votes their values, we must vote ours. We have to vote for fiscal responsibility and equal rights to name a few values. If the far right gets mad at us for being "disloyal," so be it. If they won't vote for a pro-choice Republican, we don't have to vote for an anti-gay one.

If you want to read more on this topic of how moderate Republicans should vote strategically, you might want to read the November 2003 article by ModerateRepublican's staff writer, Mark Kittel. Here's what I think is the money quote from his piece:

"The best we can do is pull the teeth from this serpent and reassert our control over the direction of the Republican Party, and theoretically over the numerous wrong directions our country has taken over the past two years.In principle, this is a relatively simple task, because it involves nothing more than using the exact same tactic that the fundamentalists have used over the past several elections. It is really a very simple, elegant bit of twisted political logic that keeps the fundamentalists at the top of the power ladder. They are willing to abandon any candidate that does not at least tacitly approve of their agenda, and this open threat of disloyalty forces many candidates to coddle and cater to the extreme Christian right in order to win their votes. I know Id like to think that loyalty and unswerving fealty would be rewarded with the highest levels of political clout, but politics does not reward loyalty. In fact, loyalty is what renders so many political factions powerless. If Karl Rove knows that moderate Republicans will vote for Bush simply because he is a Republican, and will not vote for other candidates because they are not Republicans, then Karl Rove also knows that Bush doesn't have to do anything to win their votes; those votes are already in his pocket. If Bush knows that Log Cabin Republicans will vote for him simply because he is a Republican, then Bush has no incentive to pay attention to the Log Cabin agenda and goals. The proof of this should be obvious; the proof is in everything that the administration has done over the past three years in power. This administration has bent over backwards to please disloyal factions, especially the fundamentalist neo-conservative Christians, because these factions are more than willing to drop their support of any Republican candidate that does not share their agenda in favor of a candidate that will support that agenda, even if such a candidate hasn't a prayer of winning.

Worthwhile advice. I do hope moderates will pay heed.

Prayer Warriors on the March

I receieved this e-mail from a fellow Log Cabiner:

From: Gwen Dyrud
Sent: Jul 6, 2004 10:11 PM
To:
Subject: Senate Marriage to Begin Friday - Pray

P.S. Please note that due to fast-moving events, over the next
few weeks you will be hearing from me more often -- as news breaks.
We have a detailed grassroots action plan that I will be sharing
with you over the next few days. Please be sure to pay extra
attention to these updates.

By now, the Senate is probably flooded with phone calls from the Far Right. If you believe that discrimination should not be written into the Constitution, please take some time to respond. You can go to the Log Cabin Republicans homepage and get information on how to make your voice heard. Please do it today.

Bob Faust Needs Help!

I received this e-mail from Bob Faust:

Anyone available to help with the parades in Eaton or La Salle on the 10th? They start at 10 and we should be finished by noon.
Bob

If you know of anyone ( moderate Republicans and Indpendents) who live in Colorado or a surrounding state, please have them contact Bob ASAP.

Conservatives for Clinton

From Julian Sanchez:

"...I've been surprised in conversation at how many D.C. conservatives who railed against him during his time in office now find themselves saying (usually quietly) that he wasn't so bad after all. Though maybe that's just the power of contrast."

Part of the reason may lie in Bruce Bartlett's commentary. The former Treasury offical under Reagan and Bush the Senior offers praise for Clinton's fiscal responsibility while at the same time criticizing the current administration for its lack of disciplne.

It's interesting that more and more conservatives are becoming disgusted with W. It seems the only ones who are interested in him these days are the Religious Right. Any other conservative with a brain is thinking this man ain't all he's cracked up to be.

Another sign of the Coming Conservative Crack-up

Hmmm. Things are really bad for Bush-Cheney. Just read below:

""I would not have voted for [President Bush's] tax cut, based on what I know...There is no doubt that the people at the top who need a tax break the least will get the most benefit...Too often presidents do things that don't end up helping the people they should be helping, and their staffs won't tell them their actions stink on ice."

-Former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms in an interview with a North Carolina Magazine.

Yes, Jesse Helms. We should start seeing the pigs fly any minute now.

Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for this one.

The "John and John" Ticket

Well, the wait is over. John Kerry picked fellow Senator, John Edwards as his running mate. In a way it is not a big surprise, Edwards was the obvious frontrunner. I think Kerry made the right pick. Edwards brings an optimism to this race that has been lacking in hope. Bush-Cheney seem want people to vote their fears (ie: only we can protect you from the terrorists and the gays) where as Edwards wants us to have hope. Dare I say it, Edwards is Reaganesque in his style and sunshine optimism. Maybe he can give liberalism a positive outlook again after years of being glum.

Enough about my view. What do others think?

Yes Virginia, there is an al-Queda

Canada's Globe and Mail makes an excellent case for those of us who take the threat from Al-Queda seriously and yet question the Bush Administration's handling things post-9/11. One of the things that bothers me is the fact that many on the Left sometimes use the phrase, "so-called war on terror," as if to say that the terrorist threat is not really that grave. Now, I have some problems myself with the semantics, terrorism is something that can't be defeated like a common enemy. However, when many cynics say use the phrase "so-called war on terror" they seem to be saying that his whole excercise against al-Queda is a waste of time and even to some extent, manufactured. There are some who tend to think that 9/11 was engineered by the Bushies in order to impose their right-wing agenda.

That's bull. I doubt that the Bushies were in contact with binLaden to hatch some plan despite what Michael Moore insinuates. Bush can be blamed for his handling of the this crisis, but to think that the whole situation was just manufactured by Bush and his cronies to inspire fear among us, is not only silly but dangerous. As the Globe and Mail says, even if we are dealing with a President Kerry this time next year, there will still be threats from al-Queda, we could still face terrorist attacks.

How some on the Left react to this post 9-11 world reminds me of how some didn't think communism was that bad. Some still gush over Cuba, that island of freedom that it is. How some looked at the Cold War and how some of the same people look at the current terror threat is the same: an rigid, inflexible view of the United States as always in the wrong and failing to see the difference between how one handles the situation and the situation itself.

I'm disatisfied with how Bush is handling things. I wish he would cooperate more with our traditional allies. I wish he would follow international law. I wish he had not gotten us into Iraq, which has now given al-Queda a whole new recruiting ground. But I don't question the need to do something to prevent another 9/11. The safety and stability of American society, and the entire world is more important to me than petty partisanship.

A Prayer for the Nation

This was the prayer of confession at the church I was preaching at on Sunday. Very fitting.

"Almighty God, ruler of all the peoples of the earth, forgive we pray our shortcomings as a nation; purify our hearts to see and love truth; give wisdom to our counselors and steadfastness to our people; and bring us at last to a fair city of peace, whose foundations are mercy, justice and goodwill, and whose builder and maker you are; through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord."

-President Woodrow Wilson, 1917

Thoughts Near the Fourth

You know, I'm becoming more and more disgusted with the state of politics in America. Today, I decided to go to a local Borders and I happened to browse the politics section. It seems like every book now is some polemic about how this political party is destroying America. Conservatives write books about how liberals hate America and liberals talk about conservatives as if they are the coming of the Fourth Reich. There was a paucity of books out there that were actually talking about policy, about how to make America a better place.

I feel more and more like there are two teams in America: the red team and the blue team. God help you if you are in the middle.

I haven't seen Michael Moore's latest movie yet. But what I've heard from my diehard liberal friends and from some writers bothers me. Some are literally agreeing that yes, the movie is manipulative and not always factual, but who cares? The right has done that for years.

That is probably true, but does that make it right? Will Moore's screeching or for that matter Ann Coulter's diatribes make America a better place? Have we become so hateful of each other that anything goes?

While both sides spew venom at each other, I wonder if anyone would listen to me. I've been without health insurance for a month. I have clinical depression and need to take antidepressants, which now costs an arm and a leg. There are millions of people like me. Does the red and blue team have an answer? Do they even care?

Even if Kerry wins this election I don't see an end to the partisan bickering and lack of policy. Take health care. Kerry can propose a plan, but I doubt that it will get passed by the GOP.

It's not that I don't have my problems with Bush. It's not that I don't think he has done a lot to hurt this nation. But this election should not be simply about Bush. We need to find a way to unite this nation and set our energies to the common good. Somehow the Post War presidents and members of Congress upto and including Reagan found a way to work together. Because there was cooperation, we saw Civil Rights laws passed as well as groundbreaking environmental laws. We still have pressing problems and no one party can do it alone. As Americans we either rise or fall together.

Okay, my rant is over. Try and have a good Independence Day.