Well, I see there is another moderate Republican in the blogosphere. Please welcome Running Scared run by Jazz Shaw. Read about his comments on the debate; I think they are on target.
I finished watching the debates. From what I saw, Kerry was the winner. He presented a clear vision on foreign policy. I'm not saying he was phenomenal, but he was on message, as they say. Bush seemed like he was unsteady and unsure of himself. One commentator on PBS said this was a draw. However, foreign policy is supposed to be the President's strong suit which means, he should have done better than a draw.
I've never been very trusting of the Dems when it came to foreign policy after 9/11. However, Kerry did at least show me that he could do a capable job as leader.
I'm interested to hear how others thought about the first debate.
From Andrew Sullivan:
It looks like David Catania, an openly gay DC Councilman, has formally left the Republican Party and is now a registered independent.
Catania did much to build up the GOP in DC as well as the Log Cabin Chapter. He was also a top money-raiser for Bush.
His thanks was the Federal Marriage Amendment which the President supported and being booted off the DC delagation to the Republican National Convention because of his opposition and his waning support for Bush.
Catania could have represented the future of the GOP: young, hip and energetic. Instead, the party is becoming a place that looks backward instead of foward; becoming more hostile towards anyone who appears different.
I plan to stay in the GOP and work for change from the inside as long as I can. However, I can understand Mr. Catania's sorrow. One wonders if the party will ever change. I pray it can.
There's a parable in the Bible that says that that we should deal with the log in our own eye before we take on the speck in someone else's eye.
Back in August, Illinois Senatorial Candidate and carpetbagger, Alan Keyes called gay people "selfish hedonists" and said that if he were Dick Cheney he would have told Mary Cheney, an out lesbian, to repent.
Well, it seems, and I stress, seems that Mr. Keyes has a gay daughter as well.
I don't know if this is funny or sad. Or maybe both.
You can read more at Politics 1.
I was listening to Monday's edition of NPR's Day to Day and heard a chilling portrait of everyday life in Iraq from NPR's Ivan Watson who, until recently, reported from Baghdad. You have to wonder what fantasy-land the President must be living in.
The way that the far right likes to spin the role of government is that in the "Red States" like Texas, there is less government unlike in the "Blue States" where people want their government big. Well, a study shows that it is the Red States that suck from the government's teat, getting back more in federal money than they pay in taxes. For example, Mississippi gets back a whopping $1.84 for ever dollar it gives to Washington, while my adopted state of Minnesota gets back a measly 77 cents. So in essence, I am easing the tax burden of some guy in Natchez, MS.
The next time someone in a Red State talks about the evil government, you might want to remind them not to bite the hand the feeds them.
Special hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.
"The election is up for grabs Dennis. There are problems with some of the polls, SUSA for one (whose results are picked up and echoed by the national press). The internals of the polls show that they're over sampling Republicans.
Rasmussen, a respectable GOP polling firm, still shows the election to be essentially a toss up.
No matter the pollster, most Americans don't start paying attention in earnest till after Labor day. The debates will likely be definitive.
Team Bush has agreed to three debates - and that says something. They could probably have gotten away with two well scripted debates. But they took a risk and included the somewhat more open format debate in St. Louis.
And it's not because they want to play fair. They have justifiable confidence in Bush jr. to be able to make a strong case for a mandate; but they also feel that it's necessary for him to do so."
-from Tony in Minneapolis.
The polls still point to Bush winning the election and that might be true. But he might have to deal with an increasingly angry moderate wing. This column from the Boston Globe shows what could be a simmering anger. Hilary Cleveland is a friend of the elder Bushes and supported the younger Bush in 2000. She is now supporting Kerry. I don't think this about moderate Republicans falling in love for Kerry as much as they think that the President is going too far to the right.
Do you think Kerry is noticing this and trying to find ways to pursuade disaffected Republicans? Nah.
Just when you think they GOP could not stoop any lower in how it treats gays and lesbians, they do it again. The Republican National Committee confessed that it was behind a mailing sent out in West Virginia and Arkansas that stated if the "liberals" took power, the Bible would be banned and gay men would be allowed to marry.
In a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tries to play dumb to the whole affair:
Q Scott, the RNC sent out letters to voters in two states saying that liberals want to ban the Bible. Does that include John Kerry, in President Bush's view?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know -- I haven't seen what they sent out, so you might want to talk to the RNC.
Q It's all over the wires and in the paper.
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen what they sent out. I like to know more about what it says than just going by what's in the news accounts.
Q You haven't seen the stories?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I saw the stories, but I don't know what it says.
Q But does he think that John Kerry wants to ban the Bible?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you need to address questions to the RNC about the flyers that they put out. I don't know what they put out.
Q But on principle, does the President think John Kerry wants --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's an end around to try to talk about what the RNC put out. I don't know exactly what they put out.
Q Could we ask you about that later in the day, after you've had a chance to look at it?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- refer those questions to the RNC. You know what the President's views are. He stated them very clearly.
Q Does the President think Democrats want to ban the Bible?
MR. McCLELLAN: That was an end around to talk about this RNC -- what the RNC put out.
Q It's a direct question.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're asking in the context of what the RNC put out.
Q The question --
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen what the RNC put out. And the President has never made such an assertion, so you know that that's not something he has made an assertion about. You know what the President's view are.
Okay what are the President's views? I mean, this is the guy that supported the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, has allowed his adminstration to rollback worker protections for gays in the government and said nothing as the GOP Platform committee wrote the most anti-gay platform ever.
The White House can look innocent in this, but they are not. They stood by while the RNC produced this filth.
The official GOP has made it clearly known that they are no longer the party of freedom and equality. That was the hallmark of the party from its inception, through Lincoln and until very recently. Now it has become the party of bigotry and intolerance.
This is a big deal, because it didn't come from an independent political group. It came from the Republican party, one of two major parties in our nation. The GOP is now officially saying that they are against gays, no longer using their lackeys to do their work.
For me, the fight for equality in the GOP is now more important than ever. We can't have one major party that is against gays. Voters will not always vote for Democrats and we have to make sure that when the GOP is chosen, that it is a tolerant party and not one that seems ready to send gays and lesbians like myself to the gallows.
"The Bushies preposterously claim they only want to "protect" marriage. But quietly they pass amendments and laws that would make even basic protections for gay couples legally vulnerable and renegotiate employment contracts so they can fire homosexuals at will. Maybe some gays will vote for Bush this time around. But they must know it's a little like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. "
-Andrew Sullivan, commenting on the Bush Administration's attempt to rollback employment protections for gays and lesbians at the Social Security Adminstation.
“I think there is a naïve view among Democrats that what you have to do is ‘demonstrate a vision and tell the truth’ and you win. Republicans know that you need to tear your opponent’s heart out, chew it up and spit it out."
- Charles Cook, U.S. independent political analyst.
From the Toronto Star.
I keep seeing little signs that the Republican party is headed for a major civil war in the next few years. Log Cabin Republicans head Pat Guerrero is correct in stating that the battle is on for the heart and soul of the Party. We are only seeing minor rumblings among moderates and principled conservatives right now, but I think in a few years we might see outright rebellion.
The latest rumbling takes place in Colorado where Republican Rebels are seeking to find a way to organize and take back the party from the far right. They are upset at the war in Iraq, the administration's lack of fiscal discipline, and its hard right social agenda.
I really think that come 2006 or 2008 we will see sensible Republicans take on the far right in an all-out civil war. It will not be pretty, but I think it might finally result in a pragmatic center-right party that will work for all Americans and not just a few.
Thanks to Tony Dorsano for pointing this out to me.
" Hear this, you that trample on the needy, and bring to ruin the poor of the land, saying, "When will the new moon be over so that we may sell grain; and the sabbath, so that we may offer wheat for sale? We will make the ephah small and the shekel great, and practice deceit with false balances, buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, and selling the sweepings of the wheat." The LORD has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their deeds. Shall not the land tremble on this account, and everyone mourn who lives in it, and all of it rise like the Nile, and be tossed about and sink again, like the Nile of Egypt? On that day, says the Lord GOD, I will make the sun go down at noon, and darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; I will bring sackcloth on all loins, and baldness on every head; I will make it like the mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.
The time is surely coming, says the Lord GOD, when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, or a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD. They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the LORD, but they shall not find it. "
-Amos 8:4-12
"It is all-essential to the continuance of our healthy national life that we should recognize this community of interest among our people. The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us, and therefore in public life that man is the best representative of each of us who seeks to do good to each by doing good to all; in other words, whose endeavor it is not to represent any special class and promote merely that class's selfish interests, but to represent all true and honest men of all sections and all classes and to work for their interests by working for our common country."
-Theodore Roosevelt, "The Square Deal", Syracuse, NY, September 7, 1903.
The passage from the book of Amos was on of the lectionary texts for today. My best friend, who is a Democrat, has been thinking about an Op-ed in Sunday's Minneapolis Star Tribune. The editorial wonders why in this recovering economy, the gap between rich and poor is widening. The writers question why both Bush and Kerry seem to pay so little attention to this growing issue.
Regardless of your politics, it is worth a read. For those who have been reading this blog, you know that I was laid-off from my job last May. I've now found a job, just so you all know. But my health care ended in June. You also know that I suffer from clincal depression and take antidepressants. Well, without health care, I have to pay the full price for the drug I take which can run pretty high for me. Since my new job has me on a temp-to-hire basis, I'm not eligible for health care with the law firm I'm at until December. Luckily, I might be able to get some health care through the temp agency, though it might not be as comprehesive as I'd like.
Health care for me is not an option. I need to have health care not only for the antidepressant I take, but for other issues. So, why are we not finding ways to make sure that even when the economy gets rough, people don't have to worry about losing their health insurance? Usually when someone talks about health insurance, cries of "socialized medicine" come out. However, that ignores the fact that there are people who worry about getting ill or who don't go to the doctor because they fear not being able to pay for the visit. If one doesn't like a Canadian-style health care system, that's fine. However, we need to find a way to give people some security. One idea would be to replicate the Federal Employees Health Care Plan which allows government workers to choose a plan of their own. Such a plan could be done with government subusides to help low income citizens. It would be a way to mix the free market with the government and also make sure everyone has health care.
What I'm getting at here is that Republicans and conservatives as a whole have to find ways to address these underlying economic problems. It doesn't have to mean big government, but it does mean that we have to have a compassionate government that is serious in finding ways to make sure that there is a saftey net to soften the blows that come from time to time from our dynamic economy.
As a Christian, the Bible speaks time and again about being just to the poor. I feel that as a society we must find ways to help the poor and needy. Government isn't the only answer to the problem, but it has to be part of the mix in making sure that America is a just society.
Every so often, I hear that gay Republicans just sit back and support anti-gay candidates. I tend to wonder what world these people live in, because I know of many, many gay Republicans who stand up against the religious right, including yours truly.
The other arguement I hear is that gay Republicans should just leave the GOP and go to a party where they are loved, ie: the Democrats. I have nothing against Democrats, but in a two party system, do we really want a party that bigoted towards gays? I don't think we would ever tolerate a racist party, so why would we tolerate a homophobic one?
Carol Newman a lesbian who was an alternate at the New York GOP convention, pens a strong attack against the religious right and the Republican platform which is attrocious against gays. When asked why she doesn't leave the party she replies:
"If I drop out of the party, the religious right wins. Much as we might like to believe that a third party is the answer, no third party has been able to consistently garner a substantial portion of the vote in the United States. Our government is, for better or worse, a two-party system. That is the very reason the religious right has sought to take over the Republican Party, and that is why the struggle for the heart of the party is so important. We cannot cede control to the Jerry Falwells and the Rick Santorums. "
Amen. We have to work against the far right. I and many gay Republicans will not give control over to people like Santorum. That would be like giving the party over to pre-conversion George Wallace. That should not happen and it won't.
I'm glad to see so many Republicans who are willing to work against homophobia. We will fight for an inclusive party and we won't give up.
Another lesbian Republican making waves is Eva Young. Please read her wonderful commentary on the "protecting marriage" community in Minnesota who are basically bigots in drag.
Don't mess with the Lesbians. Especially the Republican ones.
The polls seem to say that Bush is pulling ahead, but I keep wondering how true those polls are. The reason I wonder is because more and more I keep hearing voices on the Right that are denouncing the President and some have gone as far as to support Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry. The latest group Republicans for Humility. The website contains articles from Republicans who are beginning to question the Bush policy on many issues and some who think that this is a time when country must come before party.
First Log Cabin, then Andrew Sullivan and now this. It would be interesting if the press followed this instead of the latest polls.
Just when you think it can't get any worse, the Republican National Committee has started sending fliers to people in West Virginia basically saying that if the Dems win in November, reading the Bible will be banned and "men will marry men."
Uh huh.
Last I checked, I can still freely practice my faith. I am a minister and I feel safe to express my Christianity. As for men marrying men, well, Massachusetts has been doing that for several months and I don't see the Bay State being invaded by locusts or anything.
The RNC is more and more deciding to become the "Hezboallah Republicans" (Party of God) instead of just courting the far right. As Eva Young loves to say, the GOP has to decide if it wants to be the party of inclusive Republicans like John McCain and George Pataki, or if they want to be the party of exclusive Republicans like Marilyn Musgrave and Rick Santorum. I guess the RNC thinks that they can be really popular by choosing the latter.
Steve May is a gay Republican legislator in Arizona.
"I supported and campaigned for George W Bush in 2000 and took a lot of
grief from my gay friends. I was even publicly scolded by Andrew
Tobias at a fundraiser for the Victory Fund on Fire Island. I
supported Bush because I believed that he would unite our party, reduce the
size of
government, balance the budget and secure freedom for every American.
I believed that the election of George Bush would be the final nail in
the coffin of the horrid culture wars that have plagued our party for
the
past two decades.
For the first two years of his presidency, George Bush was on the path
to live up to his promises. In the last two years, however, the Bush
administration has undergone a major transformation. In an effort to
appeal to various constituencies, he has both cut taxes and increased
spending resulting in a ballooning federal government as well as a
budget deficit. He has chosen to revert to the classic yet once abandoned
GOP tactic of using gay Americans as the bogeyman to rally the theocrat
wing of the party. He's throwing us overboard to bring the theocrats
on board. Contrary to the man he promised to be in 2000, he has become
a fiscal liberal and a social conservative.
Many of my gay Republican friends still think they should support Bush.
The fact is that the GOP through its platform and the Bush
Administration have made it very clear that we are no longer welcome in
the family. We have been abused and we must not run back into the arms
of our abuser. Those of us who care about the Republican Party must
repudiate this administration and this campaign. Bush has not governed
as a Republican should govern on issues of freedom, family and fiscal
responsibility.
Some gay Republicans think we should simply not vote in the
presidential
election. I strongly disagree. I will be voting for John Kerry and
doing everything I can to help him win this election. John Kerry will be
the strong leader we need in the war on terror. He will also be the
president we need to secure the blessings of liberty for all
Americans--including those of us who happen to be gay Republican Americans."
I think we have comments back under control, so if you are a real person with a view, comment away.
Remember when we used to worry about the deficit? Remember Ross Perot with his pie charts? You don't? Well, obviously neither does the President nor the GOP leadership in Congress. Andrew Sullivan has a shocking post about what Bush's proposals in the second term would cost us. Think those tax cuts come free? Nope. Expect to have your children pick up a three trillion dollar bill.
How did the party that preaches fiscal responsibility get so irresponsible? What ever happened to pay-as-go?
Ronald Reagan used to say there is no such thing as a free lunch. George Bush is trying to act like Ronnie was wrong. Of course, the next generation will have to pay for Mr. Bush's "generosity."
Alan Keyes is such an....interesting person. He has certainly made a name for himself in the Illinois Senate race against soon-to-be Senator Barak Obama. He called gays "selfish hedonists" ( and I'm quite proud to be one, thank you), has said that Mary Cheney should repent of her "sinful ways" and has even said that 9/11 happened because of the nation's pro-choice stance.
Keyes is certain that God is on his side instead of wondering, in what was one the only bright things John Kerry said in his acceptance speech if he (Keyes) is on God's side. I guess, humility is not one of Mr. Keyes' virtues.
The Peoria Journal-Star has an interesting editorial about Mr. Keyes belief that he is endoresed by the Almighty. The suggest he might want to take a few lessons from another Republican politician who actually lived in Illinois, named Abe Lincoln. At the time of his Second Inauguaral he was decided not to say God was on the side of the North even though they did have the moral high ground. Said Lincoln:
"Both (North and South) read the same Bible and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other," the president said. "The prayers of both could not be answered; and those of neither has been answered fully."
Mr. Keyes and many in the GOP these days tend to think they have God on their side, as if God is some holy cheerleader.
What if we spent our time wondering if we are on God's side? What would that mean? Well, it would mean a little more humility to see if we are following God's ways and knowing that we are not perfect.
I don't know God's opinion of abortion or homosexuality or even the death penalty. However, I do know that God cares for all with partiality towards none and looks after the weakest among us.
It would be nice if Mr. Keyes could talk more about that God than using God to champion his own narrow-minded views.
I'm taking comments down until I can find a way to deal with this pesky spam. I'm sorry about all this, but I'm chatting with the guys who help run Atlanta Blogs to see if we can stop this tripe. Sorry about this, because I know how much you want to find the latest breast or penis enhancement product.
I will try to get rid of this one way or another.
Secretary of State, Colin Powell said there is no "direct" connection between Saddam and 9/11 and also thinks Kerry would respond to a terrorist attack in a "robust" way.
I find this interesting that for an adminstration that is always famously "on message" this shows that there is some defections. Powell's message differs from Vice President Cheney's which does see a connection and basically said a vote for Kerry is a vote for death.
Powell has been known to disagree with the adminstration, but that has usually been in private. What is the reason that he is saying something like this which is "off message?"
Fascinating.
By now, you've probably heard the remarks by Vice President Cheney basically stating that if we vote Democrat, we will most assuredly get attacked again. How's that for a slogan: vote Democrat and die?
Andrew Sullivan writes about this audacious statement and uses it as the frame for why he is not supporting Bush this time around. He is not backing the President for three important reasons (which pretty much mirror my views):
*Bush's support for the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment;
*His administration's fiscal irresponsibility:
*The botched handling of Iraq.
The reasons not only show why Bush does not deserve a second term, but it also shows how corrupted conservatism has become. Where it preached small government that allowed people liberty, it now supports a big government that governs people's lives especially in the bedroom. Where it preached fiscal conservatism, it now spends like there is no tomorrow. Where it preached a cuatious and sound foreign and military policy, it now supports a policy that uses only a stick and uses it quite ineffectively.
What Bush espouses is far from conservatism; it is a form of nationalism that makes the nation god and anyone who questions a heretic.
Seeing this and the decision by Log Cabin to not endorse Bush you see that part of the conservative coalition that was built by Ronald Reagan is slowly coming apart. Goldwater Libertarians, along with Rockefeller Moderates and Midwestern Conservatives are no longer infuatuated with Bush because he has crafted his presidency to placate only the Religious Right and the neocons.
Even though the polls show Bush ahead, I see more disintergration on the conservative side and more cohesiveness on the left.
I tend to think this story is the subtext beneath the polls. It will be interesting to see if this will mean a Kerry victory since seems to be doing such a good job of alienating key voters.
I happen to have a private jounral on Livejournal. I tend to dread when my LJ friends start talking about politics because the talk starts to get rather visceral and downright mean. Many of my friends are liberals and pretty much have nothing good to say about President Bush. Nothing wrong with that. However, the rhetoric can get somewhat meanspirited and personal.
It's not any better on the conservative side, maybe even worse. The Swift Boat ads make Kerry out to be a liar and a traitor to his country. Even the Veep seems to be saying that voting for Kerry will ensure another terrorist attack.
All of this has made me more and more disgusted with what politics has become. Instead of arguing about what kind of future we want in a civilized and (hopefully) dispassionate manner, what we are getting is people yelling at each other and painting the other as vile and evil and about to destroy life as we know it.
This all makes Cathy Young's story all the more compelling. We have become a nation of strangers, where someone who has a different politcal belief than you is instantly suspect. We rely on conspiracies and paranoia instead of searching for the truth. Anger and rage nudge out reason and rationality.
Young is right that things will not change after November. If Kerry wins, the conservatives will act as they did during the Clinton years, finding ways to bring down the Democratic president. If Bush is re-elected, then expect four more movies and books from the likes of Michael Moore.
But I think another thing is happening as well. As we get more into the politics of rage, people from the middle, people who rather talk than accuse will choose to set out of politics and they are the people we need to help lead this society.
The politics of rage are easy to get into. You can spout something like "Bush is a terrorist" and get people interested in you. If you instead say something like, "I find Kerry's health plan interesting," you get ignored. Who cares about Kerry's health plan?
I'd like to see people engaged in the politics of reason. Where we are finding solutions to problems and seeing a kernel of truth in everyone instead of thinking truth lies in one person or one political party.
Fat chance that will happen.
I wanted to write about this on Friday, but I stuck to keep my promise of no bloggin g until Tuesday. However, it is quite telling that Andrew Sullivan is not going to support Bush in November. Why? First and foremost is the President's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Sully has made it clear that this should not mean he is supporting Kerry.
It's telling that one of the most ardent supporters of the Bushies is giving up. I thin k this shows how far afield the GOP has become. Sullivan is strong coservative, but he believes and I do as well, that the President is not a true conservative and he can't support someone who doesn't support him.
No blogging till Tuesday. I'm taking a short , summer vacation. Have a good weekend!
I didn't watch much of the GOP convention. It was a busy week for me here. However, I did listen to some of the speeches via Minnesota Public Radio, which airs them at noontime the day after the speech.
I loved the speech by Arnold. Classic Reagan. His message was optimistic. He showed a sunny Republicanism that has been gone way too long.
Zell Miller. Wow. He took burning bridges to a whole other level. I speech was just mean-spirited and instead of criticizing the Democrats, he demonized them as traitors. That is just going way too far. He painted the Dems as all being weak-minded and disrespectful of religion. He made Kerry look like he wants to get permission from Jacques Chirac to do anything which is far from the truth. Or that if Kerry is President, the world will not be free, but taken over by the terrorists.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out the weaknesses in one's opponent. The Dems are not as strong on national security as I think they should be. But Miller has a whole lot of nerve in saying that all Democrats want to sell out our country. He should be ashamed of himself for such uncivil talk.
One more thing. There is also nothing wrong with being a marverick. John McCain is one. But notice that McCain tries to be pleasant with Bush, a man that he disagrees with on many issues and with John Kerry. He has remained loyal to the principles of his party even when he is on the outs with them. Miller , on the other hand, trashed his party and made sure that he is now hated among Dems. For what reason?
Miller excited the base. Problem is, it was the base of his own party who fight even more to make sure he has egg on his face come November 2nd.
I got interviewed by Doug Grow, a columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune. I talked about Log Cabin and the GOP platform on gay marriage. I think he did a pretty good job.