The Moderate Republican

What Hip-Hop Is Supposed to Be

I'm not the biggest fan of hip-hop and rap, but I do like some of it. What has saddened me in recent times is that hip-hop is not as political as it used to be. There was a time when rappers talked about livin' in the ghetto, about the drugs and how poor African Americans were trying to make it. In some ways it was reminiscent of work by R and B artists like Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye who used their music to talk about issues in the early 70s.

Somwhere along the line, hip-hop became more about cars and thug life and "bitches and hos" than it was about people's lives.

So, I am somewhat please to see a rapper like Eminem bring back the political hip-hop song. All the talk in internet land is about his latest single and video, "Mosh," which is a direct broadside against the Bush Adminstration. It's a pretty powerful video and even a Republican like me is moved by it. While Eminem is taking on Bush, I don't think this is your usual "Bush is evil" tripe that you usually hear from the left. I think Eminem is not simply putting Bush on notice but Senator Kerry as well that it's time to listen to the people. The army that he assembles is not planning violent revolution, but instead something more powerful something that overtly small d-democratic, and that is to vote. He reminds us that we not President Bush or Senator Kerry for that matter are the powerful ones. We are. If we think they are not acting in our best interests then it is our duty as Americans to given them their walking papers.

So, see the video (it's also available on Apple's iTunes). Agree with it or not, it will at least remind us that our leaders rule with the consent of the governed.

And they better listen.

This Should Bother Karl Rove

When many people hear the word, "evangelical" they tend to think of some kind of Bible-thumper who hates gays and is in lockstep with the Republican party.

As someone who grew up as an evangelical, I beg to differ.

I would know longer call myself one, but I know that the evangelicals are a diverse and complex bunch. While they might be somewhat on the conservative side socially, they have the same concerns as many people on the economy and jobs.

There is also a long history of evangelicals being concerned on issues of social justice.

Someome didn't tell this to Karl Rove. He tends to think that all evangelicals care about are abortion and gay rights. Well, this story by the Los Angeles Times shows that a good number of evangelicals are just as concerned about checkbook issues and the war in Iraq as any liberal is. Just read this:

" Some of these targeted voters remain conflicted — torn between their religious convictions on so-called values issues, and concerns typical of suburban moms and dads, such as jobs, healthcare, the Iraq war and the environment.

Some, such as Wendy Skroch, a 51-year-old mother of three who prays regularly at the evangelical Elmbrook Church in this heavily Republican Milwaukee suburb, blame Bush for failing to fix a "broken" healthcare system and for "selling off the environment to the highest bidder."

Rove thought he could just use the threat of gays to get them to vote for Bush. However, evangelicals are not simply Jerry Fawell or Pat Robertson clones. They are real people with complex issues. They are concered about clean air and clean water. They want to a better health care system than what we have.

It would have been nice if Rove and the GOP would have framed an agenda on those issues instead of trying to divide our nation at time when we need to come together.

It will be interesting to see if Rove's scare and conquer strategy prevails or if evangelicals tell Rove in a Christian way to go to hell.

Thanks to Mark Kittel for pointing me out to this article.

Tom Friedman Endorses George Bush for President

George H. W. Bush that is. Friedman writes today in his column that while he can't endorse a person for president, he will support the one who is the true heir of our 41st President.

I'll give you a hint: it's the person's last name is not Bush.

I have to agree with Friedman that Bush the elder was a far better president than what I used to think. He actually worked with Congress , which was then Democrat-controlled, to deal with the deficit. This meant breaking his no new taxes pledge and also sealed his fate for reelection. But he helped spur the growth of the 90s. He also worked hard to create a coalition against Iraq in the Gulf War and the war itself had limited goals. I remember seeing Secretary of State James Baker on a plane going to capitals all around the world. Collin Powell was not used in the same way in the run up to the Iraq war.

We need another person like Bush the Senior in the White House. Who might that be? I'll leave it to Friedman to deliver the last word:

"So as we approach this critical election of 2004, my advice, dear readers, is this: Vote for the candidate who embodies the ethos of George H. W. Bush - the old guy. Vote for the man who you think would have the same gut feel for nurturing allies and restoring bipartisanship to foreign policy as him. Vote for the man you think understands the importance of facing up to our fiscal responsibilities for the sake of our children. And vote for the man who has the best instincts for balancing realism and idealism and the man who understands the necessity of using energetic U.S. diplomacy to make Israel more secure - by helping to bring it peace with its Arab neighbors, not just more tours from American Christian fundamentalists.

Yes, next Tuesday, vote for the real political heir to George H. W. Bush. I'm sure you know who that is. "

Not That This is That Shocking, But What the Heck?

" We believe homosexuality is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle either in public education or in public policy. We do not believe public schools should be used to teach children that homosexuality is normal, and we do not believe that taxpayers should fund benefit plans for unmarried partners. We oppose special treatment by law based on nothing other than homosexual behavior or identity. We oppose actions, such as “marriage” or the adoption of children by same-sex couples, which attempt to legitimize and normalize homosexual relationships. We support the Defense of Marriage Act and will support a constitutional amendment to ensure that marriage is limited to the union of one man and one woman. We commend private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, which defend moral decency and freedom according to their own well-established traditions and beliefs."

Thanks to Jazz at Running Scared for the tip.

Durenburger votes for Kerry......Kerry's Health Plan, that is

Health care is an important issue for me. Right now, I'm in a temp to perm position at a law firm. It's a good job, but I have no health care at this time. The temp agency has some benefits, but they are not adaquate. For example, the plan allows for less than five doctor visits a year. Now, I don't go the doctor that much, but five is pretty low.

Anyway, as many of you know I suffer from clinical depression which means I have to take an antidepressant. For a 45-day supply of Celexa, the brand I take, I have to plunk down $120. Not cheap. There is another antidepressant that my doctor wants me to take in combination, but that would probably be another $100-plus which I can't afford.

I'm not crazy about single-payer health care, being a Republican and all that. However, we have a problem when 45 million people don't have access to health care. We have to find some kind of answer.

Former Republican Senator, David Durenburger believes that Senator Kerry has a better health plan than the President's. I would agree. The President keeps talking about Kerry's plan as "government run health care" as if the Senator were proposing something ala the British Health Service. Durenburger explains how the plan would work and it would maintain the choice we currently have in our health care system. He rightly sees Bush's plan as pretty pitiful to solving this problem.

Kerry's plan is not perfect, but it does expand the ranks of the insured and goes a long way towards making sure that Americans don't have to fear losing their health care when they change jobs or get laid off. We should try to instill the best parts of the free market in our health care system. However, we need government to make sure that the widest number (hopefully everyone) will have access to affordable health care. Kerry's plan does this. Bush's doesn't.

I'm glad that Durenburger had the courage to say this.

Even the Conservative Andrew Sullivan...

...supports John Kerry. He endorsed the Democrat today. He made some memorable quotes that pretty much comes close to my views. First, things first he basically says that neither candidate is evil...

"Neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry can be credibly described as "evils." They have their faults, some of which are glaring. They are both second-tier politicians, thrust into the spotlight at a time when we desperately need those in the first circle of talent and vision. But they are not evil. When the papers carry pictures of 50 Iraqi recruits gunned down in a serried row, as Stalin and Hitler did to their enemies, we need have no doubt where the true evil lies. The question before us, first and foremost, is which candidate is best suited to confront this evil in the next four years."

Both sides have engaged in this. Because the two sides offer different visions, we view any vision that doesn't jive with ours evil. Nooooo. I don't like Mr. Bush's views. But I don't think they are evil. Same goes for Mr. Kerry. What happened on September 11th is evil. What is going on in the Sudan is evil. It's time we start distinguishing between what is bad policy and what is truly evil.

Okay, back to Sully. He lists many of the accomplishments of W: his resolve after September 11th being first and foremost. I agree with him on Bush taking down the Taliban, but I still think that Iraq was a bad idea.

He abhors Bush's handling of the prison abuse scandal. He also is amazed at how a Republican has gone down a road that is fiscally irresponsible:

"Domestically, the record is horrifying for a fiscal conservative. Ronald Reagan raised taxes in his first term when he had to; and he didn't have September 11 to contend with. Ronald Reagan also cut domestic spending. Bush has been unable to muster the conservative courage to do either. He has spent like a drunken liberal Democrat. He has failed to grapple with entitlement reform, as he once promised. He has larded up the tax code with endless breaks for corporate special interests; pork has metastasized; and he has tainted the cause of tax relief by concentrating too much of it on the wealthy. He has made the future boomer fiscal crunch far more acute by adding a hugely expensive new Medicare prescription drug entitlement."

It's funny that this President loves to say that he is the heir to Reagan. But as Sully notes, Reagan was willing to raise taxes when necessary. That wasn't an adandoment of his principles; it was learning to compromise when the time called for it. Bush thinks tax cuts are good at any time for any reason. Reagan was willing to bend sometimes and was never considered a traitor for it. Bush thinks that any deviation off course is a grave sin.

Sully then talks about the biggest betrayal of Bush. In 2000, he ran as a "compassionate conservative." He touted a moderate agenda. After the closness of the 2000 election, one would expect that Bush would scale back some of his agenda and be more...well moderate. But of course we know he was not. Sully explains:

"He ran for election as a social moderate. But every single question in domestic social policy has been resolved to favor the hard-core religious right. His proposal to amend the constitution to deny an entire minority equal rights under the law is one of the most extreme, unnecessary, and divisive measures ever proposed in this country. And his response to all criticism--to duck the hardest questions, to reflexively redirect attention to the flaws of his opponents, and to stay within the confines of his own self-reinforcing coterie--has made him singularly unable to adjust, to learn from mistakes, to adapt to a fast-changing world. In peacetime, that's regrettable. In wartime, it's dangerous."

In a time that we are facing an enemy that wants to utterly destroy not only the United States but all free societies, we need someone who can admit to being fallible. Bush believes he was called by God. Great, but even a cursory reading of the Bible shows that even those who God called were fallible. There is only one perfect person, Mr. Bush, and last I checked, you don't have the stigmata.

Sullivan is not crazy about Kerry. He is right that Kerry has a somewhat bland record in the Senate (though he does have a stellar environmental record in my view). On combating terrorism, Sullivan says Kerry can be trusted:

"The convention was a remarkable event in that it pivoted the Democratic Party toward an uncomplicated embrace of the war on terror. Kerry has said again and again that he will not hesitate to defend this country and go on the offensive against Al Qaeda. I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. What is there to gain from failure in this task? He knows that if he lets his guard down and if terrorists strike or succeed anywhere, he runs the risk of discrediting the Democrats as a party of national security for a generation. He has said quite clearly that he will not "cut and run" in Iraq. And the truth is: He cannot. There is no alternative to seeing the war through in Iraq. And Kerry's new mandate and fresh administration will increase the options available to us for winning. He has every incentive to be tough enough but far more leeway to be flexible than the incumbent."

Kerry knows as does many in the Democratic leadership that this is a new day. When I saw the debates and heard Kerry talk about terror, I realized that he does "get it." He knows we have to guard against another attack on American soil. On Iraq, he knows we have to get the job done. He just thinks he can do a better than job the current occupant. And I think he can.

Finally, in the wake of Cheif Justice William Rhenquist's bout with thyroid cancer, we are beset with the question of what kind of justices Bush would pick in a second term. Here's Sullivans view:

"In terms of the Supreme Court, I have far more confidence in Kerry's picks than Bush's. In 2000, Bush promised moderate, able judges; for the last four years, he has often selected rigid, ideological mediocrities. "

Again, right on. I have to place my trust in Kerry as well. Bush has said that his favorite justice is someone like Antonin Scalia, a justice that I know is not friendly to gays. You could see a more conservative court try to get sodomy laws back on the books or find a way to constitutionally strike down the gay marriage laws in Massachusetts or civil unions in Vermont. Mr. Bush likes to talk about liberal activist judges, but you would definitely see some conservative activist judges working hard to curtail gay rights.

Sullivan makes a good case for Kerry. He is not the best, but he's better than what we got. I think Sullivan's weight carries. He picked Clinton in '92 and Bush in 2000. Let's hope he can make it three for three.

Log Cabin Tussle

Sometimes gay politics can be like the crabs in the barrel; one crab works hard to keep the other one from climbing out. So goes the latest rumor mill going on concerning Log Cabin Republican. The anonymous blogger, Gay Patriot has an "exclusive" story about how Executive Director Pat Guerrerio has gone from being against Bush to actively supporting Kerry. He talks about "sources" who have brought information to him, but really shows no evidence of who they are.

He also accuses their PR person of an extreme heresy: supporting John Edwards in 2003. I think it was poor judgement on Barron's part, but in the larger picture, who cares? I'm more concerned with what the religious right is doing concerning gay Americans than I am if Barron support Edwards at some point.

So what is the effect of all this? Well Stephen Miller who runs the Independent Gay Forum Website thinks this is making Log Cabin look less like loyal Republicans. he writes:

"If Bush does win (about which I'm still doubtful), who will have access to his White House? Certainly not the highly partisan Human Rights Campaign and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, both Democratic Party fronts that have burned their bridges to even GOP moderates. And, alas, not LCR, unless perhaps Barron makes way for a less-blemished Republican (or a better defense is forthcoming), and Guerriero becomes less concerned about winning Cheryl Jacques' and Matt Foreman's approval."

Does anyone really believe that Log Cabin will have access to the White House if Bush is re-elected? Log Cabin has been locked out of the White House since 2003 and I'm pretty sure that Bush will do all in his power as a lame duck to shore up the theocon base. Miller is smoking something to think that we still have access to W's ear.

For anyone to say that Guerrerio should not complain so loudly is silly. This President sold us out. He met with gay Republicans and talked about how his life was changed and then proceded to support an amendment that would not only ban gay marriage but any other arrangement that was drawnup between same-sex couples. Guerrerio knows he's out of the loop, so he has nothing to lose. I say, go Pat for speaking his voice.

Finally, Miller says this:

"How about talking about the need for vigilance in Iraq, personal social security accounts and market-based health care reform, Patrick, as well as tort reform and standing up to the trial lawyers' lobby. If these aren't in your vocabulary, and aren't being emphasized in your public appearances and press interviews, then something really is seriously amiss at LCR."

Whatever, Stephen. One of the things that I've loved about Log Cabin is that we don't talk about other issues besides gay rights, like a lot of leftist gay groups do. (What does gay rights have to do with the war in Iraq?) We believe that there are other groups to talk about those issues. And it's not like LCR doesn't talk about these issues. This is from LCR's Website:

" Gay and lesbian Americans who believe in limited government, strong national defense, lower taxes, personal responsibility, and free markets belong in the Republican Party. Democrats who favor big government, higher taxes and more regulation don't represent our values and beliefs. That means leaving the GOP is not an option for gay Republicans. We can be true to our conservative principles while working to make the GOP more inclusive and tolerant."

So please, enough with the "we aren't being loyal" whine. We are loyal Republicans, but we can only be loyal to leaders who are loyal to us. If loyalty means blind obedience because, hey W gonna give us lower taxes while not supporting our rights, then LCR is better off not joining.

Republicans Against Bush

Daily Kos has a complete listing of Republicans who are backing John Kerry for president. I would also look at the website, Nation First, Party Second. Pass them along to any disgruntled conservatives that you know.

Hometown Paper Switches from Bush to Kerry

My hometown newspaper, the Flint Jounral endorsed Kerry over the weekend. Why is this so important? Well, first, they endorsed Bush back in 2000. Second, Michigan is one of those swing states.

Of course, it's just one paper, but I find it interesting.

If this is a Joke, Nobody's Laughing

If you don't want to get peeved this morning, then don't click, this link. However, I urge that you do to see just how sick and bigoted some Bush supporters have become.

Theocons on the Payroll

If you want to know how far to the right the Republican party has swung, look no further than this Beliefnet story about a far right religious activist that is under the employ of the Republican National Committee. He believes that America is a "Christian Nation" and that the church-state separtation is a "myth." He also sits on the board that supports Reconstructionism.

For those not in the know of what Reconstructionism is, here's little chilling definition:

"Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law." Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality."

How nice, we could have our own little version of the Taliban.

This is why moderates must fight to take back the party. We can't leave the party, one of two major parties in our land, in the hands of fundamentalists who seek to make us into Taliban Afghanistan writ large.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the hat tip.

Republican Switchers

If you're like me and wanted to an easier way to track the number of Republicans who are supporting Kerry, well there's an entire blog dedicated to this. It's called Republican Switchers and it tracks the number of high-profile Republicans that are taking a pass on Bush and backing Kerry.

Thanks to my partner in moderation, Jazz over at Running Scared for letting me know about this.

A Few More Republicans for Kerry

If you don't think there is a mounting rebellion taking place in the GOP, think again. Today there are not just one but two opinion pieces from Republicans who are voting for Kerry.

The first one is from my homestate of Michigan from former governor William Milliken who was governor of the Great Lake State from 1969-83. He lists many reasons as how the GOP of the past has been replaced by a leaner, meaner party.Here is his money quote:

"The truth is that Bush does not speak for me or for many other moderate Republicans on a very broad cross-section of issues.

Sen. John Kerry, on the other hand, has put forth a coherent, responsible platform of progressive initiatives that I believe would serve this country well. He wants to balance the budget, step up environmental protection efforts, rebuild our international relationships, support stem-cell research, protect choice and pursue a number of other progressive initiatives that moderates from both parties can support. "

The former governor nails it there. Bush doesn't speak for moderates in the party, let alone more traditional conservatives.

Then, listen to Marlow Cook a former US Senator from Kentucky during the 70s. His quote:

"I have been, and will continue to be, a Republican. But when we as a party send the wrong person to the White House, then it is our responsibility to send him home if our nation suffers as a result of his actions."

Hear, hear. Let no one tell you that you are being disloyal because you put country ahead of party.

Is it me, or are the ranks of defectors growing?

The Conscience of a Conservative

"People view Bush as a man with strong convictions. And while he's clearly convinced of the rightness of his ways, that doesn't mean he's always right.

On a large scale, Bush has failed to deliver on his promise to be a compassionate conservative. "

Just to let you know this is an editorial concerning President Bush. It comes from the Tampa Tribune, which is known as a conservative paper. They make a sound case against the President and do have some good points about Kerry as well. (I'm still supporting him, though.)

It's interesting that the chorus of dispirited voices (including my own) are growing loudly in conservative and Republican circles. It makes me wonder if this will have an impact on the election. Will the President and his team have worked so hard to get the fundy vote that Bush could force traditional Republicans to either stay home or vote for Kerry?

Interesting.

The True Believers

I know I'm a little behind, but I finally read the New York Times story by Ron Suskind on Bush and faith. Wow. That was probably the most illuminating article about the Bush Presidency. It highlights something that I've felt about Bush especially since the start of the Iraq war. A lot of people on the Left think Bush lied the reasons to get involved. I don't think so. I think he believed that Saddam was a threat and made facts fit his faith. The problem with Bush is not that he's a liar, but that he actually believes that Saddam was gong to attack America and that Saddam and Al Queda had an alliance. It's one thing to deal with a charlatan. But it is a whole different kettle of fish to deal with can create their own reality.

I have tons more to say about this, but it's late. More later.

How Sniffles Could Cost Bush the Election

I remember hearing a story about the mayor of Chicago in the mid 70s. A monster snowstorm strangled the city and he did not get the plows on the roads in time. He found himself looking for job when the next election rolled around.

This presidential election could be won or lost on a sneeze.

Eleanor Clift has an interesting take on the mishap concerning the flu vaccine and how the Bushies messed this one up. She also slams Kerry for not seizing the opportunity to criticize Bush because if the government can't preventing the flu how can they handle a bio-terror attack? Here is the money quote:

"We are on the brink of a public-health catastrophe three years after 9/11. Health officials already fearful about a possible flu pandemic were meeting in Washington last week when word came about the vaccine shortage. A front-page story in The Washington Post said a local Giant supermarket was like a scene out of Lourdes with elderly people in wheelchairs or with walkers and canes pleading for the vaccine. At the Giant near Leisure World, a retirement community in Maryland, there was a four-hour wait for the limited supply of vaccine. The elderly showed up at 4:30 in the morning with their lawn chairs to get a place in line.

In the 18 days until the election, the candidates must look for ways to break through and get the attention of the voters. The lack of flu vaccine affects every family. It is ready-made to take off as a political issue. Someone made a mistake. Where is the accountability?"

Clift is correct. The flu hits every family. Back in 1996, I got the flu. I got better and went back to work. While recuperating, I caught another bug, that turned into pneumonia. I was in the hospital for two weeks.

This president has talked about being prepared to defend the homeland and yet, it has failed to protect people from something as routine as the flu. And what would this president do if, God forbid, there is another flu pandemic as there was back in 1918 which claimed 20 million lives?

I think when it comes to national security, this Adminstration talks tough, but fails to plan adaquately. Such a shame.

E-mail of the Day

"The question of which faction I want to win is a complicated one, because I long for the days of Reaganism when both factions could co-exist. But those days are gone due to the fact that the GOP now controls all the levers of the state and no matter which policies we choose, they will offend half the party. Generally I think that McCain-ism is probably the future of the country, though I don't think that should be mistaken as the old New England Republicanism of Snowe and Chafee. I think that McCain represents a combination of tax cutter and deficit hawk, federalist and traditionalist, a foreign policy hawk who is not guided solely by ideology. Unfortunately, McCain will be too old to lead any revolution, and the intraparty fight will be quite ugly.

-from Dave.

My Choice 2004

So, I believe the time has come for me to share who I'm voting for come November 2. What I am going to say only reflect my opinion. It does not reflect any Republican group I am associated with.

I've decided to vote for John Kerry.

Now for some of you, this isn't a surprise. I did for a time support Howard Dean when I still thought he was a moderate and not the loony leftist cult leader.

I need to take you back to explain why I'm supporting Kerry in the presidential election and why I've fallen out of love with George Bush.

Back in 2000, I was leaning towards Bush over Gore, but I wasn't totally sold on Bush. I decided to vote for Nader. When Bush entered office, I decided to give him a chance. With the closness of the election, I had hoped that Bush would govern more moderately.

I tried to be open to the President in his early days. Then came September 11. For a brief shining moment, it seemed like Bush had found his voice. He presented an image of confidence and resolve that our nation needed at that dark time. I was with him when he launched the war against Afghanistan and took down the Taliban and had Al Queda on the run.

He also seemed to be turning the party away from the anti-gay rhetoric of the past. He appointed an openly gay man to be AIDS czar. He appointed an openly gay man to be ambassador to Romania.

Things began to turn south when talk of Iraq as a terrorist state started appearing. I've never seen any proof of a connection between Saddam and Al Queda. If there was, I would have supported the current war in Iraq. But there was no solid evidence. I'm not a pacifist, but war should only be used if there is solid evidence that one is going to be attacked or has already been attacked. As we see now, Iraq posed no threat.

I also started to lose faith in the President when he wiped out a surplus and created a deficit. He has shown no fiscal restraint. He is passing this fiscal mess to future generations. That is wrong.

Now, I know that a recession and 9/11 would have an impact on the federal deficit. But this president has pushed for tax cuts without trying to also cut spending. Like John McCain has said, the Administration has been spending the people's money like "drunken sailors."

Maybe the most important reason that I'm not voting for the President is his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. He is supporting an amendment that would not only prevent same-sex marriages, but would prohibit civil unions and may also ax some pro-gay laws on the books. He sold the million gay votes he got in 2000 sold that he can win the reported 4 million fundamentalist Christians who stayed home. This is why his campaing did not lift a finger when the GOP wrote a platform that was incredibly anti-gay. I can not support someone who does not support me.

Now, I do have some problems with Kerry. First, he's a Democrat. No offense, but I want to vote for a Republican. (Paging John McCain.) But there are times you have to put country over party so I will overlook that.

Second, he seems to offer no plan to deal with Social Security. He expects that if we balance the budget and grow the economy, everything will be fine. Unless Kerry has special powers that can see future where there will be no recessions, I don't buy it. You don't have to support privatization to know that something needs to be done and soon to ensure that there will be benefits for my generation.

Third, he has come out against gay marriage and has supported constitutional amendments in states like Missouri. I think that's wrong. Yes, I know he is a politician and this is a dicey issue. But he should be willing to stand up against this intolerance and that's what it is when people want to ban gay marriages. However, compared to Bush, he is somewhat better and less harmful, but not harmless either.

However, I'm willing to give Kerry a chance. Bush has not given me a reason to vote for him.

Some may think I'm being a traitor to the GOP. Let them say it. But as a moderate Republican, I am tired of the far right messing up this wonderful party. I want to see the party steer back to the center-right and away from the bigots.

This is less about voting for Kerry than it is sending a message to the theocons: I will not support your bigoted and wrong-headed ideas. I believe in the traditional Republican principles of limited government, federalism and equality. This president has broken all three. If the far right can sit out an election to force a candidate they don't like out, moderates can choose not to vote for someone who doesn't reflect Republican values.

I will continue to work for change in the GOP. I will work through Log Cabin to get gay-friendly leaders elected to public office. I will go to GOP caucuses and district convention and be a voice for moderation and tolerance. I will work to take the party back from the extremists that now run it. It is my hope that come 2008 I can vote for Republican that reflects true conservative values (I'm looking at you John McCain and Chuck Hagel).

So, I'm not leaving the party. But I sure as hell will not support the man currently leading it.

I'm Outraged! Outraged! (Yeah, Right)

It seems that Log Cabin Republican Executive Director Pat Guerriero has come out swinging concerning the Cheney's "outrage" at John Kerry's mentioning of their out lesbian daughter, Mary Cheney.

The Advocate reports that on CNN, Guerriero was steamed at the Bush/Cheney campaign for pretending to be so angry at Kerry while attacking gay families on the campaign trail.

Let no one say that gay Republicans are just apologists. We do have some cojones when necessary.

It's worth a read and all I can say is, bravo, Mr. Guerriero.

Preach it, Pat!

""Senator Kerry could have made his point about gay and lesbian Americans without mentioning the Vice-President's daughter.

-Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Patrick Guerriero weighing in on "Marygate."

Lynne Cheney Doth Protest Too Much

Okay, I feel I should weigh in on the whole John-Kerry-mentioning-Mary-Cheney flap. The far right is freaking out about this. I don't think it's becasue they want to protect Mary Cheney
s privacy, but because they think that being gay is shameful. Lynne Cheney is saying that John Kerry is "not a good man."

I have a few opinions. First, this really shows how scared the far right is concerning homosexuality. For them it is shameful and should be something that is not talked about, in other words keep it in the closet.

Second, there is a little bit of an orchestrated protest here. No one seemed upset when the Vice President himself brought up the fact that he had a gay daughter. Also no one seemed upset when John Edwards did the same thing last week. It seems like the Bush campaign and their far right allies want to use this opportunity to slam John Kerry as opportunistic and mean.

Third, what John Kerry did was opportunistic. If you were John Kerry and you faced an opponent who supports an anti-gay amendment and whose base is virulently homophobic, wouldn't you find someway to needle them about that? I would. I would want to let the homophobes know that gay rights affect everyone, including them. There was a saying back in the 90s that stated that gays "are everywhere," meaning we are your mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. We are pastoring your churches, serving in the military, running small businesses and so on. We are not a radical fringe, but part of the very fabric of American society.

However, John Kerry probably should have left mentioning Mary alone. Mickey Kaus noted if a white candidate had a black spouse, and the other candidate mentioned that when talking about race, it would be considered a little over the top. I think Kerry could have made the point without talking about Mary, but it was kinda like a tempting apple that he had to bite into.

So, part of me clucks my tounge at Mr. Kerry while another part says, "that was so cool, sticking it to the far right."

And that's my two cents.

George W. Bush: Ex Conservative

It's wayyy past my bedtime, so I'll make this short. Something that I've noticed over the last few months is how many conservatives are disgusted with Bush and are ready to do the unthinkable: vote for John Kerry. The latest is Robert George, who once worked for Newt Gingrich. He talks about how this President has betrayed the conservative principle of limited government with his curtailment of civil liberties, the expansion in the power of the Executive branch, and the habit in the adminstration of holding no one-even the President in my view-accountable. Here's his view of how a President Kerry could help keep the GOP honest:

"No, a Kerry administration would not be any conservative's ideal. But, on limited government, a Democratic president would, arguably, force a Republican Congress to act like a Republican Congress. The last such combination produced some form of fiscal sanity. And, when it comes to accountability, one could hardly do worse."

It is true that Clinton and the GOP Congress were able to get the nation's fiscal house in order and it forced Clinton rightward in his agenda. A President Kerry would probably do the same.

For those who fear the worst in Kerry, let's remember: it was the President who turned a surplus to a deificit, it was the President who expanded Medicare, and it was the President who got us into a war that was ill-planned with no clear exit strategy. I really don't see how Kerry could do any worse.

The Last Debate

I didn't watch the last debate. I had choir practice and then went to a prayer service at church. I did listen to a bit of it on NPR, but not enough to decided who won. So, for those who did watch the debate last night, who do you think won?

Here's Slate's Will Saletan's opinion. Also, take a gander at the Los Angles Times.

Ohio Redux

One of the biggest mistakes (and there were many) that Al Gore ever did in the last presidential race was when he pulled out of Ohio shortly before the election. This was highly idiotic since no Republican president has ever won without winning Ohio and it looked like Gore was handing the keys to White House with that move. Well it seems, and I stress, seems like the President is giving up on Pennsylvania.

If this is true then, the race is pretty much over. Bush can ill afford to lose Pennsylvania. But it seems like he's willing to do that.

Bathroom Humor (Except it's not funny)

From my fellow Minnesotan, Tony Dorsano:

GOP Senate candidate in Oklahoma speaks of rampant lesbianism in schools

San Francisco Chronicle story

Tony's Remarks: "We are nothing if not a tolerant and fair nation. It's in our bones. It's what makes America, America. We advance by fits and starts but tolerance and fairness is the great, blessed arc of our common story."

The story continues: " Joe McCulley, school superintendent in Coalgate, chuckled when asked about Coburn's remark.

I'm not laughing about this. Are you?

Why Does this Kool-Aid Tastes Funny?

The lead story in this month's Washington Monthly gives some great insight into the current makeup of the GOP and why it might be headed for a meltdown. The writer, uses the history of the Democrats in the 70s as a cautionary tale of what lies instore for the GOP as it becomes more and more insular and out of touch with the general public (ala the Dulfur Report). It's a good read and may prove show how moderates and traditional conservatives can take back the GOP from the neo- and theocons.

How to Mug a Gay Republican

Andrew Sullivan had an interesting link to a San Francisco Chronicle account of the Austin 12, a group of 12 gay Republicans who met with then Governor George Bush iin 2000 to get Bush's attention on gay issues. The article notes that early in the Bush Adminstration, the President did make some headway concerning gay issues including, appointing an openly gay person as AIDS czar. But Bush turned sharply to the right in 2003 and has in pretty much ruined any chance that the GOP can make some inroads in the gay community for decades to come. Here is the money quote:

"Members of the Austin 12 interviewed by The Chronicle ascribe the president's decision to back the same-sex marriage ban to a political calculation: The 1 million gays and lesbians who voted for Bush in 2000 are outnumbered by the 4 million evangelicals who stayed home."

Now, I don't think that Bush is a homophobe. But what Bush has done is far worse than any bigot could have ever done: he sold out. He saw the numbers and figured that the 1 million gay people who voted for him in 2000 were expendable. He allowed the forces that preach hate to spread their venom and harm a whole group of people just so he could get elected. Nothing personal, he just wanted a second term.

Bush's cowardice may prove harmful for the GOP in the future. As more and more gay men and women come out to their families, friends and workmates, the general public will become more tolerant of gays and less tolerant of bigots. At some point, the GOP's "family values" will be seen in the same light as we see those who held racist views 40 years ago: as a bunch of small-minded jerks.

Dred Scott Explained

Well , it looks like President Bush was speaking in code when he talked about Dred Scott last night. Here is what TAE, a reader, wrote:

"The Daily Kos has a journal entry about Dred Scott. Apparently, there is a movement in anti-abortion circles to liken the Scott decision and abortion as relating to the treatment of Scott as property and not a person. They take out the whole idea that the case stems from racism, regardless of the property issues. Daily Kos says that doing a simple google search of Dred Scott and abortion brings up the subject, I haven't done it yet. Take a look at the Kos journal entry for more coherent coverage than I can provide.

In other words, Dred Scott was another example of Bush throwing red meat to the base, while those of us who don't know the code words, scratch our heads and say "wha?" "

Daily Kos goes makes this conclusion:

"When Bush made reference to "Dred Scott" he was assuring his anti-choice constituents that he would indeed only appoint Supreme Court justices who would remove abortion rights."

So it seems like Bush wanted to say that he wanted judges that would turn back Roe v. Wade, but spoke in code in order to hide that fact from moderates and independents who might be interested in voting for Bush.

I don't necessarily agree with Kos all the time, but I have heard the link between Dred and Roe before, so it makes some sense.

Friday's Debate

I have to give it to Kerry. The guy is still wooden at times, but he made a genuine attempt to connect with the audience. I think he was trying hard to reach out to moderates and independents with his support for fiscal responsibility and his pledge to not raise taxes on incomes below $200,000/year.

The President did better than he did in Miami, but you could tell that he was not even trying to reach beyond the base. On the issue of abortion and stem cell research he would not budge. And what was that about not picking justices who supported Dred Scott? I mean, I'm glad that he's doesn't support slavery, but if he was trying to pick up the African American vote, I don't think it worked.

Does anyone think this is changing the race?

Bush/Cheney: Only True Believers Need Apply

Political rallies are usually a place for people to come and either cheer on their candidate or gather information on a candidate they might want to vote for. If the President is involved, then you get people who want to see the President, just because the President has shown up in your town.

Every so often, you will get the occasional heckler, but usually candidates just laugh them off or say something about how wonderful it is for people to express their opinion.

But not so with the Bush/Cheney campaign. Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio did a fascinating report on how the campaign has screened anyone who had Kerry paraphanalia or a pro-choice t-shirt. Secret Service was used to keep these people away from the rallies. Some of these people were registered Republicans.

Now, if this was something using campaign dollars, then the campaigns can invite anyone they want. But, many of these stops are presidential visits, meaning they are funded by the people and subject to first amendment protections.

So, why is the campaign doing this. My partner here at the Moderate Republican, Mark Kittel could not have put it any better:

"I don't think it's just because they want the media to see people who are 110% behind Bush, to give others in America the impression that it is futile to support Kerry because no one disagrees with the president, although that is part of it.

I understand now why Rove didn't want the debates in the first place. Rove knows what Bush's weaknesses are and has worked hard (there's that hard work again) to prevent the exposure of those weaknesses. In his mind, as we well know, any sign of weakness is an assurance of defeat."

If a President can't handle a few hecklers or a pro-choice t-shirt, you have to wonder how is he going to handle tonight's debate.

The Bushies have to start realizing that the President represents all 300 million Americans, not just a chosen few.

Just another reason that Bush has disappointed me.

The Osama Factor

Remember when Vice President Cheney said basically that a vote for Kerry would ensure another terrorist attack on US soil?

Well, if the Bushies were thinking that this would scare people into voting Bush/Cheney, they may want to think again.

A study done by two professors from my alma mater of Michigan State shows that people who fear another terrorist attack are more likely to vote for John Kerry than they are for George Bush.

I will repeat that again. Among those who fear another 9/11, they are more likely to pull the lever for John Kerry over George Bush.

Now the lead for Kerry is small-51 percent over Bush's 49 percent. However, since the President has been basing much of his campaign on the war on terror, he should not only be leading over Kerry, he should be leading big. And yet, he is losing.

The study says that after 9/11, people placed their trust in Bush to protect the nation. Now, that trust has slipped and I can understand why. After September 11, I trusted the President's actions and thought he was doing a great job in Afghanistan. But his fixation with Iraq and his dropping the ball on the war on terror has made me think that Kerry couldn't do any worse.

I have no idea what this means for November 2, but I don't think that foreign policy is the strongsuit for the Bushies as it once was.

Thanks to Dorsano for the tip.

Andy Explains it All

Andrew Sullivan seems to think that Edwards won big in Tuesday's debate. I found that hard to believe since I thought it was a tie or a slight win for Cheney. However, his latest piece for The New Republic does make some sense as to why Kerry might have won among undecideds while Kerry played to the base.

For example, when asked about Iraq, Cheney talks about the new interim government, about training a new Iraqi army and about January elections. There is no talk about the troop losses or the need for more troops. Edwards connects with the fears of the undecideds who see and hear the stories of soliders dying on our television sets. Sully thinks Cheney's message were for those who don't need to be persaded. In their view, everything is okay. Edwards knows that there are people who are concerned with what they are hearing and he speaks to them.

Sullivan's explaination does make sense with me on second thought. And if it does make sense then it might spell touble for Bush who is losing the opportunity to connect with the middle who is worried by what they see around them.

The Zinger that Wasn't

Maybe the best line in the debate was when the Veep said that in all the years he presided over the Senate, the only time he had met Senator Edwards was last night.

It was a good zinger. However, Staunch Moderate found a news report stating that it wasn't true.

Now, I have no idea if Vice President Cheney intentionally lied or if he was mistaken. What is interesting is how many people have made a big deal of this. Partisan Republicans intially pointed to this as a way of showing how much of a lightweight Edwards was. Partisan Democrats pointed to the mistruth as eviedence of how eeevil Cheney is.

Why is this a big deal? Who cares if they never met until that night? Why are we so beligerent against each other that we are ready to pounce on any little thing?

It would be nice if people were more concerned about the candidate's responses to how they would deal with poverty or health care or gay marriage instead of who met who when.

Just another sad sign of how deeply divided we are and how deeply meaningless our politics have become.

The Political is Personal

Below is something I wrote in LiveJournal. I wrote it a few days ago and in light of the recent debates, I want to share it with all of you. I don't know if anyone understands where I'm coming from, but so be it.

I want to see Bush out of office. He has not led the nation well. But I will refrain from making this personal. This is about his leadership, not his soul. I will leave that judgement up to God."

Comment of the Day

"I think its a big mistake to oppose gay marriage. If a gay couple wants to pay extra income taxes, so much the better for the treasury.

-from Mike.

The Veep Debates: Cheney by a Nose

It's late here, so before I turn in a quick note on tonight's debates. I think Cheney edged Edwards. Both are good debaters. I don't agree with Cheney on a lot of issues, but he was on message as opposed to his boss last Thursday who looked like a deer in headlights.

Edwards wimped out on the gay marriage question. He says he and Kerry support "one man, one woman" and yet wants benefits that are like a marriage. Okay, so why don't we just call it a marriage, John? What's so wrong with that?

Plus for Cheney for actually having showing his lesbian daughter, Mary Cheney. Wish you had done that at the GOP convention.

Friday's debate in St. Louis should be interesting.

The Raging Pink Elephant

I found this in my email inbox tonight. It's a press release from Pat Guerriero, the head of Log Cabin Republicans to RNC Chair Ed Gillespie. It's a pretty devasting letter about how the Republicans have gay-baited this year.

October 5, 2004

Patrick Guerriero
Executive Director
Log Cabin Republicans

The Permission Slip, Part Two

In response to my recent post called "Permission Slip" someone commented that Senator Kerry wants to outsource our foreign policy to other nations. Here is what the commentator, who goes by "Molotov" says:

When Kerry says that we must have "a global test" to even defend ourselves, he is outsourcing our national security to the U.N. As liberals typically want to do."

However, that is not what Kerry said. According to Spinsanity,probably one of the best fact checking and spin-busting sites around, what Kerry said is this that any preemptive action has to pass basically the "smell test." It has to make sense to Americans and to our allies. Nowhere in the text does Kerry say that we should bow to the UN or France or any other country.

As I said before, Bush and others have a right to criticize Kerry's foreign policy. They are entitled to their opinion. However, they are not allowed to have their own facts.

A Cat Blog

Today is a melancholy day. About two months ago, my housemate (who is also my ex-boyfriend) and I took in a Maine Coon cat that a mutual friend no longer wanted to take care of. Princess was beautiful cat who just had a hypnotic affect on you. This morning, I woke up and saw her lying on the bed rather listless. I tried to get her to walk and she could not. My housemate, Erik took her to the vet. She was severely dehydrated and was in poor health. The cost to save her would be too much for either of us. So, we allowed her to die today. Erik buired her in our backyard.

We only had Princess in our lives for two months, but she graced our lives and won't be forgotten.

The Permission Slip

One of the lies that the GOP has tried to spread throughout this campaign is that the Dems want a foreign policy that asks for permission to act militarily from nations like France. Of course, this kind of red meat works well with the base which is made up of fundamentalist Christians who are suspicious of other nations and the United Nations.

In reality, no President would ever be elected if they were acting in such a subservient way with our allies.

The President is now claiming that Kerry would basically not do anything unless France or Germany says so. That isn't true, at least as far as I heard in the debate. It seems that Kerry was trying to say that we need to consult our allies, not seek their permission. I could be wrong, but that is what I picked up. I was glad that Kerry said that America has the right to take preemptive action against a threat. That makes sense. If there is solid proof that there is an impending threat against the US, it is the President's duty to protect the homeland. However, it seems that there should be away to do this without offending our allies, as Bush has done. In this war on terror, we need our allies working with us to combat and thwart Al Queda. My fear is that Bush has made such a mess with how he handled Iraq that the next time there is a terror attack on American soil, instead of tears and condolences, we might get the finger from the rest of the world.

France has and always will be a testy ally. They tend to still think they are a major world power and will always test us. However, they are still a friend and we have to find ways to consult them. They may not always agree with us and that's fine. We can do our thing and they can do theirs. But at least we sought to keep them informed instead of blowing them off.

President Bush the elder, sent to then Secretary of State James Baker to every foriegn capital between London and Damascus to put together the coalition that would take on Iraq in the first Gulf War. Did the President send Colin Powell to Paris or Berlin to speak with their leaders? Nope. That was a break from a longstanding tradition that both Democratic and Republican leaders have followed. This President acts like we don't need friends and can act alone in the world.

The President has a right to disagree with Senator Kerry. But he should not try to distort Kerry's view. Argue on the facts, Mr. President.

Quote of the Day

"The president appears to me to have a pretty big ego, and he's letting it get in the way of what's best for the American people.... Before tonight, I really wouldn't have known which way I was leaning. If I had to vote now, I guess it'd be for Kerry."

-Thomas C. Racosky, a moderate Republican voter commenting on Thursday's first Presidential debate.

A little fun

Since it's my 35th birthday and all, I decided it's time to have a little fun. It seems that wonkette has had a little too much fun at the Bush/Cheney website where you can make your own poster-until recently, your own customposter. This was one that Wonkette made:

Comment of the Day

"You know, this is pretty pathetic, the supposedly caring and tolerant left is using the poor girl as a political pawn. And yeah, it all was posted online, and while those of us who are into political blogging may realize that nothing's private, the kids that post all sorts of random personal stuff on Xanga don't always make the connection that the whole world can read it. In any case, just because you or anyone else may not like Keyes politics doesn't mean that his kids are fair game, and outing the child of a politican for political gain is a pretty low blow. (not that we even know for certain that the whole thing isn't an elaborate hoax)"