Well, it appears that Cheryl Jacques, the head of Human Rights Campaign, that national gay rights group, has been given the pink slip.
I think it's about time. She did a poor job as head of HRC. She was so partisan that HRC declined to endorse Republican Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, a friend of gays and chose to endorse his Democratic opponent. Also, while they did work hard to prevent the dreaded Federal Marriage Amendment, HRC did not place much emphasis on the states where these issues were also coming to head.
Let's hope that HRC get a leader who doesn't think the strategy for gay rights is simply electing more Democrats and starts to fight hard for gay unions and not simply playing defense.
I'm still enjoying some time off in Michigan, but I have a question for you all to discuss. Do you think the Republican Party is fascist? My belief is that the party is corrupt in a Warren Harding sort of way and does have its share of crazies, but I have a hard time comparing them to say, the Nazis or even Franco's thugs. What say you all? Am I minimizing a threat?
I'm typing this from my parent's place back in Michigan. Blogging has been light these past few days because of little things like work that keep interuppting and will still be light while I'm home meeting family and friends and getting stuffed.
I want to take this opportunity to say thanks for all of those who support this blog by reading and in some cases, donations. Whether you agree or disagree with what I say, I'm glad you are here.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Like many folks, I'm pretty disgusted about the House Republicans efforts to protect Majority Leader Tom Delay. They changed a rule they themselves put in place a decade ago. Back then, the Dems let representatives that had been indicted to remain in their positions. The GOP enacted a rule that said that anyone in a leadership position that has been indicted should give up their posts.
It was a common-sense idea. And like all common-sense ideas, it was thrown out once it actually had to apply to someone, someone that might be responsible for their hefty majority.
What's disturbing about all this is that 10 years ago, the GOP came in to the leadership promising reform. A decade later, they are no better than the Dems they replaced. In some cases they are even worse, because they professed to take ethics more seriously than the Dems and yet did something totally different.
However, there is one bright spot. It has been said the moderate Republicans basically roll over grudingly to the conservatives. However, today at least one person did not roll over. That happened to be Christopher Shays of Connecticut. This is what the moderate represenative from Connecticut said:
“We took a strong stand in 1994 to make clear the Republican conference would live by a higher standard than our Democratic colleagues. This was instrumental in winning a Republican Congress for the first time in 40 years and the driving force behind passing the Congressional Accountability Act in the historic 104th Congress. Today, I spoke out against the amendment and voted against it because I believe it is a step in the wrong direction.”
Shays himself has said his going against this action might cost him the loss of future chairmanship. That could very likely be the case. However, he will be remembered for his integrity and that's more important than any chairmanship.
This appeared on www.afa.net, one of my favorite sites to patrol for news straight from the religious right's mouth. Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute seems to think that you could count the number of gay Republicans on one hand.
"...Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says it is time for the Bush administration and the Republican Party to re-evaluate the efficacy of outreach to the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual wing of the GOP. Knight says the LCR "had a fit" when Bush endorsed a federal marriage amendment, and said they might not support him. "Obviously, it didn't matter," the CFI spokesman says, adding, "You can fit all the gay Republicans in a closet and it really won't affect anything ... it's a non-constituency." According to Knight, the administration and party leadership need to spend their time seeking what the Republican base wants, not what the fringe element desires. The pro-family leader says there is a time to take advice and a time to ignore advice, and right now, he feels Bush is being inundated with bad counsel. "He needs to ignore it and get some very important things done," Knight says, "like appointing judges who will uphold the rule of law and not tear up our constitution to make radical social change." (reported by Bill Fancher)
Didn't matter? Well, I'd like to talk to Mr. Knight in another four years and see if his assessment was a bit short-sighted.
I haven't said much on what I call "Hurricane Arlen." On the day after the election, Spector basically said that conservatives should not try to send judicial candidates who would overturn Roe v. Wade. This got Christian conservatives mad and they demanded that Specter be barred from ascending to the chairmanship of the Senate Judical Committee. Specter is now trying to hold on to his coming chairmanship.
A friend of mine thinks that Specter's words were will ill-timed and he should have kept quiet about this issue. He probably is right. With the far right feeling that they are kings of the world these days, it might be best to keep quiet.
However, Specter was also telling the truth. He was basically saying that the Administration should be careful in who they send to get approval. People who are so far from the mainstream will have a hard time being confirmed.
But I don't think that this is the story. What is interesting is how the Religious Right ignores how even handed Specter has been. Yes, Specter is a moderate and pro-choice, and yes, he blocked the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but he has supported several Bush nominees and back in 1991 supported Clarence Thomas and put his career on the line when he laid in on Anita Hill.
The problem with Specter for the Religious Right is not that he is pro-choice, but it's that he dares to ask questions and use discretion instead of being a good little solider for the far right.
What's sad is that the party is becoming more and more a place where no one really thinks for themselves; they are simply there to fit to some ideological mold and woe to them if they don't subscribe to the party line. Anyone who even seems to question the party line, who doesn't push back and offer advice, is deemed a traitor.
From the White House to Congress, the party has become cocksure. I'm just going to watch as the party heads down a cliff.
By the way, Staunch Moderate has a good take on all of this.
I guess someone has been reading my blog. I was just looking around and found this story in the San Jose Mercury News that included a quote from this blog.
I guess people are paying attention.
"The republican party needs moderates to win. Bush's win this year had more to do with the war on terror and the fact that not only did democrats put up an incredibly weak candidate, they ran a weak campaign.
Instead of revealing in their victory they should ask why they won by such a narrow margin. And the answer will be that their so called "moral agenda" and fiscal responsibility has turned off more voters than it turned on.
If it weren't for "knee jerk" republicans, and the fact that the majority of the electorate put more thought into picking out a big screen TV then they do their choice for president, then the republicans would have lost.
Now the party has put themselves into a dangerous position. If they push the religious right's agenda they'll turn off even more moderate voters. IF they don't push it then the religious right will leave the party and probably back their own candidate.
By joining themselves to the religious right, the party started to engage with a dance with the devil. They're damned if they push their agenda, and they're damned if they don't."
As a Republican, I'm not crazy about taxes. However, I'm willing to pay them if I know that they are going to be spent wisely. But I'm putting my foot down on an idea that is gaining momentum: to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax.
Now, I'm not totally opposed to the idea if it is combined with the federal income tax. Many European nations and Canada do just that. But under a plan introduced by Representative Gil Gutknecht, a Republican from Minnesota, the IRS would be abolished and replaced by a, get this, 23% federal sales tax.
I think I hear the sounds of jaws dropping.
I think this is a disatrous idea and would wreck the economy. Let's say that we are going to by a $20,000 car. If we were under this system, you would have to add in the 23% sales tax, which would raise the price by about $5,000. And let's not forget the state sales tax, which in Minnesota is 6%, which would add another $1200 or so. So, that 20K car is now about 26K. Now think that this would be applied to most goods and services. In an economy that lives or dies on consumption, it would be a big mess.
Also, sales taxes are by nature regressive. They affect the poor more than the rich. Income taxes do the exact opposite. This might hit the poor pretty hard because they have to by things while the well-off can afford to not buy as much.
Listen, I'm all for reforming how we tax ourselves, but this is a stupid idea. I hope it dies a nice death in committee.
There are two interesting pieces about the GOP triumph two weeks ago and how it might not be the resounding victory it appears to be. The first comes from Jonathan Rauch who believes that the GOP is treading on thin ice because it's misintepreting it's wins as proof that the country has turned rightward instead of seeing that it shows that the party, and not the nation is the one taking a sharp right turn. He notes that Bush should have easily won this election. He was an incumbent running against a Northeastern liberal who couldn't find himself. And yet he won only be three perentage points. Here is the money quote:
" If anything structurally important happened in 2004, it was that the country moved to the right a little, but the Republican Party moved to the right a lot. John Kerry's Democrats aimed for the center and nearly got there, whereas Bush pulled right. He won, of course, but in doing so he painted his party a brighter shade of red—especially on Capitol Hill, and above all in the Senate, some of whose new Republican members seem nothing short of extreme.
The upshot is that Washington's governing establishment has moved further to the right of the country, and of the world, that Washington seeks to lead. A 50-50 country has produced a lopsided government and a sore temptation for Republicans to overreach. If they steer hard to starboard, they may capsize the boat. "
I think the GOP really does think that they have the public with them. This is why they are thinking about radically altering Social Security and the Income Tax. It will be interesting to see how the public reaction to such ideas. I don't know if I can predict a coming capsize, but when a political party moves to far to the extreme it tends to get spanked in the polls. It's just a matter of when.
For another opinion, read Ron Brownstein's column in the Los Angeles Times.
Well, it seems like that anyway. A friend shared this link about how some on the far right basically want us moderates to leave the party now that they've taken over. Since we don't share their far right views, we might as well join the Dems. It already seems like some have decided to give up the fight. Listen to Jim Scarantino, head of the group Mainstream2004:
"There is no future for moderate and progressive Republicans in the Republican Party," said Jim Scarantino, president of the centrist GOP group Mainstream 2004. "The far right wing and the fanatics have seized control."
Mr. Scarantino isn't sure where his brand of Republican politics fits into the GOP.
With all due respect to Mr. Scarantino, I don't think that our future is a dead end unless we decide it to be. If we want to believe that the Religious Right has won, then by all means lets slink away and leave the party.
The sad thing is that Mainstream 2004, Scarantino's group, just recently launched and instead of working on getting the party back towards the center, basically endorsed John Kerry for President as if that alone would change things.
I have to believe that there is a future and I believe that because of the action I see in groups like Log Cabin and Republicans for Environmental Protection. They are interested in reforming the party and know that it takes a long time to do that. They are investing in the long view and not short-term fixes. I am reminded of a letter that was sent to Andrew Sullivan. It conlcudes:
"It took the conservatives 20 years to build a strong national base, and they did it one precinct at a time. From what I've seen this week, we liberals don’t have the stomach for it. When we hit a tough patch, we whine and walk away from the battle. I'm just disgusted by my fellow liberals."
I'm disgusted at my fellow moderates. It did take a long time for conservatives to get where they are in the party. Conservatives are at least patient. We moderates duck out the moment that things get rough. We don't have much stomach for the battle.
I'm going to be very frank: the Republican party was never hijacked by the Religious Right. They took it over fair and square, precinct by precinct. We moderates never really gave a damn for the party and never challenged them and then we whine about how right wing the party has become. Well, we never did a damn thing to stop them. And when it gets uncomfortable, we run like cowards instead of standing and fighting. If we believe that the GOP stands for values like equality and the environment, then why aren't we fighting for them? If we are so distressed that the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower has lost its way, why aren't we working to represent the values that they brought to this party?
Why can't moderates exhibit the same kind of devotion, show the same commitment to their values as the far right does to theirs? Why can't we have the balls to stand up for our beliefs?
If Mr. Scarantino and others want to leave the party then, fine. But know that you are only benefiting the far right which wants us to do that. In the end, that will not further the cause of justice, it will only be seen as trying to save our own skin.
If that's not cowardice, I don't know what is.
If you want our spin on the past presidential election, read all about it here.
Now there is help for you.
IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
"In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.
Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you. "
-an excerpt from a letter address to the President from Bob Jones III head of Bob Jones University.
Thanks to Kevin Drum for the tip.
Arianna Huffington, someone I rarely agree with, made a convincing argument in today's Los Angeles Times about how the Democrats missed an opportunity to focus on national security over the economy. Let's be honest, the Dems and Kerry in particular never seemed very strong on this issue. It's not that Kerry probably couldn't have done a good job, but it was never emphasized as much.
Thing is, Kerry had an opening in how Bush has handled the war on terror. The only reason Bush had a lead in that area is that he had a more convincing story even though his records is not as shiny as he tends to believe. Many "eagles" or "ravens" like myself were not please with how Bush has handled terrorism and Iraq and wanted a more confident hand. Kerry could have used this wariness from those of us who know the threat is real to his advantage. Instead, he focused on the economy which in many cases Bush had no control over.
I think however this shows more about the Dem's wariness on anything that deals with security and defense than anything else. There has always been a prevailing mood among some that the fight against terror was unecessary. The Dems need to realize that to win they have to not only talk about the Butter, they need to talk about the Guns as well.
""The mainline Protestants, who are now the sideline Protestants, and the secularists like John Kerry were the dominant force in 1960s America. Their day is over. Ours (Christian conservatives) has arrived."
-Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention as quoted in the Los Angeles Times.
In the aftermath of this election, a question has come up. I have to ask all you Democrats and even some Republicans, this question:
Do you hate George Bush more than you love America?
Throughout this election, I was troubled about the demonization of Bush and company. Many of my more liberal friends would characterize the President as stupid or a liar or evil. Michael Moore created (and I do mean created) a documentary that took aim at Bush. It was one thing to make this election a referendum on the President, that's part of democracy. But the anger that I sensed from many on the Left was more personal than anything else, and I think it helped cost them the election.
The Left has demonized the President since he entered the White House, even before. He has been blamed for everything and anything that has gone wrong in our nation. You don't have health care? Blame Bush. You lost your job? Blame Bush. Male-pattern baldness? Blame Bush.
Folks, a lot of the these problems existed before W entered the Oval Office and sadly will be with us long after he leaves. While one can rightly blame him for how he has tried to alleiviate these problems ( well, not the male pattern baldness one) you can't blame him for the problems themselves.
As many of you know, I didn't support the President last week. If you would have asked me two years ago, even a year and half ago, I would have supported the President. Like many, I was discouraged over his decision to go to war and his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. But I never hated the guy. I didn't loathe him or even question his faith as some have done. I think that he is a bad president. I don't think he has led the nation effectively. However, I don't think he is a bad person. Frankly, I don't really know how he is as a person.
The Left and some others, though did think the President was a bad person. They confused bad policy with bad character. I have to think that if Kerry and the Dems had waged a campaign based on policy rather than character, we might have a President Kerry today.
What I think was missing from the Left was a vision of hope. What we got was how terrible Bush was, but when did we hear about what kind of America that they wanted? Americans need a vision from the Democrats. Bush and the Republicans could sell an anti-government message that was wrapped up in freedom. They could give people something to envision. The Left could only talk about fear-the loss of freedoms under Bush, the unraveling of environmental laws, and so on. It's not that there wasn't any truth to all of this, but when present with someone trying to show an optimistic view and another showing pessimism, guess who wins.
I also got the feeling that this demonization made the Left very insular. People weren't interested in making the case about why the President should not be re-elected as they were to getting in their little groups and chatting to each other about how evil the President was. By making the election personal, they forgot how to win over the hearts and minds of the American people. Because it was personal, the political got left out.
This is not to say that the Bush campaign did not employ fear as well. The gay marriage issue was used to scare folks. However, they were able to present a clear vision of what they wanted. A democratic Iraq. Reform Social Security. Deal with Tort Reform. You may not agree with these issues, but they were simple and to the point. People pushed radical reform with a smile (some would say a smirk). The Left could only scowl and talk about how the nation has gone down the tubes.
This is not solely a problem of the Left. When Clinton was president, the Right was just as personal against him as the Left is about Bush. America was considered a dark place in their view. Of course that view cost them in '96.
So, here is my advice to my friends on the Left: get over Bush. Yes, he is a bad president, but he is not evil. Look at his policy and then create and draft and alternative vision. Don't like his plan to privatize Social Security? The critique it and seek a different way. Want to see affordable health care. Make the case to the American people. Whatever you do, don't make it personal. People tend not to reward people who are meanspirited and in the end that makes the President more sympathetic in the eyes of people and the Left look more like meanies.
The Democrats used to have "Happy Days are Here Again" as their theme song. It would be nice if that were part of the spirit of the party again.
A lot of you have been asking about the comments function. For some reason, they are not working at this time. Atlanta Blogs is looking at the problem and should have it fixed shortly.
A few weeks ago, I linked to an article about how the GOP has become hidebound and out of touch with voters. Well, as true as that maybe, it seems like this election revealed that the so-called "party of the people"is not any better.
Lawrence Kaplan makes an interesting point that if the Dems want to win elections again they have to start at least like the country that they live in. He uses an interesting quote from the late Pauline Kael regarding Richard Nixon's 1972 victory:
"I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him."
There are many Democrats asking that same question regarding George Bush. Heck, there are people out there who think this election was stolen. Instead of being amazed that people actually voted for the President, you'd think the Dems would spend some time figuring that all out and learn how to win the next time.
Maybe they are still stunned, but it makes me think that the Dems have made politics so personal against Bush, that they can't see straight. How sad.
I had no idea that my first post on this blog would generate 23 comments and a long, long discussion on the relationship between marriage and faith and government and gays. Interestingly it was quite a civil dicussion, for the most part, and unless I missed it, free of venomous bile and uneducated hatred.
So here's an additional two cents to keep the discussion going.
Even with 11 states passing bans on gay marriage, there is every indication that the majority of the people in this country support legal civil unions, protecting the equivalent legal rights of gay couples without recognizing the union as a "marriage." I would suggest taking this one step further. The government should not recognize marriages of any kind. The government should ONLY recognize civil unions - whether between man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man. Churches may recognize and sanction marriages if they so choose - but regardless of what the church calls it, the government should recognize it as a civil union.
After all, many Christians (and many followers of other religions) view marriage as something instituted by God and defined by God. Marriage is seen as a union between two souls that have been brought together by a higher power for a higher purpose than the two could achieve individually. Yet in this country, marriage is not reserved only for Christians, or only for those who believe in God or in any particular picture of God. Atheists, for example, might never get married in a church but may well get married by a justice of the peace. But if marriage is a religious institution, how could atheists be married?
Or try this. In Catholicism, marriage is deemed one of the seven holy sacraments - along with baptism, confession, communion, etc. Yet Catholics do not go to the government to baptize their children, they do not go to the court house for confession (well, hopefully not anyway...), and do not ask a judge to administer communion. Why then should the government be involved in legally recognizing a Catholic marriage, when they do not recognize the significance of any of those other sacraments?
The reason, of course, is that marriage in the government's eyes is a legal contract, a way of joining two people legally and granting them certain privileges, rights, benefits, and legal protections because they are united. The government does not treat it as a union of souls or as the bringing together of two people by God for a greater destiny. It's a legal contract, plain and simple.
And that's where the government should leave it - as a legal contract. Let the church marry people - the government should simply call it the civil union that it really is.
Some gays have said that treating gay unions as something other than marriage brings back the old "separate but equal" concept of this country's segregation days. True enough. But rather than change the legal definition of marriage, let's simply call them all civil unions and let organized religions continue to define marriage on their own terms.
"Dennis,
Keep up the fight. Remember, the crazy thing about this all is that
the Moderate Republicans are right. We represent the creative center
where the country comes together. The current weakness of the Moderate
Republicans is exactly why the country is divided. The conservative
Democrats were mainly Southern racists and did not represent the nation as
a whole.
The Republican left represents the best interests of the whole country
with a consciousness that encompasses the ancient (and hard-learned)
truths that the leftists so often ignored when dazzled by visions of
uptopia.
No one said being right is popular. But it is still right."
-from Michael.
"Oh phooey! This is no time to quit. Now is a time for Moderate Republicans to make great gains -- you just don't see the opportunity.
Moderate Republicans like Arlan Specter (Chair of the Judiciary Committee) are the best hope of fending off the possible excesses of the Christian Right, and in the coming years folks like Specter will be leaders who rally even Democrats to their support. It should be clear to many Democrats that you can't beat the Xtian Rt. by encourageing folks to vote Democrat. The only viable strategy to role back the Xtian Right is to organize Democrats and Independents to switch registration, en mass, to Republican, and support the moderate republican leaders like Specter in 2006 and elect a moderate Republican in the 2008 primaries and draft a new more tolerant Republican Party platform.
Win from within.
Now is the time to reach out to Democrats and Independents and show them how to de-fang the Christian Right by JOINING the Republican Party, and supporting a moderate Republican agenda.
Trying to get anyone to vote Democrat is just stupid and self-defeating. If you want to advance your agenda, get Democrats and Independents to register and vote (moderate) Republican, and understand that we have a golden opportunity to succeed.
I urge you to start that campaign now, and celebrate every registration switcher as a clear victory."
-from Roderick.
Okay, so I've decided I'm not going to stop blogging right now. I've realized that now is probably not the time to walk away.
So what happened yesterday? Well two things. First, I had someone leave a comment about how moderate Republicans are basically relegated to the history books. It's nice to know when all of your hard work is being trashed as hopeless and worthless by some joker who probably hasn't lifted a finger to bring change other than share his two cents on some website. That really got me down and frustrated.
Then there was the loss of a long time follower of this blog. He basically said there were no real Republicans reading this blog. Ouch. Another blow.
For a while it made me think that this blog was pointless. It was hard to lose someone who seemed to have given up.
But I recieved a few comments this morning that basically told me not to give up and that made the difference.
So, I will be blogging again, though it might not be as frenetic as it has been. And I will probably take the week of Christmas off to just rest and celebrate.
I know that many people think that being a moderate Republican is a waste of time. But I have to believe that there is some reason that I stay in this party. I know that I will not change it overnight. Anyone looking for a quick fix is going to be disappointed. But I do think that my efforts as well as the efforts of other groups will make a difference in the long run.
Thanks to the three readers of this blog who gave me hope. You don't know what that means to me.
With all that has gone on concerning the election, I've decided to take some time off the blog and focus on my new job and other activities. Frankly, I'm tired. I'm tired of hearing about how moderate Republicans are a dying a breed if not dead. I'm tired of being told inadvertently that all the work that I'm doing to help the party is all for naught.
I think it is best for me to stay away for a while. I feel that I can make a difference and work for change from within, but I need to steer clear for a while from voices that tell me to just give up.
I'm not shutting down the blog, more than likely, check back at the beginning of the new year. But for now I say goodbye and take care.
I rarely agree with fellow blogger, molotov, but he nails it on the head here. Here is his quote:
"Sore losers. So much for the "party of the people" claim that Democrats make, while dissing the people's choice.
Democrats keep losing elections because they talk, but don't listen. The liberal wing insults folks's intelligence, denigrates faith and morality, believes the wallet is more important than values, and their elitist "we know what's better for you than you peons" ethic thoroughly irritates folks. People like me. I haven't voted for a Democrat for president since 1996, and cast my first ballot for a Republican president this year. The Democrats keep it up, and they won't get my vote in 2008 either because manic leftists now control the party."
He's right. The Dems long claim to the party of the people and yet when things don't go their way, they call the people stupid. Even now, the left is saying that Bush's win is not a mandate. Okay, but it is a majority. Remember, Clinton didn't have a mandate either, he had a plurality which is hardly much to talk about either.
If the Democrats and moderates want to win again, they have to stop treating the hard working Americans they claim to represent like idiots. Not every American who voted for the gay marriage ban is a bigot. Same goes for those who chose Bush over Kerry.
What Dems need to be doing is listening to those who are saying that they have to talk about values. It doesn't mean being as mean-spirited and hateful as some on the right, but it does mean realizing that Americans listen more to values than they do to policy. We are not Europe, which is very secular. Americans do care about faith and values and Dems need to start framing things that way. Get out of the ivory tower folks and start listening and educating the electorate instead of harraguing them.
I thought it might be time to bring this out again.
If you want to know what a moderate Republican is and what we believe in, click the link.
In the last 48 hours, I've seen a ton of venom spewing from the left over the loss of the election. I can understand being sad, I did want Kerry to win and I thought Bush was incompetent, but it's another to start harassing those who voted for Bush. I've heard people call them the "unwashed masses" or stupid or giving into fear. And it's not just coming from the left. Here's what Jazz over at Running Scared:
"So, to all of you "Security Moms" who decided to vote for Bush, and all of you "young cell phone generation voters" who couldn't be bothered to come out on Tuesday, I salute you. I hope that you feel really secure when your daughters are lying in emergency rooms after a coat hanger rips open their cervix. And if you have gay children or relatives, I hope you can look them in the eyes when you see their civil liberties stripped away. This is one big, fat apple pie which you baked yourself, and now you're going to eat it. Bon appetite'."
No offense to Jazz, but that's going a little over the top. To tell someone that their choice was dumb is bothersome to me and does nothing to further the cause of those of us who opposed the Bush Adminstration's policies. What it does is make us look like sore losers.
I have said this once and I will say it again. Folks, we live in a democracy. People come and vote and make decisions. Not every Bush voter is stupid- I know some of them and they are very smart people. I might disagree with their opinion, but I will not call them idiots. Am I sad that my man lost? Yeah. Am I wondering what the next few years might bring. Yeah. But I am also hopeful. Bish will not be in office forever. In four years we will do this all over again. The people had a choice and they went with the devil they knew. I may not like, but I will respect it.
As a dear friend recently said, politics is about changing hearts and minds. It is about persuasion. If you want to see more people choosing a more centrist candidate over a radical one, you have to persuade them. Calling them stupid doesn't work.
I have more to say on this subject of hearts and minds. More on that later.
And to Jazz, I still respect you. Really.
Update: Matthew Miller says all this even better than I did.
So you are probably wondering who this Mark guy is that posted earlier today. Well this is none other than Mark Kittel who is a frequent contributor to the Moderate Republican webmagazine. He will be blogging on occasion offering his wonderful inights. Please welcome him to the blogoshpere!
Some have thought that a Bush win would mean the end of moderate Republicans. Michael Cudahy wrote in an October 15 story for Common Dreams, a progressive journal that a second term would change the party and push the party's moderate heritage, "to the pages of history books."
Well, I have a few problems with this. First, the moderate principles he talks about, like abortion rights, have not been a part of the party's agenda for nearly a generation. The GOP of 2004 is certainly more conservative than it was 20 years ago, but even then, moderates were not in the driver's seat either.
Second, this loss does not and I repeat, does not spell the end of moderate Republicans unless we allow it to. If we lose hope and walk away, then of course, the principles of Roosevelt will die. However, if we see this as a wake up call and get involved, then things may turn around.
Cudahy is also upset that moderates like McCain and Schwarzenegger gave Bush cover during the campaign. He writes:
"Consequently, it is hard to understand why respected and visible moderate Republican leaders like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator John McCain, and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani went to such lengths at the Republican Convention in New York to provide President Bush with important political cover. It is particularly difficult to understand when this administration has done virtually nothing to support their concerns."
While I do understand his frustration, I can also understand why someone like McCain would play nice and put up with Bush. Remember that he was personally attacked by the Bushies back in 2000 as the two ran for the presidential nomination. McCain got spanked. So, he has learned to pick his battles. He is still a maverick and his support for Bush seemed perfunctory instead of passionate. Cudahy answers his own question:
"In talking with Republican activists who have consistently supported moderate positions for decades, I discovered that none were willing to speak on the record. To a person they are intimidated by the extremely personal and well organized attacks by members of the Bush administration’s political operation."
Moderates like McCain have been targeted, not only by Bush, but by other right wing groups. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that moderates are a bit shell-shocked.
While I sometimes share Cudahy's frustration, it really doesn't help to browbeat moderates. It is hard to be a moderate these days. Going to the GOP caucus back in February was an uncomfortable if not scary event. It is hard to stick one's neck out when it very well might be snapped.
What Cudahy and others need to do is not chide moderates but give them the courage that he wants them to have. Moderates are scared. We need to be reminded that there is hope and the hope lies in ourselves when we get involved and come together.
I think there are many moderates out there who are as frustrated as I and Cudahy are. However, they feel alone and powerless against a well financed and well coordinated far right. We need to find ways to give moderate Republicans hope and courage and give them ways to come together. When they know that they are not alone and that together we can do something, then there will be change.
Speaking of which, as long as this blog is around, I hope it can encourage hope to moderates out there. Bush will end the moderate heritage of the GOP only if we allow it. Let's not give him or others the opportunity.
I couldn't have said it better:
"It always amazes me after each election that the losing side continues to assume that the voters who supported the other candidate must be idiots, zombies or slaves to media. Why is it so hard to believe that intelligent people can look at the same information and draw a different conclusion?
One of the greatest weaknesses of the Democrats today is their smug sense of superiority. Why is "diversity" just a code word for minority? Diversity means a wide range of opinions and peoples. This is a big country and, yes, guys who drive pickup trucks are part of the country too."
-from Michael who lives in my hometown of Flint, Michigan.
Curtis wrote:
"I just don't get this ridiculous animosity towards gays. How can people actually think that there is some GAY AGENDA to try "to force our children to adopt your homosexual lifestyle"? Why are so many americans so damn ignorant?"
Curtis, your question is a perfect demonstration of why Rove and Bush were able to make gay marriage the wedge issue that brought out the fundamentalists in droves and got many others to vote for Bush even though they disagreed with him and his agenda on every other point.
The ridiculous animosity towards gays could just as easily be the ridiculous animosity towards blacks some forty or fifty years ago. It could just as easily be the ridiculous animosity towards the very idea of women voting nearly one hundred years ago. It’s based on fear, and fear is not rational. Of course, people wouldn’t actually say something as plain and honest as, “I’m afraid of women voting,” or “I’m afraid of blacks and afraid to be near them.” They rationalize fears with blatant garbage, such as “Women don’t have the intellectual capacity to vote in a rational and educated manner,” or “Blacks are genetically and culturally pre-disposed to crime and poverty.” In that same sense, no one will actually say, “I’m afraid of gay people.” They will say instead, “Gays are trying to destroy the institution of marriage that has been a cornerstone of civilized society for thousands of years, all because they hate law and order and God,” or “They have a GAY AGENDA to force our children to adopt a homosexual lifestyle.”
Fear is the answer to why there is such ridiculous animosity. But you cannot understand that fear because you don’t share it. Because you cannot and do not understand that fear, it’s easy to think that it’s not important, or it doesn’t exist, or that it’s something only a handful of people actually share and everyone else is rational enough to not have that fear. It’s something that doesn’t register on your radar. And that’s the difference between you and Karl Rove. Rove may not really share that attitude towards gays (he’s difficult to really figure out) but he DOES understand the fears that others have, and he knows that fear trumps rationality every day for average people. He knows that if you play on someone’s fears, hype the fear so that it occupies the forefront of a person’s mind and emotions, then you can control how that person acts and reacts. It is difficult to influence someone through rational, logical discourse. It is amazingly easy to manipulate someone through fear. Why does the battered wife stay with the abusive husband? Fear – specifically, fear of something worse than just being beaten.
If you want to beat that fear, change someone so that they no longer fear something, it is never enough to simply dismiss the fear and say, “It doesn’t exist, it’s irrational, you shouldn’t be afraid.” You cannot tell a child that it’s silly to be afraid of the monsters under his bed. You have to show the child that there’s nothing under his bed, show him that he can master his fear. You cannot shove the child back in bed and tell him that he’ll just have to live with his fears. You have to be sympathetic and dispel the fears, not dismiss them.
That might even be called "educating the masses." Which is how, I believe, the struggle for equal legal rights for gay couples is going to be won. Not in courts, not in the legislature, but in educating people and dispelling their fears. My own estimation is that it will take decades - at minimum, two generations. The struggle for women's suffrage took decades. It took a century to go from the abolition of slavery to the signing of the Civil Rights Act. There is no reason to believe that winning some law suits and passing some laws will be enough to win the fight.
And it certainly does not help to throw up your hands and wonder why so many Americans are ignorant. If you're not out there working to cure people of their ignorance, then you have the answer to your own question.
Maybe the biggest thing that surprised the hell out of me is that "moral values" were the issue that brought people out to the polls. Not Iraq. Not terrorism. Not the economy. It was not a shock that gay marriage bans passed in all the states it was up for a vote. Polls consistently showed that gay marriage was a tougher sell than civil unions. But what is shocking is that millions of Americans were afraid of gays marrying that they voted for Bush in order to protect marriage. For some reason, I feel a bit less safe as a gay man today.
Andrew Sullivan shares this chilling email he recieved today:
"I wonder if you noticed that yesterday all eleven states that considered the question of gay marriage voted to ban it. ALL ELEVEN. I think this sends a very clear message -- true Americans do not like your kind of homosexual deviants in our country, and we will not tolerate your radical pro-gay agenda trying to force our children to adopt your homosexual lifestyle. You should be EXTREMELY GRATEFUL that we even let you write a very public and influential blog, instead of suppressing your treasonous views (as I would prefer). But I'm sure someone like yourself would consider me just an "extremist" that you don't need to worry about. Well you are wrong -- I'm not just an extremist, I am a real American, and you should be worried because eleven states yesterday proved that there are millions more just like me who will not let you impose your radical agenda on our country."
So, I wonder how long it will be before the next Matthew Shepherd gets killed because of such views.
I particpate on LiveJournal. A friend pass this along to me this evening. It comes from a leftist perspective, but I still think it's important and it applies to moderates as well.
"I've seen many angry posts this morning - and the best thing to come from that anger and shock is that I honestly think that the people that lost this election - are now actually as angry and peeved as they should have been going into August. The left in America had better get it's ass in gear if it ever hopes to win an election. The razor thin edge with which Bush won shows the grand canyon sized divide in American politics. Every gay man should get out and become involved in replacing legislators due up for election in 2006 with progressive voices - and start NOW. Every gay man should get out and work to have the time set aside to help propel the next progressive voice for the White House forward.
It doesn't count when you blog about supporting a candidate! That is CLEARLY not enough!
1. Did you do door knocking?
2. Did you do any WORK to make your candidate win?
3. Did you contribute financially?
4. Did you do ANY research on the candidates other than the (R) or the (D) next to thier names?
5. Did you get involved in the system if you lived in a state where you were facing a anti-marriage equality amendment - besides disagreeing with it?
6. Did you write letters to family in your own handwriting talking about the election?
It simply isn't enough to put a progressive candidate's sticker on your car. You MUST get out there and work. You MUST get involved. You cannot expect good will alone to propel your candidate or your issue into a successful campaign.
The right is so well organized in this country - from making gay marriage the issue that propelled conservatives to the polls - to working on specific races (Tom Daschle) to ensure defeat. The left and the progressive voice in America has to get the fuck with it. By 2008 - our America will be radicaly changed by this administration - and we need to be well organized to find a candidate that deserves my vote.
Kerry was not a good candidate - he was a weak debater - a Washington insider with decades of vascillating voting records - and just NOT the strongest progessive candidate.
I did not vote for Kerry - I voted against Bush.
Here's the bottom line: It's simply NOT enough to vote - you have to be an active participant.
The organizational power of conservatives in America gives us no choice.
Skip that episode of Friends in reruns.... and get involved.
Write letters - join organizations - activate your rights as an American - before someone figures out a way to take them from you."
"Dennis, that's exactly what I've been telling people and what my wife ultimately realized this morning.
Democracy is about getting involved and being informed. It's not about showing up when it's a Tuesday in November every other year. It's not about electing someone and hoping they do what you want them to do.
I may not really like the activist political groups out there (whether far left or far right) but they make Democracy an everyday way of life, not an occasional big event. They understand that influencing people and winning elections is a daily job and that patience pays off.
I would encourage every regular reader of this blog to get out and run for local offices when they come up for election. Or form political action groups in their states. I don't think it's enough to simply say "get involved." We have to think in terms of "get elected" or "get someone elected." That's how the far fringes think and act - we have to do the same if we're ever to take control of this country's politics and agenda again."
-from fellow Moderate Republican writer, Mark Kittel.
"You are right on target. We MUST NOT hide our heads in the sand. It is very important for us to make our voices known, to be involved, to stand up for what we believe. It's going to be tough. It's how the religious right did it, and let me tell you, there WILL BE a backlash someday, when people see what is going to happen down the road. This is how the segregationist Democratic party of the 60's south changed, because people, some at great personal risk, took a stand. At the same time, I think us moderates can take some comfort in what happened in the Minnesota House race. That came out of nowhere and was a total surprise, and I think sends a clear message that the neo-cons had better watch their step and get things done in the state legislature this year."
-From Dan in Burnsville, Minnesota.
I heard only one person say this, but I have suspect that there are many moderate Republicans that are highly considering leaving the GOP this morning after a Bush win. I've considered it myself. I only can say this: don't give up.
Many moderates, including myself, supported Kerry in the hopes that a Kerry win would create an opening for moderates in the GOP. I really never thought that the election of one man would make that big of a difference.
Moderates are a fickle bunch. We are not really fighters. When we precieve that party gets to extreme, we pack up and leave. The far right has a very different strategy. When they have had setbacks, the retrench and retool. As my friend Mark says, the far right won control of the GOP the hard way: they showed up. They went to caucus meetings, voted in primary elections, got on platform committees, and running for low offices like school board. Moderates don't do that. We ignore caucuses and primaries, we shun getting involved in party appartus. We don't care about running for school board or dog catcher. We think that someone like a Kerry or a McCain will come in and magically change the party and get mad and pick-up our blocks when things don't go our way.
Folks, democracy is a verb. You don't like that the party is too far right? The get involved. Get involved in your party. Write letters to the editor. Form committees with other moderate Republicans who come together to find more moderate candidates. Do something. Just don't think that voting for Kerry will do that.
And realize that it takes time. The far right took a decade to go from the loss in '64 with Goldwater to Reagan's win '80. If you think that this will come easily, then you are wrong.
So, I ask moderates to not lose heart. Keep strong and keep patient. Get involved with groups like Republicans for Environmental Protection or Log Cabin Republicans. One election will not change the party. But many people standing up as tolerant Republicans will.
I will talk about what a Bush win means for gays soon.
If you look at the electoral map you can see something interesting.
Well, it's not that interesting, but it should be to Democrats. The South, the Border States and most of the Midwest went to Bush. The Kerry campaign pretty much ignored the South, putting all its eggs in the Florida basket. The Dems ignored growing states like North Carolina and Georgia, both with 15 electoral votes each. That makes a difference.
During the primaries, Howard Dean stated that his campaign would reach out to guys with "Confederate Flags on their pickup trucks." Many Democrats howled when he said that. They thought that he was pandering to racists and that they should be ignored. What they didn't see is that these people are the blue collar folks that are most affected by the economy. They needed to reach these persons, but they really didn't.
Nicholas Kristof hits the nail on the head that Democrats need to stopping being such a yuppified party that seems arrogant and ignorant to what was once it's base. There was a time that the Democrats were a of the working man. Now, it seems to be a party of coalitions: such as gays, Blacks and feminists and so on.
I'm not saying that the party has to ignore these other concerns. However, they have ignored the concerns of working class whites and they have in turn gone to the GOP, even though the GOP works against their economic interests.
I've noticed how many of my liberal friends tend to look down on working class folk, thinking of them as idiots and racists. And then they wonder why they lose.
Bill Clinton had a winning electoral strategy. Look at the 1992 electoral map. He won all the Border States: West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri. He also won four states in the Old Confederacy: Tennesee, Georgia, Arkansas and Louisiana. That's 64 electoral votes. He connected with the white working class and also was pro-gay and loved by African Americans. Kerry pulled out of Missouri, and incredibly big mistake.
So Dems need to think long and hard about what Dean said. That and they need to make some trips to Harlem and sit down with Clinton.
Correction: Charlie Mehler corrected me in saying that Clinton appeared to be pro-gay. Remember, he signed DOMA.
So, it looks like the President will get another term. Of course, this all hangs on what goes on in Ohio, but it doesn't look like Kerry will pull it off there. This time, the President will get the popular vote and quite likely the electoral vote.
Many of my liberal friends are in a foul mood. That is understandable, but this is a democracy and America made a choice. We all have to accept it.
Yes, I'm sad my man didn't win. But I am happy that I voted and that democracy continues on in America.
Well, we finally made it to election day. I already went to the polls on this rainy Tuesday here in Minnesota and cast my ballot. The turnout is pretty heavy this morning.
I will be blogging more today about the election, but I want to share some election day wisdom. Hopefully, we will know by tommorrow who our next President will be. Whatever happens, I hope we can deal with this in civil tones. Civility is in short supply this year, with both sides claiming the other is evil and out to destroy America if not the world. On Sunday, my pastor preached a sermon on the election where he stressed that, at least from a Christian point of view, we should see the face of God in every person we meet.
We need to remember that.
Please read some other pearls of wisdom from Slate and from Oxblog.