The Moderate Republican

"They had no idea...they had no chance."

I'm still taking some time off blogging, but I felt I needed to pass along and entry I found from the Moderate Voice. Joe shares his reflections on the recent tsunami that has left over 60,000 dead in Asia and parts of Africa. He also shares his harrowing experience of an aftershock in Mexico City following a massive earthquake that struck the city in 1985. Go read this.

Also, here is a list of relief agencies that you can contribute to so that they can help those affected by this disaster.

2004: That's All She Wrote

I'm going to stay away from blogging over the holidays. I will even try not to look at my blog. So, to all those who are Christians, Merry Christmas, to all others, Happy Holidays and to everyone, Happy New Year!

See you back here on January 2, 2005.

The Internet Strategy that wasn't

Remember last at year at this time when all the buzz was around Howard Dean and his internet-based campaign? I remember, because I ran the Republicans for Dean blog. We also remember that Dean lost-bigtime.

Then there was all the talk about Move On.org and how well it was working. Well, now we find that Zach Exley, the technical guru behind Move On and the Dean and Kerry campaigns thinks that this emphasis on the Internet was a losing strategy for Dems. As noted in Politics1 Exley sees that simply using technology doesn't translate into a successful campaign. It was worked wonders as a fundraising tool, but not to mobilize the grass roots. He says:

"The difference between the approach of the left in general, and the Republicans, is that the left was more interested in just putting cool software up. The idea was to put up the tools and let people use them ... The belief was 'let's get 5,000 people out there and they'll talk to each other. But, to put a President in office, we need to get people organized and trained."

People did talk to each other, but in the end they only talked to each other and didn't persuade others.

I noticed this happened in some Republican circles as well. The Republicans for Kerry site was mostly about how bad Bush was and not about trying to build an effective moderate movement. The same goes to Come Back to the Mainstream. This group started with big with a full page ad in the New York Times, several articles and a snazzy website. But in the end, it was nothing more than a place for people to vent and to rally around Kerry instead of actually doing the groundwork for a movement.

What a waste of $10.

People can get as mad as they want about the far right, but the fact is, they know how to organize people. Liberals and moderates don't. We know how to bitch and moan and how to best move to Canada, but we don't know how to reach the hearts and minds of the American people.

Until we do that, we will lose to the far right no matter how cute our blog looks.

More on Social Security and Democrats

Finally, some sane talk from liberals about Social Security. Garance Franke-Ruta writes that the proposed Dem strategy of saying that there is no crisis will not work since Democrats have been talking about fixing Social Security for nearly two decades. (Remember Paul Tsongas?) She also adds that calling the President and privatization supporters liars isn't an effective strategy.

" 'But he's lying!" may be a common Democratic complaint about the president, but it's not a rhetorical or political strategy. Nor, as we saw on Nov. 2, is it a particularly effective charge."

Amen. Calling someone a liar is not going to garner you votes. If the Dems want to score some points in this battle they will have to offer some solutions of their own. Franke-Ruta offers one such idea:

"If anyone really wanted to fix the private retirement account planning system (and if we're going to enter the private account arena, let's really enter it, I say), they could start by making it mandatory for employers to offer employees the opportunity to buy into 401(k)s before they've worked somewhere for more than one year, and make it easier for people to stick with one account even when they switch jobs. These are retirement planning issues I'm pretty sure young people would get behind. Today's young people live life in the churn, switching jobs every few years, but this widespread ineligibility to participate in company 401(k)s (even without an employer contribution!) before a year of employment can really eat into their ability to plan for the future. For example, if you switch jobs three times in your 20s -- a not uncommon experience -- you can lose 30 percent of your retirement-planning capacity during that decade."

I wholeheartedly agree. When I was laid off from my job earlier this year, I learned that it is not easy to hang on to the account. There is way too much confusion in trying to move the money to another account and in the end, it just becomes a hassle. Instead, 401 (k)s should be more portable, which would make them more attractive to people.

Here is my added advice. If the Dems want a winning strategy, they should argue that we already have a system of private accounts: IRAs, 401(k)s and 403 (b)s. Remind people that Social Security was supposed to be a baseline or social insurance program and not a full on pension plan. As my Dad has taught me, you can't really live just on Social Security, you have to use additional means like a pension or other plans like an IRA. Like unemployment benefits, they keep you from total disaster, but SS won't be "living on the dole."

Anyway, Dems could argue for making these private plans more portable, so that employees can take them from job to job. Add that with making some well-needed changes to SS and the Dems have a winning plan.

Will they do this? It remains to be seen.

New Paltz Woes

New Paltz is about a 2 hour drive south of me, and earlier this year was one hot spot in the gay marriage controversy. The mayor, Jason West, decided to issue marriage licenses to gay couples until Eliot Spitzer and the state government ordered him to stop. The fallout of this is that marriage licenses issued in New Paltz after February 27, 2004 are not being recognized by the Social Security Administration as valid - and that's ALL marriage licenses.

The full article is available at the New York Times here. Here is, to me, the first "money quote" of the article, from a heterosexual woman whose license was rejected:

"What concerns me is that the certificate is the only way to prove that we're married," she said. "If something happens to us - or some other couple from New Paltz - we can't prove we're married. We would not be able to draw benefits."

If I recall correctly, this was one of the arguments for allowing gay marriage - the legal rights and benefits that married couples automatically are entitled to. Note that there are no religious arguments here or cries of civilization crumbling in this woman's statement - just a concern about what the legal impact would be of something dreadful happening to her or her partner.

This was the other highlight of the article, a statement from a Unitarian pastor:

The Rev. Dawn Sangrey, a Unitarian minister who has used the affidavit system to marry more than 200 same-sex couples in New Paltz since February, said that the policy highlighted the rippling consequences of denying gay couples the right to marry. "We are all in this together, and this is so beautifully illustrated here," she said. "Who knows where this policy came from, but the fact that it's generalized illustrates that when you start taking away people's rights, it's a cascading tide."

Certainly someone somewhere will try to fix this problem at the Social Security Administration - but it will not be possible to do so without explicitly stating that gays are not entitled to any of the rights of married heterosexual couples. And that will simply continue the battle over gay marriage and gay rights. If anyone in the conservative Christian camp thought that Bush's re-election killed the issue, think again.

Advertise, Baby!

You've probably noticed the graphic off to the side that says, "Support the Moderate Republican." Well, I've decided to take the plunge and join Blogads. If you don't know, Blogads is a place where people can sell there wares on blogs. If you know of an organization or business that wants to advertise, please send them my way. Thanks!

A Moderate Speaks Out

Just when you think that there is no hope for moderates, along comes Christie Todd Whitman giving us some words of hope and action.

Whitman, was the former governor of New Jersey and the former head of the EPA under W. until last year. In a book she has written, she comes out and says that under her tenure as EPA Administrator, she had went to to toe with anti-evironmental Republicans. The articles says,

" Whitman, who led the Environmental Protection Agency for President Bush from 2001 until May 2003, also says in the book that she was often at odds with the White House on issues such as setting limits on air pollutants and power plant emissions and in the debate over global warming. Her tenure was marked by complaints from conservatives that she was too moderate.

So, now we know that Whitman probably left the EPA out of frustration with the far right who tends not to be so strong on the environment.

She goes on to say that catering to the far right could end up hurting the GOP. The book, "It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America," is basically about her desire for moderates to regain control of the GOP again and steer the party back towards the center.

I think this is proof positive that there is a battle brewing in Elephantland. We moderates are more and more troubled of the direction the party is taking: one that seems unconcerned with issues like the environment, civil rights, poverty and the like. I think moderates have been silent over the years hoping that conservatives would listen to our quiet advice. We have given our more conservative brethern the benefit of the doubt. But now we see a party that seems to be catering to a small chunk of the country who seem to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I tend to think 2008 is going to be a key year in the life of this party. I think moderates are beginning to find their voice again.

Just so you know, you can pre-order Whitman's book. I think any moderate out there should order it and people who know moderate Republicans may want to buy one for their friend.

Comment of the Day

"I am a 30yr old Black Republican that shares the same philsophy as
you. I believe in limited government, but I don't think that people should
be unable to look upon government as an arbiter and dispenser of
justice and fairness. I to rage against what Theodore Roosevelt called
"malefactors of great wealth" that use the capitalist system as a personal
playground. Being a minority I am for the strong protection of civil
rights by government. A conservative would call me a Democrat in disguise.
What seperates me from a Liberal Democrat is that I believe in the use
of deadly force to take down our enemies, and that people should take
greater responsibility over thier own lives. Our branch on the GOP tree
is a weak branch. We must do all we can to prevent the branch from
dying. I wonder what can I do to help on the local level to see our
candidates/policies adopted/elected? I would like to help.

Serge "

I hope Serge is reading this blog. It's nice to know that there are other black moderates out there. If you are reading this blog, I would do a few things. First, contact Republicans for Environmental Protection. They are an awesome group and would be eager to get you involved in something.

Next, I would get involved at a local level. Go to your local convention or local Republican party meeting. I'd bet you might meet a few moderates there.

Finally, start your own blog. That's the best way to get others interested and maybe get more moderates in your area talking.

Good luck!

McCain 2008

Remember back in the Spring when I was blabbering on and on about McCain becoming Kerry's veep? Wisely, he decided to pass that up. He knew that taking that position would mean leaving the GOP and he would have less power to reform the party.

So, he played nice with the President and campaigned with him, to the constrenation of many Democrats and independents who seemed to forget that he is a Republican.

Why did he do this? Well the answer is obvious: he wants to make another run for the White House in 2008.

This might be a chance for moderates and "sunshine conservatives" to recapture the party and steer it in a more moderate direction instead of off the cliff.

I think it might be the moderates chance to shine in 2008. Why? Look at some of the names bandied about: McCain. Hagel. Guliani. Pataki. All of these men are moderates in the party. Yes, we hear about Santorum and Frist, but I really don't think either of them have a chance. What's interesting is that there is no discernable ideological successor to Bush.

That's why I think that McCain has more than a good chance because there is no "annointed one" yet. Of course things might change, but right now I see few fitting W's mold that seem ready to make a run.

If McCain did run, his conservative views on issues like Iraq and terrorism would do well in the "Red States" while his moderate views on gay rights and the environment would do well in "Blue States." If he picked a running mate like Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe, both Republican Senators from Maine, he could shore up his base among women.

McCain is the obvious choice as one who can bring this divided nation back together. The way the Dems are acting, I doubt they can, unless they can persuade Barak Obama to run.

Thanks to The Moderate Voice for the tip.

Social Security: Lots of Heat, No Light

It was before my time, but I remember learning about how Republicans and Democrats used to work together to solve the nation's problems. When they worked together, they did some great things: Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Endangerered Species Act, Clean Water Act and so on.

And then about 20 years ago, President Reagan worked with the mostly Democratic Congress to deal with Social Security.

What as nice was that both sides worked together. Republicans and Democrats didn't always agree, but they hammered out their differences and the result is some of the hallmark legislation, I've just talked about.

We don't live in those times now.

The Republicans have grown more and more deaf and think that they don't need to work with the Democrats. Witness, Speaker Dennis Hastert's charge that for any bill to come to a vote in the House it has to have a "majority of the majority." Who cares if any Democrats support it. Then there's Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's threat to use the "nuclear option" to ban the use of filerbusters when talking about judicial nominees. Congressional Republicans don't seem to "play well with others."

It looks like the Dems are starting to act the same way. Witness this rant from Josh Marshall concerning Social Security. Now I can understand the Dems'plight. Because of the GOP's actions, the Dems now have to basically operate like the opposition in parlimentary democracies. Two things about his comments bother me. First, Marshall and other liberal bloggers are spinning the belief that there really is no problem with Social Security. That's nonsense. You don't have to like what the Republicans are doing, but you simply have to do the math to figure out that something needs to be done to ensure that Social Security will be adequately funded in the future. Here's what the Minneapolis Star Tribune has to say about the problems Social Security will face:

"No one denies that Social Security faces sobering problems. When baby boomers begin to retire, around 2011, the number of working Americans supporting each retired American will dwindle quickly. Social Security's trust fund, which is growing now, will start shrinking in 2028 and run out of money in 2042. After that the system will rely solely on payroll taxes, which will cover only about 70 percent of promised benefits. This is known as a solvency gap."

Mind you, the Start Tribune is considered a liberal paper. So, for liberal bloggers to go around saying that there is no problem is false and I think a losing strategy, because people know better. They may not like the Bushies' proposal, but if the Dems start running around and saying there is no problem, you can guess which choice the people will choose.

What the Dems should be doing is coming up with some credible solutions to the issue that are better than the President's.

Then there is his strategy. Marshall believes the Dems should play hardball-with themselves. He believes in not allowing a single defection to the GOP and if there is, there shall be hell to pay:

"The question will be how to enforce discipline at the margins. And here Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook in 1994 (on health care) and 1998 (on impeachment).

It's that important. And there is an importance to unity on this issue that transcends the particular debate over Social Security. "

Maybe that makes sense to some, but it doesn't to me. Taking a page from the GOP notebook is a scary proposition indeed because it would effectively end independence among members as well as nix the chance for any compromise. The other thing is that if the Dems start using this kind of "blacklisting" on this issue, what's to keep them from doing it on other issues? You would end up with a party just as rigid on issues as the GOP. What good would that be?

I'm also surprised that Marshall never mentioned peeling off the "soft" Republicans who are just are nervous about the costs involved as Democrats and probably secretly don't want to end this program as we know it either.

I'm not sold on the who privatization scheme. But I also want both sides to solve the issue with Social Security without all the yelling.

Marshall's take on this issue is shows how the Dems are starting to take a dark turn down the same road the Republicans went down a few years ago: one where compromise is a dirty word, where those who disagree with you are not simply wrong but evil, and where party interests are confused with national interests.

Reading Marshall's post doesn't make me confident about the the state of American politics these days. I feel that as both sides bicker, the national interest is being ignored. Who is willing to work for the nation and not simply a political party or ideology?

The Future of HRC

The Advocate has an interesting interview with Hilary Rosen, the interim director of the Human Rights Campaign, the national gay rights group. Here is her take on reaching out beyond liberals:

"I don’t think that Democrats should get more conservative, I think that what we should be doing is focusing on the moderate Republicans who are feeling more and more uncomfortable with the right wing of their own party. We’re confident there are lots of coalitions to be made still. "

For that, I say bravo. After her predecessor's shameful ignorance of pro-gay Republican, Arlen Specter, it would be nice for HRC to reach out to those in the GOP who are horrified by the far right.

However, when asked about the whole "George Bush, your'e fired!" campaign, she was less hopeful:

"I’m surprised that people think that we’re apologetic about “George Bush, you’re fired!” The president proposed writing us out of the Constitution. We have no apologies to make. He should have been fired. "

Now, I agree that he should not have had a second term, but it was a big mistake for HRC to make it's marriage campaign center around the election of John Kerry and not electing Bush. HRC should have worked on trying to help people understand the importance of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Maybe if HRC had spent time helping gay organizations in the eleven states where same-sex marriage bans were up for a vote, we would not be in this mess. What if the money they spent for a van cruising around NYC during the GOP convention yelling, "George Bush, your fired," and instead spent it on ads and such that would educate straight American about gay marriage, again things might have been different.

Here's to hoping that HRC gets a clue and stops being an afflitiate to the Demcrats and works to establish amd affirm the rights of gay Americans not because its Democratic issue, but because it is a human rights issue.

Good Republican Quote, Bad Republican Quote

"She (the governor) supports equal rights and opposes discrimination in any form for any couple."— DENNIS SCHAIN, spokesman for GOP Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell commenting on the governor's willingness to consider supporting civil unions legislation.

-From the Log Cabin Republicans weekly e-newsletter.

Comment of the Day

I'll repeat an analogy I love using.

-From my cohort, Mark Kittel.

Remember Health Care?

Since the election, we have not heard much Washington concerning the reform of our health care system. We have heard tons about Social Security reform and about tax reform.

Matt Miller blames the media for allowing political operatives to set the agenda instead of push the agenda themselves. I tend to agree, but I also think that committed citizens need to do more and become more media savvy to get their message out there.

Take health care. Costs are rising, and millions are without health care. The Bushies don't seem to care about the issue, thinking that tort reform will solve everything. We need to have some kind of reform. I tend to think that if people started writing letters to their local newspapers, as well as coming together and developing a media strategy, their issues might get a fair hearing. I really believe that people have to learn how to do things like writing press releases and holding news conferences to get their message out. The far right has used the media to their advantage, it's about high time that moderates and liberals start using it as well.

What Ever Happened to There's no such thing as a Free Lunch?

You know, when Ronald Reagan, busted the budget back in the 80s, he at least had a good reason: ending Communism. He also tried to work with the Dems in stemming the red ink. Bush 41 also did that even though it ultimately cost him his job.

Now, here comes Bush 43. He wants to change Social Security. That's not necessairly a bad idea, but of course there are costs involved that could be prohibitive. So, if Mr. Bush wants his reform, he has two ways of acheiving it: raise taxes or borrow a ton of money.

Guess which one he chose?

The irony here is that to "save" Social Security for future generations, those future generations are going to have to pay for it. Borrowing means that the piper is going to have to pay at some point. We are telling those future generations, who are basically under 40, that they can have a free lunch while not admitting that at some point we will pay dearly.

The GOP leadership has basically lost any claim on being fiscally repsonsible. We would rather push things off to the future and let some other President deal with it. The funny thing is that we can actually reform Social Security and make it fiscally sound without blowing a gaping whole in our deficit. In a recent editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, three alternatives were presented that would not break the bank. Yes, there would be some pain in the form of tax increases, but that's a whole lot better than a $2 trillion hole that would sink us further into debt.

In the end though, I don't think Bush cares. I think he is more interested in peddling a certainly ideology than he is about managing the nations resources (and it's piggy bank) wisely.

Rennisance or Last Gasp?

If you read something in the media about moderate Republicans, it's usually about how we are a dying breed, dwindling by the moment. Looking at how the recent election has turned out, it might appear that way. What's interesting though is that when you look to 2008, you don't see many people out there that are darlings of the hard right. The prospective GOP candidates includes, John McCain, Chuch Hagel, Rudy Guliani, and if they can get a constitutional amendment passed in the next four years, Arnold Scharzenegger. All of these are considered moderates or at least Goldwater conservatives. None of them would appeal to the James Dobsons and Jerry Fawells of the world.

So, what does this all mean? Is there no standard bearer for the hard right as the President has been? If so, why?

A story I found on the Independent Nation website has an interesting take on how there seems to be a quiet resurgence among the moderates in the GOP. What I like about this story is that it reminds us that the struggles between the hard and soft right are nothing new. In fact , they go back nearly a century.

"This is, of course, also the old Republican division, dating back at least to 1912. That’s when ex-President Theodore Roosevelt angrily led his delegation off the convention floor of the Chicago Coliseum and into the Progressive Party. His third-party candidacy ruined the chances of his onetime protégé, William Howard Taft, for re-election. In the 1930’s, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia crossed party aisles to join Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration. A generation later, Governor Nelson Rockefeller got a heartbeat away from the Presidency, but no closer, with a record of extravagant spending and vocal support for the civil-rights movement. Working with him were a trio of fellow party members destined to be labeled (whether they liked it or not) as Rockefeller Republicans: John Lindsay, Jacob Javits and former State Senator Roy Goodman. Now, however, the days of Rockefeller Republicanism seem like so much ancient history. The long-time breeding ground of moderate Republicanism, the Upper East Side, now has no Republican elected officials."

I have no idea if there really is a comeback in the making right now. But this story reminds us that what we are dealing with now is not new. The far right has taken power before and we have come back. I think we can again.

You Can Learn A Lot from Movies

I just came back from seeing the movie, "The Incredibles." It was very good. It reminded me of an article penned by Andrew Sullivan about the how this movie. He talks about how this Disney movie is a "conservative" movie in that it talks about rewarding talent instead of hiding it. He also thinks this movie, along with Team America by South Park creators, Matt Parker and Trey Stone has a message for Democrats about what America is really about. Here is a money quote:

"This is what the left has lost sight of. Americans tend to believe that talent needs no apology; that action is often better than complaint; that their own country, despite its many faults, is still a force for great good in the world. The left tends to view things a little differently. The most shocking manifestation was the way in which the far left saw 9/11 as an indictment of America, rather than of Jihadist nihilism. A more anodyne version was the way in which the Kerry campaign tried to reassure Americans of Kerry's commitment to national defense by playing up his Vietnam record, rather than unleashing him to rage against the evil of terror. The legitimate criticisms of the Iraq war seemed at times to emanate from a welter of whining, rather than from a determined attempt to win in Iraq, and from righteous, well-deserved anger that Bush had botched it. Facing a world of unprecedented danger, the Democrats still offered little in the way of a constructive message about what they would do proactively to defeat the enemy. For all his faults, Bush did."

I think he is right on the money here. For some reason the Left tends to see America, with its economic and military power as somehow evil-that it got to this place of prominence unfairly and tend to minimize enemies of this country. Take the War on Terror. You don't have to agree with how Bush is handling this operation (I sure don't), but you do have to agree that Americans are a marked target after 9/11. We have to find ways to minimize that threat. The Left tends to think that we basically need to tell the world we're sorry. That is not a winning strategy.

If the Dems want to become a majority party again, they have to understand this nation again. They need to understand that we are a nation that rewards talent and hard work, that can still be a force for good in the world despite all its faults and that we are an optimistic people who believe we can conquer anything put in front of us. They don't have to copy the Republicans to do this. What they need to do is take these values that Republicans have used and fashion them in a Democratic mold. Until they do that, they can expect to lose and lose again.

An Elephant of a Different Color

I had this crazy idea a few months ago.

I was interested in running for the local county Soil and Conservation Board. It's not a glamorous post, in fact it pays no money. But I am interested in enviromental issues and thought it might be good to have an evironmentally-minded Republican in office.

I ended up not running. Part of it was that my life is busy as it is, that I didn't know if I could handle one more thing. After the election, I heard that one guy got elected as a write-in candidate for the Board. I knew then that I regretted my decision not to get involved.

Why? Well, because that is how you change a party. By running for small local offices and setting the agenda. That's how the far right did it and that's how they were able to take over the party.

It's in that vein that I find Michael Cudahy'spiece so helpful. He basically says we moderates have to get up off our butts and get to work to stop the far right. Here's a quote from a GOP activist Cudahy quoted:

“Moderate Republicans have a couple of choices,” says one longtime GOP activist. “We can set the clock back 30 years and begin a process of rebuilding — similar to the one the religious right used to seize power. Start at the school board and county commission level and develop candidates, and then move on to state legislative seats and finally into the Congress. The other option is to wait for a political event so seismic in its proportions that it shatters the present political environment and forces massive political realignment along ideological lines. An example of such an event might be the overturning of Roe v. Wade.”

I don't know about you, but I don't want to wait for such a "seismic" event. I think we need to start small and work our way up. And we need to do that by telling a compelling story to the American people. Cudahy writes:

"The first step may be a matter of storytelling — of weaving a narrative. Will moderates be able to discredit the illusions Republicans created during this last election? They need to dispel the myths that massive government borrowing creates a sound and healthy national economy, that the outsourcing of millions of good jobs strengthens the financial security of the American middle class, that undermining clean air and water standards is good for the economy, or that packing the U.S. Supreme Court with conservative justices who could overturn Roe v. Wade will protect American women’s personal freedoms."

I don't agree with Cudahy on the outsourcing issue, but that's another story. What I do agree is that we need to tell a good story. It's Republicans that used to believe in sound economic policy and a thing called balanced budgets. It's Republicans who created the EPA and helped usher some of the strong environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act. We used to be a conservative party. Moderates need to learn that history and present it to the American people.

Another thing that Cudahy calls for is working with Democrats. Here's what he says:

"Of equal importance must be a willingness on the part of Republican moderates to step forward on a regular basis and align themselves with Democrats on issues where they agree, such as: a responsible stewardship of the environment, protection of a woman’s right to choose, meaningful reform of the nation’s health care and educational systems, or federal support for critical stem cell research. This would send a powerful message to President Bush that he has drawn an ideological line they are unwilling to cross."

The President has said that he wants things done in a bipartisan fashion. But we know that's only talk. We moderates can actually prove that we can work with Democrats to get things done and to stop the right wing agenda. If a coalition of the center-left and center-right can come together and put forward meaning ful proposals to balance the budget, deal with the health care crisis and deal with the war on terror, you will create a winning coalition that could trump the far right anytime.

The next time that Soil and Water board position comes up, I might just run. What about you?

Mainstream Media Covers UCC Flap

It looks like some of the big media has finally caught on to this story. Listen to this piece done by National Public Radio.

How to Contact CBS/UPN and NBC

Here is the info you need to express your opinion on the banning of the UCC Ad.

To contact CBS, call 212/975-4321.

To contact NBC, call 212/664-4444 or e-mail CEO Robert Wright at robert.wright@nbcuni.com, President Jeff Zucker at jeff.zucker@nbcuni.com or Advetising Sales President Keith Turner at keith.turner@nbcuni.com.

Please, make your voice heard.

The UCC Ad

Here is the ad produced by the United Church of Christ that has been banned from showing on CBS/UPN and NBC. It's hardly offensive or even controversial. Maybe to bozos like Jerry Fawell, but not to me.

CBS, NBC bans UCC for GLBT

And the award for most cowardly act goes to: CBS and NBC who have decided to ban an ad produced by theUnited Church of Christ a liberal Protestant demonimination. The UCC has intiated a campaign called "Still Speaking," a drive to get people to visit a UCC church. In the ad, two bouncers stand in front of a church deciding who gets in and who doesn't. (For some reason right now, I can't link to the ad. When I can, I will post it.) The ad states that like Jesus, the UCC welcomes all persons regardless of their station in life and that includes gay folk. Well, CBS said no to the ad. Their reason? Look at this pathetic excuse:

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

This is an outrage. Because the UCC wanted to talk about inclusion of gays, this was deemed "unacceptable."

What a bunch of yellow bellied cowards. They caved into the Religious Right.

Frankly, gay folks should start a boycott or something to tell CBS and NBC that they are in the wrong.

And here is another cowardly thing: why is the larger media not focusing on this? As Josh Marshall notes in his Talking Points Memo Blog, one the daily paper in Arkon, Ohio is focusing on this. What, are you all scared too?

Remember