Election day is in 287 days. The day of liberation.

In regards to the Bush regime's pandering to the political right: there was an interesting piece on 60 Minutes about 2 years ago that exposed the Bush 2000 campaign strategy.

The Bushies specifically targeted the Catholic church organizations for financial and organizational support. The campaign reasoned that if the Catholic vote was in their corner, they would be in the White House.

Bush's "sancity of marriage" rhetoric should be seen in light of this strategy. I know several practicing Catholics, most of them older, that I would regard as moderates. But for some reason, when it comes to social issues, they have this blinding nostalgia for "how things used to be". And an allegiance to the Mother Church.

This allegiance is full of hypocrisy and unreason. Not unlike Mr. Bush's rhetoric.

Even better...from Friday on, in The Boondocks they were comparing the Democratic candidates to the Superfriends (but without the "Super")...which led to this, yesterday:

\"The Joker and Lex Luthor\"

Log Cabin people aren't coming to Bush's defense because he's not a Republican in the traditional sense of the word. This president crossed the line into reckless fiscal liberalism and blind social conservatism a long time ago. I nominally consider myself a liberal/libertarian Republican, but the current crop of GOP will probably keep me voting Democrat until at least 2006. (Not that anyone shouldn't have expected this...Bush, the CEO president, is running the country just like he ran his company -- that is, driving it into the ground.)

Ok, since none of my fellow Log Cabin members have posted in awhile, here's my take on all of this.

1. The President never actually said he favors a constitutional amendment. His exact words were: "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process." That hardly says to me that he intends to lead a campaign to get the amendment passed, it's simply acknowledging the undeniable fact that under our democratic system of government, if enough of the people want the constitution amended in one way or another, then acting through their Representatives, Senators and State Legislators, their wishes will be carried out.

2. What I find very telling are the reports this morning about how upset the right wing is with where Bush stopped. The brief reference he made last night amounts to nothing of substance. If he really wanted to play up to the right wing, he would have explicitly declared his support for the amendment. And he certainly wouldn't have gone on to make the reference about "each individual ha[ving] dignity and value."

3. Even though it doesn't amount to anything, don't get me wrong, I wish he hadn't said even that much on this subject. But I'm not a one-issue voter. I happen to agree with him on the war in Iraq, homeland security, the tax cuts, and many other issues which have a bigger impact on my life than this particular one.

4. I note that none of the Democratic candidates support gay marriage, although I realize all of them also oppose the constitutional amendment proposal. And let's not forget, it was President Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

5. I was very relieved to see last night that Karen Hughes is back in the saddle, having advised the President on the speech, and having agreed to work with him on the upcoming campaign. With her input as well as that of GOP chairman Ed Gillespie, the Republicans are going to prove themselves this year to be the party of the big tent, where inclusion wins!

Why do people keep saying that NONE of the Democratic candidates support gay marriage? THIS IS WRONG! Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Moseley Braun before she dropped out have all said they would support gay marriage. Certainly Kucinich and Sharpton don't have a chance in hell of being elected president, but both DO support gay marriage, so people should cease saying that all the Democrats do not do so.

Second, W knows exactly what's he doing in terms of these carefully crafted statements. Or Rove and Cheney and Karen Hughes, who was crowing on "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" last night about helping W write the confused pabulum he served up, surely do. Those three are about as shrewd and cunning as they come. Today, Ohio's Senate announced it has pushed through a new anti-gay marriage bill that also would disallow partner benefits (a la New Jersey and California), thus openly targeting gay people for discrimination. W is banking that more states will take Ohio's lead (and Ohio already HAS an anti-gay marriage law), obviating the need for him to push for the federal amendment. But even still, by going on record as supporting it, even with the nefarious "activist judges" code, he is letting his true feelings be known.

BTW, didn't W support the anti-gay sex law in Texas (and other states), both as governor AND as president? Does that sound like someone who respects homosexuals--he is willing to have you sent to jail for doing something that is intrinsically part of who you are?

And not one of the Democratic presidential candidates in office at the time when Bill signed DOMA supported it then and they don't support it now. BTW, according to the latest issue of The Advocate, most of the candidates do support civil union legislation.

I already know one of the neocons is going to bring up Ann Richards, so, let's put out that fire before they go ape shit over the issue.

BTW, speaking of Karen Hughes. In an interview on CNN she said, "George inherited a recession". HUH? He CREATED a recession! She's as stupid as he is...and that's pretty damn bad.

[ January 21, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

6iron...let me just say, coming from a family of Catholics, that the Church is crap sometimes. Anyone who can think for themselves is branded as a "heathen" or a "heretic" (yes even still today sometimes). Heaven forbid that a Catholic actually say that gay marriage won't destroy the church...because we all know that the moment that a gay couple gets married, the world is going to end.

I thought the best line in Dubya's speech last night was when he talked about how judges shouldn't be able to force their will on the people. Maybe he forgot how he was elected....he lost the popular vote, and only won the election because Florida judges imposed their will on the people.

Actually, DF, there is no such thing as a 7-year time period. The 27th Amendment, recently ratified, took 200 or so years to ratify.

Congress is the one who sets the time period required for an amendment to be ratified, and Congress can even change this after an amendment has been sent to the states. This occurred most recently with the ERA.

Then perhaps they should be reminded of this.

I asked this in another thread, RZ, and have still not received an answer, so I'll ask you this time: Just how specifically did Bush cost this country 2 million + jobs during his tenure so far? And please, no dancing around. As I asked puckman1, I'm just looking for someone to tell me how President Bush was specifically responsible for the loss of all those jobs.

[ January 21, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

What the chimp inherited was a huge surplus which he blew through in no time.

(fun fact - he also did this in Texas, entered with a surplus, left with a deficit)

Pluckman, please see my most recent post. Again, just HOW did President Bush specifically lose all these jobs in WA.?

Judges ignoring the U.S. Constitution and imposing their personal whims and ideological opinions on the populace is not "checks and balances." Too many federal judges have run amuck. This must stop.

Considering it was activist judges who created a "right" out of thin air, reversing this decision would be prudent. A decision wrongly decided then is still a decision wrongly decided now. BTW, a reversal of Roe v. Wade would simply result in the situation of status quo ante.

Also, remember that Dred Scott v. Danford was never reversed. Using your logic, had it been, that would have been "activist" judges in action.

So please, stop trying to justify your leftist viewpoints by anticonstitutional actions of a renegade Supreme Court.

So, I guess you could say that he goes thru surplus money that OTHERS created like the twins go thru a couple of bottles of Jack Daniels.

Point of fact, bobbie: Bush did indeed inherit a recession. He did not "start" one. I'd suggest you go study your timeline and history. Check with that big nonpartisan group that determines the start and end of recessions. As most folks also know, recessions don't begin and end at the flip of a switch, and the one Bush inherited did not "start" because of him.

The recession began in March 2001...
the story

MIB,

Perhaps you're new to Presidential politics. Here's how it works: The incumbent always takes credit for good economic news that hits during his term. He always tries to blame bad news on policies of his predecessor over which he had no control. (Every president of either party behaves in exactly this way).

People who understand even rudimentary economics (a VERY small percentage of the herd) know that things are more complex: The policies of President X relate to economic performance in complex ways. Economic outcomes depend on many factors, and the forces set in motion during any one administration may or may not be felt during that administration. (This works outside of economics too. The "Reagan" defense build-up that you Ronnie-slurpers love to credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union was begun, and begun in a big way, by one of your favorite bogeymen, Jimmy Carter. You can look it up.)

Getting back to the topic at hand:

Regardless of what economists teach, Presidents get to take credit for good economic news that hits during their terms, and they get saddled with the blame for the bad.

Thus it has ever been, thus shall it always be.

Now, you're obstinate, but you're not dumb. So I suspect you already knew this. And that means your "request" to be told how Bush is personally responsible for the job losses, is really just a disingenuous blast of hot air.

Thank you for proving my point. Now, just whose policies were in effect at that time, bobbie? Answer: Clinton's.

Bush didn't get anything through Congress till well after this date, and the effective date of such legislation wasn't until 2002. So, again, thanks for confirming my above statement. (I had hoped you'd reference that source.)

You're too funny. It has consistenly been the liberals here--puckman, DenverFan, et. al.--who have shouted from the mountain tops that Bush has cost America all these jobs. If they're going to state this, I shall then ask them: How?

I've been in presidential politics for some time, believe me, and I am quite aware of how presidents get the blame for the bad stuff and rarely the credit for the good stuff (depending on who's in office when, usually).

I am gratified to see you actually understand this. It's too bad so many others here never seem to do so.

Can you say defecits? How bout bad policies perhaps??. But I think #1 would be record defecits, thats how.

Puckman, is it that difficult for you to answer honestly? If you cannot do so, then admit you're just a partisan who cannot be truthful.

I asked you to specifically state how Bush cost America all these jobs. In another thread, you mumbled some generalities about health care, a problem that has been around for decades. Now you're mumbling about deficits, which do not appear overnight. Secondly, deficits do not always lead to job loss. Finally, you say "policies." Well...? Exactly which policies? Just how did a certain policy result in the loss of jobs?

You know, with all these jobs going overseas, the word "NAFTA" comes to mind. And just WHO signed that, huh? wink

[ January 21, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Hulaboy:

As others pointed out, some of the Democratic candidates do, in fact, support gay marriage. And Clinton's signing of DOMA has been hashed out in his favor on these boards enough times. But, to me, that paragraph sums up just how weak your response was. I trust you want some of the more anti-Republican, anti-Bush people here to have a better impression of LCRs. If so, you'll have to come up with something more credible than "the Dems are no better, so there!" Because they are, for the most part, better. As you noted, all the Democratic candidates oppose the constitutional amendment proposal.

Again, what Bush said last night was wrong, it was craven of him, and you should let him know. It was an attack on gay marriage that offered no alternatives. Why any gay person would see something positive in that is beyond me. If the religious right are angry that he didn't go far enough, well, gee, I guess we should be grateful that he didn't propose locking us up for being gay or something.

If you want a big tent and inclusion and all that other nonsense, then I suggest you lobby for positive messages from your party for gay Americans. Messages that include SOMETHING about legal protections for gay Americans who have or want to commit to a partner for life. Just like straight Americans have.

To me, the points you raise aren't very party-like. Republicans generally do a good job making convincing arguments for what they believe in. A conservative case against gay marriage perhaps. Or an economic one. But what you wrote is part blather, part dissembling, adding up to something with little value. You did the Log Cabin Republicans no favors. Which is a pity. Some of us understand and appreciate the value of having gay Republicans in the GOP. What we can't stomach, however, is someone rushing to the defense of an anti-gay position, and doing it badly.

At the least, if our President had to address gay marriage, you would think that the 1.1 million gays who voted for him would merit a positive message. Something about civil unions, for example. If marriage is important enough to straight Americans to merit discussion and protection on the level of national security, jobs and tax cuts, then, regardless of your personal situation, you can bet that it's plenty important to gay Americans. He should address it in a positive way. Maybe you can help him do this.

Even if we did have the right to marry I'm not sure I would. The bottom line for me is this:

I want to have the exact same rights as all other Americans. I'm not look for anything more, anything less, not even special rights. I just want to be equal with everyone else. To pick apart his speech about the constitutional amendment being supported, the part about "if necessary", etc. is crazy. The bottom line is gay Americans are 2nd class citizens and do not have the same rights as all other Americans...bottom line.

Yeah, right, Al Sharpton & Dennis Kucinich. I stand corrected. LOL.

As I said, I don't agree with Bush's comments about the sanctity of marriage, and so I'm not going to defend or apologize for them. If that's what you were looking for in my post, sorry to disappoint.

But like I also said earlier, I'm not a one issue voter, and the fact I disagree with him on this particular issue doesn't lead me to go support a candidate who wants to take away my tax cut, go to the UN to get a permission slip before taking out regimes hostile to American interests, etc., etc.

It's really no different from all the gay dems who continued to worship Clinton despite Don't Ask Don't Tell and his signing of DOMA. Interesting how you can summarily conclude "Clinton's signing of DOMA has been hashed out in his favor" while finding unforgivable Bush's mere statement that "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process." The logic escapes me.

Sorry if you didn't like my comments, but I can't say I'm surprised. wink

You forgot Braun. And now there's Clark. So, it's not just the inconsequential blacks and Dennis Kucinich who were not worthy of your attention.

You disagree with what Bush said. Okay. I hope this translates into getting something positive done for gays instead of empty talk about inclusion and big tents.

And, yes, you're not a one-issue voter. Bully for you. But the one issue involving gay people that the President brought up in his address to the nation was against gay marriage. And no alternative. Nothing positive. Not exactly inclusive. Karen Hughes vetted it. So, it's hard to believe that she'll make him do an about-face anytime soon.

The one time he addressed gay Americans, he did in a negative way. Red scare talk of the threat of "a candidate who wants to take away my tax cut, go to the UN to get a permission slip before taking out regimes hostile to American interests" is besides the point in a discussion on gay issues. He's terrible on gay issues. Terrible. And to someone who wants to get married, it may be a breaking issue. I hope you can get something positive done instead of trying to turn a harsh light on Democrats or boosting him on unrelated issues. Patrick Guerrero does a good job doing this btw.

[ January 21, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

If anyone needs a good laugh here's the Log Cabinetts response to the chimp:
http://www.lcr.org/press/20040121.asp

Log Cabin: Please master chimp, could you please kick us in the head again...?

BAMMM

LC: Thank you sir, could we have another...?

BAMMM

LC (crawls back in closet) Well be back for more later master chimp.

I think that's a credible response. You have to dig for the criticism, but it's there.

In other words, he found Bush's comments lacking. Yeah, he could be more forceful.

But you wonder: If he's demanding the way the religious right are, will he get kicked out of the tent? If he's obsequious and grovelling, will he be ineffective? Who knows. He sure has his work cut out for him. Seems like a good guy. Much better than other LCRs because he admits there are glaring faults, points them out and tries to do something about it instead of sticking his head in the sand or doing a bad job trying to defend them.

OK once again you prove the point that an activist judge is simply a judge who rules against what you believe in.

Although the clever phrase "Activist Judges" wasn't used then, I am almost certain that the white populations of the south were quite furious with judges imposing thier will on segregation laws and the "sanctity" of racial separation, among other unfair and idiotic racial policies of the day.

Hmmm..... Brown v. BoE.... ring a bell?

Oh and didn't that "Radical Supreme Court" you just described give you Bush in 2000 and the right to have sex in 2003? Assuming you are willing to participate in an action so unsactimonious as gay sex.

[ January 21, 2004, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

No, an activist judge is one who substitutes his/her own ideological bias for the Constitution. With Roe there was absolutely no basis in constitutional law for the decision. Even Justice William Brennan privately conceded to Harry Blackmun that in order to justify the decision, they must unilaterally \"declare the unborn as nonpersons.\"

Considering that Blackmun said the decision was based on the emanations of the penumbra of the 14th Amendment--talk about a crock if there ever was one--it's not difficult to see how that decision was completely without a constitutional foundation.

You just don't understand, do you? If a federal judge, even one in the south, follows the 14th amendment and makes a desegregation decision, that is not \"activism.\" He is following the Constitution. There were several amendments ratified to counter such problems, and the fact that redneck southerners refused to follow the Law is not the subject here.

Have you even read Bush v. Gore? Have you read the entire decision? Have you read the 12th Amendment? Have you read the specific USC's that directly apply to the Florida debacle? If you had, you would truly understand just why the U.S. Supreme Court had no choice but to rule as they did when they agreed to hear the case. In sum, they were following the Constitution and the one significant USC that applied to the situation in Florida. Even the FL. Supreme Court's own Chief Justice, a Democrat, warned his comrades that what they were doing was a violation of both the U.S. Constitution and federal election law.

The U.S. Supreme Court wound up agreeing with him.

So you must agree with Scalia, that the Supreme Court took sides when they struck down sodomy laws. And that there is no basis in the constitution to protect privacy or sexual conduct between consenting adults.

MIB, you are so blinded by the right it sickens me, you really have that holier-than-thou attitude don't you?

I just can't see how you justify voting for these guys when they stand to eliminate any chance you have at equality. Do you loath yourself so much that you think you should not be allowed such rights?

Take your polital double-speak and shove it up your @$$
I bet you and Ann Coulter would make a lovely couple, hey and you could get married too!

[ January 21, 2004, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

It's kind of funny how Bill Clinton never had a recession AFTER he took office and now, we've been in this slump for almost 3 years...and W has been in office for exactly 3 years, why couldn't the pink-ass-chimp fix the problem with all of the other Repugs in the House and Senate? I look forward to watching monkey face's concession speech...it should be very entertaining. Maybe Barb will stand up and tell the country to go to hell. I might record it and sell it on OutSports!

"'Dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities'?!? What the f**k is that -- box lunches for the scientists?" - Jon Stewart

I'm not a one-issue voter either -- and I wish that the Bushies who are rapping his knuckles over the marriage-discrimination issue would realize it's of a piece with his entire agenda ... stomping on the interests of anyone who isn't a wealthy straight white male.

I just heard on ABC news while driving across town, that Kodak is laying off between 12-14,000 of its global work force. But, wait a minute. WE are in a "recovery" now right???? What gives? Time for another tax cut for the wealthy. Yeah baby...yeah!

Heated thread here. I don't claim any political party affiliation, so I'm amused by what I've read here. I don't think it's accurate to claim Bush only commented on one "gay issue", that of gay marriage. I like to think that I'm just as affected by other American issues. Unfortunately, gay people lose credibility when they seek to define themselves by "gay issues". The only way gay people will be treated equally with straights is when we shift the focus away from sexual orientation. The radical right and and religious fanatics will have a much harder time treating us differently when we focus on our common interests such as economics. It is much easier to dehumanize us when all we focus on is being gay first and human second. I am human first and gay second.....not closeted....not ashamed....proud and confindent. I certainly never voted for John Ascroft for either governor or senator because he is the type to put us in ovens. He is far more dangerous than Bush because he really is a religious zealot. Bush is much more practial. Having said that, I have no idea who I will vote for. I'm interested in how the dem primary plays out. I think they have a lot of potential this time around.

The problem with that sentiment is that the radical right, and apparently the current administration, already does not consider us as humans - we are second-class life forms who can be made easy scapegoats. I am not a one-issue voter either (and find both the domestic policies and the international screw-ups of this administration enough to boot them out of office), but when that "one issue" is whether I am a full and complete human being, then that matters.

Tuesday night the American President stated that I am not part of society, the culture, the country. Anyone who supports my right to legal recognition of my relationshiop is anti-American, and against the will of the people. That is one of the most bare-faced statements of bigotry that there can ever be, and I wish every single self-hating closeted fag in the administration would find the balls to get up from their desks, submit their resignations, and leave the Administration high and dry, and that includes Mary "the traitor" Cheney.

Correction. That's what the radical right wing was hoping he would say. What the President actually said was: "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

As President Reagan liked to say, facts are stubborn things. But I wish we could stick to the facts in this debate.

Well, SportsFanPatrick, just keep in mind that though the good people of Missouri (including many of my relatives) had the good sense NOT to return John Ashcroft to the Senate, "practical" ole' W went out and made him Attorney General, an extremely powerful governmental position, from which he has been able to do greater harm than he could have in the limited power role of GOP Senator, even though that party controls that legislative body. W's appointment of Ashcroft is the kind of thing you should consider; what does it say about the president that he would appoint someone so virulently anti-gay (and with a racist track record) to such a powerful and prominent post? Yes, he has appointed gay people to ambassadorships, and has a black Secretary of State and a black National Security Advisor, but what power do ambassadors have, and look at how he's basically neutered or blunted Colin Powell's efforts at every stage. Ashcroft has basically been allowed to run amok--up to the point at which the courts step in to rein him in.

Given your thoughts about Ashcroft, is your vote still open given W's appointment of him--because Ashcroft wasn't the only GOPer out of a job, and he didn't become AG through prayer (or magic)? What else has W done that you agree with, and that a Democrat would change to your and the country's disadvantage? Certainly it wouldn't be the economy. It wouldn't be fiscal responsibility. It wouldn't be gay issues, or environmental issues, or subsidies for defunct industries like steel, or relations with our former allies. Unless you are very well off, it wouldn't even be with taxes. And NO Democrat taking office is going to rush the troops out of Iraq, because it is now logistically impossible to do so.

And the fact is that the Bush administration is anti-gay.

Since I agree with the judges who have ruled that gays are human beings with equal rights, I cannot be part of "the people" because the judges have not forced "their arbitrary will" on me. The President's statements were very clear - when he talks about "the people" he does not include fags, dykes, those who support us, or the judges who believe we are human beings.

Well put CPT!

Another thing that cracks me up is the responses from the LCR. Do any of these guys really think the Repubs even read thier letters. I am sure more than 99% of the Republican leaders who got this response just laughed and moved on.

The Republican party is a Christian organization and unless you rewrite the bible from within, they will never recognize the LCR.

Great point about Ashcoft Fantomas. If you recall he lost his senate race to a "dead guy". I voted for the late Governor. I was sick when W appointed him AG, but then I thought the lesser of two evils was for him to be in charge of inforcing laws as AG rather than creating laws as Senator. This was before 911 after which Ashcroft suddenly became much more dangerous.

I'm not a big fan of Bush. I didn't vote for him. But I'm not going to use gay marriage as a litmus test for my vote. I don't equate gay marriage with equal rights. The hypocricy of the "sanctity of marriage" is just ridiculous. It's sounds nice to define it between a man and a woman, but the reality is we cannot define man and woman. For example, I know of a person born female, lived as a lesbian, had a sex change to a man, married the lesbian girlfriend. Now they live as a legally married couple....and the state is none the wiser. Then there is the gay immigrant who marries an American woman for a green card. I don't feel bad that I can't be a part of these farces.

My point is, I don't want to place so much emphasis on an issue that will probably be moot in near future. Marriage is man-made institution that may not be around much longer. Should gay couples have all the same rights? Absolutely. If this can be achieved faster by not calling it marriage, then I'm all for it.

Wait, how could this be? The last I heard from Sir Chimp was that "jobs were on the rise", whatever the hell that means. Oh yeah, he meant in India, never mind.

Recent polls have consistently shown a clear majority of the American people do not support gay marriage. The President's statement (a) acknowledges that reality, and ( acknowledges that in our democracy, if enough of the people want to amend the constitution, they have the power to do so.

It seems to me the efforts of the gay community would be better spent trying to convince that majority of the American people that their views are misguided, instead of blaming Bush and the Republican Party for everything that's wrong in our society.

Huh!? eek! ....I didn't think it was possible to hear a quote more ludicrous than the ones Bush made on Monday night but I think this one comes close....exactly WHEN do you think HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE will "no longer be around", Patrick? :confused:

When God looks down upon the Earth and sees that people have made a master chimp who wants to pretend like he's a cowboy the most powerful living thing in the world. God will be upset that we didnt choose to use our brains and instead decided to blindly follow this chimp and wont protect us from it anymore. Then one day the chimp is jumping up and down and is now tired of playing cowboy so it decides to start blowing things up and the world is destroyed in a nuclear armageddon, so neither heterosexual or any type of marriage exist anymore.

I think that's the most rational explanation I've seen yet, Sonix! ....the sad part is that it will probably take something exactly like you describe to occur before any members of Shrub's incompetent administration come to their senses and begin to realize that ALL Americans are valued members of society -- and NOT just those right-wing bigots who support his discriminatory policies. frown

New ABC News / Washington Post poll shows

• Same-sex marriage: Oppose 55%, Favor 41%
• Gay civil unions: Oppose 51%, Favor 46%.
• Amend U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to marry, 38%
• Each state should make its own laws on gay marriage, 58%

Accompanying photo of the perfect middle-aged, masculine, model-handsome white couple holding hands. Such nice men.