Yeah, right. It's terrible to "vilify" George W. Bush for supporting anti-sodomy laws. But you feel free to characterize your opponents as
"whining, feeling sorry for themselves, blaming others for everything, screeching..."
Gee, thanks.

BoSox - I disagree with your labeling and basically invalidating those who criticize the Republican party and their methods as victims or whatever terms used; that is their right as it is yours and mine. That's a great way to avoid the issues. The Republican party in general is never shy about demonizing "liberals, left wingers, etc.," and that is partially why they're in office right now. Generally speaking, the Democratic party has been way too passive in responding to the aggressive, overbearing actions of the Republicans both pre and post 9/11...As Bush stomps through office, imposing a terribly right wing agenda wherever and whenever he can, and often under the patriotic umbrella of 9/11, it's not the time to be polite. Our country is in trouble and the macho hawking of this administration is only adding fuel to the fire. We can rally around our government in defending our nation but we can't just let it run slipshod over our rights and our opinions. Why are the feds worrying about things like medical marijuana in northern california? Anti-sodomy laws? Etc., etc...Luckily, we've stopped the Alaskan drilling and will hopefully stop anymore environmental mistakes. Eventually, perhaps alternative energy sources will have to more seriously considered. The horrible fight over oil is a long, tedious, bloody battle; when will it stop?

I fully agree with Rosie's actions and others who speak out constructively and aggressively about anti-discrimination. I fully agree in theory with your methods of gaining acceptance and increasing dialogue, and that is usually my way as well. But, it's my right as it is anyone else's to decide to do it differently, or even to tell someone who condemns or judges them to simply f**k off. Sometimes that starts a dialogue as well.

[quote]Originally posted by Bryan:
Luckily, we've stopped the Alaskan drilling and will hopefully stop anymore environmental mistakes. Eventually, perhaps alternative energy sources will have to more seriously considered. The horrible fight over oil is a long, tedious, bloody battle; when will it stop?

---

Bryan, have you every been to ANWR? You wouldn't last five minutes there, it's a barren, desolate s#@&hole that would probably look prettier after a few oil spills. And you haven't "stopped" Alaskan drilling, you've merely delayed it until the GOP takes back the Senate in 2002 (Wellstone, Carnahan, Johnson all lose, Hutchinson holds on in AR, Sununnu wins in NH) and has enough votes to drill that place senseless. In the meantime, we Republicans will just have to content ourselves with poisoning the occassional lake or stream. By the way, does anybody have any arsenic I can borrow? I'm all out . . .

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Thank you William, I'm sure those six months worth of oil that Alaska might provide aren't out of danger yet...There's certainly nobody around who likes a good bloody battle for oil more than a gaggle of rapid Republican senators! Perhaps you can be their mascot! What fun! What purpose!

So, umm, are these noble, "gay friendly" Republicans even willing to accept money from groups like the Log Cabin kids yet??

Why would you allign yourself with a party that seeks to, at the very least, limit your civil rights?

In any event, political discourse can be healthy without getting personal. Really. It happens now and then.

I agree, curtj. In discussing drilling for oil, all we appear to have come up with is vitriol.

As to straight GOPers accepting LCR money, not only do they accept ours, but they also give their own to LCR candidates. In fact, its was moderate Republican money that paid my Congressional filing fee to the tune of nearly $1,500 - and that's not counting all the fundraisers and testimonials these folks have been giving me. Tbe unreported story here is that there is an active and supportive moderate base in the GOP who does not at all shy away from supporting moderate, prochoice candidates like me just because we also happen to be gay. And with such support, others will follow, both in the ranks of candidates and contributors.

That's great, actually. I'm curious how these moderate GOP's feel when it comes to anti-discrimination laws, civil rights, environment issues, etc.? Sometime I get the feeling there's a whole bunch of Democrats and a whole bunch of Republicans who would like to get together to form a moderate third party. But, they all have too many people to please, too many deals they have to make, to actually make it happen.

Bryan, One of the mainstream GOP organizations in CA, and a key supporter of my campaign, is the California Republican League, or CRL (URL: www.republicanleague.org We are pro-choice, pro-environment and conservationist, pro separation of church and state, and we oppose discimination on all levels, including sexual orientation. We have been actively working, with increasing success over the past decade, to root out the radical right from the GOP and get our party back to its own Progressive, good government roots. You just don't hear much about us because the media appear to have a vested interest in portraying all GOPers as hidebound conservatives. But, it just ain't so!
Check out our site and see for yourself!

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: gmginsfo to correct URL]

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

That's great to hear and great for the country. I'll definitely check out the site..thanks..

[quote]Originally posted by Bryan:
Sometime I get the feeling there's a whole bunch of Democrats and a whole bunch of Republicans who would like to get together to form a moderate third party. But, they all have too many people to please, too many deals they have to make, to actually make it happen.

---

Take Arlen Specter, senator from PA. He was once a Democrat, and changed to a Republican a lot of years ago. Now he's a high-ranking senator. He ran for President as a moderate candidate (though I don't think he's as moderate as he claims--he is more of a "weather-vane" politician in that he often votes one way and then later on votes differently depending on how close it is to the re-election campaign). He railed against the influence and control and policies of the ultra-right wing. And predictably, he was kicked to the curb big-time by his party. If he got 5 percent in any primary it was a miracle.

If he really felt that strongly about the ultra-right and if he had any guts at all, he'd have left the Republican party. He could've become an independent like Jeffords or joined some third party if he didn't want to return to the Democrats. But he is still a Republican.

If all the moderates did form their own party, they could have a lot of influence. But they don't have the guts to take that chance, which is a shame because they could easily get my votes. Out of pure outrage and disgust, on principle I will NOT vote for a Republican candidate for any office.

In 1999 in Philadelphia there was a Republican candidate for mayor who was very much a moderate. Both overall and on gay issues, he was a superior candidate, and I already decided I didn't want to vote for the Democrat. I was very much tempted to vote for the GOP guy but I simply could NOT get past the party he is aligned with. That year I voted for candidates in all the other races but for the mayor's race I didn't pull any switch. There were no 3rd-party candidates who I could choose, so I chose no one.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

I think that part of the problem here is that everybody is using party labels when they are really talking about liberalism versus conservatism.

I do not fit easily into either category. I am a registered Independent. I used to be a democrat but Clinton cured me of that.

I am very conservative on some issues and very liberal on others. Here's where I am:

Abortion: Reluctantly pro-choice. Frankly I hate it but I would rather have the choice in the woman's hands than the governments. I do believe though that life begins at conception and I would encourage pregnant woman to put the baby up for adoption rather than to kill it.

Civil unions: Well, duh, I'm in favor of them. LOL Liberal on this issue.

Taxes: Definitely conservative on this. We pay far too much already and I'm tired of it.

Guns: Conservative on this too. I'm right on the verge of joining the NRA and the GOAL group here in MA. I encourage more gay people to take basic firearms safety classes and to own their own guns. Self-defense is everybody's responsibility.

War on terrorism: Firmly in W.'s camp. I do not want the liberals back in the white house in 2004. Clinton's utter lack of a spine and refusal to overwhelmingly retaliate after numerous attacks by Bin Laden led directly to the massacre at the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. The liberals cannot be trusted with the White House right now. The threat from weapons of mass destruction (particularly a suitcase nuke) is far too serious to trust them, particularly Gore.

Social Security: I favor choice here too. As gay people it makes far more sense for us to control as much of our own money as possible rather than be stuck in a government program that provides a crappy rate of return and discriminates against us.

Now, there's a few issues for you. I see us having a presence in both parties as a great thing. It makes it far harder for one or the other to discriminate against us.

So far I think W. is doing a good job. Stupidly I voted for Gore but I would not do so again.

My two cents, take it as you will.

Regarding Arlen Specter, he is not a "moderate" but a full blown leftist who, as I understand it, recently paid a friendly visit to Fidel Castro. Specter isn't even a big supporter of tax cuts, which seems to be the bare minimum a Republican should support. (Specter is also rumored to be a horrible boss who has earned the nickname "Mr. Burns" from his staff.)

As far as Specter not doing well in a primary, that doesn't prove anything. Phil Gramm performed poorly in the '96 election primaries, and he's hardly a lefty or even a moderate. (Other underwhelming primary contenders: Dan Quayle, Gary Bauer, John Kasich, etc, etc, - all conservatives.) Bottom line, some people just don't make good presidential candidates. (And if you've ever heard Specter talk, you'd know he's just not that inspiring.) That doesn't mean there's some massive party conspiracy.

[quote]Originally posted by Treebeard:

War on terrorism: Firmly in W.'s camp. I do not want the liberals back in the white house in 2004. Clinton's utter lack of a spine and refusal to overwhelmingly retaliate after numerous attacks by Bin Laden led directly to the massacre at the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. The liberals cannot be trusted with the White House right now. The threat from weapons of mass destruction (particularly a suitcase nuke) is far too serious to trust them, particularly Gore.

---

Are you KIDDING??? Bush, Ashcroft, et. al. also did little before 9-11, and since then have fumbled on a series of issues, including reforming and streamlining the INS, whose ineptitude knows no bounds (issuing visas to Atta and Shehhi in 2002, months after 9-11!!!); poor protection of our nuclear facilities; slow implementation of the new airport security rules and reshuffling at the FAA; Ridge's ludicrous warnings and refusal to come clean about what the hell he's up to; and so on! I mean, why haven't these folks, with the BILLIONS our tax dollars have funneled to the CIA, FBI and the government, solved the anthrax scares??? The FBI couldn't even catch longtime spies! WHAT ARE THEY DOING???

Jailing thousands of muslims and pushing through highly intrusive laws may seem like a workable plan, but I'm not convinced. We need better counterterrorist activity, better immigration rules and enforcement, better strategic protection plans for the country as a whole and for specific industries and facilities, better transparency and cooperation among all our intelligence and national defense agencies, and an administration that is willing to tell the truth to us regularly.

Clinton had MANY faults as a President, but he had repeatedly authorized attempts to get Osama, something neither HE NOR BUSH has managed to do so far. (How they cannot find this 6'6", bearded psycho is beyond me, but then I'm not a spy or a soldier, so....) Gore, during the 2000 campaign, mentioned terrorism as much if not more than Bush, who, like Ashcroft, believed the threat from people like Osama bin Laden not to be as great as it proved to be. I would much rather have John Kerry, John McCain, or someone else with a MILITARY background in office right now, to tell the truth.

Bush's obsession with oil and his links to the energy lobby are among the greatest dangers to our national security that exist. His bumbling on the Israel-Palestine issue also is endangering our national security. (His administration even gave millions of dollars in 2001 to the Taliban, supposedly for poppy extermination, though some reports have it that it was to facilitate an oil pipeline there, which is going full steam now that Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan are all in the U.S. camp.)

If we were serious about protecting our homeland and future, we would begin immediately to move towards renewable sources of energy, greater conservation, and stricter policies of engagement with the chief funder of Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia. We also would not be supporting coups in Venezuela or helping a repressive Colombian regime, two acts that could definitely come back to haunt us...we never learn.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Bush's ... administration even gave millions of dollars in 2001 to the Taliban, supposedly for poppy extermination, though some reports have it that it was to facilitate an oil pipeline there, which is going full steam now that Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan are all in the U.S. camp.

---

The $41 million Bush gave to the Taliban was reported at Outsports last September. For news on the pipeline, try
http://www.myafghan.com . There are 14 hits for articles containing the word "pipeline" in 2002. Here's a recent one:
http://www.myafghan.com/news2.asp?id=-6235...search=pipeline

Also try
http://www.library.umass.edu/sept11/afghanistan.html

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
As far as Specter not doing well in a primary, that doesn't prove anything. Phil Gramm performed poorly in the '96 election primaries, and he's hardly a lefty or even a moderate. (Other underwhelming primary contenders: Dan Quayle, Gary Bauer, John Kasich, etc, etc, - all conservatives.) Bottom line, some people just don't make good presidential candidates. (And if you've ever heard Specter talk, you'd know he's just not that inspiring.) That doesn't mean there's some massive party conspiracy.

---

It's no conspiracy. It's a simple fact. The Republicans who dominate the primaries are the ultra-conservatives. Anyone who doesn't ideologically line up gets stomped. As for the others you mention above, they're either utter boobs or totally unknown nationally, and if a big-time candidate, a Bush or a Dole, is running they have no chance because they agree more than disagree with the lead candidates. Specter was the only one who brought something different to the table, and he was utterly rejected. And so was John McCain, eventually.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
It's no conspiracy. It's a simple fact. The Republicans who dominate the primaries are the ultra-conservatives. Anyone who doesn't ideologically line up gets stomped.

---

Joe, this makes no sense. Ultra-conservatives? W's far more moderate than Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, and Dan Quayle. Those three toed the ideological line, yet very much got stomped. And McCain got stomped because he's pissed off waaaaaay too many folks in the party. Ideology had nothing to do with it. (PS: I'm a serious McCain-iac.)

The selection of candidates within a party is so different from the general election. In a general election, it's (usually) narrowed down to two candidates, the campaign is much more high-profile, voter turnout is much higher, and voters come from all parties. In primaries, there are usually more than two candidates, and a relatively miniscule percentage of voters (usually just those registered with that party) turn out. And these party faithful have a long track record of choosing piss-poor candidates, e.g., Mondale, Dole (and God forbid Gore in 2004). I don't know if I can agree with the "ultra-conservative" remark, but no denying, the choice of the select few involved in the primary process often doesn't make for the best candidate in the general election.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
And McCain got stomped because he's pissed off waaaaaay too many folks in the party. Ideology had nothing to do with it. (PS: I'm a serious McCain-iac.)

---

BSR, As a former McCain-supporting Californian who had the privilege to meet and work with the man on several occasions, I need to tell you that there was another aspect to his loss, at least in the CA primary. John took the very courageous move, shortly before our primary, of telling the radical right wing of the CAGOP to blow off and he pulled no punches in doing so. PO'd by his challenge to their groupthink, the RR came out en masse against him and Bush took CA in the primary. But I admire him to this day for his courage in telling those jerks to get lost and I continue to work within the GOP to rid it of them as well.

tee hee ... I have no doubt that Senator Maverick, er, McCain would pull a stunt like that. I've always liked politicians who occasionally get a kick out of pissing people off [see: Weld, Bill]. I'm not entirely sure on this since the primary calendar is a very distant memory, but wasn't McCain's nomination bid lost lo-o-o-o-ng before California? He knew that W had all but sealed up the nomination, yet his Senate seat was secure, so why not piss off a few fossilized California Republicans?

Arlen Spector - the creator of the Single Bullet Theory - enuf said

And rather than Democratic party ineptness, a much greater danger of another attack on American soil results from Bush's and the boys in the Petroleum Club's uncontrolled feeding at the trough of Saudi oil, and the lack of real foreign-policy backbone that results from THAT particular quid-pro-quo...

Third party - maybe one "universal" issue, articulated by the right person, could launch that in a significant way. I don't know if any candidate leaps out at me right now, but I think I know a candidate issue - a complete replacement of the currebt Internal Revenue Code with some form of flat tax. I think a well-thought-out plan, well-articulated, would find a very receptive and significantly large base of support

My personal view would be to split the current income tax into two - a true EARNINGS tax based SOLELY on dollar income with NO exemptions (and I mean NONE - slay the sacred cows once and for all)!!! A second tax would address non-earned income - here you can play with deductions, credits, and all that other mumbo-jumbo. But in my view the concept of a high marginal rate with deductability is the reason the tax code is the morass that it is, and inherently favors those with great means who use their wealth to support the inclusion of more and more exceptions and windfalls.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:


Joe, this makes no sense. Ultra-conservatives? W's far more moderate than Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, and Dan Quayle. Those three toed the ideological line, yet very much got stomped.

---

My view is based on his record (including his time as Texas governor) and not on his words of "I'm a uniter, not a divider."