You are welcome to have your personal feelings, just don't delude yourself about the GOP. Rather than being the bastion of idealistic romanticism, they are the party of raw, cynical power. They sought to effect a coup d'etat with a ridiculous impeachment of a sitting President, they stole a Presidential election, and they are talking up a war that does not need to take place.

Oh, by the way, their "family values" idiocy is really meant to exclude gay people from taking our place at the table in American society. Just remember that when ant-gay decisions are rendered by conservative judges, when AIDS organizations are prevented from talking about sex to consenting adults, and when the legislative process is used against us.

You are welcome to have your personal feelings, just don't delude yourself about the GOP. Rather than being the bastion of idealistic romanticism, they are the party of raw, cynical power. They sought to effect a coup d'etat with a ridiculous impeachment of a sitting President, they stole a Presidential election, and they are talking up a war that does not need to take place.

Oh, by the way, their "family values" idiocy is really meant to exclude gay people from taking our place at the table in American society. Just remember that when ant-gay decisions are rendered by conservative judges, when AIDS organizations are prevented from talking about sex to consenting adults, and when the legislative process is used against us.

Sorry, m1011, I disagree on all counts. As for your dire speculations, I won't just wait and see if they ever materialize, but will continue to work against their ever occurring, which I consider highly unlikely.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
don't delude yourself about the GOP...They sought to effect a coup d'etat with a ridiculous impeachment of a sitting President,... and they are talking up a war that does not need to take place.

---

(ridiculous attempt at impeaching a sitting president) Sounds like the Democrats attempt at impeaching Nixon in the 70s & Reagan in the 80s....(and the war that does not need to take place )- sounds like Vietnam & Democratic Pres. Johnson)

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]

Are you really equating the offenses committed by Nixon and Reagan (to a lesser extent Reagan since I'll give him some Alzheimer's credit for bad decisions) with President Clinton?? Wow. Amazing. Check with history on that one in 20 years, or maybe, now.

[quote]Originally posted by mattkorey:
Are you really equating the offenses committed by Nixon and Reagan (to a lesser extent Reagan since I'll give him some Alzheimer's credit for bad decisions) with President Clinton?? Wow. Amazing.

---

OK - sorry - Clinton WAS impeached - those other two weren't. My mistake. Have aHappy Thanksgiving !

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]

Yes, and we all know how horrible it felt to be lied to about Monica. It's the worst crime in the history of the United States! We have the Republicans and their rabid prosecuter to thank for spending millions of taxpayer's dollars to impeach a sitting president with a great record, a strong economy and high respect worldwide...And now look what great shape we're in thanks to the new administration.

I've been hearing even diehard Republicans lately express great doubt and mistrust for this administration. We've got extra pollution and more logging to look forward to now in addition to a horrible economy, worldwide disdain, multiple wars, and of course, the curbing of many of our civil rights....Go on, folks, keep talking about Clinton...keep those heads firmly buried in the sand.

Please tell me the you know Nixon was not only going to be impeached but also removed from office. Why do you think he resigned, just to get to San Clemente earlier? That is the sort of comparison that I wouldn't even further labor to explain or defend or whatever. That just ain't good smarts as my dad would say.

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
Oh, by the way, their "family values" idiocy is really meant to exclude gay people from taking our place at the table in American society. Just remember that when ant-gay decisions are rendered by conservative judges, when AIDS organizations are prevented from talking about sex to consenting adults, and when the legislative process is used against us.

---

Prosecuting the war is easier than finding Osama bin Laden, "dead or alive."

The Supreme Court has decided to take on the Texas sodomy law case [Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102] (as well as the University of Michigan affirmative action cases [Grutter v. Bollinger, 02-241, Gratz v. Bollinger, 02-516]), and since the court is {rightly} seen as being partisan towards the Republicans, decisions in favor of upholding the horrible sodomy laws could have a powerful energizing effect on Democrats and progressive voters. Although some state legislatures and courts have struck sodomy laws from the books, Louisiana just reaffirmed its 197-year-old law banning anal AND oral sex, and the Texas case involved police entering the PRIVATE HOME of the two plaintiffs and arresting them. They were later convicted of misdemeanor violations of the Texas law and fined $200.

Here's an article about what you posted

Unbelievable

It's just so disconcerting to see that a large number of people believe that the government should be able to tell us we can't have sex a certain way. There's just no logical reasoning, it seems like something that shouldn't be split down party lines.

FT, I see your "5-day rule" crosses topic lines. Don't you think it just might be posible that if the Court upholds both states' laws, it just might "energize" more GOPers, as well as independents? I do and, much as I hope the Court will use this chance to reverse Bowers v. Hardwick, hope that its reaffirmance will have exactly that effect on the fence sitters in all parties.

I disagree with your statement that the Court is "rightly seen as being partisan towards Republicans." The Court did what it had to in reigning in the FL Sup. Ct. - by a 7-2 margin, mind you - and Bush is our President. Get used to it, as some "progressives" say. (I can see LaFollette and TR rolling in their graves whenever the name of their brain child is assumed by the Left, with whose current fantasies I seriously doubt they would agree.)

DCG, you're right - this issue shouldn't be split down party lines. Perhaps if the gay Left hadn't abandoned working with the GOP and not started demonizing it, things wouldn't be that way. But they are so now we have one more row to hoe. A little patient bi-partisanship long ago could have gone a long way towards preventing this state of affairs.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:


DCG, you're right - this issue shouldn't be split down party lines.

---

I just hope the scotus takes this opportunity to send back a unanimous verdict in the direction of common sense.

As do I, but with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas there, I doubt if we'll do any better than 6-3.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
I disagree with your statement that the Court is "rightly seen as being partisan towards Republicans." The Court did what it had to in reigning in the FL Sup. Ct. - by a 7-2 margin, mind you - and Bush is our President. Get used to it, as some "progressives" say. (I can see LaFollette and TR rolling in their graves whenever the name of their brain child is assumed by the Left, with whose current fantasies I seriously doubt they would agree.)

---

The GOP in its party platforms abandons gay people; the leadership (Lott; Hastert & DeLay) of both houses of Congress is openly homophobic. Do you deny this? That is not the gay Left's fault. YOu keep talking about bipartisanship, but this term cuts both ways; it is not only to be conducted from conservative Republicans' slant.

With regard to LaFollette and TR, since the parties have essentially reversed their turn of the century positions and since he was always opposed by conservatives among the Republicans and the Democrats (isn't that correct?), I doubt the great Wisconsin leader would have had such a problem with Democratic OR Republican progressives using this term. (He was pro-regulation, pro-working people, anti-wealthy interests, anti-war...hmm, sounds like many DEMOCRATS to me.)

If you read what I wrote to YOU in your thread about YOUR election, I said that I would gladly support moderate and progressive Republicans. I have even voted for a few (William Floyd Weld comes to mind). If Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Gordon Smith were running things, I would have far fewer problems with the GOP.

On Dec. 9, 2000, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote halted the Florida recount. On Dec. 12, 2000, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote rejected the Florida Supreme Court's approved recount. In a 7-2 per curiam decision ("The only disagreement is as to the remedy"), the U.S. Supreme Court found constitutional issues with the Florida Supreme Court's approved recount, but Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Breyer all dissented from the vote that essentially killed the possiblity of a full and fair recount. Gore conceded, which thus led to Bush's installation as President. Is this chronology or the succession of votes incorrect?

About LaFollette (TR, in his Bull Moose phase, was pro-conservation, anti-tariff, pro-regulation of industry--again sounds like the Democratic Party to me. Also, there was Henry Wallace's socialist-tinged progressivism, which was too much for Truman, though it wouldn't be out of place in the Netherlands or Sweden of today):

From Grolier's Int'l (highlights are mine):

"The LaFollette Progressives

"Sen. Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., of Wisconsin was another leader of the Progressive Movement. Although progressivism receded after World War I, LaFollette fought on. By 1924, conservatives dominated both parties. LaFollette, nominally a Republican, decided to run for president on his own. Fearing that a formal party organization might be infiltrated by Communists, he ran as an independent. However, he accepted the support of the Conference for Progressive Political Action, which had been organized in 1922 by workers, farmers, and liberal intellectuals. The Socialist party also supported LaFollette. His platform denounced the control of industry and government by private monopolies. It favored public ownership of natural resources and railroads, farm-relief measures, lower taxes for persons with moderate incomes, and other laws to aid the less privileged. LaFollette got 17% of the popular vote but carried only Wisconsin. In 1934, LaFollette's sons, Sen. Robert LaFollette, Jr., and Philip, organized a Progressive party in Wisconsin. After Philip had been defeated for renomination as governor on the Republican ticket in 1932, the brothers concluded that the increasingly conservative GOP was no longer a reliable vehicle for advancing Progressive principles. Under the Progressive banner, the LaFollettes scored many successes, as did Progressive candidates for local offices in Wisconsin. But the party disappeared in 1946 when Robert chose to seek renomination to the Senate as a Republican unsuccessfully, as it turned out."

Sounds a hell of a lot like the national Democratic Party of 2002 (centrist as it is).

FT, your history is correct, as is your estimate of LaFollete. But don't forget that TR was part of the original Progresive team too, and that as LaF, as you also note, became increasingly socialistic, TR became more independent while maintaining his free-market roots. After all, the Trust Buster! Who left whom behind is a matter of perspective and opinion, as are the merits of socialism. If any were shown to exist, I trust we'd disagree on those too.

As we do on your theme of the Supreme Court "selecting" President Bush, as you repeat everywhere and everytime you post. While your chronology is correct enough, your interpretation of it is not. The matter is settled and it's counterproductive to waste further time discussing it, even, ironically, on this thread. If people are that dissatisfied with this Administration, they'll vote it out. But that didn't happen in the past election, although you are correct to note that it was by no means a resounding rubber stamp for the President. That gives you room to work with for 2004 - and me time to convince this Administration that it can't subject gays to the horrors you presage.

Finally, I DO deny that all GOP platforms abandon gays as you say. Look to those of the states who elected the moderates you cited. Some do yes, but that number is declining and I think we'll be able to make a major swing in CA's treatment of our issues in the next CA platform when we meet in Sacramento to elect new leaders in February. I personally had surprising success in removing anti-gay language from the HEW section (AIDS, families, etc.) of our platform in 2000 and I fully expect to widen that next time. If I don't, I will have had the immense satisfaction of actively and persistently trying to do so.

Lott and Delay? Leave 'em to heaven, I say. If they actually demonstrate - all is speculation so far - that they're really intent on leading us back to the XIV century, they'll be voted out soon enough. Until then, I say give them a chance to make good on their word not to repeat their past mistakes - and don't rule Hastert out to bail the GOP out if and when they fail. You don't get to spend as much time as Hastert has in Congress - or some of us do on these boards - by being pusillanimous.

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]