Saw this article from the Washington Post. Nice piece overall about how little the Republican Party is doing to try and bring their constituents into the 21st Century:

and

And the whole article:

GOP = Grand Old Gay Bashers

THANKS for the head's up on this article...even though I'm not a Republican myself, I imagine there are Republicans on this board (and, indeed, in the world) who probably think this article is loooooong overdue and want the very same things its author does.

That said, as a Democrat by default, I'm kinda wanting the same thing to happen for the Dems, too.

Great article. Shrub is really caught between a rock and a hard place on this one isn't he? Too bad. One the one hand he wants the GOP to look like its more inclusive, and "diverse", and on the other hand, he dare not rankle his hardcore group of ultra-conservative supporters, lest he loose their support for 2004. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. Its going to be interesting how this plays out.

Speaking from a purely political perspective here, and not endorsing any tactic, policy, etc...

The GOP is probably hoping that with Dean in the race, and with gays over-energized by the sodomy ruling and expecting equal enthusiasm from the Democrat Party as a whole, all the Dems will be pushed very far to what is perceived to be the left on gay issues, i.e. supporting or seeming to support gay marriage, which will then provide Bush with plenty of breathing room in what can be portrayed as the center, i.e. "respecting" gays and lesbians, refusing to "politicize" sexual orientation, etc., while stating what most Americans feel - that "marriage" is an institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman. All Bush has to do is just finesse this issue - don't sound mean to gays, but hold the line on marriage - and he'll be fine.

What Bush could also say is that issues such as gay marriage or civil unions are best left to the states to decide, or whatever, but that we should not have unelected, unaccountable judges (like in Vermont, Massachusetts, etc.) subverting democracy and forcing policies like that on all Americans, which is why conservatives need to vote for Bush so he can continue to appoint fair, responsible judges who will not legislate from the bench and will allow democracy to work at the local level, where it is most representative of the views and values of grassroots voters, who will be forced to host orgies in their family rooms if the Democrats and their liberal activist judges have their way (or something like that).

Also...most conservatives are not going to stay home on Election Day, no matter what, because Bush is wildly popular among all Republicans, moderate and conservative, and he is not going to be challenged from the Republican right. Maybe some reform/Buchanan wacko, but not from inside the party. The only thing that could really devastate Bush at this point is if it turns out he's banging an intern or anyone other than Laura. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that probably won't happen.

Again, I don't want this to be some extended debate on the relative merits of gay marriage, etc., but politically I don't think gay issues are a slam dunk for the Democrats. They have to worry about alienating voters too.

Actually, probably not. The author of this article is, I believe, the editor of the liberal American Prospect magazine. He is pretty squarely aligned with the Democrat Party. So it's not like he's a Main Street Republican type or whatever they call themselves, urging revolution from within. When it's all said and done, this guy wants Republicans to lose. The GOP would be better off doing the exact opposite of anything he advises, assuming they listen to him at all.

I hear you William...my point, though, is that partisan politics sucks. I'm not Nader about it - I DO believe there are important ideological and reality-based differences in the Democratic and Republican parties. However, I would like to believe there are some Republicans who do agree with the author, political affiliation aside...

To believe the opposite (that gays should have NO rights because my party says so) would just be foolish ...I think.

So maybe I'm being idealistic; I just hope that someone somewhere was affected by the author's words (perhaps not realizing he's on the "other side")

I think, though, the whole point of the piece is not about gay marriage or even sodomy. It is calling the Republican party on their complete willingness to let representatives of the party publicly push the far-right perspective. You are right, William, that the Bush camp has to be thinking that the "do nothing" strategy is a winning one on the issue. Politically, it is almost always easier to do nothing when it comes to such controversial issues.

However, the whole point of the article is that the Republican party does have people with a much wider variety of beliefs about issues. There are people who think it is time to get into the 21st century and recognize the need to stop demonizing gays and lesbians.

The point is that they are implicitly allowing the more radical representatives of their party to take to the stage and skew the perspective publicly. By following the "do nothing" approach and not speaking out, they are implicitly agreeing that gays and lesbians should continue to be demonized.

And no matter what perspective you look at that from, it is wrong. I don't care if their only priority is holding onto the White House, the Republican party has to step up to the plate and offer a more balanced perspective. Doing nothing in many cases is the same as agreeing to go along with the people who are not afraid to step up and be heard.

And I would offer that the only reason the President is "wildly popular" with any group is because they see him as their only chance to still feel like their side is winning and going to stay in power. That is rather unfortunate, in my book. As I have commented before, having to feel good by having your candidate win no matter how much that damages other constituencies in our society, is a very sad state of for our country.

Well, first off, for the here and now "gay rights" is about marriage and sodomy. Those are the issues du jour. In the scheme of things these are but two of many issues impacting gays and lesbians, but those are the hot topics right now. On sodomy, Bush basically says that it's an issue for states to decide (exactly what libs would rightly say when laws allowing, say, the medicinal use of marijuana are struck down). Marriage - he just says no. We can compromise, we must respect our fellow citizens who are gay and lesbian, Bush should say, there are moderate, reasonable resolutions to this debate (which he can come up with later), but "marriage" is out of the question. Most of America is with him on that, as I am - not because I'm blindly loyal to President Bush, but because he represents my views on issues that I care about more passionately than gay issues, and because I personally do not support full-fledged gay "marriage." Maybe in ten years, I will, but right now I don't, and voting isn't some futures speculation deal.

Second, politics is about power and winning, and if Bush loses conservatives lose tons of power. Why do you think Dems rallied so around Clinton? He was their man, and his failure meant their failure. The pursuit of power is completely normal and healthy.

Third, this article is just really absurd, and too silly to even debate. I had not even read it that carefully, because I figured I pretty much knew what it said, and having read it I see that I was right. It is quite obviously a partisan hit piece, and not a very good one at that. I, for one, unlike this Wolfson chap, do not equate policy differences with bigotry or with "demonizing" gays and lesbians. I think people can disagree on certain issues without either side being particularly evil. (And if you think evil is too strong a word, is bigotry not evil? Wolfson or whatever this schmuck's name is is calling Republicans bigots, and thus calling them evil. There's no arguing that point.)

So Wolfson's argument is, basically, that Republicans in general are evil, and that if one of the few exceptions to this rule would stand up and speak out about just how evil Republicans are, and force the Party to be more center/left, the world would be a better place. My response is my personal favorite, "Hey, go f&#$ yourself," which is about as serious and sincere an argument as any this guy makes.

But ultimately I don't think any of this so much matters, since gay issues are not going to be a huge issue in the 2004 elections. The big issues are national security and the economy. Esoteric debates about the self-esteem of gays and lesbians just don't hit most Americans hard enough.

[ July 08, 2003, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Your opinions are well noted from other posts and well communicated in this one. And, again, I agree with you that this is very much about politics and winning.

I disagree that the quest for power is healthy and normal. I am not meaning to overcatastrophize the situation, but we have a slew of examples from history where the quest for power devestated whole groups of people. Was it okay for the white, immigrated Americans to wipe out the non-white, native ones? All in the quest for westward expansion and building our country? Was it okay for the Australian settlers (not all of them were from the penal colony) to literally wipe out the aboriginal tribes in the name of settling the Australian continent? Before you jump on me, I am not equating our discussion with those events. Just using them as examples of where the quest for power takes people when it becomes the sole focus of their intentions.

I also disagree with you wholeheartedly on the "gay issues" that are relevant. Marriage and sodomy are symptoms of what needs to be corrected -- they are not the illness itself. What I am saying, and what I read in the article, is that the GOP is trying to make people focus on these symptoms to avoid the bigger issue of gays and lesbians being disenfranchised in the middle-age, white, male power structure of the Republican party. While it is politically more beneficial to say "it is all about gay marriage and sodomy and those things should be left to states", it is not about those things at all. It is about over a century of history of gays and lesbians being discriminated against, physically harmed, and considered mentally ill and criminal in their behavior.

You simplify the issue way too far when you say it is about gay self-esteem. It is about righting a long-running wrong, and it is about making it clear that it is not okay anymore. The Republicans do not have to support the concept of gay marriage. They do have to say it is a topic worthy of debate, and that gays and lesbians deserve the right to be part of a serious debate on gay issues.

By leaving the talking to the Rick Santorums and Bill Frists of the party, the more moderate Republicans who know this needs to stop are turning the keys of the car over to the drunk driver who is going to potentially kill someone. It is called morality and personal responsibility. It is simply wrong for someone to allow people to call for gays and lesbians to continue to be ostracized legally and politically.

I will not go into the whole topic of being gay and supporting people like this. Politics is all a personal preference. However, from my own personal perspective, I continue to find it impossible to feel the economy or anything else is more important than the whole concept of being gay and being treated fairly. If I can be fired from a job, denied benefits every other married couple receives, and be gay bashed because people are taught that gays should be hated, then it does not matter how well the economy is doing or whether our foreign policy is sound.

Being gay is a core part of being who I am. And if that characteristic can cause me harm in so many arenas, then it is my number one issue.

To just try and dismiss such an important issue to so many millions of people by saying that it is not politically palatable, it effects a relatively small percentage of the population (debatable anyway), or is not as worthy as other issues is following a very tried, but unfortunate strategy. Try to minimize the thing that has the most potential to be a firestorm, and sooner or later you get burnt very badly.

Taking gay issues out of the equation, I STILL hope there are Republicans who seek a more moderate stance.

The speculation about Supreme Court justices is a PERFECT example of my desire to have Republicans speak up. If Bush is going to thump for staunch conservative candidates, we're all in a world of trouble. So, yeah, someone needs to step up and say "I'm a Republican and I agree with our party's pecuniary stances...however, I don't want (insert name of super-conservative nominee here) taking away my civil liberties or opportunities as a Supreme Court judge."

posted by William 1865:
William, you are not saying, I hope, that if gay marriage were to become a reality (e.g., Mass allows it, the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, and the anti-gay hate fringe \"pro-family\" movement is unable to get the Constitutional Amendment anywhere) you would be against it? I assume you mean that politically gay marriage is untenable at this point, and I think you are right on that. But I would support any effort to get it passed.

As for this piece, which I read when it first was printed, I think it provides a good overview of the predicament facing Republicans at this time when the whole issue of gay rights is in flux. The piece is clearly biased toward gay rights, but still has much of importance to say.

My favorite part is when the writer is discussing how 10 of the 13 sodomy states were also slave states, and says:

I am quite in agreement that many of our major conflicts in the US, whether they be slavery, immigration, even political corruption a la Tammeny Hall, were largely about expanding our understanding of how large the category of "man" is.

Finally, I do believe that with gay rights were are dealing with something that should be above mere politics. Political debates are completely appropriate when discussing tax systems, the size of the military, how our environment should be protected, but they are completely inappropriate for questions of human rights. Nevertheless we are stuck with political debates and solutions until the Republican leadership steps up to the plate and declares that gays are human beings with equal rights. That kind of bipartisan support, after all, was necessary to make civil rights for African Americans a reality.

[ July 08, 2003, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

Do you believe Democrats' stands on gay issues are completely apolitical? That they're just doing what they think is right, damn the consequences?

Also - why is this all the Republicans responsiblity? Democrats can hold press conferences. They have websites (democrats.org, etc.) They can put out press releases. They can stage rallies, protests, etc. The Democrats could force this issue if they wanted to. They could stage a huge press conference with Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank. They could draft a "Contract with Gay and Lesbian Americans" promising hate crime protections, ENDA, civil unions, adoption rights, etc., and request members of Congress, local elected leaders to sign on to it as a show of solidarity with gay Americans who are being denied their basic human rights, and whom the Democrats as a moral imperitive must represent, since the Republican Party is failing in its responsibility to address the oppression and widespread hatred of gay and lesbian Americans. The Democrats could send the Contract to their Republican colleagues in Congress, etc, on behalf of their gay and lesbian constituents, asking them to sign it, and demanding an explanation if they do not. There are any number of things the Democrats could do to put the ee-ville Republican leadership on the spot on this issue and force them to take a stand one way or the other, so all Americans will know which candidates support basic human rights for gays and lesbians, as detailed in the Democrats' Contract, and which ones don't. Write the DNC and ask them to take some initiative on this critically important issue.

DNC

[ July 08, 2003, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Perhaps the Democrats recognize they could do us (gays and lesbians) more harm than good at the moment. Republican White House, Republican Congress, potentially even more radically conservative Supreme Court by the time any new legislation hit the docket. I do think it would be interesting to force the administration to take a stand and quit playing the "if we don't say it, you can't hold us to it" game.

However, until the Democrats see some of the moderate Republicans make it clear that they are willing to do the right thing and create a bi-partisan solution (much like the civil rights movement -- thanks for the excellent example CPT), they are putting our best interests at risk. When the leaders of the Republican controlled Congress are trying to get an amendment started that says gay marriages will forever be banned, and go to the Supreme Court to file briefs in support of gay sodomy laws -- it is hard to imagine the Republican party doing the right thing on something much broader and more important.

This is an American issue -- you are right, both parties need to come to the table and do what is morally correct. However, one side has already demonstrated a whole lot more interest and willingness to do that. Until the other side, which is in control of the government at this point, does the same, you cannot possibly try to place the blame on the Democrats.

Using some more of that George W fuzzy logic reasoning.

My point, William, was not to lambaste the Republicans or praise the Democrats, but merely to point out that I agree with the writer that until moderate Republicans stand up to their anti-gay right wing, and do it forcefully, gay rights will be yet another in the series of issues that define the parties. I do not want it or wish it to be so, and believe whole-heartedly that human rights are human rights, regardless of one's "moral" values. Plenty of Republicans agree with that stance (I assume you do as well, unless you believe gays aren't equal and don't have the same rights as straight people), but because of the political make-up of the party cannot voice their opposition because so much of the power of the Republican party is in the hands of the anti-gay fringe.

The same scenario, but flipped, was in place during the African-American civil rights struggle (particularly the 30s and 40s), and it took the Democrats a long time to stand up to the Southerners who were "DINOs" (Democrats in Name Only), and were members of the party simply because they hated the party of Lincoln. Until both major parties agreed that African-American civil rights were a human rights issue, precious little official movement on segregation and discrimination occurred.

I also happen to think the Republican position, forced by the anti-gay fringe, allows the Democrats to get away with only voicing support for gay rights, while doing precious little to make them real. When you have anti-gay forces spewing the kind of hate that "Focus on the Family" or the "Traditional Values Coalition" routinely provide, it is not hard to appear much more supportive of gay rights, without actually doing anything. And the Republican Party platform and leadership publically are lock-step with these groups. Were the Republican leadership to change (in people, that is, I don't hold out much hope for Tom Delay or Trent Lott to see the error of their ways) and stand up in support of gay rights, it would force the Democrats to put their money where the mouth has been, and maybe then we would have a more legitimate debate on which party is best for gays and lesbians.

[quote]CPT_Doom:
[quote]  My point, William, was not to lambaste the Republicans or praise the Democrats, [/quote]And yet, you did specifically blame the "Republican leadership" for gridlock on this issue. That sounds like a lambaste to me. Which is fine, if that's what you think.

The dems are very good at talk-speak to the gays, but yet, never do anything.... Just look at clinton.

Why do you think Howard Dean is running for President? Because he's bored? He's running to gain power. Yes, I'm sure he has lofty intentions, big ideas, yadda-yadda-yadda, but to implement those ideas he obviously understands he needs the power of the Executive Branch. I don't think such an understanding is unhealthy or abnormal. Obviously people can err in their quest for power. Virtually anything healthy and normal can be abused. I think sex is healthy and normal. But I don't condone rape, which is sex mixed with violence. Thus I think one can claim that seeking power is normal and healthy, without condoning slaughter.

How do you propose that this issue be resolved? Through judicial fiat? Through an executive order from a pro-gay President? Through brute force? I would say that gay issues, like most if not all issues, are best resolved legislatively, by elected leaders who are accountable to the people for the votes they cast. To get elected, one must work through political channels - fundraising, campaigning, elections, etc. I don't see any way around it.

What would you say to the Democrat supporters of the gay marriage amendment? Or Democrat opponents of hate crimes legislation or ENDA? I'm sure there are a few. What would you say to pro-life Democrats who believe it is time to get into the 21st century and stop slaughtering the unborn? What those Democrats would probably say to you is either 1) "My granddaddy and his granddaddy were Democrats," or 2) that yes, while they do in fact disagree with this or that particular part of the Democrat platform, the Party's views on trade, on taxes, on Social Security or Medicare reform, on the environment, etc, are more in tune with their personal beliefs, and thus they are committed to the Democrat Party, even though they disagree with the Party's stands on some issues. Perfectly valid position, I suppose, even if you're not allowed to speak at the Party convention because you're pro-life. I just don't understand why Republicans who disagree with the Party on this or that issue have this moral burden of pushing the Party toward a more "enlightened" stand, while Democrats who are, pro-life, for example, or anti-gay, I suppose, are never encouraged to tamp down the Party's support for abortion or gay rights.

I'm not NOT holding my party unaccountable. I said in my first response here that I wanted some confrontations in my party, too. I'm not asking Republicans to do anything I'm not expecting of Dems.

The fact of the matter, though, is that I need you, or someone like you, to appeal to other Republicans if I want the current administration to change. That's politics.

I want Bush to stop cutting funding for programs that get doctors into poor communities of color. I want Bush to stop cutting funding for community technology programs that help poor people get GEDs and learn how to use the internet to find jobs.

Bush won't hear it from me, because I'm a Dem. So I need to hope for bipartisan collaboration, which does require some Republican somewhere to understand that helping poor people of color get medical treatment is an OK thing to do.

You have perhaps been too polite, William1865, to say it, but there is clearly a bias not only in this thread, but on this site, overall. That's one reason the discussion is focused on the Republicans and our perception of thier responsibilities.

The other reason is that in my estimation as a political thinking queer man of color and not as a Democrat, Bush is really f**king shit up. So my focus is on assessing the political terrain to both understand how he's able to do what he does and to also see what strategies are available to address my political concerns.

That said, many here have stated that we're disappointed with and expect more from the Democrats, and not just with regard to LGBT issues.

It seems, though, that there is resistance to even hear about changing the party agenda - that you or others aren't willing to change, or even consider it, because a Democrat asked you to, or because Democrats don't have to, so why should you?

I acknowledge that the Dems have/are pissing me off. I said it this a.m., on other posts I've made in the Politics & Religion forum. Is any Republican willing to say the same about her or his affiliation? Half curious, half wanting to know if I should just stick to tennis...

Sure, I get peeved at the Republicans. I don't think they're being agressive enough on taxes - they should have stuck with Bush's original $700 billion tax cut. They sold out on the "refundable" tax credit for those who don't pay income taxes. I'd like to see a bench-clearing brawl over the Miguel Estrada nomination. The Party is definitely not being tough enough on immigration. We took way too long to go after Iraq, probably allowing Saddam to get rid of, hide or sell his WMDs while we played tiddly-winks with the UN. And what's taking so long with Liberia? If it were up to me I'd have taken over most of Africa by this point, at least all the little two-bit dictatorships. So yeah, I get frustrated. Not sure if this is what you had in mind, but absolutely...

The entire reason for the Supreme Court and the separation of powers was to prevent just such a "tyranny of the majority." The Founders, certainly not perfect themselves, understood that basic rights could not be left to the whim of the democratic process. That understanding, although limited at the time (I would guess most of the Founders, even those who were not slave owners, bought into the "traditional" thinking that blacks were inferior to whites) is the truly amazing part of the American Experiment. By opening up rights to all human beings, not just those with money or land or family heritage, the Founders took a huge leap of faith; and we are still working on getting that Experiment just right.

To answer you question, I do not believe that human and civil rights should be decided in a legislature, where it is too easy for those who have to be elected to bend to the whims of the bigoted in their district/precinct/state.

There was a fascinating documentary on Asian immigration to the US (on PBS) - can't remember its name. But I do remember the Supreme Court decision that determined that federal laws banning citizenship for Asians were unConstitutional. The 14th amendment (or was it the 13th?) declares that all "persons" born in the US are citizens. When Congress tried to deny that citizenship to Asians born here the Court declared it unConstitutional. The writer of the opinion even said something along the lines of "although I am not happy with Asians being citizens of the US, the Constitution is clear."

You may call it "legislative fiat" but the courts are the last protection the minority has to prevent their rights from being curtailed because of state or majority disapproval.

and I get frustrated too, speaking as a republican.

I'm frustrated by this "tax credit" for people who do not pay income taxes. (that is called "welfare")

I'm frustrated by the enormous mandated spending for the "no child left behind" act. Not only that it underfunds what it requires. But that these requirements, even while underfunded, are an enormous increase in federal spending.

I'm frustrated that the medicare overhaul introduced to win elderly votes will blow another huge deficit hole in the budget.

and lastly, I am frustrated that we are attempting an enormous tax cut at a time when we can not afford it.

These are all things that frustrate me. the other non-budgetary things that frustrate me about my party, I have already voiced.

thanks ung and William...interesting perspectives. I actually agree with you on a point or two (!)

You wanna hear me criticize members of the Republican party? Then start some threads where I'm diverging from party orthodoxy. If all's we get are 37 simultaneous threads on "Shrub LIED!!!!!! about WMD!!!!!!!", well, then you're not going to hear any dissent from Republican orthodoxy coming from me.

Start up a thread about the "death" tax repeal, and I'll end up to the left of Barney Frank. Hell, I'd even end up to the left of fantomas or Bill W, as I think inherited wealth is disgustingly and severely under-taxed in this society.

Start up a thread on the death penalty, and I'll put my bleeding heart up against Susan Sarandon's any time, as I'm strongly pro-life and that means the state shouldn't be putting people to death. In fact, one of the reasons I switched from being a Dem, a little more than ten years ago, when they gave up their opposition to the death penalty, which got me to realize that there were no crucial issues left with which I would agree with the national party.

There are many Republican politicians I routinely criticize in the non-virtual world. I curse out Nevada's puppet governor, Kenny Guinn, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gaming, Inc., far more severely than I do any Dem. Even more than Hillary. Well, maybe not Hillary ... but any other Dem besdes her. Even Bill or Algore. And if anyone wants to start up a Gary Bauer hatefest, I'm with you. He's the worst sort of snooping Big Government type of hypocritical moralist. Rick Santorum? Another Big Government moralist wanting to over-regulate people's private lives. The fact that his brand of Big Government comes with a tax cut doesn't make it less obnoxious.

However, on the P&R threads, if you (and I mean the rhetorical "you") want to criticize President Bush, and his administration, especially on matters pertaining to foreign affairs, defense policy and the prosecution of the War on Terror, I will gleefully be the most obnoxious, slobbering, Bush-loving toady this Board will ever see. I think President Bush and his administration are doing an extraordinarily good job on these issues and I honestly cannot see how these matters could have been handled any better. I use the word "handled" because I'm not saying we've got the best results possible, only that I believe that each and every alternative strategy would have caused things to be far worse. I don't think perfect is out there. I don't expect perfect. But I don't think we could be doing any better.

I'm not as big a fan of his administration on certain domestic matters, but I understand the compromises and can accept them. But in a post-9-11 world, to me, the War on Terror is priority one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and beyond. And because I genuinely believe these matters cannot be handled any better than they are now, especially by nine (or more) Dems now running for president, I have no problem supporting this administration whole-heartedly.

One final point on the issue of whether the Republican party is sufficiently "gay friendly." I wish we had a Commander in Chief that I could respect that would end "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and allow soldiers, sailors, air men, and marines (esp. marines!) to engage in homosexual sex off premises and in private. I actually expect President Bush to end the ban -- seriously -- and I will somewhat disappointed in his presidency if he does not. However, for 2004, I don't see anyone that I would trust as Commander in Chief both running for president and willing to end DADT.

However, on other "gay" matters that concern me, President Bush has been sufficiently neutral for my tastes. And that's what I want from the government: neutrality. I may be ambivalent about gay marriage legalization, but I strongly supported the end to sodomy laws. While President Bush won't encourage a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, he also won't look to appoint judges that will declare it lawful by circumventing the legislative process. Bush appointed an openly gay man to an ambassadorship. And not some piddly-ass sliver like Luxembourg. A real country: Romania. So he clearly isn't bigoted against particular gay individuals.

Bottom line: Bush is doing a Clintonian job of triangulating on this issue -- between the gay rights wing of the Dems and the religious right of the Republican party -- and I mean that as a compliment.

[ July 09, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

HAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA
Damn, thats funny!! Good one man, thanks for the laught!

CITT
So you do not see how 9/11 had its seed sown in our providing weapons to people such as OSBL because he was fighting the USSR, Saddam because he was fighting Iran?
You do not see a repeat of our mistakes?

I'm not being flip or sarcastic, but I honestly don't understand the question. There was no USSR at the start of this Bush's presidency. The Iran/Iraq War was over. I don't know how you can link this Bush (or Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell or Condi Rice) to that.

Yes, mistakes were made on President Reagan's watch on matters pertaining to the Middle East (turning tail and running after the Lebanon bombing was a crucial mistake). Same with Carter (screwing up Iran), Bush 41 (encouraging the Shi'a and Kurdish uprising after the Gulf War, then leaving them to be massacred), and Clinton (the policy of superficial responses to terror being especially problematic). Why do you blame this president for those deadly mistakes?

I think this President has broken that cycle of endlessly repeating those mistakes in that region. We are letting the terrorists know that there are real consequences to attacking us. We are changing dangerous and deadly regimes, and letting states know that there are consequences to supporting terrorism (well, states except Saudi Arabia). We have raised our guard on the homefront. Mistakes were made in the past -- on the watches of several presidents -- and the result was 9-11. I don't ask President Bush and Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice to undo the mistakes of previous administrations; I just don't want new ones being made.

CITT,
I really do not understand you. You said
"We have raised our guard on the homefront" How so? Most states I know are unable to cope with the demands placed on them, without funding. Do you really think we are safer today, when the POTUS has false information regarding "Yellow cake" has intel improved?
Also my point is that this admin is making the same mistakes, do you really think there are less people willing to die to hurt the USA then before Iraq was invaded?
Who met with Sadam, could it be Rummy? Could he be one of the people who came up with the Sharon doctrine? If you do not know about this , please look it up.
Also you said
"Mistakes were made in the past -- on the watches of several presidents -- and the result was 9-11. I don't ask President Bush and Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice to undo the mistakes of previous administrations; I just don't want new ones being made. " My point is they have, and are making worse ones.... the USA is now seen as a bully, a liar and the biggest danger to world peace by alot of people, yeah they are going to help us...
You said"I think this President has broken that cycle of endlessly repeating those mistakes in that region" Please tell me how

For what it's worth, there are always going to be plenty of people in the Middle East who want to attack us, no matter what Bush or any other President does. I don't think trying to make people nicer to us or like us more is a good basis for foreign policy.

I wish we could have a discussion about basic political strategies and dynamics without them inevitably delving into this combination of Bush bashing and sentimentality.

I've had it, I won't be posting in the P&R forum anymore.

Ha-ha, just kidding.

Well, the thread is swerving a bit from the original topic, but there are still some relevant things being discussed. Of note:

1) Why is it that any time one of us on the board (the majority of us do have lots of questions about how the administration handles itself) raises an issue, we are Bush Bashing? CITT and William have both mentioned in their posts that they want to see a real discussion on issues other than Bush's inability to tell the truth and the WMD issue. Yet, there have been dozens of threads on the tax cuts, economic policy, foreign policy, the U of M affirmative action case, the sodomy case, etc. There are tons of topics discussed, but the two of you try and distill it down to those that you find yourself most willing to support the President. (William supports him on everything, so I guess I am referring to CITT's post more on this one.)

2) If you can express your opinions about supporting the President and explaining why you think the Democrats are incapable of handling situations better, then let us do the same in reverse without dismissing it as just fuming about not being in the White House. Many of us honestly believe this President is doing great harm to the country. Stop trying to dismiss those concerns as Bush Bashing. They are honest political and moral thoughts on our country. You may not agree, but we don't expect you to. We appreciate your opinions. But in supporting your own opinions, do you really have to dismiss those expressed by others on the board? I have a hard time believing that if this board was up and active six years ago, we would not be seeing you guys literally bashing President Clinton on here.

3) The issue that started the thread was the Republican Party's inability to offer a viewpoint on gay rights other than that prostelitized by the far right. One of you stated that you think that is perfectly fine, as the party should only be concerned with staying in power now that it is there. The other one said that he was perfectly fine with the Bush position of neutrality. Those are very valid views. However, for many of us neutrality (I am being overly generous in using that word with the administration -- silence equals agreement in many organizations) is not acceptable. And allowing your party's far right to spew hate and venom while you do nothing and say nothing is just wrong. The Democrats may have some people who disagree with the party on some issues, but they are allowed to voice their thoughts and be part of the debate. That needs to happen on both sides of the aisle.

4) I, again, assert that while the Democratic Party is not perfect on this issue (or any issue for that matter), in politics it is all about weighing the relative positioning of the parties. And for anyone to either a) try to say the Republicans are better on this issue than we think, or once again attack the other side to hide the Republican's weakness on the issue, is unfortunate. It does not take an educated person to see which side is more inclusive and willing to support the equal treatment of gays and lesbians. And we are all well educated folks here. Each and every Democrat may not be great on this issue, but as a whole there is simply no question. Both sides can do better, but one side is so far behind, it deserves to be criticized openly.

On the issue of "Bush bashing" ... clearly there can be legitimate disagreements with positions taken by the Bush administration. Like I posted above, I'm not on board with the obsession about cutting/eliminating the "death" tax. However: the moment I see someone call him "Shrub," or the "pRESIDENT" or someone still going off on how Florida was "stolen" ... I tune the person out. Now, if all's the person wants to do is share his anger with his co-religionists, more power to him. Spew away. But if there's any interest in influencing the opinion of someone who considers himself open-minded (whether I actually am, that's a different topic of discussion): you've lost the battle because I've tuned you out.

We have one poster whose idea of dialogue is to repeatedly, over and over again, ad nauseum, call the President "Chimp". I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's worth anybody's time to do more just dismiss those posts as mindless, reflexive Bush bashing drivel.

Back to the issue at hand. Let's take the issue of Iraq. Iraq is clearly a work in progress for this administration. I see the glass as being half full, and what's in there is delicious Dom Perignon. You see it, I believe, as half empty, and what's there is toxic bug-infested flat supermarket brand cola (or worse, Pepsi Clear). But if you start your critique with "the Commander-in-Thief LIED about WMD's because it's all about oil," I think I would reserve the right to label such a post as simple Bush bashing.

[ July 10, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

CITT, I have not refered to Mr Bussh as shurb, but I have not seen you answer/ debate my questions posted to you.
You choose to see the glass half full, perhaps I see it as a grave yard half full.
Regarding this topic, I can not saw the Dems have always supported my view points, nor would I expect them to. However I have never seen them propose bills or idea's that were anti gay either

Never? I can think of one. How about the "don't ask don't tell" fiasco and how anti-gay discharges in the military were at an all-time high under Clinton and have decreased under President Bush. I will concede, that Republicans in Congress generally were worse than Clinton on this issue back in '93 when DADT was implemented. But Clinton was no profile in courage.

Or how about how the Dems will shamelessly engage in vicious gay-baiting when there is a Republican opponent who is single and the subject of gay rumors -- such as the charge that South Carolina Congressman Lindsay Graham was "too light in the loafers" to fill Strom Thurmond's shoes. Despite the Dems' gay baiting, Rep. Graham is now Sen. Graham. Or how about the vicious rumormongering against Hawaii gubernatorial candidate Linda Lingle? Sen. Daniel Inouye - a Dem - made some sort of comment that he "would prefer to have a governor's who's had a family." The message was only slightly coded. The anti-lesbian rumormongering may have worked for the Dems in '98 but, thankfully, it failed in '02 and she's now Gov. Lingle.

So your Dems are not perfect angels on gay issues.

Now, you want me to answer your points from your previous post. OK. Going through this point by point, and I've taken the liberty of putting your points in italics.

You said "We have raised our guard on the homefront" How so?
Being more aware of our vulnerabilities is not the same thing as being more vulnerable. We are more vigilant against terrorism than ever. Security - especially border security - has improved. Potential terrorists are in custody, a situation that some on the left have likened to concentration camps. I liken it to increased security.

Most states I know are unable to cope with the demands placed on them, without funding.
Do the states need the federal government to tell them when it's OK to wipe their butts? There's not enough money for every state to spend money on everything worthwhile ... let alone all the pork that legislators want to spend on totally useless boondoggles. Like here in Nevada: we started up a useless dental school. More cops (or less taxes!) would've been a nicer use of that money during a budget crunch. States have enough money to properly fund homeland security. The fact that they'd rather spend public money on a contract to a public relations firm to tell the voting public what a great job its public housing authority is doing -- and then cry to the feds that they don't have enough money for homeland security -- well, that's not an argument I find persuasive.

Do you really think we are safer today, when the POTUS has false information regarding "Yellow cake" has intel improved?
Safer? Hell yes. Much much safer.

Also my point is that this admin is making the same mistakes, do you really think there are less people willing to die to hurt the USA then before Iraq was invaded?
Again. Hell yes. Absolutely fewer. The terror supply pipeline is most definitely losing pressure. It's not yet empty and I doubt it ever will be. But have conditions improved? Most definitely YES. Why? Because the potential terrorists now know that there are consequences. They thought this country was fat, complacent and weak. And under Clinton, we were. Remember when Bill Maher said that the 9-11 terrorists were courageous and what is cowardly is to push a button and just shoot off some cruise missiles from 5,000 miles away? He was fired from his TV show for that gaffe. Well, it was a gaffe, because it contained an element of truth. Under Clinton, we were perceived as cowards because when terrorists struck, whether it be the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, the embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, or the USS Cole in Aden harbor, we would just launch a couple of cruise missiles at a civilian target and be done. That was the perfect formula for creating more terrorists. Terrorists pray on the weak. Not the strong. We're no longer the weak.

Who met with Sadam, could it be Rummy? Could he be one of the people who came up with the Sharon doctrine? If you do not know about this , please look it up.
Are you referring to the alleged doctrine that the Palestinians must be destroyed for Israel to live in peace? The so-called "Sharon Doctrine" is a leftist, anti-Semitic myth. It's a 21st Century version of the old anti-Jewish blood libel.

Also you said "Mistakes were made in the past -- on the watches of several presidents -- and the result was 9-11. I don't ask President Bush and Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice to undo the mistakes of previous administrations; I just don't want new ones being made. " My point is they have, and are making worse ones.... the USA is now seen as a bully, a liar and the biggest danger to world peace by alot of people, yeah they are going to help us.
The U.S. may be seen as a "bully" and a "liar" by certain Euro-trash elites in Paris or Brussels who are of no interest to me. But we are not seen that way in the rest of the world. We may be less liked, and more feared, but while we're fighting the War on Terror, that's probably better for winning the war than a strategy based on a futile quest for being loved. And, by the way, if we're such hated bullies, why is Europe and Africa so desperate to get us to intervene in Liberia?

You said "I think this President has broken that cycle of endlessly repeating those mistakes in that region" Please tell me how
By changing the perception that we are weak and cowardly, to one where we are perceived as being strong, relentless, courageous, determined and trustworthy. Yes, trustworthy. North Korea, the Palestinian Authority and Iran all desperately HOPE that George W. Bush is a liar.

[ July 10, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Sounded too good to be true, but the latest report from the SLDN, at
http://www.sldn.org/templates/law/record.h...n=22&record=837 , confirms this.

How long will this trend last?

Based on my experience..

When DADT became law under Clinton a lot of military officers felt under attack and so they struck back by making environment for gays and suspected gays even worse----either directly or indirectly. This made more gays "tell" than you would expect. And some officers were more eager to expose gays in ranks by whatever means.

Twn58, we won't be able to compare the trend on account of armed conflict in progress changing things.

On the other hand, as soon as Bush was elected I noticed change in some military guys attitudes, like they didn't have to hide their "non-PC" anti-gay attitudes so much anymore. Some phobes became more blatant. I think gays are less likely to re-enlist now, because it feels like there's less respect from the top. That would make the discharge numbers smaller now too.

I think gay guys are more likely now to serve out their time in uniform and then get out with minimal waves than during Clinton era.

Also, there are more CO's who know but don't care if someone under their command is gay on deployment when there's more important things to worry about.

rambling, got to go

Maybe the politicians have seen this recent poll

"Last month, a Gallup poll revealed that 59% of Americans believe that gay sex between consenting adults should be legal - compared with 33% in the 1980's. Another poll by Harris Interactive, conducted before the
supreme court ruling, found broader support, with 82% opposed to denial of health benefits to same-sex couples, and 74% opposed to barring gays
from certain jobs, such as teaching."

If hostility to homosexuality almost halves in a generation politicians have to take note.