The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[mscheckmate]

Yesterday's New York Daily News had a little article about the Bin Laden tape, and what effect, if any, it might have on the election.



You can find the whole article here:

www.nydailynews.com/front/story/247753p-212149c.html



They quote people from the Bush campaign:

Quote:

---

"We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us."A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush."He called it "a little gift," saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection.

---

"A little gift."



Setting aside the sheer insensitivity of calling a video statement from the mastermind of a heinous terrorist attack a "little gift," I'm not sure that the release of this tape will utimately help Bush. I think that it serves as a reminder that more than three years after 9/11, Osama is still alive and well and ready to strike again, while we sink ever deeper into an Iraq nightmare of Bush's making. It reminds the electorate that we had Osama cornered at Tora Bora, but chose to rely on Afghan warlords to capture him, while we diverted our resources elsewhere. And people who see the Bin Laden tape might also remember this:

Quote:

---

As I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”

---

— President Bush, at a White House press conference, March 13, 2002, in response to a reporter's "where's Osama" question.



That kind of says it all, doesn't it?



.

In the evenings I shall read to you while you work your cross-stitch in the firelight. And then we shall go to bed, our bed, my dearest girl...from "Sisters," by Lynne Cheney

[darkmagicwillow]

From Salon, Republican rally in Columbus turns hateful with anti-gay statements, including the idea that it's Kerry's daughter that's a lesbian, not Cheney's:

---

Oct. 30, 2004 | COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Lisa Dupler, a 33-year-old from Columbus, held up a rainbow-striped John Kerry sign outside the Nationwide Arena on Friday, as Republicans streamed out after being rallied by George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger. A thickset woman with very short, dark hair, Dupler was silent and barely flinched as people passing her hissed "faggot" into her ear. An old lady looked at her and said, "You people are sick!" A kid who looked to be about 10 or 11 affected a limp wrist and mincing voice and said, "Oh, I'm gay." Rather than restraining him, his squat mother guffawed and then turned to Dupler and sneered, "Why don't you go marry your girlfriend?" Encouraged, her son yelled, "We don't want faggots in the White House!"



The throngs of Republicans were pumped after seeing the president and the action hero. But there was an angry edge to their elation. They shrieked at the dozen or so protesters standing on the concrete plaza outside the auditorium. "Kerry's a terrorist!" yelled a stocky kid in baggy jeans and braces. "Communists for Kerry! Go back to Russia," someone else screamed. Many of them took up the chant "Kerry sucks"; old women and teenage boys shouting with equal ferocity.



With four days to go until the election, you can feel the temperature rising in Ohio.



Among Democrats, it's easy to indulge the fantasy that all the rage in this election is directed one way -- at Bush. Thousands of progressives are campaigning here, going door-to-door to get out the vote, training to watch the polls, holding concerts and rallies and anything else they can think of to beat Bush. Hundreds are from other parts of the country but most are locals. Jess Good, Ohio director of the massive get-out-the-vote group America Coming Together, says that 93 percent of the 12,000 volunteers expected to work on Election Day are from Ohio itself.



Clearly, something exciting and unprecedented is happening. After reviewing Democratic and progressive field operations in Ohio and Florida, L.A. Weekly columnist Harold Meyerson wrote, "I have found something I've never before seen in my 36 or so years as a progressive activist and later as a journalist: an effective, fully functioning American left."



Friday's Republican rally, though, was evidence that many on the right are as fervid and galvanized as their opponents. Pollster John Zogby has called this the "apocalypse election" because people on both sides believe the world will end if their candidate loses. He's right -- the Republicans I met at the Ohio rally spoke in language almost identical to that of the most addled Bush-hater, although often several steps further removed from reality.



Dave, a 54-year-old electronic technician, said that if Kerry wins, "I'm going to leave the country and go to a Third World nation and start a ranch." His wife, Jenny, laughed and accused him of hyperbole, but he insisted he's been studying Portuguese, the language of Brazil, "so we'll have an escape route." Sitting near him was Greg Swalley, a blond electrical contractor. "I think Kerry is the anti-Christ," he said, only half-joking. "He scares me."



We were sitting outside the Nationwide Arena watching the adoring crowd on a massive elevated monitor. Swalley and the others had tickets and I had press credentials. But by the time we arrived, 40 minutes before the rally was scheduled to start, security had closed off the area and no more people were being let in. So dozens waited outside and watched their heroes on the screen. The monitor showed a huge W. and then the words, "Let's Roll." When Bush, his wife and Schwarzenegger appeared, wild cheering echoed outside the building.



Inside, Schwarzenegger tried to strike a sunny, moderate note. "There is optimism in Ohio," he said. "There is optimism all over the country because President Bush is leading the way. He's fighting for all of us.



"President Bush knows you can't reason with people that are blinded by hate," Schwarzenegger said. "But let me tell you something: Their hate is no match for our decency, their hate is no match for America's decency, and it is no match for the leadership and the resolve of George W. Bush."



Outside, though, I didn't see much American decency among Bush's followers. The conservative movement has long been fueled by anger and resentment. But here the negativity was at an especially high pitch, perhaps because some were starting to realize they might lose -- and that seemed like the end of the world.



Looking at the small knot of protesters, many of whom were chanting, "Four more days," 22-year-old Nick Karnes, wearing a knit ski cap and baggy jeans, yelled, "Shut up!" Then he turned to his friend and said, "We can take 'em."



"I'm definitely gonna vote for him," Karnes said of Bush. "Because he's been the president for four years and nothing bad has happened since Sept. 11. He's kept me alive for four years." If Kerry becomes president, he said, "We'll be dead within a year."



Karnes told me that most of his friends are voting for Bush, too, but a couple are voting for Kerry. "I'm not speaking to them right now," he said.



When the crowd came pouring out of the arena, the vitriol only increased. One clean-cut man, holding his son by the hand, yelled "coward!" at one of the protesters. I asked him what made him say that, and he said, "Because he's demeaning our troops by saying they are fighting a lost cause."



"Jesus! Jesus!" screamed 26-year-old Joe Robles, pointing to his Bush-Cheney sign. "The man stands for God," he said of the president. "We want somebody who stands for Jesus. I always vote my Christian morals." Robles, a student at Ohio State University, told me that Kerry's daughter is a lesbian. I said I thought that was Dick Cheney's daughter, but he shook his head no with confidence.



Robles said that Kerry would make it illegal for preachers to say that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. In California, he informed me gravely, such preaching has been deemed a hate crime, and pastors who indulge in it are fined $25,000, which "goes to lesbians."



A few of the protesters, meanwhile, were red-faced from yelling at their antagonists about homophobia and budget deficits and a senseless war. Republicans were incensed. A blond woman dragged her young redheaded son toward the protesters, pointed to them, and said, "These are the Democrats," speaking as if she was revealing an awful reality that he was finally old enough to face. As she walked away with a group of other mothers and children, she was so angry she could barely speak. A friend consoled her by promising her that Bush would win. After all, she pointed out, "Look how many more Bush supporters there were on the street!"



That calmed the angry blond woman down a little. But she was still mad. "We," she said, stammering and gesturing contemptuously at the demonstrators, "we are the way it should be!"

---

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[sam7777]

Homophobia and the Republican Party

Quote:

---

Of all the extreme positions that emanate from the rabid conservatives that control the GOP (and there are many), none are more despicable than their outright hatred of homosexuals.

---

The choice is clear on Tuesday for the survival of GLBT folks. I hope that people of conscience make the right choice and vote for John Kerry. There is no way that I will support the bigotry of the republican party.

[sheila wt]

Quote:

---

Dave, a 54-year-old electronic technician, said that if Kerry wins, "I'm going to leave the country and go to a Third World nation and start a ranch." His wife, Jenny, laughed and accused him of hyperbole, but he insisted he's been studying Portuguese, the language of Brazil, "so we'll have an escape route."

---

Oh yes, please go. That's what people like this deserve! A crash-course in how to wake up and pay attention!



If he goes to the North, he'll find a population very much devoted to old African cults, like candoble and macumba (a little like voodoo) and who live and love with extreme passion.



If he decides for the South, he'll witness the largest gay parade in the world and a week of gay balls in prime-time TV during carnival. In fact, I read not long ago that the Brazilian South is considered more gay-friendly than even Australia.



As for politics and such, gee, we took corruption to a new level! And as far as religion goes, well, we can be the largest Catholic country in the world, but less than 30% of all population goes to the church, and much less than that even remember religion where politics and economy are concerned. I don't know if it's because of the years of militar dictatorship in the past or what, but those things just don't go together for a Brazilian.

------------------------------

Sheila

[Gatito Grande]

Strange, but true: since 1933, the last game before Election Day that the Washington Redskins have played, has proved predictive: if the Redskins win, the party in power keeps the White House. If they lose, then the party out of power wins the White House.



Today, the Green Bay Packers beat the Washington Redskins!!!



But let's not leave it to dumb luck, 'kay?



Surely some of you Kittens in (or merely near) swing states (includes Canadians!) can volunteer in the next couple of days? (Y'know, volunteer to defeat the Forces of Evil?) Go to this website to find out how you can help Get Out the Vote (in a swing state precinct near you). Or check out MoveOn PAC's "Leave No Voter Behind" Project (which helps turn out swing voters living very close to you).



OK, you say, "but I don't live anywhere near a swing state!" Never fear, friends: ya gotta phone? You can still help! Give this nice website www.votercall.org/register/ a look.



GG Thanks to the Packers---and the receding of OBL to . . . the low priority that Dubya has given him the last 3 years---GG is back on the "WE CAN WIN!" tip. Let's make it happen! Out



Edited, w/ the correct (extremely encouraging!) date of the predictive pattern

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 10/31/04 8:29 pm

[Still Waters Run Deep]

.......... dead Ringers on BBC2 tonight had a really funny piss-take regarding the US election and all the crap around it, from both sides of the Atlantic.

No one escaped unscathed, even Michael Moore got some leg-pulling. But the main satire was reserved for Bush, Fox News, and ABC.



To much funny stuff to relate here. If it ever gets shown on BBC US catch it.



www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/deadringers/



www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/dead...lip1.shtml



www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/dead...ip13.shtml

-----------------------------------

love and kisses

Still Waters



"just an old, saggy cloth cat. Baggy, and a bit loose at the seams, but Emily loved him"

Edited by: Still Waters Run Deep at: 11/1/04 3:51 pm

[darkmagicwillow]

D. Neiwert is compiling a list of right-wing thuggery against Kerry supporters, including vandalism of Kerry campaign headquarters, assaults on demonstrators, and more.



He also has an interesting series on the rise of proto facism in the neoconservative movement in the US. Some of his election possibilities are troubling, and hark back to our earlier discussion about the lack of a right to vote for President in the US, something that was emphasized in 2000 with Antonin Scalia's chilling remark: "There is no right of suffrage under Article II."

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Warduke]

Some good news from Illinois. From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Obama Headed to Senate After Easy Win



By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer





CHICAGO - Barack Obama, the son of a Kenyan father and an American mother who shot from obscurity to political stardom in mere months, trounced Republican Alan Keyes on Tuesday to claim a Senate seat in Illinois. He will be just the third black U.S. senator since Reconstruction.



The resounding victory is the latest chapter in a rags-to-riches story for a man who grew up on the beaches of Hawaii and the streets of Indonesia barely knowing his father but has gone on to become a linchpin of the Democratic Party's future.



He gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention this year, delivering a message of national unity in a stirring speech that made him an overnight political sensation. National news shows and magazines profiled him, and the 43-year-old state senator from Chicago became a top draw for other Democrats' campaigns nationwide.



Obama will replace Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, who declined to run for a second term.



The campaign was one of the strangest races in state history — a contest between a liberal political superstar and a conservative former ambassador who had never lived in Illinois. And Keyes was far from the GOP's top choice.



Investment banker-turned-teacher Jack Ryan won the Republican primary in March, but dropped out of the race three months later after records were released from his divorce with "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Boston Public" actress Jeri Ryan. The documents revealed embarrassing allegations that the candidate took his wife to sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans and tried to get her to perform sex acts with him while others watched.



The GOP searched for a replacement candidate but was turned down by a string of former governors, state senators and even Chicago Bears legend Mike Ditka. Only in August did the Republican Party settle on a replacement candidate, offering the role to Keyes, a conservative Maryland resident and two-time presidential candidate.



Keyes also is black. It was the first U.S. Senate election in history in which two black candidates represented the major parties.



Keyes, 54, focused his campaign on morality and argued that abortion and homosexuality threaten the country. He criticized what he called the "socialism" of Obama's positions.



Keyes quickly demonstrated a willingness to say whatever was on his mind. He said homosexuals, including Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter, are "selfish hedonists." He argued that Jesus would not vote for Obama. And he likened abortion to the evil committed by terrorists.



Before entering politics, Obama was the first black president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review and a civil rights lawyer in Chicago.



The United States has had four black U.S. senators in its history and two since Reconstruction: Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts and Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[sam7777]

The country will remain deeply divided by a president who doesn't give a rat's ass about people who are not in his base.



The Great Divide Continues

Quote:

---

The electorate almost engaged in a much-needed political correction. It almost undid the asterisk of 2000. Instead, voters legitimized the fellow who gained the White House against the will of the majority and who then pretended he had a mandate and subsequently pushed tax cuts for the well-to-do and launched a war predicated on untrue assertions. So there will be no good-bye to reckless preemptive war, an economic policy based on tax breaks tilted toward the wealthy, a war on environmental regulations, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, excessive secrecy in government, unilateral machismo, the neocon theology of hubris and arrogance, a ban on effective stem cell research, no-bid Halliburton contracts, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, and much more. Did I mention Dick Cheney?



Bush lied his way into office and lied his way through his presidency. His reelection campaign was based on derision and disingenuousness; he mischaracterized Kerry and his positions and touted successes that did not exist. And now, it seems, he got away with it. He was not punished for leading the country into a war that was not necessary. He was not booted for having overstated the WMD threat from Iraq. He paid no price for failing to plan adequately for the post-invasion period. Iraq remains his mess. And the United States and the world remains at the mercy of a gang that, no doubt, will feel even more emboldened to pursue their misguided policies.



The good news: America is a divided nation. Despite the pundit hand-wringing over this fact, it is a positive thing. Nearly – nearly – half of the electorate rejected Bush's leadership, his agenda, his priorities, his falsehoods. From Eminem to the chairman of Bank of America to 48 Nobel laureates to gangbangers who joined anti-Bush get-out-the-vote efforts in swing states. Nearly half of the voting public concluded that Bush had caused the deaths of over 1100 American GIs and literally countless Iraqis (maybe 100,000) for no compelling reason. Nearly half saw the emperor buck naked and butt ugly. Nearly half said no to his rash actions and dishonest justifications. Nearly half realized that Bush had misrepresented the war in Iraq as a crucial part of the effort against al Qaeda and Islamic jihadism. Nearly half desired better and more honest leadership. Nearly half knew that Bush has led the country astray.



Other good news: Second-term presidents often hit the skids. The last three second- terms were marked by scandal (Watergate, Iran-contra, Monicagate). And as top officials sprint through the revolving door to snag high-paying jobs (while their contacts are fresh), the job of running the government during the second administration often falls to the B Team. In the post-9/11 world, this is not all that reassuring. But the historical trend does suggest that Bush will have trouble enacting his various schemes. Yet – let's be realistic – the Senate results indicate that the GOP will expand its majority in the Senate, which means Bush will have more allies for his wrongheaded missions.



More good news; Bush will not be able to hand off his own wreckage – Iraq and the gargantuan deficit – to a new man. But this does not mean he will accept responsibility and deal with it. Bush has the ability to deny and defy reality. And if he cannot see that the trash has piled up, he will not be hauling it to the curb.

...

There was a clear difference between the two candidates. They disagreed on many basic issues. But – perhaps more importantly – they represented vastly different ways of engaging the world. One has adopted an ask-no-questions, nevermind-the- nuances, don't-look-back, tough-guy style of leadership. The other promised to consider and reach out before leaping. One said – practically boasted – that he read no newspapers. The other came across as a man who absorbed much information before rendering a decision. The voters chose the wrong man.



But not all is lost. The Red-Blue battle – a war of culture, ideology, politics and psychology – will not end with the final tally in Ohio. The forces of Bushism appear to have triumphed this day. But life – if we are lucky – is long, and history never ends. Let the great divide in America continue.

---

I too hope and pary the great divide continues. This administration has only earned my contempt. I will personally blame Bush and those who voted for him for the shit that will be inflicted on this country the next four years. I hope Bush is attacked in his second term as Clinton was and is impeached. The next stage of the struggle will be the mid-term election of 2006. It's not enough to get out the vote. People must be convinced of why the country is going in the wrong direction.



ETA: It's time to work for A New Progressive America and against the republican talibanization of America:

Quote:

---

The Democrats in 2006



The next federal election is only two years away. An incumbent president will attempt to gain seats for his party in an off-presidential year, a feat he accomplished four years prior. Although much is unknown about the country and the races in 2006, the Democrats must decide now what their strategy will be. Will they resist President Bush or will they cooperate with this recently reelected incumbent president. Which strategy is more likely to work?



In my view, the strategy of absolute defiance of the administration is best. Although Bush won reelection, that was mostly because of his Kerry-bashing. He's not out of the woods yet, particularly on the economy and Iraq. Democrats must capitalize on the uncertainty coming in the next two years. They must resist the judicial nominations tooth and nail. They must fight every legislative priority of the administration, becoming the party of the deficit hawks. They must give the American people in 2006 a choice, not an echo. Bush's popularity can only slide between now and the next election day. The Democrats must fight.

---

The republicans want no less than getting rid of GLBT rights in their quest to impose their "moral values" on everyone. Make no mistake it's us against them and there can be no compromise and working with those who hate us.



We must make the next four years as difficult for Bush as he plans to make life difficult for GLBT people in the US.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 11/3/04 12:23 pm

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Countdown for 2008 Election Begins



By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer





WASHINGTON - The day that dropped the curtain on the 2004 presidential race raised one for the 2008 contest, with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards jockeying for advantage among Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist the first on the stage for Republicans.



It's only four more years to go — minus a day. Who's counting? Lots of folks.



"You can be disappointed, but you cannot walk away. This fight has just begun," Edwards told Democratic loyalists in Boston in a concession speech that also could qualify as the leadoff stump speech of the next presidential campaign.



The Democratic decks are cleared with John Kerry's defeat, and Edwards and Clinton start off as early favorites within their party for 2008. Not that they — or Kerry — are talking about any plans so soon.



Since Bush cannot run again, the race is wide open on the Republican side as well, even more so than it would normally be. Usually the outgoing incumbent's vice president is the automatic favorite for the nomination. For instance, Democratic Vice Presidents Walter Mondale in 1984 and Al Gore in 2000, Republican Vice President George H.W. Bush in 1988.



But Vice President Dick Cheney, who is 63 and has a history of heart disease, has ruled out a run on his own for president.



That leaves a potentially crowded field — including Sens. Frist of Tennessee, John McCain of Arizona, George Allen of Virginia, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, New York Gov. George Pataki and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — with no early favorite.



Frist wasted no time in putting himself into play, beginning a "victory tour" of the South on Wednesday that included stops in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina with victorious GOP Senate candidates.



"Last night was a monumental victory" for the GOP-led Senate, Frist said. Wins included a five-state sweep of the South and the defeat of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota. Frist's expanded GOP majority gives him a high-profile platform at least for the next two years. Frist said he will stick with a pledge to resign from the chamber when his second term is up in 2006.



Clinton, who would have been sidelined in 2008 with a Kerry-Edwards victory, is now front and center among would-be Democratic contenders. And her supporters were busy getting her name in circulation.



The former first lady has plenty of name recognition and a wide following. But some analysts suggest she could meet the same fate as Kerry as a liberal senator from a Northeastern state, despite the years she spent in Arkansas.



"She's already known. The public is already polarized around her," said political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.



Doug Schoen, who served as former President Bill Clinton's presidential pollster, said it was too early "to talk personalities. The party's got to get repositioned first. It has to get back to the center with an aggressive assertion of traditional values."



Edwards might seem to have an advantage, being from the South. He drew high likability ratings on the campaign trail, both during the Democratic primaries and as Kerry's running mate. But his liabilities include a lack of political and foreign policy experience. And his decision not to seek re-election this year will make it hard for him to stay in the spotlight.



A trial lawyer, Edwards urged Kerry on Wednesday not to concede so quickly, but to make sure all options were explored.



Other Democrats who might run for the nomination in 2008 include Kerry himself, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois and Tom Vilsack of Iowa. And, up and coming, the party's rising star, Barack Obama, of Illinois, who will be the only black member of the Senate when he is sworn in January.



"There is an abundance of people" willing and eager to run, said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.



And Baker said a campaign like the past one — long, bitter and costly — may be becoming the norm in American politics. "It's like the Iditarod. It's this long race. You're exhausted and the dogs die," Baker said.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[darkmagicwillow]

The Democratic decks are cleared with John Kerry's defeat, and Edwards and Clinton start off as early favorites within their party for 2008.



Argh! Not more senators! If you want to win the Presidency, run someone with executive experience, preferrably a state governor.



Look at our past few decades of Presidents: all governors or VPs. The last sitting senator to be elected was JFK, and Warren Harding's the only other one besides him that I can think of. The job comes with too much baggage; too many votes that can be taken out of context and attacked.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Rosenberg]

OK, if you’re looking for a governor, how about Jennifer Granholm of Michigan? I know it will never happen, but I can dream, can’t I?

[sam7777]

More 'them' than 'us'

Quote:

---

Let’s face it. It’s not Kerry’s fault. It’s not Nader’s fault (this time). It’s not the media’s fault (though they do bear a heavy responsibility for much of what ails our political system). It’s not “our” fault either. The problem is just this: Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the “reality-based community” say or believe about anything.



They don’t care that Iraq is turning into murderous quicksand and a killing field for our children. They don’t care that the Bush presidency has made us less safe by creating more terrorists, inspiring more anti-American hatred and refusing to engage in the hard work that would be necessary to make a meaningful dent in our myriad vulnerabilities at home. They don’t care that he has mortgaged our children’s future to give trillions to the wealthiest among us. They don’t care that the economy continues to hemorrhage well-paying jobs and replace them with Wal-Mart; that the number without health insurance is over forty million and rising. They don’t care that Medicare premiums are rising to fund the coffers of pharmaceutical companies. They don’t care that the air they breathe and the water they drink is being slowly poisoned and though they call themselves conservatives, they even don’t care that the size of the government and its share of our national income has increased by roughly a quarter in just four years. This is not a world of rational debate and issue preference.

---

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[sheila wt]

This is so true... that's how I felt last night.



It's like trying to go through a wall. No matter what you do, or how much you do, it stays there, unmoving.



And worse of all, I think, it's seeing all these happy people around. First I was going for "idiots", now I try to believe they're just naive. But I'm not so sure about that...



I was not born American but I chose this country to live. I'm so sad right now that I'm questioning my choice for the first time. After Bush's win and all 11 states passing the anti-gay amendments (including the one where I live) I kinda feel a little unwanted in this country...

------------------------------

Sheila

[J uk]

[WebWarlock]

Don't hold out that Obama will run for President or Vice Pres in 2008. He has just told the nightly news talkies that he is not.



Here is the story.

www.chicagotribune.com/ne...i-news-hed



Warlock

Web Warlock, web.warlock@comcast.net, The Other Side.

Liber Mysterium: The D20 Netbook of Witches & The Dragon and the Phoenix: New Adventures of Willow and Tara

"Are you kidding me? 'Trainspotting' is the 'Citizen Kane' of Scottish heroin movies!" - My friend Al.

Edited by: WebWarlock at: 11/4/04 10:03 am

[sam7777]

Like DMW, I don't think the dems should run another senator. They should try to find some governors in the battleground state. The next ticket dshoul be two people from battleground states. Dems must also work to GOTV among groups that will vote for them byt not simply taking their constituencies for granted but making meaningful promises on issues that matter to groups like african americans and GLBT that the republicnas shun.



J uk: The United States of Canada looks like a good idea to me.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[urnofosiris]

Lol J uk



If only.

Edited by: DrG at: 11/4/04 12:08 pm

[Gatito Grande]

[I know this post skirts the "Scarier Religion and" thread, but I really need to put it here]



I appreciate the sentiment, J uk, but I think you're map is profoundly misleading.



First, you included my state, Michigan, in the United States of Canada: yeah, it went for Kerry, but it also voted to make me a second-class citizen in its Constitution (No marriage, no civil union for you, pervert!)



But the real problem is calling all the Red States "Jesusland": I cannot tell you how much this bothers me.



I believe:



Jesus loves me. Jesus, as part of the Triune God, made me queer. Jesus railed against exactly the same sort of scripture-spewing hypocrites, as voted for Dubya.



Jesus is NOT the problem, and we ignore this fact at our peril.



Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying you're in peril if you don't believe the things that I (a Christian, duh) do about Jesus.



But what we can't do, is continue to ignore the language of those who preach a homophobic false Jesus (whom I now like to call "GeeZus"). We must challenge the Christian Right wingnuts in their own language: because otherwise they'll never understand ours.



Example: I saw a sampling of British frontpages this morning on CNN (you're a Brit, right J uk?). One of them said "How could 59 million Americans be so stupid?" (referring to Dubya's voters)



Calling the Red Staters "stupid" is something that has been going on forever (by "the liberal elite" they hate so much). They expect it, they resent it, it riles 'em up like nobody's business (and then, in record numbers, they go to the polls).



What they haven't been called, is IMMORAL. Sinful. Un-biblical. "If you hate the gayness that God created, then you hate God." "If you met the True Jesus, you'd think he was queer, and crucify him yourselves!"



They've never been spoken to like this, and it would blow their frickin' minds! (And I've seen this: a wingnut guy would come to a progressive Episcopal site. He would love to argue, argue, argue . . . till I started performing an online exorcism on this homophobic hellspawn---that shut him up! I pray it got rid of his discriminatory demon, too, but that I don't know. )



Now the easiest way to confront them, is to do something probably most of y'all don't want to do: read the Bible for yourselves (GG promises, it's not really that scary---honest!). "Why should I have to read a book I don't want to: one I don't believe in, and have been told is nuthin' but homo-hating?" Well, why would you learn French, if you found yourself among (solely) Francophones? I mean, you can demand all these "barbarians" (in the original sense of that word ) learn your language, but is that really very likely? Logical? Practical?



But if you can't even do that, then consider this: learn to speak of your own beliefs in moral terms. You know that it's right---Good---that you're gay (or that your friends are). How do you know? Look for analogies to other things you know are Good. (Learn to describe homophobia as analogous to other things you know are Evil).



If we want those in "Jesusland" to change, it will NOT happen because they suddenly forget about Jesus. It will only happen when they realize (ala Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus: look it up! ) "How could we have gotten Jesus so WRONG?"



GG Practice saying to a Bushite: "Repent, homophobe, and return to the Lord! Out

[sam7777]

The Red Zone

Quote:

---

W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a wingman.



The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.



W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.



Mr. Bush, whose administration drummed up fake evidence to trick us into war with Iraq, sticking our troops in an immoral position with no exit strategy, won on "moral issues."



The president says he's "humbled" and wants to reach out to the whole country. What humbug. The Bushes are always gracious until they don't get their way. If W. didn't reach out after the last election, which he barely grabbed, why would he reach out now that he has what Dick Cheney calls a "broad, nationwide victory"?



While Mr. Bush was making his little speech about reaching out, Republicans said they had "the green light" to pursue their conservative agenda, like drilling in Alaska's wilderness and rewriting the tax code.



"He'll be a lot more aggressive in Iraq now," one Bush insider predicts. "He'll raze Falluja if he has to. He feels that the election results endorsed his version of the war." Never mind that the more insurgents American troops kill, the more they create.



Just listen to Dick (Oh, lordy, is this cuckoo clock still vice president?) Cheney, introducing the Man for his victory speech: "This has been a consequential presidency which has revitalized our economy and reasserted a confident American role in the world." Well, it has revitalized the Halliburton segment of the economy, anyhow. And "confident" is not the first word that comes to mind for the foreign policy of a country that has alienated everyone except Fiji.



Vice continued, "Now we move forward to serve and to guard the country we love." Only Dick Cheney can make "to serve and to guard" sound like "to rape and to pillage."



He's creating the sort of "democracy" he likes. One party controls all power in the country. One network serves as state TV. One nation dominates the world as a hyperpower. One firm controls contracts in Iraq.

---

Personally, I want the country to remain divided and bitter. Bush will pursue the conservative agenda he has always been pursuing and any talk of reaching out is just that talk. Nothing will get better by working with the republicans to run America.



The Dems claim thay are stunned and will work to improve but they said that in 2000. They need to prove to people that they are a viable alternative to the republicansand show that they will take the country in a better direction by opposing the republicans for the next four years.



Bipartisan under Bush is just another word for dems giving in to republican thuggery. If they don't obstruct the republican agenda, they will find even less support the next time. Kerry neither energized moderates nor his base and next time they won't be there for the dems. With Bush out of the picture, the republicans can run someone else without the baggage and keep winning. The dems need to show they are more than watered down republicans to win votes.



If not and we must wait generations for change in GLBT rights, then I'd rather vote for the Green party and try to build them up than for the dems. If the election of a homophobic president and domination of the government by a homophobic party doesn't get all GLBT people angry and demanding change then nothing will. If the dems want to "heal" the country by caving in to the republicans they can do it without my support.



The Election Hangover of a Lifetime

Quote:

---

Now, I look at my son and I imagine a draft. I look at him and I think of the young Americans who should never have been but are desperately in harm's way in Iraq. I think of the Iraqis and try to wrap my brain around the next 100,000 of them who will die in the urban killing fields of that country, while the second Bush administration pursues its mad, murderous policies. I think about those northern glaciers and the polar ice, and try to imagine them gone in a globally warmed world. I think about being in the heart of the heart of a vast (possibly failing) empire and my heart sinks -- and so, unfortunately, does Tomdispatch's.



I think of the possibly dying Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has held on these extra years by the skin of her teeth, and I remember all too well what it meant in the years of my young manhood to search for a back-alley abortionist, and then I wonder what the Bush court of 2006 will say when the next set of Guantanamo-like cases reach it, or when other U.S. citizens, even perhaps some without names like Hamdi, find themselves jailed on the President's whim. I think of the hideous and useless new weapons systems on which our money will now be squandered. I think of the administration's race to militarize space, as if there weren't enough advanced weapons on our own planet. I think about the neocons, hidden away these last months, who will undoubtedly return oh-so-eager to take a whack at Syria or Iran or North Korea or who knows where else.



I think about the very concept of governing checks and balances -- inexorably slipping away these last decades -- in a world in which the Bush administration controls the White House, Congress, and the courts, and in which the President now has his own political people running his own secret armed intelligence agency, the CIA. And I think about that greatest check and balance of all, the one between our government and a country which, in its relatively short history, has often enough been convulsed by spiritual awakenings and -- yes, what other word can we use -- crusades of every sort, now that the political and religious are increasingly combined in the body of a single man, our President.



In the meantime, a little over half of voting Americans -- and there were a lot of voting Americans this time around -- have now signed on to the rashest presidency in our history (short perhaps of that of Jefferson Davis); they have signed on to a disastrous crime of a war in Iraq, and a losing war at that which will only get worse; they have signed on to whatever dangerous schemes these schemers can come up with. They have signed on to their own impoverishment. This is the political version of the volunteer Army. Now, they have to live with it. Unfortunately, so do we.

---

ETA: The Unbearable Darkness of Being

Quote:

---

This wasn't just another conservative victory. Lord knows, progressives have had plenty of practice losing elections in recent decades. And it isn't about partisanship. I'm not shedding any tears over Tom Daschle.



No, it's not about losing an election, but the fear of losing faith. Liberals have always believed that if we did everything right – got the truth out; got the people out – we would prevail. In the past, I could tell myself it was the wrong candidate, wrong strategy, wrong party – some reason why people didn't show up at the polls or vote for the "right" guy. Not any more.



On Tuesday, the largest turnout in recent history couldn't save us from defeat. Democracy won and so did George Bush. And all the Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't change the sad fact that the truth did not set us free. Nearly 52 percent of all Americans preferred to simply ignore reality to keep their faith in God and the man who is only too happy to play messiah.



This is now their White House, their Senate, their House of Representatives, and very likely their Supreme Court. It's their country.



Or at least that's the message I get from all the talk of "unity" and "healing" in the media. Now that the Democrats lost the political equivalent of the Super Bowl, I just need to shut up and put up. Anything less would just be typical liberal whining and bitterness. That I am afraid of what will happen to my country in the next four years is dismissed as just sore loser behavior. That I care about what will happen to my right to choose as a woman; the healthcare I can afford; the air I breathe; the soldiers I've spoken to – all this is just partisan obstinacy?



James Carville says that if liberals like me want to win, we need to learn how to talk to white guys in pickup trucks who think my gay friends are a sin against nature. But what could I possibly say to someone for whom a ban on abortion is the single most important issue in their life? There's no point in trying to "speak my values," if the folks I'm talking to think those values are simply wrong.



John Edwards was right in a way. There are two Americas: one that values tolerance, justice, and equality; the other that believes in Divine Will. But now that the Democrats lost the election – and control over every branch of government – I get to live in their America. And Carville wants me to talk to these guys? Or is he really saying that I need to be more like them? After all, it's not like I have any values that might be worth holding on to. Why not just put my silly liberal preoccupations with choice or sexual freedom aside so we can all come together as one nation – one nation under God, Guns, and (hating) Gays.



In the aftermath of the election, it feels like I've not just ceded my country, but also my self. I've become just one among the sea of anonymous losers whose concerns and issues are simply not relevant any more. In the space of a single night, I've become invisible.

---

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 11/5/04 11:44 am

[Jennpurr]

BUSH!







Jen

Edited by: Jennpurr at: 11/5/04 12:19 pm

[sam7777]

GG: Those weren't my words. That quote was from a blog not from me. The author's name is Lakshmi Chaudhry. You can contact her at Alternet and forward your ideas as she is unlikely to read this thread.



Winners and Losers on Nov. 2

Quote:

---

Winner: Osama bin Laden. The president's champions can bray all they want about how Bush understands the central issue of our time – that we're fighting World War IV against Islamic fascism – but the fact remains that, three years after 9/11, bin Laden is issuing tapes mocking the president, America's emergency services still aren't prepared for another attack, and the war on terror has taken a disastrous detour into Iraq. Unable to conceive of fighting militant Islam with anything other than guns – time to bone up on the Cold War, pal – Bush and his fuck-you manner have turned much of the non-Islamic world fervently against the U.S. You can only imagine how much stronger these feelings are in the Islamic world. On Tuesday, bin Laden's dream came true: America re-elected his greatest recruiting tool.



Loser: John Edwards. Remember when the senator from North Carolina was the charismatic newcomer praised for his dazzling political talent? That was three months ago. Today, he's the guy who did nothing for the ticket. He didn't help the Democrats win North Carolina. He didn't help the Democrats win a single swing state. And he didn't even make any memorable speeches. The least he could have done was pull a Lieberman and keep his Senate seat – which went over to the GOP. Had Edwards turned down Kerry's offer, he would today be the 2008 front-runner for the nomination. Instead, the Breck Girl became the Invisible Man, imperceptible but for the stain of defeat.



Winner: Machiavelli (Mayberry Branch). Concerned only with preserving power, Karl Rove spent the last four years engaged in what pollster Pat Caddell once dubbed "the permanent campaign" – scripting every moment of Bush's presidency according to a political calculus. And what a calculus! Under his guidance, the Bush-Cheney campaign didn't fret about lying, pandering to the reactionary base, trashing its opponents' courage and patriotism, or polarizing America so deeply that half the country was sickened and infuriated by its own president. All that mattered was getting one more vote than his opponent. Rove got his win. Whether such politics could destroy America doesn't worry him at all. For in Wilde's famous words, he's the very embodiment of a cynic: He knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.



Loser: The Republican Party. Sure, the loony right will now feel empowered to pursue countless ghastly ideas: Alan Keyes for chief justice! Voting rights for fetuses! Social Security outsourced to Halliburton! But it will also be forced to deal with the consequences of its decisions. The only satisfaction in Kerry's losing is knowing that Bush will spend his second term grappling with the mess in Iraq, the shambles of the budget, the fury of seniors at the lousy new Medicaid program, and the next big terror attack on U.S. soil – which, I'm sorry to say, he won't be able to stop. Far from becoming the thousand-year reich predicted by Grover Norquist, in four years Republicans will be crumbling under the weight of their own mistakes, and will have nobody else to blame.



Loser: Fox News. Roger Ailes' boys may have spent Wednesday chortling because their man won the election (not that a fair and balanced network has a favorite, of course), but the network would have been much better off had Kerry won the election. The right-wing media's ascent is fueled by grievance and outrage – conservative talk radio was made by the Clinton years – but it's hard to keep spanking the liberal elite five years into Republican domination of the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, not to mention countless corporate boardrooms. During Bush's second term, Fox will be forced to defend the increasingly indefensible. That's lousy TV – and Ailes knows it. How much more fun – and better for ratings – to take potshots at a windsurfing Democratic president with a suspiciously good French accent.



Loser: Exit polling. Like most people in the media, I spent Tuesday getting exit polls that showed Kerry on his way to a clear-cut victory. What went wrong? Did pollsters sample the wrong precincts? Did voters lie (perhaps embarrassed to tell "the media" they were voting for Bush)? Or did those electronic voting machines do exactly what everyone had feared – skew the election? A fascinating thought. After all, exit polls were reckoned reliable until the 2000 presidential election. It's too early for me to know, but were the exit polls as wrong about Senate races as they were about the presidential contest?



Winner: The religious right. For months we've been hearing about how the Democrats were registering millions of new young voters. Either the kids didn't show up on Tuesday or, more likely, they just weren't as liberal as everyone thought – Pew estimated that Kerry led Bush among the young by 5 to 4. Meanwhile, the Republicans were registering scads of evangelicals, and unlike the kids, they voted as a bloc – over 80 percent went for born-again Bush. The religious right now can stake even more enormous claim on the White House. One only wonders when (if?) it will stop behaving as if Christians are a beleaguered, abused minority in the U.S. This isn't ancient Rome, folks. Nero is one of yours.



Loser: Charles Darwin. The Polish social philosopher Leszek Kolakowski observed that one horror of communist ideology was that it had a theory of everything – from genetics to composing symphonies. The same is true of Christian conservatism, which seems eager to roll back centuries of scientific discovery. For them, the Beagle hasn't landed. Thanks to this election, we can expect more and more schools to start teaching the bogus Theory of Intelligent Design (which has the added disadvantage, scientifically, of not actually being a theory) as if it were real science and not a debased offshoot of theological doctrine.



Loser: Women. Now that he no longer fears losing re-election, Bush will be free to appoint Supreme Court justices who will finally overturn Roe v. Wade. Which raises once again the question posed by my old colleague Michael Ventura: Why do pro-life activists identify so deeply with the fetus and not with the woman carrying it? Is it because they themselves feel as powerless as an "unborn child"?



Winner: The Anti-Bush Industry. According to definitive statistics, over the last 12 months a Bush-bashing book has been published every 4.3 seconds. If Kerry had won the election, deathless works by the likes of Michael Moore, Al Franken and the scintillating Graydon Carter would have fallen into the dustbin of history. Thanks to Dubya's victory, these books can enjoy a prosperous life in paperback. Bush's victory may be bad for the world, but it's certainly good for them. And who am I to say that's a bad thing?

---

The Dems are already blaming their loss on the gay marriage issue:

Gay marriage and moral obligation

Quote:

---

Many post-election commentators are pointing to gay marriage as the proverbial straw that broke Kerry's back. Citing the 11 states that voted to ban same-sex marriage and, in some cases, civil unions, these arguments are stoking debate within the Democratic Party. Dianne Feinstein blames the conservative turnout on the sudden burst of gay marriages in her hometown of San Francisco and elsewhere:



"I believe it did energize a very conservative vote. I think it gave them a position to rally around. I'm not casting a value judgment. I'm just saying I do believe that's what happened. So I think that whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon. And people aren't ready for it."



That argument is gaining traction in Democratic circles, with San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom taking most of the heat. Openly gay Congressman Barney Frank, a supporter of gay marriage but a prominent critic of subverting the law to allow it, has publicly blamed San Francisco's "spectacle weddings" for Kerry's defeat. Sure, Newsom supported gay marriage -- in part, to inoculate him from future challenges from more progressive candidates (and it worked) -- but he firmly believes that this is a human rights issue. Salon's managing editor, Joan Walsh, has a similar take on the issue and her personal piece captures the moral imperative facing Democrats in this debate:



"Personally, I have to wonder if red state folks who voted for Bush on moral issues saw through the ruse: We're the party of civil rights for everybody except gay people? Please. One thing Bush clearly had over Kerry was the perception that, right or wrong, he stands by his values. I really do think 'character' is a huge part of the values package that allowed Bush to win."



To his credit, Kerry never played politics with the issue. In response to Bill Clinton's reported plea to neutralize the gay issue by backing the same-sex marriage bans that passed, Kerry said, simply, "I'm not going to ever do that." Despite his public opposition to gay marriage and support for civil unions, he voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, calling it "legislative gay-bashing."



What can we expect in the near future? Will Democrats rally and fight against a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman or will the once again cave on a prickly social issue that could alienate conservative Democrats? Either way, it seems obvious that the issue is not going away and Democrats have, as Newsom says in his defense of gay marriage, "a moral obligation to act."

---

Personally, I think the dems follow the republicans and abandon gays to get power.



The Values Gap

Quote:

---

there is a true reactionary conservative Christian movement in this country whose numbers only grow in size. Whatever they prefer to be called evangelicals or the Christian right, these people have hijacked the Christian religion and turned the faith of Jesus, the man who walked among the prostitutes, chastised the rich, broke bread with the lepers, said the meek would inherit the Earth, and advised the wise to turn the other cheek into a militant intolerant faith persecuting gays, minorities, and the "seculars".



The Democats' response to this rising Christian movement has been timid. They have stayed defiantly secular in their outlook, despite the increasing mixture of politics and religion. This is a mistake. The Democrats need to confront the religion gap head on, and they need to do it by tearing down the Christian Right and expose it as the intolerant, phony, sacrilegious fraud that it is. Jesus was not a warmonger. Jesus would not approve of the death penalty. He suffered from it. Jesus was not a supply-sider, robbing from the poor to give to the rich. The hypocrisy of the Christian Right is there for the exposing, and the Democrats only need to provide a strain of humanistic true Christianity to combat it. Perhaps the next pope will humanize that church in the coming years. Already the Episcopalian are humanizing theirs. The Democrats need to latch on to that leftish faith in order to combat the increasing militancy of the right. If they do not the "values gap" will only widen as the largely religious electorate rejects what it sees as the party of atheism.

---

This is the right approach but I fear the dems will simply decide to pander to the christian right instead.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 11/5/04 2:41 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

James Carville says that if liberals like me want to win, we need to learn how to talk to white guys in pickup trucks who think my gay friends are a sin against nature. But what could I possibly say to someone for whom a ban on abortion is the single most important issue in their life? There's no point in trying to "speak my values," if the folks I'm talking to think those values are simply wrong.

---

Um, see my post above, sam (said GG modestly).







Here's an example:



Why did you vote for Bush?



Because he's against abortion.



That's important to you?



Yes.



Why?



Because abortion is murder!



[or similarly, "Because homosexuality is a sin!"]



Why do you think that?



[At this point, there's a very decent chance that pick-up guy will shake his head and walk away (or swear at you) . . . but this is just where the conversation STARTS. Keep it up! Run after him!]



I just wanna know: why do you think that? Seriously!



[If he says "it's in the Bible," ask him to show you where. Be prepared to respond to any passage he points to, as to exactly why this passage DOES NOT support his anti-gay/anti-abortion assertion. Keep talking. Be patient.]



GG Practice nonviolence. Out

[sam7777]

The election loss would be easier to bear if it was not for all the gays who voted for Bush and against gay rights:

Gays ponder Bush victory

Quote:

---

Bush wins quarter of gay vote

Meanwhile, the nationwide exit poll conducted for a consortium of news media outlets showed that four percent of the electorate identified itself as gay male, lesbian, or bisexual.



Of that total, Kerry won 77 percent of the gay vote compared to 23 percent for Bush, the exit poll showed. Independent presidential contender Ralph Nader received less than one percent, the poll showed.



Although the poll shows that Kerry won handily among gays, many gay activists said they were baffled over why 23 percent of the gay electorate — which translates into more than one million gays — would vote for a president who pushed for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.



An exit poll conducted four years ago showed that Bush received a nearly identical percentage of the gay vote when he ran against Vice President Al Gore.



Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, the national gay group that chose not to endorse Bush, said he was not surprised over the size of the gay vote for Bush.



“I predicted that Bush could get as much as 30 percent of the gay vote in the middle of a war on terrorism,” Guerriero said.



Gay Republican activist Carl Schmid of D.C. said he, too, wasn’t surprised over the gay GOP vote.



“Obviously, gay people vote on issues other than gay issues,” said Schmid. “Everyone knows who is better on gay issues. But there are other issues that people think are important.”

---

The loss is more bitter when you see how many gay people don't vote for gay rights. I don't believe that gay people in the US will get equal rights in my lifetime. I wonder how much these "other issues" will make their lives better compared with the right to marry. Forget the red states, we must first convince gays. If gay people can't agree that their own rights are important, then how can anyone else be convinced? While gay people are gaining rights in other countries like Spain and Canada, we will remain second class citizens in the US. Makes me wonder why stay in the US?

Edited by: sam7777  at: 11/5/04 3:35 pm

[Gatito Grande]

I know they weren't your words, sam (sorry if I seemed to imply they were). But you posted them, and I felt they raised an important question which needed addressing.



I've seen another survey of voters, and of those voting for Dubya, the Number One reason they gave for it was "Strong Leader." Now, of course you and I and everyone here can quibble w/ that---the "Strong Leaders" are Cheney, and most of all, Karl Rove!---but as a perception it is important.



To cite a truism, leaders lead. So when Dianne *cough*SellOut*cough* Finestein says " . . .and people aren't ready for it," I have to say So F*cking What? If John Kerry had truly been a Strong Leader, he would have said "The FMA is WRONG, because marriage rights for all is RIGHT. Right by American democracy, and right by the Bible, too!"



GG Most emphatically pro same-sex marriage member of Congress (among hets)? Rep. John Lewis, who won an overwhelming reelection (he was essentially unopposed) . . . in mo'fo' Georgia! Don't tell me this issue is political suicide---it just takes (moral) leadership! Out

[jixer]

Hello Kittens-



In reaction to GG's comment about political suicide, I agree. Our Republican Senator (we're in Oregon where the motto is-Keep Oregon Weird!) has worked for protection for glbt Americans. He's not the brightest star in the heavens but he tries. Given that this state went Kerry AND Gay marriage ban it's not a popular place to be.



So I batted zero on those. I have come to the conclusion that being a liberal Repulican is a lot like being a bison in 1890. I seem to remember being part of a much larger herd.





Jixer

[darkmagicwillow]

Black Box Voting, an organization dedicated to improving the security and transparency of electronic voting is auditing the 2004 election, filing thousands of FOIA requests and claims to have already found evidence of problems. Perhaps exit polling wasn't as inaccurate as people think this week.

THURSDAY Nov. 4 2004: If you are concerned about what happened Tuesday, Nov. 2, you have found a home with our organization. Help America Audit.



Black Box Voting has taken the position that fraud took place in the 2004 election through electronic voting machines. We base this on hard evidence, documents obtained in public records requests, inside information, and other data indicative of manipulation of electronic voting systems. What we do not know is the specific scope of the fraud. We are working now to compile the proof, based not on soft evidence -- red flags, exit polls -- but core documents obtained by Black Box Voting in the most massive Freedom of Information action in history.



We need: Lawyers to enforce public records laws. Some counties have already notified us that they plan to stonewall by delaying delivery of the records. We need citizen volunteers for a number of specific actions. We need computer security professionals willing to GO PUBLIC with formal opinions on the evidence we provide, whether or not it involves DMCA complications. We need funds to pay for copies of the evidence.



TUESDAY Nov 2 2004: BREAKING NEWS: New information indicates that hackers may have targeted the central computers that are counting our votes.



Media calls: 206-335-7747 (congestion) - 206-778-0524

E-mail



Freedom of Information requests are not free. We need to raise $50,000 as quickly as possible to pay for records and the fees some states charge for them. We launched one major FOIA action last night, and have two more on the way, pell-mell. Now is the time. If you can't donate funds, please donate time. E-mail to join the Cleanup Crew.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Ben Varkentine]

Salon.com published this opinion piece asking whether Gavin Newsom cost the Democrats the election. It's a good piece, too; I'd say I agree with about 98% of it. Maybe more.

Quote:

---

By Joan Walsh







Nov. 5, 2004 | My daughter is still wearing her big blue Kerry/Edwards button to school and telling everyone who'll listen how awful it was that we reelected President Bush. Those aren't exactly fighting words here in true blue San Francisco. But because she goes to a Catholic high school there's more diversity of opinion than you might expect. (Which is part of why we sent her there.)



But the hardest thing for her to accept on Wednesday wasn't the crowing of her Republican classmates, it was the ire of young Democrats telling her that gay marriage cost John Kerry the election. "Mom, how can people who support marriage oppose gay marriage?" she asked me, genuinely pained and confused. I didn't have the heart to tell her that during the dark hours of Election Night I had the same thought about gay marriage dooming Kerry.





In the light of the next day, though, I came to my senses. Putting the blame on gays and lesbians goes against our own core values. We can't sell our souls to take back the White House.



Some liberal Salon readers haven't seen that way. "Gay marriage is the Ralph Nader of 2004," one wrote yesterday. A friend was meaner, telling me my mayor, Gavin Newsom, is the new Nader because his decision to marry local gay couples last February, which caused a national sensation, unleashed a red-state backlash. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, always fairly conservative on cultural issues, criticized Newsom for his gay-marriage gambit on Wednesday: "I believe it did energize a very conservative vote. The whole issue has beeen too much, too fast, too soon."



When I reached Newsom by phone on Thursday, he tried to joke off the criticism. "Hey, I'm responsible for the end of the free world," he said. "It's amazing -- for those who believe one person can't make a difference, look at me." But he sounded battered and tired, and admitted it. "When you defend yourself 400 times, you get defensive. You should see the stack of phone messages I have here. It hurts to be criticized by my party. But this issue began long before I even took office."



Newsom said it was the November 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court -- declaring that its state Constitution sanctioned gay marriage and not merely civil unions -- that put the issue on the map. Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave then jumpstarted the backlash with a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "So there were already plenty of promises by Bush and his administration that this would be a major issue in their campaign," he said.



I know a lot of liberals are feeling lonely this week. But I'm having an especially hard time because I have a lot of innate sympathy for cultural conservatives. I'm a working-class Irish Catholic -- as is Newsom, incidentally -- who moved away from the church because of its stands on women's issues. Yet all my lefty values come from Catholicism and I still miss it. I went to high school and college in Wisconsin, which went for Kerry but just barely (thanks, Bruce!) and I will never write off the heartland. While I still think of myself firmly on the left, I'm politically pro-choice but personally anti-abortion. I was behind much of Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform and I oppose identity politics. And until Newsom went on his marrying spree, I thought Democrats needed to move very slowly on gay marriage.



Then I had friends and neighbors who got married -- and a few whose weddings got canceled when the California Supreme Court stopped the ceremonies in March -- and my worldview permanently shifted. Now I don't know how the party can turn its back on gay people who want to marry.



In the 1960s, the Kennedys moved cautiously on civil rights -- too cautiously, history would show -- and still were despised by Southern racists who wanted absolutism. In 1965, Texan Lyndon Johnson knew he handed the South to Republicans when he signed the Civil Rights Act. But is anyone prepared to argue today that he did the wrong thing? Maybe the South would still be Democratic but Barack Obama wouldn't be. And neither would I.



Even Newsom admits to some post-election soul-searching. To say he cost Kerry the election "is quite simplistic," he said. "But I'll live with the burden of never knowing," he conceded. He argued, maybe self-servingly, that one could make the case that he helped Kerry by deflecting attention from the Massachusetts liberal, whose state legalized gay marriage. "When we were in Boston this summer, you didn't see photos of gay couples getting married there," Newsom said. "All those images were exploited months earlier in San Francisco. We took the focus away from Massachusetts. And now, even the president all but supports civil unions. Dick Cheney supports civil unions. We moved the debate."



Kerry, by the way, supported civil unions but not marriage, although that didn't help him with culturally conservative voters. Personally, I have to wonder if red state folks who voted for Bush on moral issues saw through the ruse: We're the party of civil rights for everybody except gay people? Please. One thing Bush clearly had over Kerry was the perception that, right or wrong, he stands by his values. I really do think "character" is a huge part of the values package that allowed Bush to win. As Newsom himself stressed, if Democrats were forced to adopt the Republican Party line on "abortion, stem cells, all these values issues -- if we have to become the party where everybody carries guns to church -- then why not just jump ship? This isn't the party I grew up with. And I think voters will see through it. People only support someone they trust."



So I guess I'm a little bit red and a little bit blue and that's why I'm feeling purple and bruised this week. But I believe I'm the future and I know my daughter is. Young people overwhelmingly support gay rights and they're starting to vote in greater numbers, too. The hand-wringing and reflexive kick-the-young'uns that's been evident on some blogs (I love you all over at Daily Kos, but that was some ugly youth-bashing Tuesday night) is pointless. Even with Karl Rove and the GOP using gay marriage as a wedge issue, Kerry won 49 percent of the vote. Lefty Democrats can lick their wounds for another day or so. But then they have to get back to work and extend the successes of MoveOn, ACT, Declare Yourself and the labor unions, and continue to build a party that knows how to mobilize its voters, especially its young ones.



Most of whom, even in my daughter's Catholic school, supported Kerry. In fact, on Wednesday morning, during a time when the kids can offer prayers or "special intentions" (for the pagans and half-Jewish kids like my daughter), most of her classmates prayed for Kerry. It's a blue-state apostasy, I know, but I don't get what's wrong with a moment of silence in schools, for prayer or anything else. If I were an atheist I'd tell my child to take deep breaths and enjoy the quiet. As Barack Obama says, we pray in the blue states. And of course the Cheneys love their gay daughter in red Wyoming.



I believe we'll survive four more Bush years and recover the White House. But we won't do it by selling out gay people.

---

Ben



"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton

[Kieli]

I have some pretty good guesses as to why quite a number of gays voted against gay rights.



a) They want to be seen as mainstream and feel that goal cannot be achieved by requesting "special protection" under the law. Their quest for acceptance apparently includes denial.



b) They have never experienced anything derogatory (i.e. gay bashing, discrimination based on sexual orientation, disownment by family and friends, etc.) by being in the closet or openly gay in a particular area (and that is the minority of places in the US and not the majority) and thus feel that we're "asking too much".



c) There is a certain amount of self-loathing in their decision. They're not really all that comfortable with themselves as gay (contrary to their statement) and would prefer to be considered "like everyone else"...thus their sexual preference doesn't factor in (and they're probably not partnered if I were to hazard a theory). Their closet must be so deep the Grand Canyon would be considered a mudhole.





But those are just my guesses. It would be interesting to really dig deep to find out their reasons.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[sam7777]

Kieli: Certainly folks like of Matt Drudge are self loathing. He's gay and more anti-gay than most extremeist evangelicals. Infact there is alot of that goiingon with bushies:

Quote:

---

I have just finished reading the book Cruel and Unusual by Mark Crispin Miller.

...



In this volume, Miller looks at BushCo and the leading purveyors of rightist propaganda. He analyzes and contextualizes the sheer vicousness of their statements to understand the inexhaustible supply of rage and paranoia that they continuously emit.



The basic idea of the book is that Bush/Cheney et al are fronting for a highly pathological political force which is completely foreign to the ideas of the Constitutional framers and is to some extent pre-Enlightenment. He points to many of the top right-wing pundits who are, obviously, enormous and record-setting hypocrites. Rush Limbaugh (who rants about harsher penalties for drug abusers while he himself is an enormous pill-head), Mike "Wiener" Savage (who is a essentially a Nazi who was born as a Jew), Bill Bennett (a moral scold who gambled-away millions in Sin City), Matt Drudge (gay homophobe) and on and on. But simple hypocrisy doesn't require you to put-out a non-stop flood of RAGE all the time, so where does this explosiveness and bile come from?



Miller argues it comes from intense self-hatred and projection. These are individuals who possess inner demons but need to continually direct their anger towards some demonic Other. Continually attacking, attacking, attacking in hopes of expunging what is inside them. The way he puts it all together, it really explains a lot.

---

A question that comes to mind is given the following from The values Gap:

Quote:

---

The Democrats need to confront the religion gap head on, and they need to do it by tearing down the Christian Right and expose it as the intolerant, phony, sacrilegious fraud that it is. Jesus was not a warmonger. Jesus would not approve of the death penalty. He suffered from it. Jesus was not a supply-sider, robbing from the poor to give to the rich. The hypocrisy of the Christian Right is there for the exposing, and the Democrats only need to provide a strain of humanistic true Christianity to combat it.

---

Given that the Christian right is distorting and perverting Jesus' message why don't more church leaders speak up. It's not hard to see why many folks see them all as intolerant given that only anti-gay religious people make the news (other than the Rev. Gene Robinson). The anti-gay movement in this country is being run by religious people for the most part. I belive if more religious people who are not anti-gay speak out to defend Jesus' actual teachings, it would certainly help.