“The governor’s kind of bi about this issue. In one venue he swings for civil unions and in another venue he says he has always been against them.”

The Governor’s flip-flop on this issue certainly provided more than adequate reason for a response from the Massachusetts GLPC, but the one they gave was childish and demeaning to the community they purport to defend. Ms. Isaacson may have thought her quips about the Governor being “bi” or “swinging” this way or that are cute, but if they were uttered by someone on the other side, she (and the folks over at GLAAD would likely find it offensive.

There’s enough mockery and offense directed toward the GLBT community from outside sources, it seems hardly necessary to propagate it from the inside on such a serious political issue.

In South Carolina this past Monday, Romney gave a speech outlining his hard line stance against not only gay marriage but against all psuedoforms of it as well, including civil unions. Now, this wouldn’t be too odd, considering President Bush recently held the same position – at least until his announced support for state-based civil unions a week prior to the election. However, the position of Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to jibe with Governor Mitt Romney.

The Boston Herald reported this week on the Presidential hopeful’s speech to South Carolina conservatives and noted that while in his home state of much-more-liberal Massachusetts, the Governor has actually supported civil unions. So which one of them is running for President?

The Governor’s office is quick to note that the Governor’s support for civil unions was only a last-ditch effort to stop May 17th’s same-sex marriage fiesta from happening, and under less than Defcon 1 circumstances, he’s still opposed.

So, I guess it’s only when he’s against the fence that his staunch values can be subject to compromise. Very Presidential.

The term “activist judges” has become synonymous in right-wing circles with all things liberal and wrong with the world. Add in the fact that questioning the President and/or the war was considered “un-American” by rabid Bushies even before George W received his mandate from the masses, and Ashcroft’s got a double shot of conservative rally juice.

Thankfully, Ashcroft is no longer the sitting Attorney General, so it’s a moot point to say that his call for a blanket judicial “pass” on all war-related decisions made by the Bush Administration is not only reckless but also flies in the face of the balance of powers.

I’m guessing those “activist” judges wouldn’t have listened to him, anyway; giving the right-wing “activist” activists yet another reason to assert they should be stripped of their power to judge.

These moderates have some soul searching to do, and they’re likely wondering if their souls are as blessed as those of their more socially conservative partymates. They’re rightly concerned about their place in the party and if the religiously motivated right-wing of the party is right in claiming a mandate to lead the party down the path of light to Holy victory.

Social moderates have hope for the future of the party, as two top-tier moderates’ names have already been floated for 2008: Giuliani and McCain. If they’ve got some free money and time, they’d be well advised to take a page from the left-wing handbook: early money is like yeast.

[gay republicans]

Although they might hold the same political views as their social moderate counterparts, gay Republicans are perennially seen as self-haters for aligning themselves with a party who consistently uses their lives as a wedge issue to win campaigns. This year was no exception – beyond the President’s marriage amendment proposal and 11 state-level bans on gay marriage, the Republican Party approved a platform that not only opposes gay marriage, but opposes any recognition of any type of same-sex relationships.

Like their straight counterparts, these boys and girls will likely cringe at the thought of a death or retirement on the Supreme Court, and will be cheering on efforts by moderate Senators like Judiciary Chairman-to-be Arlen Specter to ask the President to send middle-of-the-road judges to the Upper House for confirmation. Gay Republicans have the same hope for 2008 as the moderates – that their party will be saved by the venerable former-NYC mayor or the rogue Arizona Senator.



[democrats in general]

Arguably the most disaffected group of all, the Democrats are scrambling to find their place in this new world. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tried to do so this week by sending a plea for new money, noting that “Republicans unleashed every weapon in their arsenal to deliver a knockout blow to Congressional Democrats. They failed!”

Clearly, someone should have mentioned that they need to find their place in the real world. In less fundraising-centric circles, however, the Democratic House Leader has been seen mentioning God and church quite a bit more often in the course of television interviews, which may only further justify the moral right wing’s superiority complex in Republican ranks. Pelosi seems to be enacting Roll Call Executive Editor Morton Kondracke’s Tuesday missive on the Dems and God.

The Dems are also looking four years ahead, but the only two names that keep popping up are Edwards and Clinton. While those names will certainly get their own fired up, this year has proven that their own just isn’t enough. The Republican names on the hotplate for ‘08 are inherently party-line crossers and will suck the energy out of either Edwards or Clinton.

But it’s a long four years. Who knows what might happen by then. President Obama, anyone?

So it is with the folks at WorldviewWeekend.com, a partner ministry of American Family Online, an Internet service provider dedicated to serving Christian households with heretic-free web surfing. Worldview Weekend, which sponsors Christian seminars and boasts actor Kirk Cameron as one of its featured speakers, sent an e-mail missive to its members yesterday giving them a “no bones about it” view of today’s democratic (small d) activities.

Brannon Howse, the group’s President and Founder, penned the letter, in which he states rather unequivocally that his belief that “anyone that does not vote on Tuesday is sinning and anyone that votes for Kerry is committing an even greater sin!”

As if that didn’t do enough to seemingly run counter to the Christian ideal of love and understanding – not to mention the Internal Revenue Service’s code of conduct for religious entities – Mr. Howse goes further in his tirade:

This is no time to waste votes on third party candidates..A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Kerry. If you disagree that is fine….don’t waste your time sending me an e-mail about it because I will not waste my time reading it.

Is this how Christians should approach this election? Hardly. Support for Bush by the majority of Christians is expected and understood, but this kind of nasty electioneering smacks of something that is decidedly un-Christian – and perhaps more directly important today – un-American.

Simple. For moderate Republicans who don’t find themselves too keen on Bush, it’s time to look ahead to brighter days. The current foci of these hopes are the two top [Presidentially eligible] Republicans in the field today: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. This hope isn’t misplaced, either; aside from being moderates, these guys are as close as the GOP comes to Clintonesque rock star status.

With many moderate GOPers ready to wince at either outcome this Tuesday, perhaps hope for next contender will be the glue that holds them together until November 4. 2008. Of course, the first thing on the agenda for any White House hopeful is money. Naturally, part of my conversation revolved around fundraising efforts, starting in January. Yes, January ‘05.

In deference to the Office of the President, however, let’s hope the fundraisers don’t kick-off before the inauguration.

Not to scare the fundies, however, the President made sure to reiterate his feeling that the Marriage Protection Amendment is the only way to protect marriage between a man and a woman, and once again threw his full support behind the proposal. Still, this marks a softening of the President’s rhetoric on this touchy issue, perhaps in an effort to assuage moderates’ fears that the Chief Executive is too deep in the pocket of the religious right-wing of the party.

We’ll find out in a week if these concessions will do anything for the President in the polls, but in the last seven days, every faction counts – as long as it can be done quietly enough so as not to eviscerate the hopes of the religious zealots he needs to win.

Related Posts:

The W stands alone?

The major problem with the entire debate is that everyone is debating a different angle and their own perspectives. Jack Cafferty’s question of the day on CNN’s American Morning asked “Is it appropriate for Kerry and Edwards to be talking about the sexuality of Dick Cheney’s daughter?” The responses were generally anticipated, save one from “J.R. in Florida”: “What do you think the Democratic reaction of [sic] obesity instead of being gay was the social issue and Bush used Edwards wife as an example?”

This perfectly circles back to the importance of the original question in this debate: “Is homosexuality a choice?” It’s clear that Bush’s answer signals that he either: A) believes that it is a choice, but is hedging his answer to avoid offending the moderates, or B) can’t afford to say it isn’t a choice for fear of backlash from his right-wing base.

J.R. in Florida is the type of folk Bush is speaking to with his non-answer to this central question – people who feel that obesity is a perfect analogy to homosexuality; that who someone is attracted to is as much a choice as whether or not to supersize your value meal.

Regardless of the propriety of Kerry’s comment about Mary Cheney, he succeeded – wittingly or not – in keeping the eye off the ball. The President’s non-answer to this important and central question has been completely glossed over, and we’re focused instead on the fallout of a point Kerry could have made in a number of other ways.

Kerry gave the right answer – it’s an immutable characteristic. Bush gave the answer that protects his base and their crusade to make sure that their discrimination and bigotry is protected. If you admit that it’s not a choice, your case to fight equal rights becomes harder; the right-wing has to be able to hide behind the Bible and their specious “data” that prayer can save the devilish gays.

In the long run, the Bible didn’t protect mono-racial marriages, and it likely won’t protect the viciousness of the right-wing for much longer; but Bush’s answer gives them a little more time.