WHY THIS GAY AMERICAN IS SUPPORTING JOHN KERRY (it’s not what you think)
Gay Republicans, those sad, deluded studies in futility, contend that gay Democrats are "one issue voters." In reality, they are the one issue voters--their one issue is whether the candidate’s name is followed by an "R" or a "D". Gay Republicans are willing--perhaps eager--to disregard their candidate’s stand on gay issues. They are also willing--perhaps desperate--to paper over the vast inconsistencies in their party’s own ideology, particularly the profligate spending habits of their current leader, George Walker Bush. Those spending habits are putting America’s fiscal house out of order and jeopardizing not only our economic future, but our standing and credibility in the world. As is well known, the outsourcing of American jobs to China has hurt countless American workers. Less publicized, and perhaps more ominous, is the fact that Chinese banks are financing much of our federal government’s deficit. Now, I have nothing against the people of China, but shouldn’t America’s future be in our hands?
Mr. Bush likes to state that he’s making America stronger. But a nation’s strength this not measured by how many countries we invade, how many weapons systems the government buys, or how much money we funnel into the military-industrial complex.
A nation’s strength rests on a firm foundation, rooted in fiscal responsibility. Today, the stability of that foundation is in grave danger. Mr. Bush has been telling the supporters who attend his campaign’s rigorously screened events that America’s economy is "turning the corner" on prosperity, which sounds disturbingly like Herbert Hoover’s "prosperity is just around the corner" uttered during the depths of the Great Depression. America’s economy may well turn the corner into prosperity in 2005, but only if new leadership is elected to the White House. But if George W. Bush is handed another term in office, our economy will continue on the same start-and-stall cycle we’ve had for the last four years--and that will only benefit America’s enemies.
Let us review some recent history: On September 10, 2001, George W. Bush was an unpopular president, not accepted as legitimate by a sizeable percentage of the American public. With the exception of his tax cuts, his domestic agenda was stalled in the Congress--and most pundits had already pegged him as a one term president.
The events of September 11 changed all that. As in past times when our country was threatened from the outside, Americans rallied behind their president.
On September 12, the civilized world stood in solidarity with America. But instead of using that opportunity to build a safer, more secure world, Mr. Bush squandered it. The Bush Administration left the job unfinished in Afghanistan--leaving the Taliban in control of much of the Afghan countryside, and Osama bin Laden uncaptured. Indeed, fewer American troops were committed to the Afghanistan conflict than the number of police in Manhattan. On one occasion, Mr. Bush said he didn’t particularly care where the man responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans was, or whether he was even alive. Already, Mr. Bush’s thoughts were elsewhere.
From the day he was inaugurated--indeed, before--Mr. Bush and his cronies were hell-bent on an armed incursion into Iraq. Even after it was conclusively proved that Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11, Mr. Bush continued to bang the drums of war, reverting to the argument that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, maybe even nuclear. The WMD argument has not produced any evidence, even a year and a half into the American occupation of Iraq. Indeed, during the course of Mr. Bush’s Iraq war, Saddam’s "elite" military was unable to get one plane into the air, or to launch one scud missile. Now, Mr. Bush says the invasion of Iraq was a war of liberation. Let no one doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. The question is whether his removal was worth the cost paid in American blood--more American soldiers killed in action than at any time since Richard Nixon was in office.
The world is full of evil dictatorships which oppress innocent people, from North Korea, to Iran, to Sudan. Given Mr. Bush’s justification for the Iraq war, we are compelled to ask: Where do we invade next?
In reality, Mr. Bush is in possession of weapons of mass destruction--ordinary American’s call them LIES.
Lies are nothing new to the Bush political dynasty--neither is mudslinging. His family has been using these tactics to keep opponents from power since Mr. Bush’s grandfather was in the United States Senate. They are well documented elsewhere.
Mr. Bush likes to deride Senator Kerry as a flip-flopper. But his own actions in office do not jibe with his 2000 campaign pledge to be a "Compassionate Conservative."
What is compassionate about refusing to raise the minimum wage?
What is conservative about deficits spiraling out of control?
What is compassionate about an economy stuck in the ditch?
What is conservative about unprecedented government intrusion into our lives?
What is compassionate about gutting overtime pay?
What is conservative about the rape of America’s environment?
What is compassionate about 44 million Americans lacking health insurance?
Finally, what is compassionate or conservative about recklessly sending our troops into harm’s way?
Since I am a gay American, I should spend a moment on gay issues. Mr. Bush has been spending some time on gay issues--in opposition to them. Since he has no record of accomplishment to run on, he needs to find a scapegoat. He can’t scapegoat the Democrats, since Republicans hold power in the White House, both houses of Congress, and the majority of Governorships. So, he has been portraying gay Americans as a threat to America’s families. One would be hard pressed to find a President with a record more hostile to gay Americans. As Governor of Texas, Mr. Bush opposed every hate crimes law that came his way, opposed an end to employment discrimination against gay Texans, and defended his state’s Sodomy law. He has continued that trend as President. Even the conservative’s icon Ronald Reagan opposed the homophobic Briggs Initiative in the 1970s, and voiced his opposition to it before then President Jimmy Carter. President Reagan’s later discomfort with gay issues can at least be understood--if not condoned--when one recalls the fact that he was born in 1911. But Mr. Bush’s antipathy to the gay community is unforgivable in a man of the post World War II generation, who came of age in the ‘60s, and whose immediate subordinate has a daughter who is a lesbian.
In 1988, I cast my first vote for Mike Dukakis, partly because he had signed Massachusetts’ non-discrimination law into effect--only the second such statewide law in the nation. I was also appalled by the whispering campaign aimed at Governor Dukakis, questioning his mental health and even accusing his wife of burning an American flag in protest. But that’s the kind of campaign the Bushes run.
In 1992, I supported Bill Clinton because of his early embracing of the gay community--and also to revive an economy which had gone into recession under the elder George Bush. And in 1996, despite some disappointments in his handling of gay issues, I again supported President Clinton because his policies had restored America’s economy, reduced the federal deficit, and improved our relations with the world.
Thus, it was logical in 2000 that this American wanted to stay the course with Al Gore. So did the plurality of America’s voters, but the Electoral College--and five members of the Supreme Court--thought otherwise.
In 2004, I am voting for Senator John Kerry for President. But as can be gathered from what I’ve written, his stand on gay issues (which I mostly applaud) is the LEAST of many reasons I’m supporting him.
It is no exxageration to state that this is the most important election this nation has faced since 1940. We stand at the edge of a precipice: between financial responsibility or a descent into insolvency, between international cooperation or looming isolationism, between liberty or oppression. The "rendezvous with destiny" Franklin Roosevelt prohesied is fast approaching. The time has come for decision. Vote for John Kerry.
Monday, September 6, 2004
Sunday, August 8, 2004
We are Impatient
Here's my recent letter to the Plain Dealer, which I doubt they will print:
To the Editor:
Apparently, Bush supporters in the Southland of Ohio have been referring to the Kerry supporters as the Impatient People.
We are impatient, but not for the reasons they believe.
We have grown impatient because in the summer of 2001, George W. Bush ignored repeated warnings of an impending Al-Queda attack, refused to inform the American people, and left the country defenseless. We are impatient because in the face of those attacks, the American people were offered no leadership beyond "go about your business." We are also impatient because that same administration now insists on crying terrorist "wolf" whenever it suits their political needs. We are impatient--and angry--that Bush didn't have the patience, or wisdom, to let the weapons inspectors finish their job or to build a real international coalition before preemptively striking Iraq, a policy which has left America alone in the world and left our soldiers in harm's way. We are impatient because Bush's war in Iraq took focus away from our real enemy, Osama bin Laden, who remains at large. We are impatient because Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy come in the face of skyrocketing government spending, and that the costs will be passed onto our grandchildren. We are impatient because this administration insists on clinging to a failed economic theory, despite all the evidence that Trickle Down Economics doesn't work. In this election year, we are doubly impatient with Bush's smear campaign against John Kerry, with the lies, and with the Administration's gallingly high sleaze factor.
In short, we are impatient with the arrogance of this Administration, the sheer tonnage of which would stun a team of oxen in its tracks. This Administration has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover held office. The stock market remains lackluster, and the economic recovery has not taken hold. Worst of all, under George W. Bush, more American soldiers have died in combat than under any President since Richard Nixon.
So, are we impatient? You bet we are. The relevant question is, why aren't you?
To the Editor:
Apparently, Bush supporters in the Southland of Ohio have been referring to the Kerry supporters as the Impatient People.
We are impatient, but not for the reasons they believe.
We have grown impatient because in the summer of 2001, George W. Bush ignored repeated warnings of an impending Al-Queda attack, refused to inform the American people, and left the country defenseless. We are impatient because in the face of those attacks, the American people were offered no leadership beyond "go about your business." We are also impatient because that same administration now insists on crying terrorist "wolf" whenever it suits their political needs. We are impatient--and angry--that Bush didn't have the patience, or wisdom, to let the weapons inspectors finish their job or to build a real international coalition before preemptively striking Iraq, a policy which has left America alone in the world and left our soldiers in harm's way. We are impatient because Bush's war in Iraq took focus away from our real enemy, Osama bin Laden, who remains at large. We are impatient because Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy come in the face of skyrocketing government spending, and that the costs will be passed onto our grandchildren. We are impatient because this administration insists on clinging to a failed economic theory, despite all the evidence that Trickle Down Economics doesn't work. In this election year, we are doubly impatient with Bush's smear campaign against John Kerry, with the lies, and with the Administration's gallingly high sleaze factor.
In short, we are impatient with the arrogance of this Administration, the sheer tonnage of which would stun a team of oxen in its tracks. This Administration has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover held office. The stock market remains lackluster, and the economic recovery has not taken hold. Worst of all, under George W. Bush, more American soldiers have died in combat than under any President since Richard Nixon.
So, are we impatient? You bet we are. The relevant question is, why aren't you?
Saturday, August 7, 2004
Playing politics with American soldiers...
The erroneous notion that Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism needs to be refuted.
In fact, Clinton's people stopped so many terror attacks just listing them would take most of my day--but let's not forget the Millenium attack, where Al-Queda planned to take out Los Angeles International Airport. Of course, that airport is frequented by Hollywood Liberals, so it probably wasn't worth saving.
Sure Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction. Most of them had been destroyed during the first Gulf War and it's aftermath. Those that remained were in disrepair, or otherwise useless. Some conservative whackos have been sending out an email about Iraqi jets found buried in the desert--pretty pathetic, since most of them had their innards jammed with sand and were unuseable.
The FACT is that during the second Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was unable to launch ONE PLANE, or ONE SCUD MISSLE. The other FACT is that nearly all the resistance U.S. troops are now encountering are not Bathists loyal to Saddam, but Shiites and Islamic fundamentalists that Saddam kept under his thumb--indeed, many of these terrorists entered through Iraq's porous borders AFTER Bush's ill-advised aircraft carrier photo-op.
A little refresher for those who forget:
Bush tried to justify the war by sending Colin Powell to the UN with a bunch of bogus photos, claiming they were proof of WMD when they could have been anything. Then, when no WMD were found, Bush tried to play the Iraq/Al-Queda link card. Again, only the ignorant bought it--and they don't vote. Finally, Bush said it was a war of liberation.
So that's the policy: We sacrificed 900+ American soldiers (so far) so some Iraqi can visit Disneyland.
In fact, Clinton's people stopped so many terror attacks just listing them would take most of my day--but let's not forget the Millenium attack, where Al-Queda planned to take out Los Angeles International Airport. Of course, that airport is frequented by Hollywood Liberals, so it probably wasn't worth saving.
Sure Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction. Most of them had been destroyed during the first Gulf War and it's aftermath. Those that remained were in disrepair, or otherwise useless. Some conservative whackos have been sending out an email about Iraqi jets found buried in the desert--pretty pathetic, since most of them had their innards jammed with sand and were unuseable.
The FACT is that during the second Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was unable to launch ONE PLANE, or ONE SCUD MISSLE. The other FACT is that nearly all the resistance U.S. troops are now encountering are not Bathists loyal to Saddam, but Shiites and Islamic fundamentalists that Saddam kept under his thumb--indeed, many of these terrorists entered through Iraq's porous borders AFTER Bush's ill-advised aircraft carrier photo-op.
A little refresher for those who forget:
Bush tried to justify the war by sending Colin Powell to the UN with a bunch of bogus photos, claiming they were proof of WMD when they could have been anything. Then, when no WMD were found, Bush tried to play the Iraq/Al-Queda link card. Again, only the ignorant bought it--and they don't vote. Finally, Bush said it was a war of liberation.
So that's the policy: We sacrificed 900+ American soldiers (so far) so some Iraqi can visit Disneyland.
Lessons from 1948
The 1948 Truman campaign was the last time a President with low approval ratings was able to get back on track and win the election. But, there are critical differences between 1948 and 2004. Part of the reason Truman was unpopular was that his legislative program was stymied by the Republican controlled 80th Congress (both houses went Republican in 1946). In the 1948 Republican platform, they called for a laundry list of popular legislation which they knew would be popular with moderates and burned-out Democrats--of couse, they had no intention of actually enacting this legislation.
So, at the 1948 Democratic National Convention, Truman called their bluff and announced he was calling the "good for nothing 80th Congress" back into session on July 25. He did. The legislation didn't go anywhere, and Truman ran for reelection by running against the Congress. It didn't hurt Truman that the economy was also doing pretty well.
Bush, with a Republican controlled House and Senate, doesn't have that luxury. So, he essentially doesn't have anything to run against, and no excuses for his utter lack of accomplishments.
The economy is mired in a jobless "recovery" that threatens to turn into another recession. Skyrocketing oil prices threaten a return to inflation. The Dow is under 10,000 again. Bush has been in office three years. He's no longer in a position to blame Clinton for the economy, especially after the record boom while Clinton was in office. Like it or not, Clintonomics worked, Dubyanomics doesn't.
It's still the economy.
We're mired in an unpopular war.
Don't forget healthcare.
So, at the 1948 Democratic National Convention, Truman called their bluff and announced he was calling the "good for nothing 80th Congress" back into session on July 25. He did. The legislation didn't go anywhere, and Truman ran for reelection by running against the Congress. It didn't hurt Truman that the economy was also doing pretty well.
Bush, with a Republican controlled House and Senate, doesn't have that luxury. So, he essentially doesn't have anything to run against, and no excuses for his utter lack of accomplishments.
The economy is mired in a jobless "recovery" that threatens to turn into another recession. Skyrocketing oil prices threaten a return to inflation. The Dow is under 10,000 again. Bush has been in office three years. He's no longer in a position to blame Clinton for the economy, especially after the record boom while Clinton was in office. Like it or not, Clintonomics worked, Dubyanomics doesn't.
It's still the economy.
We're mired in an unpopular war.
Don't forget healthcare.
Friday, August 6, 2004
Bush the Flip-Flopper
BUSH:
Flip-flopped on spending Social Security surplus
Flip-flopped on patient's right to sue
Flip-flopped on tobacco buy-out
Flip-flopped on North Korea
Flip-flopped on abortion
Flip-flopped on OPEC
Flip-flopped on Iraq Funding
Flip-flopped on Condeleeza Rice testimony
Flip-flopped on regulations based on science
Flip-flopped on Ahmed Chalabi
Flip-flopped on the Department of Homeland Security
Flip-flopped on WMD's
Flip-flopped on Free Trade
Flip-flopped on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide
Flip-flopped on WMD commission
Flip-flopped on creation of 9-11 commission
Flip-flopped on the time extension of 9-11 commision
Flip-flopped on the hour limit for 9-11 commision testimony
Flip-flopped on gay marriage
Flip-flopped on UN Resolution
Flip-flopped on involvement in Palestinian Conflict
Flip-flopped on Campaign Finance
and my favorite: Flip-flopped on Osama Bin Laden.
"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/wtc_main010917.html
"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
All are cited here. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263
Flip-flopped on spending Social Security surplus
Flip-flopped on patient's right to sue
Flip-flopped on tobacco buy-out
Flip-flopped on North Korea
Flip-flopped on abortion
Flip-flopped on OPEC
Flip-flopped on Iraq Funding
Flip-flopped on Condeleeza Rice testimony
Flip-flopped on regulations based on science
Flip-flopped on Ahmed Chalabi
Flip-flopped on the Department of Homeland Security
Flip-flopped on WMD's
Flip-flopped on Free Trade
Flip-flopped on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide
Flip-flopped on WMD commission
Flip-flopped on creation of 9-11 commission
Flip-flopped on the time extension of 9-11 commision
Flip-flopped on the hour limit for 9-11 commision testimony
Flip-flopped on gay marriage
Flip-flopped on UN Resolution
Flip-flopped on involvement in Palestinian Conflict
Flip-flopped on Campaign Finance
and my favorite: Flip-flopped on Osama Bin Laden.
"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/wtc_main010917.html
"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
All are cited here. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
One issue voters
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=13221&sd=07/27/04
Gay Republicans will distort issues like the above article to accuse the Democrats of taking gays for "granted." They like to refer to gay Democrats as one issue voters, claiming that we only vote democratic because the Democrats, generally, support gay rights.
However, it's really gay Republicans who tend to be one issue voters. Their issue: whether there's an "R" or a "D" after a candidate's name.
There is a historical parallel for gays supporting Democrats, even when individual candidates' records on our issues aren't perfect. In the 1930s, African-Americans en masse abandoned the party of Lincoln to support Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic New Deal. Although at the time, the Democratic party was awash with Southerners who opposed civil rights legislation, New Deal programs helped minorities--and I think they sensed that FDR's heart was in the right place, even though he was hamstrung from pushing for a 1960s style Civil Rights Act. But in 1942, he signed an executive order barring racial discrimination in defense industries.
On gay issues, Kerry's heart is in the right place, as evidenced by his opposition to DOMA in 1996. He is not supporting outright gay marriage because he knows it would doom him in the general election--but he's doing nothing to fight gay marriage either. He will appoint judges who support our issues.
No matter how the Uncle Tom LCR's try to paint it, Kerry/Edwards is clearly the superior ticket for Gay Americans.
To put it bluntly and paraphrase Harry Truman on Richard Nixon: George W. Bush is a blundering, God-damned liar. His lies have cost the lives of hundreds of our soldiers. If he had to stick to the truth, he'd have very little to stick to. If you vote for Bush, you should go to Hell.
Gay Republicans will distort issues like the above article to accuse the Democrats of taking gays for "granted." They like to refer to gay Democrats as one issue voters, claiming that we only vote democratic because the Democrats, generally, support gay rights.
However, it's really gay Republicans who tend to be one issue voters. Their issue: whether there's an "R" or a "D" after a candidate's name.
There is a historical parallel for gays supporting Democrats, even when individual candidates' records on our issues aren't perfect. In the 1930s, African-Americans en masse abandoned the party of Lincoln to support Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic New Deal. Although at the time, the Democratic party was awash with Southerners who opposed civil rights legislation, New Deal programs helped minorities--and I think they sensed that FDR's heart was in the right place, even though he was hamstrung from pushing for a 1960s style Civil Rights Act. But in 1942, he signed an executive order barring racial discrimination in defense industries.
On gay issues, Kerry's heart is in the right place, as evidenced by his opposition to DOMA in 1996. He is not supporting outright gay marriage because he knows it would doom him in the general election--but he's doing nothing to fight gay marriage either. He will appoint judges who support our issues.
No matter how the Uncle Tom LCR's try to paint it, Kerry/Edwards is clearly the superior ticket for Gay Americans.
To put it bluntly and paraphrase Harry Truman on Richard Nixon: George W. Bush is a blundering, God-damned liar. His lies have cost the lives of hundreds of our soldiers. If he had to stick to the truth, he'd have very little to stick to. If you vote for Bush, you should go to Hell.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Why Ohio is important in this election
Outsiders often think of Ohio as a conservative entity. In reality, Ohio is a swing state, which - with one exception - has swung the same way as the country in every 20th Century Presidential election. Ohio, just barely, went for Bush in 2000 – and then only after Gore’s campaign essentially gave the state to Bush by withdrawing in the weeks before the race.
Take a look at the map in the above link. There are five Ohios, not one. Northeast Ohio is mostly industrial, urban/suburban, reliably liberal and votes solidly Democratic. Northwest Ohio is Republican and mostly rural. Southwest Ohio is also conservative, but has been hurt more economically since Bush took office than the rest of the state. Appalachia swings with the general election, went strongly for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Bush in 2000.
That leaves Central Ohio. The Columbus area is being rocked by changing demographics, and an influx of younger, non-white people. What was once a Republican stronghold is becoming increasingly Democratic.
Here are two options: Northeast and Central Ohio have a combined population of 6 million. The other three regions add up to 5.36 million. If Democrats concentrate their funds toward "swinging" Central Ohio and Appalachia, combined with “get out the vote” activity in Northeast Ohio, they could win Ohio Big Time (as Cheney would say). Or, if they create an all out push for Northeast and Central Ohio, they can still win with an acceptable margin.
But the most important thing is for the Democratic party not to blow off the state as they did in 2000. The message is clear: lose Ohio, lose the country.
Whether Ohio goes red or blue this year will depend entirely on turnout – just like most of the country.
Take a look at the map in the above link. There are five Ohios, not one. Northeast Ohio is mostly industrial, urban/suburban, reliably liberal and votes solidly Democratic. Northwest Ohio is Republican and mostly rural. Southwest Ohio is also conservative, but has been hurt more economically since Bush took office than the rest of the state. Appalachia swings with the general election, went strongly for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Bush in 2000.
That leaves Central Ohio. The Columbus area is being rocked by changing demographics, and an influx of younger, non-white people. What was once a Republican stronghold is becoming increasingly Democratic.
Here are two options: Northeast and Central Ohio have a combined population of 6 million. The other three regions add up to 5.36 million. If Democrats concentrate their funds toward "swinging" Central Ohio and Appalachia, combined with “get out the vote” activity in Northeast Ohio, they could win Ohio Big Time (as Cheney would say). Or, if they create an all out push for Northeast and Central Ohio, they can still win with an acceptable margin.
But the most important thing is for the Democratic party not to blow off the state as they did in 2000. The message is clear: lose Ohio, lose the country.
Whether Ohio goes red or blue this year will depend entirely on turnout – just like most of the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
