Once upon a time ... well ok, about 22 years ago I had the great good fortune to make friends with a fellow student at the University of Wisconsin. His name is James Wigderson.
James was, and remains to this day, the true "thinking man's conservative". Unapologetic, but never bombastic. Opinionated but never intellectually dishonest. In the arena of public political discourse James was and remains a true gentleman, a brilliant writer, and a first class political mind.
James and I rarely agree on issues, but the debate has always been engaging, challenging and rewarding. We may not see eye to eye in our conversations, but my thought process has always been the better for having had the debate.
I don't link many sites to mine, but his "Wigderson Library and Pub" blog - (http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com) has been linked here since this mild attempt at blogging began in 2004.
Today James announced the "pub" is closing. He is going to focus on other projects and launch a new web effort in the fall. As much as I and his many other readers will miss the WL&P we look forward to new conversations in September.
So happy 5th birthday to your great blog James. Thanks for debate and for always being a class act.
One way to get the Obama administration's attention on civil rights is for gay people to stop funding the Democrats. That's all these people care about anyway when it comes to gays: our money. If the Democrats refuse to support us, refuse to support them. This is a start. But we need to get more creative. We need actions to highlight the administration's betrayals, postponements and boilerplate. We need to start confronting the president at his events. We need civil disobedience. We need to tell him we do not want another fricking speech where he tells us he is a fierce advocate for our rights, when that is quite plainly at this point not true. We will not tolerate another Clinton. No invites to these people for dinners or fundraisers. No cheering him at events while he does nothing to follow up on his explicit promises. Of course these things can be done. If anyone high up in the Obama administration or the Pelosi-Reid Congress gave a damn, much would have been done. We need to swamp Pelosi with phone-calls.
We need to target Reid for his inaction. We have to pressure Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin not to excuse the disdain that the Obama administration is showing toward gay equality, and their cynical use of our votes, money and passion to enforce real and potent discrimination against us and our families. And we have to refuse to attend White House signing ceremonies like yesterday's farce. Really: until they are serious, we should not be coopted and placated with pathetic sops. I am not a Clintonite. I worked my ass off to get this man to power. On many issues, I support him and will continue to do so. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another Blogger Dan Savage (of "Savage Love" fame...) also has weighed on this Obama Adminstration's "gay problem".
Who needs the Mullahs in Iran? Just head over to West Bend, WI. It would seem there is new right- wingnuttiness from my home state of Wisconsin.
Apparently the home-schooled Troglodytes over in West Bend have taken time off from throwing rocks at people who say the Earth is round and revolves around the sun, and have found a new target for their wrath...
Christian group sues library over gay book and they want it burned
June 17, 8:02 PM · Trina Hoaks - www.Examiner.com
Controversy has been swirling for some months now in Wisconsin. Apparently, a library in West Bend has struck a nerve by including books like one by author Francesca Lia Block in its youth section. What's so bad about the book? That depends entirely on your perspective.
Some say there is absolutely nothing wrong with the book. Others disagree. The book, Baby Be-Bop, is a story about a boy named Dirk, who is gay.
As reported by Laura Miller on Salon.com (and brought to my attention by Hemant Mehta, aka the Friendly Atheist), a group called West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries approached the library back in February to get them to remove a list "of recommended titles about gay and lesbian issues for young people" from their Web site. They also "demanded" that the library move the books from their youth section to their adult section.
The reason the group wanted the library to comply with their request was "'to protect children from accessing them without their parents' knowledge and supervision.'" Among the listed titles was Block's Baby Be-Bop. They library did not immediately comply.
Another group, called West Bend Parents for Free Speech formed as the opposition to West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries. The new group made their presence known when, on June 3rd, a public hearing on the issue was held. Two petitions were presented - one from each group. There were 700 signatures from the Christian side of the issue and 1,000 signatures for the Free Speech side.
Statements were considered at the hearing as well. In the end, the library board voted unanimously to leave the books as they were. This vote has not put an end to the debate. In fact, it seems the decision just added fuel to the fire.
A new group, Christian Civil Liberties Union, has taken it upon themselves to file suit against the library. According to the report, the group hopes to have Baby Be-Bop deemed "hate speech." They claim that the book is "'explicitly vulgar, racial [sic] and anti-Christian.'" They will not be happy to just have the book removed from the library all together - they want it "publicly burned."
According to the book's author, the book, which is 112 pages, is "'a very sweet, simple, coming-of-age story about a young man's discovery that he's gay.'" She further said that the book is in no way racist and she is distressed by the allegation. One of the things cited in the charge is that the author uses the word "nigger" in her book. In response she said, "'Obviously I use those words, including "faggot," which is also in the book, to expose racism and homophobia, not promote it.'" She went on to say, "It's a tiny little book but they want to burn it like a witch."
I have not blogged on the events in Iran, largely because I am not really informed enough on specifics of Iranian domestic politics to make any kind of substantial comment. But also because, I think the LESS the U.S. says about the situation in Iran the better. As soon as the U.S. weighs in it gives cover to the more conservative elements in Iran to crack down, and claim any unrest is the result of "American interference".
However, it would seen that America's "neo-conservatives" can't help themselves.
Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:
So in honor of the recent disputed election in Iran, we offer this SNL Digital short "flash back"...
The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.
A gay couple married under California law is challenging the act in federal court. In its brief, the Justice Department argues that the couple lack legal standing to do so. It goes on to contend that even if they have standing, the case should be dismissed on the merits.
The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.
These are comparisons that understandably rankle many gay people. In a letter to President Obama on Monday, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”
The brief also maintains that the Defense of Marriage Act represents a “cautious policy of federal neutrality” — an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits — such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns — that heterosexual married couples receive.
In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule.
If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.
The best approach of all would have been to make clear, even as it defends the law in court, that it is fighting for gay rights. It should work to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans gay men and lesbians in the military from being open about their sexuality. It should push hard for a federal law banning employment discrimination. It should also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress.
The administration has had its hands full with the financial crisis, health care, Guantánamo Bay and other pressing matters. In times like these, issues like repealing the marriage act can seem like a distraction — or a political liability. But busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.
. A Letter to the President from Joe Solmonese June 15, 2009 2:27PM
Ed. Note: This morning HRC President Joe Solmonese sent a letter to President Barack Obama responding to the administration’s brief that argues for the Defense of Marriage Act to be upheld in court.
June 15, 2009
President Barack H. Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I have had the privilege of meeting you on several occasions, when visiting the White House in my capacity as president of the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights organization representing millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people across this country. You have welcomed me to the White House to express my community’s views on health care, employment discrimination, hate violence, the need for diversity on the bench, and other pressing issues. Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,”[1] I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.
So on behalf of my organization and millions of LGBT people who are smarting in the aftermath of reading that brief, allow me to reintroduce us. You might have heard of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. They waited 55 years for the state of California to recognize their legal right to marry. When the California Supreme Court at last recognized that right, the octogenarians became the first couple to marry. Del died after the couple had been legally married for only two months. And about two months later, their fellow Californians voted for Proposition 8.
Across this country, same-sex couples are living the same lives that Phyllis and Del so powerfully represent, and the same lives as you and your wife and daughters. In over 99% of U.S.[2] counties, we are raising children and trying to save for their educations; we are committing to each other emotionally and financially. We are paying taxes, serving on the PTA, struggling to balance work and family, struggling to pass our values on to our children—through church, extended family, and community. Knowing us for who we are—people and families whose needs and contributions are no different from anyone else’s—destroys the arguments set forth in the government’s brief in Smelt. As you read the rest of what I have to say, please judge the brief’s arguments with this standard: would this argument hold water if you acknowledge that Del and Phyllis have contributed as much to their community as their straight neighbors, and that their family is as worthy of respect as your own?
Reading the brief, one is told again and again that same-sex couples are so unlike different-sex couples that unequal treatment makes sense. But the government doesn’t say what makes us different, or unequal, only that our marriages are “new.” The fact that same-sex couples were denied equal rights until recently does not justify denying them now.
For example, the brief seems to adopt the well-worn argument that excluding same-sex couples from basic protections is somehow good for other married people:
Because all 50 States recognize hetero-sexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage.
The government does not state why denying us basic protections promotes anyone else’s marriage, nor why, while our heterosexual neighbors’ marriages should be promoted, our own must be discouraged. In other words, the brief does not even attempt to explain how DOMA is related to any interest, but rather accepts that it is constitutional to attempt to legislate our families out of existence.
The brief characterizes DOMA as “neutral:”
[DOMA amounts to] a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage.
DOMA is not “neutral” to a federal employee serving in your administration who is denied equal compensation because she cannot cover her same-sex spouse in her health plan. When a woman must choose between her job and caring for her spouse because they are not covered by the FMLA, DOMA is not “neutral.” DOMA is not a “neutral” policy to the thousands of bi-national same-sex couples who have to choose between family and country because they are considered strangers under our immigration laws. It is not a “neutral” policy toward the minor child of a same-sex couple, who is denied thousands of dollars of surviving mother’s or father’s benefits because his parents are not “spouses” under Social Security law.
Exclusion is not neutrality.
Next, the brief indicates that denying gay people our equal rights saves money:
It is therefore permitted to maintain the unique privileges [the government] has afforded to [different-sex marriages] without immediately extending the same privileges, and scarce government resources, to new forms of marriage that States have only recently begun to recognize.
The government goes on to say that DOMA reasonably protects other taxpayers from having to subsidize families like ours. The following excerpt explains:
DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage that their own states do not recognize.
These arguments completely disregard the fact that LGBT citizens pay taxes ourselves.
We contribute into Social Security equally and receive the same statement in the mail every year. But for us, several of the benefits listed in the statement are irrelevant—our spouses and children will never benefit from them. The parent who asserts that her payments into Social Security should ensure her child’s financial future should she die is not seeking a subsidy. The gay White House employee who works as hard as the person in the next office is not seeking a “subsidy” for his partner’s federal health benefits. He is earning the same compensation without receiving it. And the person who cannot even afford to insure her family because the federal government would treat her partner’s benefits as taxable income—she is not seeking a subsidy.
The government again ignores our experiences when it argues that DOMA § 2 does not impair same-sex couples’ right to move freely about our country as other families can:
DOMA does not affect “the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another state, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State.”
This example shows the fallacy of that argument: a same-sex couple and their child drives cross-country for a vacation. On the way, they are in a terrible car accident. One partner is rushed into the ICU while the other, and their child, begs to be let in to see her, presenting the signed power of attorney that they carry wherever they go. They are told that only “family” may enter, and the woman dies alone while her spouse waits outside. This family was not “welcome.”
As a matter of constitutional law, some of this brief does not even make sense:
DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits…. Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.
In other words, DOMA does not discriminate against gay people, but rather only provides federal benefits to heterosexuals.
I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones:
And the courts have widely held that certain marriages, performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened public policy of th[at] state.” [3]
As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief. In the course of your campaign, I became convinced—and I still want to believe—that you do, too. I have seen your administration aspire and achieve. Protecting women from employment discrimination. Insuring millions of children. Enabling stem cell research to go forward. These are powerful achievements. And they serve as evidence to me that this brief should not be good enough for you. The question is, Mr. President—do you believe that it’s good enough for us?
If we are your equals, if you recognize that our families live the same, love the same, and contribute as much as yours, then the answer must be no.
We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress.
Sincerely, Joe Solmonese
[1] Smelt v. United States of America, Case No. SACV09-00286, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (June 11, 2009). [2] Gates, Gary G. and Jason Ost. The Gay & Lesbian Atlas. District of Columbia: Urban Institute Press, 2004. [3] In fact, in the majority of relevant cases, courts have recognized the out-of-state marriage. See e.g. Pearson, 51 Cal. 120 (1875) (recognizing the marriage of a white man and black woman entered into in Utah that would have been invalid under California’s anti-miscegenation statute), see also McDonald v. McDonald, 58 P.2d 163 (Cal. 1936) (recognizing in Nevada marriage between a husband and his wife although the husband was only eighteen, a violation of California marriage laws).
LGBT Legal And Advocacy Groups Decry Obama Administration's Defense of DOMA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 12, 2009
We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act against Smelt v. United States, a lawsuit brought in federal court in California by a married same-sex couple asking the federal government to treat them equally with respect to federal protections and benefits. The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.
We disagree with many of the administration’s arguments, for example that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress’s power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental.
We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be “neutral” with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states.
There is nothing "neutral" about the federal government’s discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states. This notion of “neutrality” ignores the fact that while married same-sex couples pay their full share of income and social security taxes, they are prevented by DOMA from receiving the corresponding same benefits that married heterosexual taxpayers receive. It is the married same-sex couples, not heterosexuals in other parts of the country, who are financially and personally damaged in significant ways by DOMA.
For the Obama administration to suggest otherwise simply departs from both mathematical and legal reality. When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.
I'll admit I don't watch FOX News. But after seeing this I may start to tune in to Shep Smith. It would appear that there is at least one sane, rational talking head there.
Maybe the best moment of Sunday night’s Tony Awards show was the bawdy closing number performed by Neil Patrick Harris, set to the tunes of “Tonight” (from “West Side Story”) and “Luck Be a Lady Tonight” (from “Guys and Dolls”). With brilliant lyrics by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman.
There's a New York Times article about the "true story" of the song. They also printed the lyrics too so we can all sing along with NPH. Enjoy!
TONIGHT, TONIGHT THE TONY’S WERE TONIGHT (cut to cast of “Next To Normal/Billy Elliot”) AND ELTON’S BILLY WAS ALL THE RAGE
(cut to Angela Lansbury) WHAT CLASS, WHAT DRIVE NOW ANGELA’S WON FIVE (cut to Angela Lansbury & Poison) AND SHE HOOKED UP WITH “POISON” BACKSTAGE!
(cut to the Billy Boys) WITH HEELS AS SORE AS POOR ACHILLES THREE TUTU WEARING BILLYS WERE SUCH A WINNING SIGHT (cut to a different shot of Billy Boys) TONIGHT ALL THREE WON TONYS PLUS THEY HIT PUBERTY!
(cut to Geoffrey Rush) AND GEOFFREY WON A TONY TONIGHT (cut to Karen Olivo) KAREN WON A TONY TONIGHT (cut to Liza Minnelli) LIZA AT THE PALACE (cut to Alice Ripley) MR. RIPLEY’S DAUGHTER ALICE THEY ALL WON A TONY TONIGHT!
“Credits? That’s not gonna stop me!”
(cut to Chris Sieber) CHRIS SIEBER PLEASE PERFORMING ON YOUR KNEES? DUDE, THAT ONLY WORKS TO WIN GOLDEN GLOBES
(cut to “HAIR” performance) I HOPE TONIGHT WHEN THEY’RE HIGH AS A KITE TO BE THERE WHEN THE “HAIR” CAST DISROBES
THIS SHOW COULD NOT BE ANY GAYER (cut to different shot of Liza) IF LIZA WAS NAMED MAYOR (cut to Elton John) AND ELTON JOHN TOOK FLIGHT
THE CURTAIN FALLS I’M OFF TO HIT SOME BIG TONY BALLS! GOODNIGHT! GOODNIGHT EVERYBODY GO SEE A BROADWAY SHOW!
(CNN) -- Jared was forced to choose between a dying father and the love of his life. Martha McDevitt-Pugh, left, moved to the Netherlands and married her partner, Lin, to be together. Judy Rickard had to quit her job and lose her full pension to be with the one she loved.
Martha McDevitt-Pugh packed up and moved to another country to be with her future spouse.
"Nobody should be in that position. Nobody should have to be an exile," Rickard said.
But all three said their hands were forced by federal immigration laws that don't allow Americans to sponsor their foreign-born same-sex partners for citizenship as a man may do for his wife or a woman for her husband.
"The problem is that I, as a woman, cannot sponsor my female partner for immigration. If I was a man or [my partner] Karin was a man, we wouldn't be having this discussion," said Rickard, 61.
She now travels outside the United States whenever she can to be with her partner, Karin Bogliolo, 68, who had to go back to Britain when her visa expired last year, but it's not the life together they dreamed of.
"I am finally with someone I really want to be with," Bogliolo said. "But we haven't got all the time in the world. We're both getting old." Watch couple's emotional plea to live together
An estimated 36,000 bi-national couples face the same dilemma each year, according to an advocacy group, Immigration Equality.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill for the first time Wednesday, after 10 previous attempts to have hearings on the Uniting American Families Act. The bill has 102 co-sponsors in the House and 17 co-sponsors in the Senate, including Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council which opposes same sex marriage, has condemned the bill as "yet another attack on marriage at the expense of U.S. taxpayers." Watch what's at stake in the same-sex immigration fight »
"Although Leahy frames the policy as an anti-discrimination measure, the truth is, this weakens our federal law and chips away at the unique status of marriage," Perkins wrote in a blog on the group's Web site.
"For the federal government to recognize homosexual pairs in any way, shape, or form is a violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act."
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, who is openly gay, is a co-sponsor of the House version of the bill, but thinks it should be part of a larger immigration reform measure, according to his spokesman, Harry Gural.
Gural said Frank "doubts that it will be taken up in this Congress because of the overwhelming need to deal with other issues like financial regulation, climate change and health care." Gural said Frank supports the bill, but "he's just a pragmatist."
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard from couples facing deportation and split because of the law. Nineteen other countries, including much of western Europe and Canada, Brazil and Australia among others, allow nationals to sponsor same-sex partners for citizenship.
"We're not asking for anything special," Rickard said. "This is a civil rights issue; it's about basic rights and right now, we are considered second-class citizens. But this bill, if it passed, it would mean quite simply that we could be equal."
The committee heard from opponents like Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports a restrictive immigration policy and the deportation of illegal immigrants. She testified that immigration numbers in the United States are already staggering and the bill would put further stress on the system.
Vaughan said that because the bill would allow sponsoring of "permanent partnerships," it would be difficult to accept applications because there was no documentation for those, the way there are for marriages.
"Without documents, how do you establish the relationship is bona fide?" she said. "And if we are going to make this change, it should be across all federal levels, not just immigration. What about Social Security and Medicare?"
For some same-sex couples, it is enough to start with immigration.
Jared, a Dutch national living in this country illegally who asked to be identified only by his English nickname, fell in love with Melvin Terry in 1978 while traveling in Europe. He had been with Terry for 18 years when he was told by the U.S. government that he had to leave.
"The fact that the government has the right to tell you your relationship is invalid, it's more than frustrating, it's insulting," Terry said.
Then, Jared's dad became ill in the Netherlands.
He was forced to choose whether to go back home to see his father before he died and risk being denied entry back into the United States because he is HIV-positive or of staying with Terry and never seeing his father again.
His father made the choice for him, sending him a letter and underlining "don't even think about coming here." And so for 13 years, Jared, 49, has remained in the United States illegally to be with his 62-year-old partner. iReport.com: Couple must live in Germany
Canadian Chris Waddling, who came to the United States to study and work beginning in 1994 as a research scientist, is one of the lucky ones -- his employer at UCSF has agreed to sponsor him for a green card and permanent residency.
But Waddling says he sees inequality every day at work, in the shape of a female coworker who married a foreign man and could sponsor him.
"Every single time somebody gets a green card based on a spouse's support, it's one more person who has jumped ahead of me in a line I should be in," Waddling said.
Martha McDevitt-Pugh, founder and chairwoman of the advocacy group Love Exiles, gave up waiting for things to change and moved to the Netherlands so she could be with her Dutch partner, Lin McDevitt-Pugh.
The two married in the Netherlands, but Martha McDevitt-Pugh has struggled to find work abroad.
"I realized that what I had in the U.S. I was never going to have that again," she said. "I wanted to have the same choice as everyone else and that was what made me so angry."
The McDevitt-Pughs are hopeful this will be the year things will change, and they encourage all gay people to stand up for the rights they deserve.
"What we have on our side is love," Lin McDevitt-Pugh said. "I know that those in exile are in exile because they love somebody so much that they are willing to leave their country and their families."
To be honest, I think most people here in CA are just sick of this whole debate. Not because the question of equal rights for all Californians is something we don't care about, but more because the arguments opponents of civil rights use when trying to make their case.
Folks like Maggie Gallagher and James Dobson, (who do not even live here in CA and certainly don't pay taxes here.) are determined to be the ones who decide which citizens of my state get civil rights and which do not.
I know dozens of Gay and Lesbian couples,and families that simply want the same rights as everyone else. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Yet the arguments oppoents use to make a case against giving same sex couples equal rights are at best, ridiculous, and in all truth, bigoted and hateful.
The video below isone of the best examinations of the debate that I've seen so far..
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ___________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release June 1, 2009
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009 - - - - - - - BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION
Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.
LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country's response to the HIV pandemic.
Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.
The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.
My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.
These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
Today's horrific assassination of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita Kansas, reminded me of a item I blogged about back in 2005. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas is a Third World Thuggdom Tuesday December 6, 2005
If you needed any more proof that Right Wing Fundamentalist here in the US are the SAME as the Taliban of Afghanistan or the Mullahs of Iran, look no further than Kansas - "The Hate State"
Professor beaten; Attackers cite KU creationism class:
Associated Press LAWRENCE - A professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he sent e-mails deriding Christian conservatives was hospitalized Monday after what appeared to be a roadside beating. University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki said that the two men who beat him made references to the class that was to be offered for the first time this spring.
Originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request. The class was added after the Kansas State Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for elementary and secondary students.
"I didn't know them," Mirecki said of his assailants, "but I'm sure they knew me."
Lt. Kari Wempe, a spokeswoman for the Douglas County Sheriff's Department, said a deputy was dispatched to Lawrence Memorial Hospital after receiving a call around 7 a.m. regarding a battery. She said Mirecki reported he was attacked around 6:40 a.m. in rural Douglas County south of Lawrence. Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World that he was driving to breakfast when he noticed the men tailgating him in a pickup truck.
"I just pulled over hoping they would pass, and then they pulled up real close behind," he said. "They got out, and I made the mistake of getting out."
He said the men beat him on the head, shoulders and back with their fists, and possibly a metal object. Wempe said Mirecki drove himself to the hospital after the attack. Mirecki told the student newspaper, the University Daily Kansan, that he spent between three and four hours at the hospital. He said his injuries included a broken tooth.
"I'm mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots," he told the Lawrence Journal-World.
Wempe said Mirecki described the suspects as two white men between 30 and 40 years of age. One of the men was described as wearing a red, visorlike ball cap and wool gloves. Mirecki said the men left in a large pickup. Wempe said the department would investigate "every aspect," but couldn't discuss specifics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interestingly enough in 2009, it is in Kansas that George W. Bush still enjoys a higher than 50% approval rating...
In the words of the great Ian Richardson in BBC's House of Cards:
You might want to draw correlations between that and other events in Kansas...but I couldn't possibly comment...
**UPDATE*** President Obama issued the following statement about Dr. George Tiller's murder:
"I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."
***UPDATE*** At an afternoon news conference, Wichita Police confirmed that a suspect, a 51-year-old man, had been arrested for the murder of Dr. George Tiller, reports KSN-3 News:
The suspect is currently facing one count of murder and two counts of aggravated assault for threatening onlookers who tried to intervene. Several witnesses to the shooting attempted to intervene and chase down Tiller's killer, but he was able to flee in his blue Ford Taurus with Kansas license plate 225 BAB. Several hours later, the suspect was arrested near Gardner, Kansas on Interstate 35, reports the Kansas City Star.
***UPDATE*** The AP reports that a suspect is in custody:
A Wichita city official says a suspect is in custody in the shooting death of late-term abortion provider George Tiller.
The city official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the case. The official did not provide additional details.
An attorney for Tiller, Dan Monnat, says the doctor was shot Sunday as he served as an usher during morning services at Reformation Lutheran Church. Monnat said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was in the choir at the time of the shooting.
WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Wichita church on Sunday.
I admit I have not really felt the urge to blog about "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" for a couple of reasons.
The first is just the sheer stupidity of the entire policy. There are thousands of dedicated men and women currently serving in all branches of the U.S. Military with honor and distinction. They also just happen to be Gay or Lesbian. The idea that the practice of discharging Gays and Lesbians from the armed forces is somehow protecting military effectiveness is simply insane.
The second reason is that it's hard not to let emotion take over the debate on this issue. I have several good friends still in the military, some who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. All whom, are Gay. Some on their third and fourth tours overseas. Their "gay agenda" is pretty simple. - Stay alive and come home.
Speaking before a Senate Hearing in the Fall of 2007, then outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace became something of a poster boy for the nonsensical arguments for the current policy. In his testimony, Pace noted that the U.S. Military Code of Justice prohibits adultery as well as homosexual activity.
Actually no, adultery is not listed as an offense in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Articles 77 through 134 of the UCMJ detail what are "punitive offenses" (things military personnel can be prosecuted for), and Adultery isn't on the list.
Adultery is covered under Article 134, which is also known as the "General Article." It prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.
There is a street in the Itaewon district of Seoul, South Korea just a short walk from the main gate of Yongsan Garrison , one of the largest American Military bases in the world. The street is commonly known as "Hooker Hill." On any given Friday or Saturday night you can see pleanty of American Military personnel, many of them married, frequenting the impressive concentration of brothels found there.
General Pace never mentioned his outrage over this in his testamony. Yet he expressed at length his deep personal concerns over the danger to the military posed by homosexual conduct.
To hear General Pace tell it, the real threat to good order and dicilpline was not, extended tour after extended tour, or a VA system that failed wounded soldiers, or contractors getting paid ten times the average salary of enlisted personnel. Not even the lack of adequate equipment or an exit strategy from an Iraqi civil war seem to have had the same weight on General Pace's moral threat scales as the idea of two men and one cot did.
The obsession by conservatives and their various mouthpieces over all things Gay is not hard to understand. If I were a former Bush Administration official, I too would be looking for something else, anything else to talk about, besides the colossal blunders and potential war crimes that are their legacy.
Which brings us to the curious case of Army Lt. Daniel Choi. Choi is a West Point graduate, an Iraq War veteran and an Arabic linguist. On March 19th of this year, Lt. Choi appeared on the "Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC:
Let's set aside for the moment that Lt. Choi is a West Point graduate, and all the qualifications and skills it takes to even get in to West Point let alone graduate with distinction. Let's also set aside for the moment the fact that Lt. Choi has already served his country with great honor and success in a war zone. (A resume item that neither of the past two, nor the present Commander-in-Chief can claim.)
Instead let's just look at one thing. Lt. Choi is an Arabic Linguist. He speaks and reads Arabic. In fact, Lt. Choi is one of 54 Arabic Linguists and translators that have been, or are currently being kicked out of the Military for their sexual orientation.
I could go on and on here about how firing people who speak the language of the country we are currently fighting a war in is damaging to our national security. But John Stewart says it far better than I can...
Apparently the supporters of "Don't Ask - Don't Tell", would rather have our troops in a a war zone with far fewer people who speak the local language than allow brave and dedicated Americans like my friends, and Lt. Daniel Choi to continue to serve.
To all the Republicans who pound their chests about how the policies of the Obama Administration are "making us less safe", here is a prime example of exactly that.
You want to make America safer? Allow people like Lt. Daniel Choi to do their job.
Judy Shepard appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show to discuss the recent expansion of Federal hate crimes legislation and the remarks made by North Carolina representative Virginia Foxx, who, in testifying against the expansion, suggested that Shepard was merely the victim of a robbery, and that suggestions that he was targeted because he was gay were all a part of "a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."
I had the great honor of meeting Judy Shepard and hearing her speak two years ago. It is unthinkable yet true that today, over ten years after Matthew's murder she still has to deal with atttacks on her son. Attacks now being propogated by the Republican Party.
(Hat tip to John A. Over at Americablog for this one..)
The House Republicans had Rep. Virignia Foxx of North Carolina lead the charge against including women, people with disabilities, and gays in America's already-existing hate crimes law. The current law counts violent crime based on race, religion or national origin as a "hate crime", but not disability, gender or sexual orientation. During the debate on the US House floor, Rep. Foxx referred to Matthew Shepard's murder as "a hoax."
Here is what this insane, bigoted moron had to say on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives...
You will recall that Matthew Shepard was the young gay man in Laramie, Wyoming who, a decade ago, was tied to a fence, Jesus-like, pistol whipped in the head some 50 times, then left for dead in the cold fall night, only to be found a day later clinging to life. Shepard died five days later. Even though Shepard's murderers admitted that they killed him because he was gay, the far-right bigots who control the Republican party couldn't resist the opportunity to gay-bash Shepard one last time. Now by referring to his brutal murder as a hoax.
Ed Schultz over on MSNBC could barely believe what he had heard, and approriately branded it as "Psycho Talk".
Also, Keith Olbermann wasn't about to stand by and let this idiocy go unchallenged either, naming Foxx as the "Worst Person in the World" on his show later that day.
To my friends who are Republican I can only say this; It's time to decide what you really believe. If you truly feel that Matthew Shepard and millions of Americans like him are lesser human beings, and lesser citizens than you, and therefore deserve to be marginalized, discriminated against and crimes committed against them based on hate are no big deal, then by all means stay with the GOP.
If however, you have a brain, you have a conscience and you have a soul in which you truly believe the tenants of the faith you proclaim and practice. Then it's time to leave. The Republican Party is nothing more than a cabal of intellectually, spiritually and emotionally damaged bigots. They are the American Taliban. They are an affront to everything our nation stands for. The time has come for the Republican Party to take it's final walk off the cliffs of stupidity and hate it has been running towards at full speed since 1992.
Will you follow the Limbaugh and Hannity and Gingrich/Palin lemmings as they plunge headlong off that cliff?
What is it with you people? You all need professional help.
Seriously.
You are obsessed with homosexuality. You think about it night and day. It's all you can talk about. Gay Adoptions, Gay Marriage, books with possible Gay content. (Except for Lynne Cheney's soft-core Lesbian romance novel, apparently that one is okay.) Gay characters on TV or in movies, basically if anything is even remotely connected to Homosexuality you are all over that like AIG on bailout money.
Gay people don't think about Homosexuality as much as you do. Your fetish for all things Gay has come out once again. This time in the form of TV ad courtesy of the conservative evangelical Ooompa Loompas at one of your new groups calling itself, "National Organization for Marriage".
The ad is striking, black storm clouds roll in the background. Bolts of lightning streak across the sky behind a group of distraught looking "average Americans" all talking about the Gay Attack on Marriage". And how granting same sex couples the right to marry would take away THEIR civil rights. But you couldn't find any real people who are as jazzed up about the 'Gay Threat' as you are, so you had to get really bad actors to give you your "gay attack" jollies.
Your latest bit of wing-nuttery crosses the line from dishonest and stupid, to just plain silly. As usual though, your passion for Homosexuality, avoids any connection to facts or reality.
But apparently your deep love for all things gay doesn't stop there. What is interesting, (and really entertaining) this time around, is how your quest for Gay-ness has expanded to economic issues . This past week you wanted millions of Americans to "teabag" President Obama.
So what you are saying is, your new cause is "tea bagging".... Really?
If that wasn't silly enough, you want millions of Americans to join your brand new "2 Million For Marriage" movement. Or, as you want to call it (being the hip, savvy interwebby types you are..) "2M4M"! Clearly somebody needs to teach you all how to use that "Google thing on the interwebs." It might save you a lot of embarrassment.
I really can't figure out WHY you care SO much about anything and everything Gay. The lives of LGBT Americans don't affect your lives. Giving LGBT Americans equal rights doesn't take away any of your rights. There is no logical reason for what you are doing. In trying to figure out why you all have been so Homo-focused lately. I have managed to boil it down to three possible explanations.
1) You are in fact, all closeted self-hating Homosexuals yourselves, who desperately want to get in on all the Gay action, and this the only way that feel you can.
2) You are mentally challenged bigots who really do believe the insane, hateful bile you are spewing, you as a result feel that the LGBT Americans are less than human, and like Hitler with the Jews, hope for their eventual extermination.
Or, the third (and most plausible explanation)
3) You are merely lazy political opportunists, devoid of any real ideas or solutions for America's problems. While desperately searching for an issue you think can scare people in to supporting your party and your causes, decided Gays and Lesbians are the last minority you can get away with trying to demonize for political gain. So anyone who disagrees with you gets painted with the "Gay" label,
So dear Conservatives, I have to ask; which is it? Are you all really just Gay and self-hating? Are you all just crazy and bigoted? Or are you all just intellectually bankrupt and dishonest?
Your non-stop obsession with Gays and Lesbians, their lives, their families, their civil rights (or maintaing the lack thereof...), makes any other answer, nearly impossible to believe.
Where charity and love are, there God is. The love of Christ has gathered us into one flock. Let us exult, and in Him be joyful. Let us fear and let us love the living God. And from a sincere heart let us love each other (and Him).
Where charity and love are, there God is. Therefore, whensoever we are gathered as one: Lest we in mind be divided, let us beware. Let cease malicious quarrels, let strife give way. And in the midst of us be Christ our God.
Where charity and love are, there God is. Together also with the blessed may we see, Gloriously, Thy countenance, O Christ our God: A joy which is immense, and also approved: Through infinite ages of ages. Amen.
Separation Anxiety Gay couples should be allowed to stay together in the United States.
Monday, March 16, 2009; A16
THE UNITING American Families Act would allow gay and lesbian Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the United States. The bill, introduced last month in the Senate by Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and in the House by Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), would add "permanent partner" and "permanent partnership" after the words "spouse" and "marriage" in relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If passed, it would right a gross unfairness.
Under the proposal, a "permanent partnership" is defined as a "committed, intimate relationship" with another adult "in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment." The couple must be financially interdependent and not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone else. And the partners can't be related. The benefit comes with the same immigration restrictions and enforcement standards that apply to heterosexual couples. Fraudulent permanent partnerships face the same penalties as fake marriages: up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.
"Under current law, committed same-sex foreign partners of American citizens are unable to use the family immigration system, which accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the United States," Mr. Leahy said upon introducing the bill. "The promotion of family unity has long been part of federal immigration policy, and we should honor that principle by providing all Americans the opportunity to be with their loved ones." According to the most recent census, he added, about 35,000 binational, same-sex couples are living in the United States. The new legislation would ensure that the family connections valued under immigration law are extended to gays and lesbians.
The strain of the status quo on gay and lesbian binational couples should not be discounted. Because their relationships are not legally recognized by the United States, some couples have resorted to illegal marriages where the foreign nationals marry Americans to get green cards that allow them to stay in the country permanently. In other cases, Americans have exiled themselves to be with their partners. Sixteen countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United Kingdom, allow residents to sponsor same-sex permanent partners for legal immigration. American gays and lesbians should not have to choose between their country and their partners.
This week in Washington D.C. CPAC - the Conservative Political Action Committee is meeting to plan the future of the Republican Party and the "conservative movement". I have been watching this circular firing squad play out in all its gory detail on CSPAN. Keith Olbermann brings us all up to speed.
It's been quite an education. What is always interesting is hearing the statements various players on the right make during the run-up to this annual event. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele decided to throw some political "red meat" to his hungry mini-hordes the other day, when in an interview he was asked if the GOP would be supportive of Civil Unions for Gay and Lesbian Americans instead of "same sex marriage". His response was truly illuminating.
Then not just one but two Republican lawmakers in the great Hate State of Colorado, just days apart from each other made comments about LGBT Americans that would make the Nazis proud.
The response from the Republican National Committee? Complete support for the bigoted bile spewed forth by these two trogladytes. (I can't call them Neanderthals because neither of them believes in Evolution.)
Then we came up to CPAC with speech after insane, completely divorced from reality, speech. Accusing President Barack Obama of not really being a U.S. Citizen, of being a Communist, a Fascist and even the Anti-Christ.
There is no other way to put this. These people are nuts. They have become completely unhinged. Their electoral defeat shattered their already fragile grip on reality. All they have left is who they want to blame, and who they want all of the rest of us to HATE. When they are forced to admit that America isn't buying the load of Crap they are trying to sell, all they can do is stomp their feet and say how because of Obama's victory somebody might attack Chicago with a nuclear weapon.
No... I am not kidding. Wing Nut darling John Bolton ACTUALLY Said that...
Believe it or not, I used to be a Republican. I was an officer in the College Republicans at the University of Wisconsin. I campaigned for Ronald Reagan and for George HW. Bush. I have always believed that Government is not a substitute for individual liberty and responsibility. I have always felt that a strong America is good for the world. I have always believed that Government does not have a place in my church AND vice versa. And certainly the Government had no place in my bedroom.
Then in 1992 the GOP lost its mind and then sold its soul to right wing fundamentalists, who are in essence, the American Taliban.
And I have had enough.
To all the "faithful" at CPAC , hear this; You lost. Get it though your addled, bigoted hate filled skulls. You lost. You failed. Your policies didn't work, your lies have all been exposed, your delusions of creating a "permanent Republican majority" are as dead as another right wing nut-job's dream of a "thousand year Reich".
Your sad pathetic attempts to sabotage American recovery have been seen by the VAST majority of Americans as exactly that. You want to truly help our Nation climb out of the deep dank dark hole that you dug for it then pushed us into? Then do this; Sit down and shut up for a while. Go sit in a corner and think about the disasters you have wrought upon this nation you claim so loudly to love.
If you cannot summon the decency and simple patriotism to do that, then in the words of the late great Zero Mostel...
"Just say OOPS! and get out!"
Oh and Michael Steele, as you are DETERMINED that millions of Americans should NEVER have the same basic rights as everyone else, the only thing I can say to you is this - I hope somehow through some twist of fate, you actually read this. And when you do, the small fear filled mind rattling around inside your head - explodes.
I was reading the conservative blogs earlier today, and most are in full throated "Loyal Opposition" mode. Shouts to the rafters that the GOP defeats of 2008 will not deter them from making fun of the new President. Promising that their blogs WILL go on, full of conviction that President Obama is manifestly unqualified for his office. Their duty and patriotic obligation is to point this out at every opportunity.
Well Hooray... I have no problem with that. Likewise, it is just as important to point out who owns the steaming pile of "legacy" that the Republican Party has left behind on its way to political exile.
Many conservatives, faced with a new political reality, are feeling a bit put upon. So they are are coming out swinging, full of comparisons to the chorus of dissent that greeted George W. Bush in January of 2001. Now I can understand the desire for payback. Yet the difference in the path to the Oval Office taken by President Obama compared to President Bush (43) is worth noting. President Bush's road the White House had to be cleared for him by the U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama's road to Washington was paved by the most decisive electoral victory since Ronald Reagan stomped on Walter Mondale in 1984.
Now let's be clear about something, the role a Loyal Opposition in a democracy is VITAL. It is essential for the checks and balances on power to be more than just words. It preserves, protects and defends our nation from the tyranny of the majority. And the Republican Party must fulfill this role as a critical rudder on the ship of state.
Yet what many conservatives don't like to admit, is the GOP has no problem with the tyranny of the majority when that majority is theirs. The strategy of gridlock wrapped in righteous indignation is understandably a very attractive one. It enables people who have turned a willfully blind eye to the disaster of the last 8 years to turn the torn, charred and bloody page, without having to face the truth of their own handwriting on that page.
So by all means let there be no "honeymoon". Come out swinging gloves off, and ready for battle. But just as you will be there to trumpet every misstep, so many more will be here to remind you who got us in this mess to begin with. The hard reality is the GOP will never move forward until they admit the horror story that we now face economically, strategically, environmentally and culturally in this nation was largely authored by them.
If the GOP decides to continue down a path of petulant denial wrapped in a cloak of historical revisionism, the electoral rehabilitation of the Republican Party will have to depend upon the American People being two things; Stupid and incredibly forgetful.
Fortunately 2008 has proven neither to be the case.
Seems like that day will never get here. After 8 long years of disaster cloaked in stupidity covered in greed, it seems that the whole world, not just these United States is ready to bid a not so fond adieu to GW Bush, et al.
Yet this Presidential transition, like most has had its ups and downs. For the most part, the cabinet picks have been spot on. I think that Hillary Clinton at State, and Rahm Emannuel as White House chief of staff were both brilliant choices. Yet there have been some bumps in the road as well. A feeling that a campaign that ran on "Change" is relying rather heavily on familiar democratic faces. Not that this is a bad thing but it has given a despondent and diminished GOP a familiar talking point to drone on about.
Funny how the Republican party always wants to set aside "partisan bickering" only after they lose an election. The 2008 election was a CLEAR repudiation of the policies and philosophy of the GOP. They lost, and they lost BIG. This was not a close election by any means.
A graphic in the current issue of The Atlantic magazine clearly shows the Bush/GOP legacy. (Click on the map to see a larger version).
My advice to the incoming administration is simple. Forge ahead and do what you feel needs to be done. And anytime the GOP stands in the way, you get into the bully pulpit of the Presidency and you say to the entire nation; "look, the same incompetent, greedy, corrupt dolts who got our nation INTO this mess are now doing everything they can to prevent solutions to clean it up." You point to every Republican up for re-election in 2010 and you ask why do they not want America to succeed?
"Post-Partisan" must now mean that the GOP gets to go sit in a corner for while and think about what they have done.
The far right in this country still cannot grasp the reality of their loss. Ridiculous wing-nut websites touting theories of electoral conspiracy, and media collusion show how completely out of touch the GOP has become from lives of most Americans.
As I have said many times, I do not envy President Obama and the task that lies before him, but the facts are, he won. The GOP lost. The time has come to call failure what it is. As the GOP liked to say in 2000, "They had their chance, they would not lead, we will".
">