Category: Old Dish

Some of you have asked me what I think about the campaign to out closeted staffers for Republican senators who may vote for the FMA. In a word, I think it’s wrong. The people perpetrating it are the usual suspects – people who are only truly happy when persecuting others. The viciousness of the campaign, the way it demonizes individuals whose own consciences are unknowable to any outsider, is a mark of authoritarianism and cruelty. You cannot force people to be honorable, let alone heroes. You cannot force people to have self-respect. I do believe, however, that those gay men and women who are supporting some Senators in this war against gay citizens are acting dishonorably. I can see compromises that are inevitable in politics – even on the issue of marriage. But the Constitutional Amendment seems to me to be in a class of its own. It’s an unprecedented attack on the citizenship of an entire minority of Americans. On a personal level, I try and persuade closeted gays working for the homophobic parts of the GOP – I know some who are even working for Ralph Reed, for goodness’s sake – to stand up against this, to quit if they are required to go along, and at the very least to come out to their bosses and make a case internally. But if they cannot do this, it is their loss. In the end, we will all have to live with our consciences. That’s hard enough to do with our own, let alone everyone else’s.

A KERRY WHOPPER: More African-Americans in jail than college? Not even close.

WAITING FOR MARSHALL: And waiting … And waiting …

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “We come now to create our album of life. Throughout our individual and collective journeys, sometimes through pain and conflict, we’ve discovered the true meaning of family. As we accomplish ultimate togetherness, we become healers of ourselves and the countless who embrace us and our message. We have learned and we understand. Now we must share.” – the “Mission Statement” for heavy metal group Metallica’s new album, drafted by their “performance-enhancement coach.” (Taken from the latest GQ review of the new documentary, “Some Kind of Monster.”)

From Senator John Cornyn’s press secretary: “For what it’s worth, Sen. Cornyn did not, in his speech to the Heritage Foundation, use the ‘box turtles’ quote. The Post was given a copy of remarks ‘as prepared,’ but Sen. Cornyn did not like that passage, and did not use it. The Post, which did not attend the speech, reported the quote nonetheless. Sen. Cornyn said that he did not think that statement appropriate, that’s why he didn’t use it. I’ve advised the Post of this fact.”

“I’m growing a bit frustrated with the media, including you, running with this Kerry and Edwards being the first and fourth most liberal Senators. Everyone is citing the National Journal’s ratings but they are doing it sloppily. I have seen no recent article that cites anything but the 2003 ratings where Kerry missed 37 and Edwards missed 22 of 62 votes and both were setting themselves up for primary battles where their base was essential. Think what you may about missing votes and pandering a bit (seems suicide to not do both when going for the nomination), but my larger point is the media should be looking at this much more historically and in years when Edwards and Kerry actually showed up to do their jobs. I’ll do it for them. Following are rankings and liberal scores since 1999.

2003: Kerry – 1st (96.5) Edwards – 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry – 9th (87.3) Edwards – 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.
2001: Kerry – 11th (87.7) Edwards – 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.
2000: Kerry – 20th (77) Edwards – 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.
1999: Kerry – 16th (80.8) Edwards – 31st (72.2)

Average: Kerry – 12th (85.9) Edwards – 24th (75.7)

Now this paints a different picture. Certainly Kerry is a stalwart liberal (although probably not or barely a top 10 liberal), but he does hail from and represent one of the most liberal states. But Edwards is definitely a moderate Democrat (if you define that as somewhere in the ideological middle of the Democratic platform).

Do I have a point?” Yep, I think this reader has a point. More points on the Letters Page.

Here’s an interesting site about box turtles: “Their trademark is a hinge on the front part of the plastron allowing the turtle to close up very tightly. This feature provides great protection from raccoons, foxes and other predators.” If only we gays had similar protections against predators in the Senate.

The Guardian urges readers not to buy Budwesier because … well …:

Surprising as it sounds, the American brewer of Budweiser, Anheuser-Busch, also owns the SeaWorld chain, home to several performing killer whales. A British group, Born Free, has no problem with beer, but believes that it is cruel to keep animals in captivity. The most prominent case is that of Corky the orca, currently living at SeaWorld San Diego.

There’s much more. Bacardi, for example, might be anti-Castro. Unforgivable.

“It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife.” – Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), comparing gay people to animals, in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation.

Bush and Kerry do a duet.

To my mind, the war to depose Saddam is still justifiable, morally important, and will, if we stay the course, eventually be regarded as an important milestone in the war against terror. But at the same time, it seems to me that there’s no denying that the actual case made by the Bush administration for war was built on false information. Listen to what Republican Senator Pat Roberts said on “Meet The Press” yesterday. He was asked if the Senate would have voted for war if Senators knew then what we know now, in terms of the WMD intelligence fiasco:

“I think the whole premise would have changed, I think the whole debate would have changed, and I think that the response would have changed in terms of any kind of military plans. Very difficult to look in the rear-view mirror, 20/20 hindsight and say what you would have done under those circumstances.- Jay [Rockefeller] has indicated he wouldn’t have voted for it.- Jay has also indicated that there probably wouldn’t have been the votes to go to war.- I think if we went back to the no-fly zones and the resolutions by the U.N. and an awful lot of talk, I doubt if the votes would have been there.”

So if we had had accurate intelligence, the war would not have taken place. I reiterate: I’m still glad we fought it. But this remains one of the biggest government screw-ups in recent history. It has made future pre-emption based on intelligence close to impossible. And President Bush is ultimately responsible for this. Tenet has taken the fall, but it will take years and years before the U.S. regains the reputation for credibility that this president has destroyed. Even if you believe that Bush is still the best man to fight this war, you also have to concede that his record includes at least one massive error, and one that will cripple our ability to fight the war in the future.

AUSTIN VERSUS DR EVIL: My take on the fascinating Edwards-Cheney contrast.

STONEWALLING ON TORTURE: I’ve let up on the administration on the Abu Ghraib and torture issues because I found their released memos to be persuasive evidence that they did not condone such tactics. But that does not mean they should release no more data or be as resistant to investigation as they have become. The Washington Post yesterday kept up the pressure. They should. So should Senator Warner. The question of whether someone high up in the administration condoned illegal torture is not a minor one; and scapegoating of minions, if that is what is going on, is unconscionable.

Thanks, Lynne. The vice-president’s wife is sticking, mercifully, to federalist principle and opposes the religious right amendment to the Constitution. But I think it’s incorrect to say that she necessarily differs from her husband. Dick Cheney has never said he disavows his belief that marriage should remain a matter for the states. He has merely said he’ll abide by George Bush’s decision to prevent any state from enacting marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay citizens through a federal amendment. Mrs Cheney, of course, has a lesbian daughter and so it is hard for her to see gay people as some sort of “threat” to the family. After all, a gay person is her family. I’m heartened and grateful that there are some decent people still left in the Republican leadership. Meanwhile, there’s only one thing you really need to know about this week’s Senate vote on the amendment. And that is its backers would rather lose votes than propose a simple one-line amendment reserving marriage for heterosexuals. More tolerant alternatives – that would have simply said “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,” or that would have constitutionalized DOMA, or that would have merely restricted courts – all these have been ruled out in favor of an amendment whose second sentence reads:

Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. (My italics)

If you removed the italicized phrase, you’d ahve a reiteration of the first sentence. But that phrase is critical to the religious right. On its face, it would ban any court-prompted civil unions, domestic partnerships or indeed any protections or “legal incidents” for gay couples short of marriage. That means the end of civil unions in Massachusetts and Vermont, for starters. This is not, and never has been, about “protecting” marriage. If it were, the amendment would need just one sentence, and would stand a far better chance of passing. The amendment is about ensuring the second class citizenship of an entire minority. The timing is designed to exploit fear of that unmentionable minority into a winning strategy for president Bush’s re-election. Because of those two things, it is one of the most disgusting measures ever introduced into the U.S. Senate.

Another betrayal of the forces for good in Iraq.

WILSON LIED TO MARSHALL: Yep, it’s right there in the Talking Points Memo interview, unearthed by Greg Djerejian:

For those who would assert that somehow she was involved in this, it just defies logic. At the time, she was the mother of two-year-old twins. Therefore, sort of sending her husband off on an eight-day trip leaves her with full responsbility for taking care of two screaming two year old kids without help, anybody who is parent would understand what that means. Anybody who is a mother would understand it even far better. Secondly, I mean, the notion somehow that this was some nepotism, that I was being sent on an eight-day, all-expense paid–no salary, mind you–trip to the Sahara desert. This is not Nassau we were talking about. This is not the Bahamas. It wasn’t Maui. This was the Sahara desert. And then, the only other thing I can think of is the assertion that she wanted me out of the way for eight days because she, you know, had a lover or something, which is, you don’t take lovers when you have two year old kids at home. So there’s no logic in it.

Perhaps no logic. Just a whole lot of truth.

MOORE AGAIN: Here’s another indictment from a Lebanese paper, befuddled by Moore’s insistence that the Saudis were behind the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (even though they publicly opposed both interventions):

At the heart of Moore’s film lies the malevolent influence of “the Saudis,” a phrase that in the US is increasingly spat out with utter contempt, reminiscent of the tone reserved for “the Jews” in anti-Semitic discourse, ascribing to millions of otherwise heterogeneous people the same menacing and hostile essence. In a great deal of contemporary American discourse, any group of Saudis – including the government, security services, and any collection of citizens, not to mention Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the hijackers of Sept. 11, 2001 – all represent “the Saudis.”

At some point, the loony left is going to have decide between its demons: are the Jews and neocons the evil ones or are the Saudis? (On a related note, F9/11 has now officially surpassed the entire take of “Jackass.” My joke didn’t pan out.)