Category: Old Dish

On the Wilson affair. Here’s Josh. Here’s Jonah. I’m with the latter. Make your own mind up.

KERRY ON AIDS DISCRIMINATION: My hat is off to John Kerry for taking the obvious and long-overdue position that people with HIV should not be barred from entering the United States and they should not be barred from becoming citizens. These days, it’s all but impossible for the U.S. to even host an international conference on AIDS because it would have to refuse entry to anyone with HIV. And the notion that HIV is a bar to citizenship is one of the most noxious and discriminatory laws in this country – perpetuating stigma and HIV-phobia. I wonder what Bush’s response will be. Does he favor lifting the ban on HIV-positive immigrants? His own AIDS advisory council is. Is there some “compassion” in compassionate conservatism that isn’t some kind of sop to the religious right? We’ll see.

One good sign that the targeted moderates in the GOP are beginning to fight back against the Santorum-Dobson wing:

Moderate Republican senators grumble that some longtime contributors are refusing their usual contribution to the Republican presidential campaign. Their biggest grievance: Bush’s endorsement of the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.

At least that’s what Novak is reporting.

“Andrew, like all of us you deserve a national party that represents faithfully at least most of your political philosophy. Right now that may not be either major party, but it could be the GOP after it is forced to engage in a real internal debate about its future and direction. In other words, a Kerry-Edwards win in 2004 might force the GOP to decide what it wants to be–the party of Pat Tillman, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, and Arnold or the party of Rick Santorum and Ralph Reed. Only faced with a loss in November will the GOP have the opportunity to have this dialogue. Imagine how engaged you will be, and how exhilirating that New Hampshire primary will be in 2008? But if Bush wins there is no chance that anyone will stop to ask the hard questions. The contradictions and the fissures will simply be papered over and the Santorums will continue their triumphal march, smug and unchecked. If nothing else, a Kerry-Edwards win in November does two positive things for this country: first, it gives the GOP a chance to pause and make intelligent choices, a chance to improve itself into something that Sullivan and Kaus and Simon might all feel comfortable in. Second, a Kerry-Edwards win puts a roadblock in front of Hillary Rodham Clinton for good. Win win, I say.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

His radio talk this morning could have been written by Gary Bauer. No mention of the actual people affected by the amendment – gay couples merely trying to live lives of commitment and love. No understanding of the real Constitutional issues involved – just an hysterical screed against “activist” courts. No mention of the fact that 38 states have already banned equality for gays in marriage. No explanation of why the Defense of Marriage Act is obviously unconstitutional or why a court will soon strike it down. No mention of civil unions. And, again, no actual use of the words “gay”, “lesbian” or “homosexual.” This really is a revealing silence. Think what he could have said: let’s keep marriage for heterosexuals, but let’s find a way to protect the relationships of our gay and lesbian fellow-citizens. That would be a “uniter” not a “divider.” But Bush is a tool of the fundamentalist right – a movement that seeks not simply to keep marriage for straights, but to strip gay people of dignity, rights, protections and equality. If he were to call us by name, he would violate the fundamentalists’ belief: that gay people don’t exist, that we’re sick heterosexuals, that we need to be put in therapy or jail. Yesterday, Bush decided to show he was a moderate by arguing that people should be allowed privacy in their own bedrooms (a policy he opposed when supporting Texas’ disgusting gays-only sodomy law as governor). That’s it. That’s what he thinks the place of gay people is in society. We’re lucky not to be arrested in our own homes.

The line-up at the Republican convention – full of social moderates and liberals, in direct contrast to the hard-right social policies of the Bush administration – is beginning to anger the fundamentalists. Here’s a passage from the Family Research Council’s latest email bulletin:

The party seems poised to keep some of its most articulate spokesmen such as Senators Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum and Representatives Henry Hyde and Mike Pence and other leaders on life and family issues behind the scenes. By keeping them on the sidelines they have missed a chance to emphasize the real heart of the party and the sharp contrast between the Republican Party and Democratic Party. By treating the vast majority of the GOP faithful like “fly over” country, the convention organizers douse the enthusiasm of pro-family voters – meanwhile they may show up to vote, they may not bring two or three friends along with them to the polls. Note to Republican Party organizers: Find a primetime spot for a speaker who the pro-family community knows and trusts and who will speak to the issues that have driven so many voters to pull the lever for the GOP in the past.

They’re right. The current line-up is so out of line with what the GOP now stands for it ranks as an act of outright deception. I’m told I’d complain either way. Nope. I’d love Arnold and McCain and Pataki and Giuliani to speak out and represent an inclusive party – if that were the case. But since the GOP is now at its core a Christian fundamentalist party – and non-fundamentalists are suspect members – the line-up should reflect that fact. Put Brownback and Santorum up there. Have them explain their views about abortion (always illegal) and homosexuality (potentially a criminal offense). And let the voters decide.

Oh joy. One of the most pompous self-serving “victims” yet to emerge from the debate on the Iraq war now turns out to have some serious ‘splaining to do. It turns out his wife did indeed help get him the job to explore Sadddam’s contacts in Africa. Then there’s this:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”
“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

On the face of it, Wilson is a complete, partisan fraud.

Here’s an interesting sentence in Senator Sam Brownback’s piece in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment:

If the movement for civil unions and same-sex marriage succeeds, we may well be dealing a fatal blow to an already vulnerable institution.

(My italics). It’s a gaffe because Brownback let out of the bag what the FMA is really designed to do. Those FMA advocates who claim that they have no problem with civil unions but only draw the line at marriage are lying. The FMA will bar all civil unions, domestic partnerships and any civil arrangement that gives a modicum of dignity and security to gay citizens; and the religious right is as opposed to such arrangements as they are opposed to marriage rights for gays. Their goal is to strip gay couples of any and all civil protections. That is why they will never criticize the hideous law in Virginia which strips gay couples of even the right to set up private contracts to protect their relationships; that’s why they refuse to say that they support civil unions of any kind. It’s a fundamentally dishonest position, designed to cloak profound animus against gay couples under the rubric of “protecting” marriage. I guess I’m glad that Brownback has now admitted what’s really going on. Meanwhile, blogger Jane Galt, examines the latest gambit by the anti-gay forces: the notion that gay people make bad parents.

Roger reflects on how two liberals from the same generation ended up supporting different candidates for president this time around. As often, Roger is subtle and persuasive as he begins:

When I read Mickey Kaus, a man I know and like, was voting for John Kerry, a man he pretty much despises, in the coming election, I was reminded again what painful times we live in (sometimes even more painful than most of us realize). And, yes, I know politics is about compromise (triple duh with a brass ring on top!), but the compromises people are making now are of a substantial nature.

This is my defense, I guess. I am passionately in favor of an aggressive war against the Islamo-fascists, but I’m open to debate about tactics and strategy. I certainly don’t believe that a pro-war position means some kind of blind fealty to Bush-Cheney. And, of course, as a small government, balanced-budget, libertarian homo, Bush Republicanism is anathema in so many ways. But every time I listen to Kerry, I cannot help but feel that he is hopelessly out of touch with the threats we face and might make our budget problems worse with his healthcare proposal. So I am stuck between a president whose party now officially wants to purge itself of gays and a senator I cannot trust to fight the war we need. These are painful times indeed.

Now we know.

It’s becoming clearer and clearer what the Federal Marriage Amendment is really about: the purging of gay Republicans and any Republicans who do not follow the dictates of the religious right. Listen to the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in the New York Times today: “Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that is possible.” (My italics). I love that idea of “educating” politicians and, if they fail to be “educated,” removing them. You know that a party has become a sect when that kind of language is used. Then there’s the always charming Paul Weyrich. When asked whether he was concerned that stripping gay couples of any legal protections might alienate gay Republicans, he replied, “Good riddance.” That, of course, is the president’s message as well: get out of the party. Right now, the fundamentalists are organizing an unprecedented campaign, fusing religious dogma with political organizing, to write gays out of the Constitutional protections of this country. It’s a seminal moment. Soon we’ll see who has the courage to stand up to them.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I myself am a heterosexual Christian who falls into C.S. Lewis’ camp. And I particularly appreciated your post-C.S. Lewis quote comment. I don’t begrudge anyone his politics. But when he chooses to slap the name of Christ into the title of his political organization (i.e. The Christian Coalition), well now, THAT becomes a more serious issue. I won’t go so far as to say that Christianity itself risks being “corrupted” by a mere political movement of Man, but the manner in which the Christian Coalition carries itself DOES impact the way the secular public perceives Christians as a whole. While Christians such as myself try to answer Christ’s call to spread His Gospel, it seems to me that organizations like the Christian Coalition are busy erecting barriers of communication between the Church I love and the World.” – More feedback on the Letters Page.