"Rogue Nation"

The United States is a rogue nation that practices torture and detainee abuse and does not follow the most basic principles of the Geneva Conventions. It is inviolation of human rights agreements and the U.N. Convention against torture. It is legitimizing torture by every disgusting regime on the planet. This is a policy mandated by the president and his closest advisers. This is the signal being sent from the commander-in-chief to his troops: your enemy can be treated beyond the boundaries of what the U.S. has always abided by. When you next read of an atrocity of war-crime or victim of torture by the U.S., just keep in mind who made this possible. Keep your eyes not just on the troops but on the people giving them the orders.

This is not from some wild-eyed lefty, but from Andrew Sullivan. The thing is, I have to agree. I'm not some crazy anti-American, but it is sad to see how this Administration is weakening the Constitution in the name of security. This President says that the terrorist hate us because of our values.

I agree with the President, but he is doing a damn good job at destroying those values. All bin Laden has to do is sit back and watch.

Throwing Some Coldwater on "Unity08"

The latest chatter in the Centrist blogosphere is about Unity08, an effort to get a Republican and a Democrat to run as "unity ticket" ala the Union Party ticket if Abe Lincoln and Andrew Johnson in 1864. Jonathan Alter raves about the new effort calling it "open-source politics." He cites the recent success of Howard Dean and John Kerry in using the Internet to rally support:

"Last time, Howard Dean and later John Kerry showed that the whole idea of "early money" is now obsolete in presidential politics. The Internet lets candidates who catch fire raise millions in small donations practically overnight. That's why all the talk of Hillary Clinton's "war chest" making her the front runner for 2008 is the most hackneyed punditry around. Money from wealthy donors remains the essential ingredient in most state and local campaigns, but "free media" shapes the outcome of presidential races, and the Internet is the freest media of all."

In a recent series of article in the The New Yorker Ryan Lizza explains that the Internet is a great tool in getting a third party off the ground. Again, Howard Dean is used as an example:

But then came the Internet—and Howard Dean’s campaign.
The Dean campaign proved many things, but its most enduring legacy may be that it gave us a glimpse of the beginning of the end of the two-party system. First, he showed the next budding Ross Perot how to manage a 50-state ballot-access project easily and cost-efficiently. It is not widely understood, but candidates running in the presidential primaries of the two major parties also must qualify for the ballot of every state they want to contest. Dean was the only insurgent Democratic-primary candidate in history to qualify in all 50 states, a stunning organizational achievement. Using a ballot-access function of the campaign’s Website, Deaniacs in every state had downloadable petitions and details about the rules for their state. Goals were tracked in real time. “Both parties have set up nominating and ballot hurdles, so an insurgency can’t happen,” says Joe Trippi, Dean’s first campaign manager and now an evangelist for a third party. “We blew through that in 2003.”
The second hurdle—fund-raising—also has a technological solution. Dean proved a message candidate could work outside any established infrastructure and raise massive amounts of money. After Perot, the assumption was that only a self-financed candidate could mount a credible third-party challenge. Dean exploded that conventional wisdom.
Dean’s campaign not only suggested that the traditional obstacles to starting a third party are surmountable, but it also raised questions about the purpose of the two parties themselves. What assets, after all, do the Democratic and Republican parties bestow on a nominee? There was once a time when the parties served a policy role for the presidential candidate. The nominating convention was a time when delegates drew up a party platform for the candidate to run on. No more. Candidates routinely ignore the platform—in 1996, Bob Dole famously said he hadn’t read it—and run on their own issues.
What’s left? The other assets parties offer are a fund-raising infrastructure (e-mail lists, donor databases) and an organizational infrastructure (county chairs, precinct captains, local volunteers). But the parties no longer have a monopoly on these two networks. A charismatic candidate can build his own alternative fund-raising base overnight and collect an army of volunteers in a matter of weeks. In fact, with the rise of political groups known as 527s, which raise money (often from billionaires like George Soros), run ads, and turn out voters, the parties have already gone a long way toward outsourcing their core activities. The only assets controlled by the two parties that can’t be reproduced by an entrepreneurial independent are their distinctive brands, the value of which is in steep decline.

The Internet can be a good tool to get ideas out there, but there has to be a whole lot more than this. I have to agree with Weekend Pundit that Unity '08 seems more like a political version of American Idol. There is no platform and no attempt to really build a movement. It seems like it will get a lot of people who are on the computer a lot, but may not do much else.

I know there are a lot of Centrists that are gaga for this and I want to believe that this might have a chance. However, from my background, I'm not so certain. I think the wiser approach is to work and support those centrist candidates that are out there. Give of your money and your time. Volunteer. Write letters to the editor to support your candidate. Volunteer with centrist organizations in both parties. It's not sexy as Unity '08, but I think it will do a lot more than simply putting our efforts in something that at least from my view isn't going to get very far. It's not that I don't think "Open Source Politics" isn't a good idea. It's just that you have to do more than set up a webpage or run a blog. That's the easy part. To create a movement, you need to work at getting your message out to the media, host house parties to get people interested, doing things like door knocking and getting candidates to major events.

In the past few years, I've been involved in supporting moderate Republican candidates. It isn't sexy work and at times is damn frustrating, but in the end, I think this more pragmatic approach will pay off more than some kind of "net convention."

One more note. Some are upset the current moderates or reformers in both parties have to do this balancing act to be presentable to the rabid base. I think some Centrists want this political Jesus that is unsullied by politics. A lot of people loved McCain early on because he seemed to have that Messianic air about him. Of course, he didn't win because of that. People, we have to accept the fact that there is no savior. Political parties are made up of various people and candidates have to try to be all things to all people. All politicians (at least those who want to win) have to bend a little at some point. We might not like it, but that's they way it is in a democratic society.

Centrists have to stop dreaming of the perfect candidate or perfect party and get back to earth and fight for change. It's not going to happen with dream candidates or even a dream third party. I'm not against third parties, but I am saying that if we want something to happen, we need to work for it and know it won't be prefect.

Sorry to be the contrarian.

Another New Blogger

Just wanted to let people know of another sensible Republican blogger out there. Check out The Russell Record.

Arnold Flips the Script

I was out of town the past few days and busy with church and work, but I did find this op-ed in Monday's Los Angeles Times interesting. After not having a good 2005 politically, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to move back towards the winning center and might just win another term as governor in November.

It's nice to know that some Republicans do learn from their mistakes unlike a certain leader in Washington, DC...

Comment on "Who Watches the Watchers"

Paul, a frequent commenter, brought up a great quote by Denzel Washington in a movie called The Siege, a 1998 movie that talks about a wave of terrorism that hits New York by Islamist terrorists. At some point, the government starts locking up many Arabs who had no connection to the terror in the name of security (kinda prophetic, huh?). Here's Denzel's quote (which was given as a General played by Bruce Willis plans on tortuing a suspect) which could easily apply to modern day America:

"Come on General, you've lost men, I've lost men, but you - you, you *can't* do this! What, what if they don't even want the sheik, have you considered that? What if what they really want is for us to herd our children into stadiums like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!"

Kinda scary how true that quote has become.

Who Watches the Watchers

I saw something on Balloon Juice yesterday that sums up how I feel about the government tapping phone lines without a warrant and tracking phone domestic phone calls:

The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

These are exerpts from Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer writing in Wired Magazine.

The problem I have with the Bush Administration and those who see no problems with this is that we are being asked to simply trust that the government is operating in our best interests. "Trust me," the Executive branch says. "We are good and work for your interests." But the thing is, we live in a democratic system where there is checks and balances. That means that each branch is looked on by the other. There is nothing in the constitution that asks the nation to simply trust those in authority. In a democracy, our leaders are not all-knowing gods, but humans that have to govern with the consent of the governed, and no, just because you win re-election doesn't mean you get to do what you damn well please.

The other problem I have is that we are being offered a false choice between liberty and security. If we fret about civil liberties, well we just don't care if the terrorists attack again. Balderdash. I do care about security and that is important. I would like to reduce the chance of another 9/11 as much as possible. But not at the expense of our hard won liberties.

For those who think they have nothing to hide, what happens when a future government starts snooping into other things? Would it be okay for the government to track your book or library purchases? What if they see you reading books that are critical of a certain President? What if they track your bank accounts? What if they question what groups you give money to? As the old saying goes, when you have a hammer, you start to see a lot of nails.

I consider myself of old fashioned Burkean conservative in that I respect the power of government. It's power is coercive; it has to be. I'm not anti-government, but it means that we have to respect its power and use it wisely. That is why we have the system of checks and balances-to keep government from taking on too much power and usurping ours.

I think we need to work hard to get the surviellance genie back in the bottle. We need to find ways to be secure without giving up our liberty, or else people like bin Laden will win, with the result a soceity that is less free.

As I've said before, somewhere in some cave, bin Laden is smiling.

We are All "Values Voters" Now

First off, I want to apologize about the limited posts. There's a lot of stuff I want to talk about, but I'm fighting a nasty spring cold, which kind of makes me not in the mood to pontificate on matters. I'm still trying to get motivated to start planning Sunday's worship service.

My physical health aside, I did run accross a great column by George Will, that bust the myth of the so-called "values voter." Actually, it's not that he busts the myth, it's that he believes we all vote our values. Here are some choice quotes:

An aggressively annoying new phrase in America's political lexicon is "values voters." It is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives.

This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.

Agreed. Some of my liberal friends vote because of their beliefs on poverty or budget issues and they will say it's because of moral reasons. Sounds like a values voter to me. Will continues:

Conservatives should be wary of the idea that when they talk about, say, tax cuts and limited government -- about things other than abortion, gay marriage, religion in the public square and similar issues -- they are engaging in values-free discourse. And by ratifying the social conservatives' monopoly of the label "values voters," the media are furthering the fiction that these voters are somehow more morally awake than others.

Today's liberal agenda includes preservation, even expansion, of the welfare state in its current configuration in order to strengthen an egalitarian ethic of common provision. Liberals favor taxes and other measures to produce a more equal distribution of income. They may value equality indiscriminately, but they vote their values.

Among the various flavors of conservatism, there is libertarianism that is wary of government attempts to nurture morality and there is social conservatism that says unless government nurtures morality, liberty will perish. Both kinds of conservatives use their votes to advance what they value.

I think Will is correct in blaming the media for falling into this use of "values voter" to describe only social conservatives, when most of us vote our values. No vote in my view is value-free, so why let one group hog all the "values?"

And now, I will head back to my cave and heal.

From the "Oh No You Didn't!" Dept.

Here's the latest chatter from the so-called "Republican base" regarding how America deals with the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the United States:

Not only will it (massive deportation) work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

Usually people try to use the Nazis to show how bad the other side is. This is one of those rare occassions when someone raves about the efficiency of Nazis.

What a bunch of loons. And bigots to boot.

Your Calls Might Be Monitored for Your Security...

My take on the latest National Security Agency issue.

And a Maverick Shall Lead

Congrats to Alan Stewart Carl who was tapped last weekend to be the Excutive Director of the Centrist Coalition. Godspeed, Alan.

From a "Cowering" Centrist Republican

Earlier today I was perusing Mat Pruitt's blog. He has an interesting post called "It's Our Party Too" where he talks about the need for moderates in the GOP to come up with a vision. He made some sense until he reached the last paragraph:

I am sick and tired of centrist Republican groups that have been the true heart of the party since Abraham Lincoln, cowering to the self righteous right wing that has led this country in the wrong direction.

As someone who has been part of Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Environmental Protection, I was taken aback by Mathew's comments. I know people like Martha Marks, the founder of REP, who are not cowering to the far right, instead they are challenging them and willing to fight back against the right wing. Then there are people like Log Cabin and it's current President, Patrick Guerriero, who took a brave stance in 2004 and chose not to endorse the President for his support for the federal marriage amendment. (Guerriero wrote a great op-ed last year urging closeted gay conservatives to come out.)

And then there is my friend Jim. Jim is a quiet unassuming guy around my age who is gay and a life-long Republican. He is a Republican in the moderate tradition. Now, you need to know that the GOP in Minnesota is controlled by the religious right, with moderates being a dying breed. The GOP has been solidly behind efforts to get a so-called marriage amendment in this state. It was in this context, that Jim went to his district convention and wrote a resolution condeming the marriage amendment. It did surprisingly well. Jim and I know it won't change the party platform or policy, but he had some balls to do what he did.

In all of these examples, I don't see anyone cowering. What I see are people that are trying taking on a herculean task and doing their level best.

Mathew says that it's his part too and he is right. But if it is, then do something to take it back from the far right, don't just sit there and bitch, and please don't castigate the people who are doing a thankless job of working for change in the GOP.

On an aside, withdrawing support from moderate elected officials because they are in the same party as the nutcases it a silly idea. It's not as much that these seats will go to the Dems, but that we will lose those moderate voices in the party. And don't think that "destroying the village in order to save it" is going to work. All it will do make the social conservatives think they weren't conservative enough.

Some of our fellow bloggers on the Left have come up with an agenda of sorts and there is the Euston Manifesto which was written by British lefties who wanted to find a way to respond to our current post-9/11 world instead of using the tired old "America is evil" line. In my own humble opinion, I think it's time for centrist Republicans to come up with something if their own. So, I ask my fellow Centrist Republican bloggers: are you up for the challenge? I dare you. I double-dog dare you.

I'll be interested to see who takes the bait.

Moussaoui's Verdict

Being the cynical person that I am, I really expected the jury in this case to give Moussaoui the death penalty. So, I was surprised that the jury opted for life in prison. Good for them. I oppose the death penalty, although being human, there are times I feel some should get it. This case was a sham from the start. Moussaoui is a bad man with bad thoughts and intents, but that alone doesn't warrant the ulitmate punishment.

I could say more, about how I think the Bush Administration is messing up the War on Terror with symbolic victories and not really bring justice to our enemies, but it's late. Instead, I will leave you with some good links:

Joshua Marshall's take.

An LA Times story about how the government tries smaller fish instead of the bigger sharks in the world of terrorism.

Slate's legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick praises the jury for making the right decision.

One final note: I'm very thankful we don't have to hear Moussaoui's odious rants ever again.

Update: Here is my previous post on the whole Moussaoui trail.

Yet Another Post on Crunchy Cons

Hank Steuver of the Washington Post has a worthwhile profile of Rod Dreher, the man behind the "Crunchy Conservative" movement. It a good read.

Illegal Immigrants: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

Think that those who come to the US illegally are draining social services and adding nothing to our society? Think again:

...immigrants aren't flocking to the United States to mooch off the government. According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file taxes.

One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS' scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers. No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status — a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows.

So these so-called leeches are actually contributing to America in a very American way, filing personal income taxes.

They are also helping us with our Social Security and Medicare programs as well as provide income for states and cities:

What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the “earnings suspense file” — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families — most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.

So, who is theleech here? The immigrants or Americans who are taking their income to pay for government services we don't want them to use?

Something to think about.

The Future of the GOP

I was reading a recent book review in Reason Magazine about the 10 year anniversary of the Weekly Standard. The day before, I was reading an article in Slate called "Why Republicans are Screwed." The last paragraphs of that article had an interesting viewpoint that made my ears perk up:

If Republicans manage to hold on to their majorities, it will be because they have perfected the ability to use gerrymandering, pork-barreling, and other toll-keeping powers to maintain themselves in office, much like the Democrats they turned out of office in 1994. Retaining control by a narrow margin will do nothing to solve the struggle at the heart of the party between moderates and social conservatives, neoconservatives, and realists, and between fiscal conservatives and big spenders or fanatical tax cutters. In some sense, if the GOP wins ugly and keeps control, they'll be worse off, retaining undivided responsibility, without much actual ability to do anything, heading into the 2008 election. Even the nomination of Hillary Clinton may not unite the factions. Antipathy toward her husband didn't keep Republicans from a debilitating primary struggle in 1996.

Change may come only if a more bruising internal fight between these factions breaks out into the open. During Ford's presidency, the ideological thicket was cleared by Ronald Reagan, who spoke out against the sitting president of his own party, declaring that the national government had "become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome, and less effective." Perhaps no Republican can make a broad assault on GOP leaders while the country is at war. And it may be harder for, say, John McCain, to moderate a reckless, radical party than it was for Reagan to radicalize Ford's limp, idealess one. But if the GOP doesn't have that fight this year, it's going to have it in 2008.

These two stories have made me think about the intellectual state of moderate Republicanism, if such an animal exists (I tend to think it does). The rise of the conservative movement in the GOP was because of think tanks, radio talk show hosts, and magazines, that spread ideas that helped give rise to the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan. Back in the early 70s, moderate Republicanism was on the wane. In 1976, Reagan gave then President Ford a run for his money during the presidential campaign. By 1980, the conservative movement was unstoppable and Reagan became president.

It seems that for the moderate movement to become strong again, it needs to be producing some ideas. There are many advocacy organizations such as Log Cabin that uphold certain values, but there isn't really a moderate Republican think tank or magazine.

In many cases, the conservative movement in the GOP has run off the rails. It's swung too far to the right and has scared the public. But moderates won't get far if we don't present moderate ideas.

There has to be some rich old Rockefeller Republican who could bankroll a magazine or something.

Tiny Violins Alert

Gas prices are rising again, so of course you start hearing calls for doing something about. Politicians look into price gouging, or windfall profits tax on oil companies. Of course it's those evil oil companies that are to blame for the average joe paying such high prices on gas which should be cheap. I mean, that's a right of every American, isn't it? Don't they see how we are suffering?

My response? Let me get out the world's smallest violin.

Look, if Americans are upset about high oil prices, they might want to look into the rear-view mirror of their SUV. A lot of Americans feel they have to buy these huge behemoths for whatever reason. Top that with the fact that said people like to live in far flung suburbs where they have to drive many miles (alone) to work, eschewing public transportation or rideshare or carpooling or what have you. We bascially got ourselves into this mess because we think that the oil will just keep flowin'.


Bull Moose shares his thoughts on this issue and says about the same:

Is there anything good about high gasoline prices? Needless to say , the Moose has sympathy for the working stiff who must take a second mortgage to pay for a gallon of gas. And no one likes Oil CEO's who get compensation packages bigger than the GDP of some nations.But, contrary to the all of the politicians' demagoguery, we have met the enemy and he is us .

The Moose is no economist, but surely consumers (along with rising demand in China and India) are partly responsible for the soaring cost of gas because of our insatiable appetite for more oil. High demand fetches high prices.That was the Moose's thought as he attempted to negotiate a shopping mall parking lot in his '88 Toyota Corolla this past weekend. The Moose felt lost amidst a sea of SUV's and Maxi-Vans the size of M1 Abrams tanks. To paraphrase Bill Maher, when you drive a vehicle the size of a 18 Wheeler, you drive with Bin Laden.

Everyone talks about energy independence, but who does anything about it? Even those Hollywood lefties who kvetch about oil dependency and global warming will be the last ones to give up their private jets.The Moose is no oil dependance fanatic, but perhaps a gas price attack is not bad for the nation. Just maybe, we'll change our behavior. It is truly outrageous that we are at the mercy of the likes of Sheiks, Mullahs and Hugo Chavez's for our energy.

He also offers that a gas tax joined with a payroll tax cut might do the trick to weaning us off our oil jones.

I'm not anti-car, but we as a nation need to start to change our own practices before we start blaming other people. If we really are upset about high gas prices, then we need to look into more fuel-efficient cars. As the old saying goes, when you point a finger at someone, four fingers are pointing back at you.

Another Green Republican Blogger

In honor of Earth Day that occurred this weekend, check out a blog by a conservation-minded Republican called Green GOP.

A Green Republican Blog

With Earth Day two days behind us, I think this might be a good time to introduce a new blog by an enviromentalist that is a Republican. Please check out Green GOP. You will definitely like it.

A Green Republican Blog

With Earth Day two days behind us, I think this might be a good time to introduce a new blog by an enviromentalist that is a Republican. Please check out Green GOP. You will definitely like it.

All Hail the Purple Party!

The problem with Clinton, pace the right, isn’t that she’s a nuthouse sixties liberal. And, pace the left, it isn’t that she’s willing to betray her principles in order to get elected. The problem is that, even after watching her on the national stage for more than a decade, it’s impossible to ascertain if she has any principles at all that are independent of political calculation. Does she, in her heart of hearts, believe in the bill she co-sponsored to criminalize flag-burning? No one—including, I suspect, her closest confidants—really knows. Thus we have the template for the campaign that she will run: a campaign of perpetual triangulation, a maddening, wearisome game of hide-and-seek, executed with none of her husband’s finesse or his grander vision.



McCain, meanwhile, is playing a different game but one no less confounding. Where Clinton is triangulating to position herself for the general election, McCain is racing to the right to ensure his nomination—cozying up to Jerry Falwell (whom McCain denounced in 2000 as an “agent of intolerance”), cheerleading for Bush, endorsing the teaching of “intelligent design” in the public schools, supporting a constitutional amendment in Arizona to ban same-sex marriage. For the partisan androgynes who have long regarded McCain as a maverick, the genuine article, his maneuvers present a devil’s choice: Believe your eyes and accept that he’s actually a more conventional conservative than you thought—or believe your gut, assume that he doesn’t believe a word he’s saying, and accept that he’s a panderer, a standard-issue hack.



What of Rudy Giuliani? Certainly it’s true that our former mayor is polling as strongly as Clinton or McCain (and, in some surveys, more strongly than either). But Giuliani knows that once his stances on social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control) are widely apprehended (and once the pictures of him dolled up in drag make their rounds on the Internet), his acclaim among GOP-primary voters may prove evanescent. So he travels the country, raising cash for raving rightists such as Senator Rick Santorum. In a speech to the Global Pastors Network—whose leaders believe that the apocalypse is just around the corner—he declares, “I appreciate what you are doing: saving people, telling them about Jesus Christ, and bringing them to God.”



Depressing? Sure—unless you happen to be fomenting a third party. Taken together, the machinations of Clinton, McCain, and Giuliani provide a vivid illustration of precisely why the Democratic and Republican duopoly has become so intolerable to so many: It has eaten away at the vital center, hindered new thinking, and made ever rarer the manifestation of conviction in politics. And it’s created a yawning vacuum to be filled by the candidate of our dreams.

So says An Article in New York Magazine. It's part of a series of articles on building a Centrist Third Party and it seems to be gathering some interest in the Centrist blogosphere. Check it out.

Maybe there's hope yet for this country.

On Fred Phelps and Protesting at Funerals

I've been thinking about what to say regarding the latest news of uber-homophobe Fred Phelps and his band of nutjobs protesting the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. The I found out that someone said it for me:

I know I am supposed to feel all warm inside, now that it will be illegal for Reverend Fred Phelps to “disrupt funeral services, graveside services, or memorial services” when a new law taking effect in August will stop him and his “church” from disrupting services in Minnesota (other states already have passed similar laws to stop his disrupting soldiers’ funerals).

Don’t get me wrong, I think what his church is doing is sick, but here is where it becomes gray for me: October 16, 1998, Matthew Shepard’s funeral. Phelps and his followers came to scream “God Hates Fags!” and carry antigay signs (as seen in The Laramie Project).

For the next eight years, Phelps was allowed to “disrupt” the funeral services of hundreds of gay men. He even runs a hate Web site at www.godhatesfags.com announcing his next protest. Did anyone make laws then? Didn’t anyone care?

Phelps and his followers decided that attending gay funerals didn’t get enough attention, so he announced that the United States is losing the war because of its tolerance of gays, and started disrupting soldiers’ funerals.

Am I wrong to be a little angry that Minnesota lawmakers didn’t have time to protect gay funerals, but they had time to propose an amendment restricting my right to marry?

What are our lawmakers telling us? That it’s OK to pick on the defenseless gay kid, and disrupt our funerals? It’s OK to hate gays, and to limit our rights with a marriage amendment?

I'm glad that people are outraged at the sickness of Phelps and his ilk. But what bugs me is that he's been showing up at the funerals of gay men for years, most notably, Matthew Shepherd's. There was no goverment action then to stop his protests. In fact, at Shepherd's funeral, it was brave people who took their umbrella's (it was raining that day) and shielded the protests so the family wouldn't see them.

Not that I think these laws are a good idea anyway. As sick as I think Phelps protests are, he does have a right to protest. The right to protest is one of our basic rights, even if I don't like it. And as history, shows, gays have found ways to deal with Phelps without begging the government to do something.

I guess what really bothers me is that this whole situation shows how unimportant gays are to the wider society. Everyone will blog and rightly condemn when Phelps goes after our servicemen and women, but it seems that no one cares when it's the gay man who died from AIDS.

So, I'm glad the wider society now knows about how twisted Fred Phelps is. I just wonder where the hell they've been.

Another Moderate Republican Blogger

It's always nice to know that you aren't alone. There is another moderate Republican blog out there called Weekend Pundit. Check it out.

An Ill Wind?

Around the time of the last presidential election, there was some talk of how some people on the Massachusetts coast being upset because of a planned wind farm. You've probably seen windfarms, with those giant wind turbines twirling in unison. With rising energy prices and environmental concerns over coal, wind energy is being seen as a viable alternative that's produces clean and affordable energy.

As someone who fashions himself as a environmentalist, I think this is a good alternative. You'd think a lot of people would think wind energy is a good idea. This is a no brainer: it produces no waste, it's safe and doesn't pollute.

You'd think wrong.

Anne Applebaum reports that about the rising anti-wind movement. Yes, you heard me: the anti-wind movement. The antis complain that the windmills are ugly, noisy and kill birds and bats. Applebaum also talks about how other eco-friendly energy alternatives are being attacked as well for a host of silly reasons.

I sometimes think that the enviromental movement has gone off the tracks at times. My motto has always been to leave as little of a footprint as possible. My guess is there are a lot of environmentalists who think we should leave no footprints whatsoever. That's impossible unless we decide to go back to the 16th century.

In the scheme of things, we are dealing with things like global warming and oil supplies that controlled by the likes of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These worries are more important than someone in Massachusetts who is upset that he no longer has a "clear view" of the ocean.

My advice to those who are against these winds farms: get over yourselves. There are bigger things to worry about.

Maunday Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Break

Since I will be busy doing my job as a pastor over the next few days, I will be taking a few days off from blogging. See you on Monday.

Yet More Musings on John McCain

If you've been reading this blog, you know that I've had some concerns about John McCain supposed lovefest with the far right. (You can read my prior posts here andhere.) I've said in the past that McCain may have lost me, but I've given that some more thought and now I'm thinking about how tricky politics can be.

Slate'sJacob Weisberg and engaging article entitled "John McCain's Not Really a Conservative." He tries to explain McCain's manuouvers not as losing his maverick egdge, but about playing the game to get the GOP nomination. He notes:

Most liberal commentators take McCain's love fest with the neo-Calvinists at face value, arguing that he's finally revealing his true colors. A few months ago, The Nation ran a cover story titled "The Real McCain," which contended that the Arizona senator is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. To the American Prospect, McCain is Barry Goldwater's true heir. A couple of weeks ago in the New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote, "The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right."

But the literal-minded left has McCain all wrong. He's trying to win over enough of his party's conservative base to win, for sure. But this is a stratagem—the only one, in fact, that gives him a shot at surviving a Republican presidential primary. Discount his repositioning a bit, and McCain looks like the same unconventional character who emerged during the Clinton years: a social progressive, a fiscal conservative, and a military hawk. Should he triumph in the primaries, we can expect this more appealing John McCain to come roaring back.

Weisberg then goes into detail explaining some of McCain's moves as more of facing reality than it is about him becoming a true believer. The thing is: Weisberg is right. Let's face it: if McCain wants to win the nomination in 2008, he has to be realistic: he has to pay attention to the social conservatives. McCain ran as an insurgent in 2000 and got burned by the right. I think McCain is still very much a reformer, but he is more of a realist in 2006 than he was in 2000. He wants to win, not simply get his message out.

I think some of the problem with people like myself and others is that we want this perfect Messiah that will stand up to whatever demons we think are out there, even if we lose. Centrists have this problem just like those on the extreme left and right. McCain could make no compromises and end up just like he did in 2000, or he can bend a little and get the nomination and make some changes as President. I may not like it, but you know, it's politics in a democracy. If you want the golden ring, you have to make some compromises and those who follow have to determine how much they can stomach. While I might not like his daliances with Jerry Fawell, McCain is still good on issues like immigration, the enviroment and foreign policy in my eyes. I know that there are many who think McCain would do well as an independent, but let's wake up and smell the coffee: no third party candidate has won the Presidency since 1860. Not Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, not George Wallace in 1968, not John Anderson in 1980, not Ross Perot in 1992, not Ralph Nader in 2000. Again, this would be McCain as the noble crusader, tilting at windmills, but not really doing anything to change things.

I'm still a little worried about McCain's dances, but I will keep my eyes open and hope. McCain is still the candidate I want to see get the GOP nod two years from now. I just pray he plays his cards wisely.

Here are some other worthwhile views on this issue:

McCainiac Marshall Witman aka Bull Moose still has faith in McCain, seeing him in the mold of his hero (and mine) Teddy Roosevelt. He notes:

Both the right and the left often do not understand John McCain. The truth is that he is very much like the Moose's idol - T.R. During his time, both the left and right, at times were dissatisfied with the Colonel. Progressives thought he betrayed their cause. Stand-patters loathed his progressive traits.

The truth is that John McCain has always been a conservative. The Senator's political mentors were Goldwater and Reagan. He is a hawk who advocated rogue state rollback and Clinton's intervention in the Balkans when then Governor Bush was against nation-building. He voted against spending bills and the Medicare drug bill because he supports limited government. McCain is a strong supporter of private accounts in Social Security. He is a pro-lifer who only endorses choice when it is related to private school selection.

And... John McCain believes that we need strong action against global warming. He joined with Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform. He courageously denounced and did something about torture. At the same time that liberals complained about McCain speaking at Falwell's Liberty University (keep in mind that the Senator reconciled with the Vietnamese who imprisoned and tortured him), our modern T.R. was working with Ted Kennedy to make our immigration laws more reasonable taking on the restrictionist right. Although he has supported a state ban, he opposes a federal constitutional amendment barring gay marriage.

Can McCain's critics cite a politician alive or dead who similarly defies the turgid categories of the left and the right? Who are the other brave souls in either party who consistently put country before party? America is looking for leaders who defy the conventional categories.

Also, there is a great piece on National Public Radio about McCain's moves to woo Bush Republicans for 2008.

From the "And the Sun is Big, Red Ball in the Sky" Dept.

Well, well, well. It's looks like all the hopes GOP Congressional leaders had about using immigrant-bashing as a wedge issue in this year's midterms, has backfired. The Washington Post reports:

In the wake of this week's massive demonstrations, many House Republicans are worried that a tough anti-illegal-immigration bill they thought would please their political base has earned them little benefit while becoming a lightning rod for the fast-growing national movement for immigrant rights.

House Republicans rushed through legislation just before Christmas that would build hundreds of miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, require that businesses verify the legality of all employees' status through a national database, fortify border patrols, and declare illegal immigrants and those who help them to be felons. After more lenient legislation failed in the Senate last week, the House-passed version burst into the public consciousness this week, as hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country turned out to denounce the bill.

Duh. Did they Republicans really think that they could get away with such legislation and not rouse the ire of Latinos? What's interesting is that GOP leaders, Denny Hastert in the House and Bill Frist in the Senate are blaming the Dems for the harse House Bill. Sorry, guys. It's the GOP that's in control and that means you bear the responsibility. Why didn't Hastert knock some sense into the sponsor of the draconian House immigration bill, James Sensebrenner of Wisconsin? He didn't, the bill passed and now Latinos are turning their fury on that bill.

I'm all for more enhanced border security (except for that wall). But the House bill was nothing more than red meat to the arch conservative base and in the end, the GOP may have lost the Hispanic vote this fall.

It's high past time for some forward-thinking leadership in the party. We need people who are interested in both secutiry and welcoming immigrants. We need to find ways to help those who are already here become citizens, and find ways to help Mexico boost their economy to stem the tide of immigration. We need to get the guest worker program up and running to give immigrants the option of working here for a time and going back home, or working towards legal citizenship. Playing to the baser instincts of some Americans isn't going to get the GOP anywhere, but maybe in history's dustbin with parties like the Know-Nothing Party.

Blacks vs. Latinos?

On a recent post on immigration, I got a response from Shay over at Booker Rising. She had this response:

Hispanics are only the country's fastest growing group **because about half of them are illegal**. I.e., it has been done through criminal means.

As anyone who has seen 'guest worker' programs operate in other countries, these so-called guests have a very strong habit of staying in the countries for decades.

You fail to consider that the Republican Party may gain a few black votes over this issue (or the Democrats lose black votes, as folks may sit on the fence) which is ticking many black folks off because illegal immigrants undermine black economic opportunity and have led to demographic changes in many black communities. If black folks must follow the law, then there should be no special rights for anyone else.

I find this statement full of bigotry. You can't dress up this pig any other way. For those of you who don't know, I'm part Latin, myself. My Mom was born and raised in Puerto Rico and has been an American citizen since she was born, as have the 3.5 million people on that Carribean island since 1917. I grew up in a home where I heard both English and Spanish and I can speak it myself. So, when Shay says that half of all Hispanics are illegal, I find that rather bigoted and small minded and it attacks part of my heritage.

Second, what Shay is suggesting is that the GOP engage in immigrant-bashing to help blacks. Shay is saying the GOP should pit one group against the other. I find this repulsive. America is a multi-ethnic nation and all parties have to learn to appeal to a diverse America and not engage in ethnic bashing.

Finally, I don't understand the animosity that comes from some African Americans on any other minority that isn't African American. It seems as if some black folk feel they have the right to be bigoted towards other ethinic groups, since we were slaves. Bull. Bigotry is bigotry. Latinos aren't a threat to blacks or to the wider American society. They are our allies, NOT our enemies.

I'm glad for those African Americans who have stood up for their Latino neighbors. I just wish more of them would.

Blogging on Holy Week

Not that, I need to write this, since I don't blog very heavily, but blogging might be lighter than usual this week. As many of you know, I'm an ordained minister that works at a local church in the Twin Cities, and Holy Week is a busy time for church types, meaning, I'm planning worship services and writing sermons galore. I will probably have some time to share a rant or two, but just be warned.

The Folly of the Neo-Southern Strategy

I haven't talked much about the whole immigration who-ha. I'll sum up my views by saying, yes, we need to beef up enforcement to keep tabs on illegal immigration, and yes, we need to find ways to make those 12 million who are here already on the path towards citizenship. I'm against the House proposal, but for the President's proposal of guest workers.

With that said, I think the GOP should tread carefully on this issue because it could cost them votes. I think they are giving some red meat to the conservative base that is very isolationist at the expense of Hispanic votes. I don't think they will listen to me, though.

It's no big surprise that Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group. Unlike African Americans, they are not solid voting bloc, but the GOP is doing their best to drive the Latin vote to the open arms of the Democrats.

Joe Gandleman reported a few days ago that the current immigrant-bashing could have some ill effects for the Grand Old Party. He cites a Wall Street Journal op-ed by former GOP chairman Ed Gillespie who warns:

The Republican Party cannot become an anti-immigration party. Our majority already rests too heavily on white voters, given that current demographic voting percentages will not allow us to hold our majority in the future. Between 2000 and 2004, President Bush increased his support in the Hispanic community by nine percentage points. Had he not, John Kerry would be president today.

Hispanic voting percentages are increasingly decisive in swing states like New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Colorado and Arkansas. Mishandling the immigration debate today could result in the Republican Party struggling in these states and others in the same way it now does in California. People who come legally to this country with nothing and labor in the most menial ways to get a new start should feel at home in our party. As a rule, they are hardworking, law-abiding, freedom-loving and patriotic Americans.

When Gillespie is talking about California, he talks about the former Governor Pete Wilson's anti-immigrant proposals back in 1994. The net result was that a fair number of Latinos became Democrats and it weakened the state GOP.

I don't think that all Republicans are racists or bigots, but there are some and they are in prominent positions in the party. The GOP did a bad job of reaching out to African Americans which used to give the GOP a substantial numbers of votes, and has driven many gays who were strong on issues like national defense out of the GOP as well. There are some deluded into thinking that the GOP can win with only white, fundamentalist Christian voters. You don't have to believe in the whole "Emerging Democratic Majority" rhetoric by some on the Left that amounts to demographics as destiny to see that this is folly. Fundamentalist Christians might think God will choose who will win Congress in December, but it's voters who will decide who will control our national legislature and when you manage to get a major ethnic group mad at you by saying that you aren't welcome, well, I don't think even God can save you.

If Congress fails to come up with an immigrant-friendly bill, you might see a lot of Latinos vote Democratic in November and the Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves.

More on Delay's Decamp

I've been reading the blogosphere this morning on the whole Delay affair and there is a lot of celebrating. The most common theme is that he won't be missed and I agree. What has bothered me though, is that people have the hope that Delay's exit from the scene will change the direction of the GOP.

Don't hold your breath.

It's not that I don't think that the GOP should change; that's the reason behind this blog. But I think too many people see Delay and his ilk has the problem with the party and I think we are only part-right. Delay is a problem, but he is more a symptom of an illness than he is the source of all that is wrong in the GOP today and his departure won't change things.

A few weeks back, the outgoing congresssman gave a speech to a gathering a fundamentalist Christians where the assertion was that Delay was forced out of power because he was a Christian. This is what convener Rick Scarborough said at the "War on Christians" conference about Delay:

"I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ," Scarborough said, introducing DeLay yesterday. When DeLay finished, the host reminded the politician: "God always does his best work right after a crucifixion."

Then there were the words from Delay himself, which should scare the whatever out of you:

"Sides are being chosen, and the future of man hangs in the balance!" he warned. "The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will. . . . It is for us then to do as our heroes have always done and put our faith in the perfect redeeming love of Jesus Christ."

The problem facing the GOP these days isn't Tom Delay; he is just a symptom. Instead, it's Christian fundamentalism, that is driving policy and tactics in the Republican party. THAT is what has to be faced, not some slimy Texas representative.

The people who attended that conference is the problem. Delay was doing their bidding. With him gone, they still have others to turn to.

We seem to forget that it is these so-called "Christian" soliders that are the ones who control the apparatus of a major political party.

As a friend and former Republican once said, the religious right did things the old fashioned way, they went to meetings and made their voice known. Pretty soon, they were the ones in charge.

Joe Weedon has a noteworthy post on Delay in that he states Delay was a visionary leader. Now, that might set some teeth to grinding, but the thing is, he's right. Delay and his Christian right supporters have a vision and they have worked hard to make it a reality. I can't say the same thing for Republican centrists and Centrists in general. What is our vision? Do we have any interest in doing something to change the tone of politics other than spout stuff on a blog?

If you want to be a force for change you need to get involved. If you are a Republican dissatisfied with the far right, then you need to stand up and say something. Get involved with some of the Republican organizations that are trying to change the party. I have links to them on the right of this page. Give money to those Republicans who are working for change. If you are centrist, find some way to support causes that can push back on the far right agenda.

Cheering Delay's demise might feel good, but it isn't worth a plug nickel in changing the party and the nation as a whole. Put down the party streamers and get to work.

Introducing Another Centrist Blog

Waaaaay back when (2005) there was a certain blog called The Yellow Line run by Alan Stewart Carl and Joe Weedon. These days, Alan has his own blog called Maverick Views. I have always wondered what happened to Joe. Well, now we know that he has his own little blog called The Middle of DC. It's nice to see more Centrist bloggers out there, so please check him out.

BREAKING NEWS: "The Hammer Gets Hammered"

Looks like Congress won't have Tom Delay to kick around anymore. The Washington Post is reporting that former Majority Leader Tom Delay is not only bowing out of his re-election race, but possibly resigning from Congress. As the Post notes, this decision comes only a few days after a former Delay aide plead guilty to corruption and conspiracy charge. The aide told federal prosecutors of "criminal operations" being run out of Delay's leadership office.

It's late here in Minnesota and I do have a day job, but let me say this: it's about time. I will leave up to a judge to determine Delay's guilt in legal matters, but I think the representative was a symbol of all that is wrong with the GOP today. His leaving probably won't change things for the better, but I think it's a good thing for him to not be on the Hill anymore.

As they say, this is developing...

"Stay Loudly or Leave Loudly"

It is not easy to remain a Republican these days. I've said as much on this blog and on other blogs. It is hard to see a party that has such a glorious history has become so shameful. A party that believed in equality, has decided to go after gays and lesbians. A party that believed in limited and effective government, is anti-government in some quarters and big government in others (look at the support for constitutional amendments for gay marriage and other things). A party that believed in fiscal responsibility has run up deficits as far as the eye can see. There is no joy in being part of the Grand Old Party.

Last Sunday at church a friend of mine wondered why people would stay in the Catholic Church with its very repressive policies. Another woman responded harkening a Catholic writer Joan Chisitter who remains in the church even though she isn't in favor of some of its views on women or gays. Chisitter has said that you either "stay loudly or leave loudly."

As I thought about it, I began to think this is a good policy of me. Maybe at some point I will say enough is enough and walk away from the GOP. But for now I remain. Either way, I will do it LOUDLY. I want to be the maverick, the burr in the side of the current far right leadership. I want to be a voice of dissent within the party.

To do something loudly means that we can't be silent. We have to speak up, either way. I continue to use this blog as a megaphone and I will also support others who are speaking loudly.

In fact, I want to let you know of two organizations that are speaking loudly. Please visit their websites and if you are a Republican or an Independent that votes Republican a lot, please consider supporting them, because they need your help.

Republicans for Environmental Protection
Log Cabin Republicans

Update on John McCain's Tango with the Far Right

It looks like I'm not the only blogger opining about John McCain's efforts to woo the far right base of the GOP. Mathew Pruitt over at Centerfield thinks E.J. Dionne's column in the Washington Post was a bit unfair to the Arizona Senator since he doesn't allow McCain to explain some of his actions and also because Dionne forgets that to move in to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. you have to get the party's nomination.

Joe Gandleman from The Moderate Voice gives an indepth opinion on McCain "tightrope act," especially his making nice with Jerry Fawell. We find out that McCain has expressed support in a constituional "marriage protection" amendment, a big turnaround from 2004. He shares this exerpt from ABC News:

Falwell and McCain first made peace in a face-to-face meeting a few months ago. In a sign of their improved relationship, McCain has agreed to be the graduation speaker at Falwell's Liberty University on May 13.

When McCain accepted an invitation to be Liberty University's graduation speaker, he spoke with Falwell by phone about the marriage issue.

According to Falwell, McCain is not pushing for a federal marriage amendment at this time. But McCain "reconfirmed" to Falwell that he would support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman if a federal court were to strike down state constitutional bans on gay marriage.

McCain's outreach to conservatives on marriage is politically important because of the way he sharply denounced a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage when it was considered in 2004. McCain called it "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans" because it "usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

Gandleman notes that McCain's tightrope act might end up dooming his campaign, because he will lose the respect of Independents and Democrats who liked his "maverick status:"

McCain's problem is this: unlike many GOPers, first he has to prove to many Republicans that he is a "real" Republican. He has to downplay his "maverick" image with GOPers by making peace with them, praising them, assuring them, suggesting that deep down inside he is either one of them or close to being one of them. But in doing so he has to file down the edges of his strong image as a straight-talking, independent-minded Republican who may be hated by some people within the GOP who Democrats and independents also dislike. He has to become like any, 'ol Republican to get nominated.

The problem: if he does that and then gets the nomination he will have so altered his image that he won't have the same appeal (or in sheer numbers supporters or activists) as he did in 2000.

There is no doubt that McCain's wants to be president. And there is also no doubt that he is making nice with what Andrew Sullivan calls the "Christianists" because he was burned by them back in 2000. In some ways, he's doing what George Bush did back then, after seeing his father going down to defeat in 1992. Bush the Younger believes his father lost re-election to Bill Clinton because he didn't shore up the far right and since that time the President has decided to become the far right's handmaiden. But as I said before, when you are in for a penny with the far right, you are in for a pound. The Jerry Fawells and Grover Norquists of the world are not going to satisfied with a few bones, they have an agenda and they want to get it accomplished.

I think McCain is missing an opportunity to build a new working majority in the way that Ronald Reagan did. Reagan won by getting disgruntled Democrats to his side. McCain could create a new GOP majority based on Democrats who are dismayed by the leftward drift of their party, as well as independents. He could create a new centrist majority that could work at getting some of our nation's problems solved.

But instead he is trying to make nice with a faction of the party that isn't nice. I don't know about you, but I think this might doom McCain's "wow factor." He might have worked so hard to keep his right flank in check, that he will realize that McCain's base (not the GOP base) will have eroded.

As they say, this is developing...

You can read my earlier post here.

John McCain's Tango with the Right Wing

John McCain is going to run again for President in 2008.

How do we know? Because of all the interesting moves he has made: making nice with the Bushies, supporting a gay marriage ban in Arizona, and as Andrew Sullivan reports he is making nice with Jerry Fawell, a man he denounced back in 2000.

One could say that he is waking up and smelling the coffee. He knows the far right hold power in the GOP and he is doing what he can to shore up the base.

But at what costs to the Independents and Democrats that tended to like him?

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne opines that with McCain trying to make nice with the base, might threaten his chances at the presidency. He notes:

The prevailing view among McCain's lieutenants -- it's also the conventional political view -- is that since the main obstacle to his nomination in 2008 comes from the right and from Bush partisans, McCain's main task is to appease the right and make nice with Bush on issues (such as Iraq) where McCain actually agrees with the president. Liberal attacks can be ignored, since most liberals will eventually vote against McCain anyway. There will be plenty of time after he's nominated for McCain to don his maverick apparel again for the benefit of moderates and independents.

All terribly logical, but it's a more dangerous strategy than it seems. McCain's central appeal, even to people who disagree with him, has always been his willingness to do the nonpolitical thing -- for example, to defend Kerry that day in 2004 simply because he thought the attacks on Kerry were wrong.

If McCain spends the next two years obviously positioning himself to win Republican primary votes, he will start to look like just another politician. Once lost, a maverick's image is hard to earn back.

Moreover, McCain is winning a hearing from previously reluctant Republicans as the one person who might save the party if Bush's popularity continues to sink. But if McCain gets too close to Bush in the next two years, he will no longer have his independence as a selling point. And if Bush should make a comeback, a lot of Republicans flirting with McCain now out of necessity will happily abandon him for someone more to their liking.

McCain is making going down a dangerous path. Once you're in for a penny with the far right of the GOP, you are in for a dollar. He might appease the right for the primaries, but in the end he might lose people like me and countless other people. Scratch that, I think he has already lost me.

I hope McCain will pull back from the brink and be the man he was back in 2000. I doubt it, but one can hope.

Will Moussaoui Get to See His Virgins?

I don't get the Moussaoui trial. Actually, to put it more bluntly, I don't get the government's case in trying to put the so-called "20th hijacker" to death.

The whole story goes, if Mr. Moussaoui had told the truth, then the government would have stoppped the plot and 3,000 people wouldn't have died.

That makes no sense to me. The government couldn't do its job because of some crazy Frenchman?

It seems to me that the 9/11 commission showed the government failed to do its job. This doesn't make Moussaoui or the other hijackers or even bin Laden are innocent, they are not. But it's not the government's job to rely only on the testimony of one lunatic; they are supposed to do their job and put all the pieces together.

In light of yesterday's testimony by Moussaoui that pretty much signed his death warrant, the Los Angeles Times urges in today's editorial that the French Muslim shouldn't be excuted for more than simple humanitarian reasons:

Would-be suicide jihadists want to die in their struggle against us in the deluded belief that God will reward their murderous cowardice. Once they are in our custody, they lose the power to achieve that goal. Capital punishment gives them the martyrdom they crave, making them symbols of sacrifice to would-be followers rather than powerless, humiliated prisoners passing the decades alone and increasingly forgotten in a cell.

More important, if Moussaoui is indeed an important cog in a broad conspiracy, then he certainly has information that could potentially be useful both in further Sept. 11 investigations and in our fight against Al Qaeda, whether now or in 10 years. We may or may not get this information from him if he lives, although life in prison is a very long time. But we will certainly not get it from him if he dies.

All good points that I agree with. Moussaoui gave his jaw-dropping testimony yesterday because he wants be killed by US government and become known as a martyr. Why should we give that? Why should we play into the hands of bin Laden and his ilk by using Moussaoui's death as recruitment tool? It's better to let him spend the rest his life in a cell, where he is out of sight and also out of mind.

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick brings up another point that has bothered me about this case. The belief that Moussaoui's death would bring "closure" to those who were affected by 9/11. Closure has become the pop culture belief that some event will basically end all the saddness.

Let me share a short story. It was 13 years ago this week, my grandmother died. She died unexpectantly of a stroke while my mother watached. My mother was devasted. Nevermind that my grandmother was 90; my mother saw her mother die in front of her. What I saw from that experience is that grief doesn't just go for a while and end. Instead it continues for a long time. My mother has learned to live with her saddness, but there was no closure or getting over this. How the hell could you "get over" losing a parent? If that's hard, then is it even possible to offer "closure" to someone saw a loved one leave for work on that September day five years ago and never came back?

The government is offering victims a cheap thrill instead of helping them cope with their loss. These people won't "get over" the loss of their loved ones, and even Moussaoui's death won't make things better for them either. There will still be hurt and anger and saddness and to think killing some nut is going to magically make people better is just plain wrong.

I'm all for justice and for punishing Moussaoui. I just don't think we should be giving into a madman's desire for martyrdom or trying to give vicitim's family a band aid to ease their pain.

California Dreamin': Health Care

One of my gripes with both parties is that they don't have any really bold ideas suited to the 21st century. Most of their ideas are retreads from the past. Take Health Care. Most liberals are still pining for some kind of Canadian-style single payer health care system while most conservatives seem to think the market can solve all problems. As someone has noted there is a ton of energy on both sides to stymie the other, and meanwhile the amount of people without health insurance increases.

There is some need for bold thinking in this area and it will require both government and the market to increase the number of those insured in our country. Clive Crook writes in the April,2006 issue of the Atlantic that the answer might be health savings accounts with government subsidies for the poor. David Lesher presents serveral bold ideas in an op-ed from the San Francisco Chronicle including health care. His idea? Treat health insurance like auto insurance:

Employer-based health coverage is an anachronism in a new economy where the average job tenure is shrinking and companies compete globally.

The most promising and politically feasible route to universal coverage is to make an adequate level of health insurance mandatory, accessible and affordable for all individuals.

That means government, employers and individuals each share responsibility for extending insurance to the 7 million Californians left out today.

I think this makes sense. Instead of trying to put the private health care sector out of business, lets have government and the private sector work together towards universal health care. It makes no sense that you can't drive a car off a lot without insurance and yet we can walk around without health insurance. Governor Mitt Romney is trying to do just that in Massachusetts; making health care mandatory while offering subsidies for the poor.

As someone who has been without health care many times in my life, I know that we need to solve this problem. In the volitile economy of the 21st century, an employer-based system makes no sense. Liberals, to their credit, know this and Conservatives can't hide behind the fact that we have a one of the best health care systems in the world when a large minority aren't able to access it. However, Liberals have to acknowledge that you can't realisitically get rid of the private sector in health care (at least a third of the Canadian Health system is private), but we can steer the market to be more compassionate while being competative.

We need leaders who are willing to put down ideology for pragmatism and solve this issue. But we also need a public that demands change.

I Didn't Leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party Left Me.

Over the last few months, I've been noticing a fair number of people leaving the GOP who are not the so-called "RINOs" or liberal Republicans like myself, but tend to be liberatarian/conservative.

Take one of my friends who is a conservative in the Ronald Reagan mold, whom I will call Mike. Mike was busy involved with me in Log Cabin and was active in the party. Late last year, he started to voice his weariness on the current state of the party. He was angry about their support here in Minnesota for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, as well as their betrayal of fiscal conservatism. Earlier this year, he had enough and left the party. He didn't become a Democrat, but he is now a conservative without a home.

I am reminded of this after reading John Coles' post about is leaving the GOP after two decades. He writes:

The right wing of the Republican party has sold the libertarian/centrist wing of the party a bill of goods, and the modern ‘conservatives’ are clearly nothing more than statists who, rather than redistributing wealth like their brethern on the left, instead have decided that the state must have excessive rights in order to ‘protect’ us all from whatever the imagined fear du jour might be. Meanwhile, no one is left protecting us from the religionists and the the state itself.

In the new Republican era, only fetuses , tax shelters, and ‘traditional’ marriage deserve protection. According to the actions of the current Republican party, the rest of us need to be wiretapped, monitored, have our homes inspected for whatever reason without warrants, and are incapable of making decisions on our own. My 20 year affair with the Republican party is coming to an end. I am not voting for any Republican in 2006 at any level, and I will be hard pressed to vote for this party in 2008- unless, of course, Cindy Sheehan is the Democratic candidate. These ‘conservatives’ need abut 10-15 years in the wilderness.

The GOP, when it's not bowing down at the feet of Pat Robertson, should be paying attention to the loss of the Goldwater/Reagan conservatives. These were the guys, NOT the religious right that brought the party to prominence. These were the ones who really believed in limited government and a strong national defense and they very well might stay home in November or vote for the Democratic candidate.

Speaking as one who considers himself the lovechild of Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater, I have a lot of disgust at the some of the current leadership of the GOP, especially its baiting of gays. My view remains: I call myself an Independent Republican (hence the name NeoMugwump) and I will work for those who uphold true conservative values and I won't support those who don't. That doesn't mean I'm gonna vote Democrat, but it DOES mean, anyone who supports limiting my rights as a gay man won't be getting my vote come November.

Ronald Reagan said when asked why he left the Democratic Party, that it was not that he left the party, but that the party left him. Four decades later, there are a lot of conservatives that can say the same thing.

A Quote from a Republican Dissident

My mum wrote me a letter the other day and she said, "Son," - she's 86 years old - she said, "Son, please don't become a Democrat". And I told my mum, I called her and I said, "Mum, you know what? I want my party back. I don't want to become a Democrat. I want my party back." The Republican Party that I knew, that I grew up in, a moderate party, a party that believed in fiscal discipline, a party that believed in small government, a party that had genuine conservative values. This is not a conservative leadership. This is a radical leadership. I called them neo-Jacobins. They are radical. They're not conservative. They've stolen my party and I would like my party back.

That's Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff Larry Wilkerson talking about the state of the GOP.

I want my party back too, Mr. Wilkerson.

Ganked from Andrew Sullivan.

The Incredible, Shrinking Moderate Republican

E. J. Dionne has a great column today in the Washington Post about the impending retirement of Sherwood Boehlert from Congress (one of the last great liberal Republicans from New York in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits)as well the demise of the liberal wing of the GOP. Dionne does a good job of answering why there needs to be a moderate/liberal/progressive wing of the GOP:

Why does the decline and fall of liberal Republicanism matter? After all, rationalizing the political system into a more conservative GOP and a more-or-less liberal Democratic Party makes the alternatives clearer to voters, who are offered, in Goldwater's famous phrase, "a choice, not an echo."

But it turns out that a Republican Party dominated by conservatives is no more coherent than the party that left room for progressives. The huge budget deficit is conservatism's Waterloo, testimony to its political failure. The conservatives love to cut taxes but can't square their lust for tax reduction with plausible spending cuts. Oh, yes, a group of House conservatives has a paper plan involving deep program cuts, but other conservatives know that these cuts will not pass, and shouldn't.

Paradoxically, because the liberal Republicans didn't pretend to hate government, they were better at fiscal responsibility. They were willing to match their desired spending levels with the taxes to pay for them. It didn't make for exciting, to-the-barricades politics. It merely produced good government.

Right on. It's funny that the same ones who talk about how Washington takes the people's money and waste it, are the same ones who have run up the deficit and in the words of John McCain, spend the people's money like "drunken sailors." A party with more moderates would have kept the party more faithful to its fiscal conservative heritage. I believe moderates have been the ones that keep the institutional memory of the party, reminding it of its roots, from Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. As the ranks of moderates decreases, the memory is lost.

But I think moderates are also needed in the social arena. You are already seeing how the current GOP has basically pushed the anti-gay marriage issue. The party that helped free the slaves, is now being known as the party that is bigoted to gay people. Maybe more moderates in the party would have blunted the hate filled campaign that the GOP is so eager to get into.

It isn't easy being a dying breed. But what keeps me going is something that amidst all the supposed triumph of the hard right, there are cracks forming and dissidents standing up. Maybe it won't happen right away, but maybe in time there will be enough voices to steer the party back the truly "right path" and away from the cliff.

Even a pessimist like me has to have hope...

Three Ain't Always a Magic Number

Alan Stewart Carl has a great retort to Justin Gardner's case for polygamy based on a column by Katherine Kersten, a conservative columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune. She trots out the tired old argument that any approval of gay marriage would lead to polygamy.

Now, I know some gay men who are in polyarmous relationship and it works well. But I agree with Alan: most of these polygamous marriages are exploitative of women. Gay marriage is basically the same old, same old, just with two people of the same sex. In theory it might seem nice and wonderful, but in reality , for the most part, is not as nice.

Also, this doesn't help those of us are gay and want to be married at some point. The far right can use this to tell us that we are a threat and lead America down a path to Sodom. Middle America is trying to deal with gay marriage; it would be difficult if not impossible to get Americans to deal with guy who wants to marry three women.

I think, those who care about gay marriage needs to stay away from this polygamy trap.

The Ports Deal: Somewhere Osama is Laughing

Congress must be congratulating itself now. They were able to kill the port deal by Dubai Ports World. Good for them. That will teach those nasty Arabs not to mess with the US. Now we can have a "US Entity" take over and of course the ports of cities like New Orleans will safe from terrorists. I mean no terrorist will go through an American owned and managed port.

I don't care if the majority of Americans were deadset against this. I don't care that most of Congress was against it. This whole fight was never about security- it was about politics. Both parties want to look tough on terrorism and this was a slam dunk of an issue. We could cash in on fear of another 9/11 and throw in some xenophobia and get the American public to fear people with funny sounding names.

Sometimes I think that our country is incredibly short-sighted and fearful anything that is "foreign." September 11 didn't open us up to the world, it made us even more suspicious of anyone that doesn't seem "American," whatever that means.

Let me remind you of a few things concerning some recent terrorist events. The 19 hijackers on 9/11 flew jets made by an American company (Boeing) and owned by US airlines (United and American). The "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, was a British citizen. The persons behind the London subway attacks last July were British Muslims as well.

I say this to say that the terrorists don't need a company from the UAE to do their dirty work. In some cases, they only need to look to homegrown terrorists.

(Hmmm...maybe we should start rounding up Arabs who live here, just in case. It worked SO WELL on the Japanese Americans.)

And by the way, an American-owned company doesn't assure us that our ports our safe. As the New York Times reports in

Friday's editorial:

Overall security is dismal at many ports. Low-paid rent-a-cops often guard the gates and perimeter fences. Thousands of truck drivers gain access to some ports simply by flashing driver's licenses. At one major port, journalists found gaps in the fences, unattended gates, an understaffed police force and inoperative alarms and surveillance cameras.

Think Congress is gonna deal with this? Probably not, since they were able to deal with those horrible Arabs.

The whole point of terrorism is to strike fear into the hearts of a population. I have to think somewhere tonight, Osama is laughing. His plan is working like a charm.

Other views on the ports deal...

David Ignatius

Mathew Pruitt points his finger at Congress and tenders in his resignation as a Republican. Some choice quotes:

On the Democrats:

Only more political pandering from a party that has no message of its own and whose only agenda is to oppose the President… Forget the talk of a global community from Bill Clinton in the 90's, Kerry's ranting about Bush's hate words and the need to create allies in the world community, as well as the liberal lip service to diversity, multiculturalism, and tolerance. If the President does it, it must be wrong.

For the GOP, it's adios:

I have stayed Republican, voted for Republican candidates, and supported this President because of defense, fiscal responsibility, and free trade. I am not sure the party of Ronald Reagan is any better than the other side on the former two and you just lost me on the latter. The Republican Party has all but surrendered its principles and moderates have received zilch in return for their continued support. As a leader in Congress with a majority, you have absolutely failed to produce on the domestic issues that kept liberal Republicans in the President's corner, and now this. My loyalty to the party is no longer deserved. I quit.

So the GOP leadership has lost another needed voice. Hastert, Frist and Mr. President, you're doing a heckuava job.






Daniel Drezner, who blames the President for a lack of leadership. (I agree.) Dead man walking, indeed.

Third Party Dreaming

Blogger Bredan Nyhan has become pretty snarky since his days at Spinsanity, but he does makes some sense at times. He blasts the idea of a centrist third party challenging the two party duopoly in the United States.

The creation of a centrist third party has a been a dream for those us in the middle. There was a lot of hope when Jesse Ventura "shocked the world" when he won the governorship of Minnesota in 1998. But the Reform Party never got very far, and infact the Minnesota Reform Part left and became the Independence Party in 2000. There was also a lot of hope when Ross Perot created the Reform Party and I think it had a decent shot of becoming a viable third party. However, Perot's control of the party apparatus and frequent infighting weakened the party and allowed John Buchannan to take over the party in 2000. Perot took his toys (and his money) and went home and by 2004, the Reform Party was history.

The problem with third parties is not just the current election laws, but because they seem to lack a coherant ideology. Simply saying you are in the middle isn't enough.

Ryan over at Centerfield believes that instead of hoping for a Centrist Third Party, centrists should show up in force in the major party primaries. I think this is a more viable option that can bypass the extremists who control the Republican and Democratic Parties. In 1994, moderate Republican Arne Carlson lost the gubernatorial endorsement of the state GOP to Alan Quist a far right candidate. He fought on to the primary and won and subsequently won a second term.

I think the future lies in bringing two "big two" closer to the center than in the pipe dream of a third party.

More on Crunchy Cons

Alan Stewart Carl has a great post about "crunchy conservatives" something I talked about back in January.

Brokeback: More than a Love Story...

I'm not going to complain that the movie "Crash" won the Oscar for Best Picture over "Brokeback Mountain." I can't since I haven't seen "Crash." However, I have seen "Brokeback" and feel I need to speak up at some who thought that this was just a gay version of "Titanic."

"Brokeback" wasn't simply a love story, though that was part of it. But it was also a movie about men who couldn't be out, men who lived in an era where they had to keep their sexuality under wraps. The story of Jake and Ennis is a story of a lot of men I know: men who loved another men, but had to keep that love a secret. These men married, and had children, but lived lives of quiet desparation. Sometimes they had secret affairs, sometimes the kept all their feelings inside. And let's not talk about how the wives are affected.

You see, I know a lot of gay men ranging in age from the late 30s to mid 60s, who lived double lives. They've all come out and are living happier lives, thank God, but they had to go through a lot of hell, denying who they were and denying any chance at love.

I tend to think part of the problem was the fact that many people within and without the gay community tried to universalize the story of "Brokeback." The problem with making this just a common love story with two guys instead of a guy and girl is that it allows the public to ignore the issues going on.


Jack and Ennis couldn't be together, not because they were of the wrong social class ala Pretty in Pink, but because as Ennis says, if they showed affection at the wrong place and wrong time, there would be hell to pay. The reason they couldn't live a life together is because of bigotry, people.

Listen, I have a boyfriend that very well might be a partner someday soon. Say he gets sick and winds up in the hospital. In most places in the United States, I might not be able to see him, since I'm not considered family. THAT is the reality that gays and lesbians deal with. The far right is trying to pass constitutional amendments left and right to deny gays marriage rights and they are now starting to focus on adoptions to gays. It is still not easy for gay couples today.

So please spare me the talk about how "Brokeback" was just another retread of an old story. It's not. It's about the lives of many of the men I know and it's part of what gay couples still have to deal with.



Other Commentary on "Brokeback Mountain"

Alan Stewart Carl at Maverick Views.

Kenneth Turan's take in the Los Angeles Times.

Reason's Jesse Walker looks at the Ang Lee film.

The Real Threat: Grapefruits

"Anuclear bomb can be built with a relatively small amount of nuclear material. A trained nuclear engineer with an amount of highly enriched uranium or plutonium about the size of a grapefruit or an orange, together with commerical available material, could fashion a nuclear device that would fit in a van like the one Ramzi Yousef parked in the garage of the World Trade Center in 1993. Such a bomb would level lower Manhattan."

-from the 9/11 Commission Report.

A few nights ago, I was talking with my friend and fellow moderate Republican, Jim. He offered this scenario:

A fishing trawler makes its way to the US coast. On board are members of a terrorist cell as well as a shielded suitcase carrying a crude nuclear device with weapons-grade plutonium about the size of a grapefruit. The trawler avoids major ports and goes to a small port in a small city. There waiting is a car which transports the members of the cell and the suitcase to a safehouse in a large city. The next day, the device is detonated, killing hundereds of thounsands and leaving a major city destroyed.

My friend was proving a point: you don't need an Arab-owned shipping company to deliver a nuclear bomb; all you need is some determined people.

What is our government doing to prevent this? Where is Congress?

Oh, I forgot they are busy trying to prevent the government of UAE to manage some ports.