Tax Day Thoughts

I just filed my taxes for 2006 (the deadline is April 17 this year). I had to pay this year, not a whole lot, but I did have to send a payment to Uncle Sam.

As I said goodbye to my money as it makes its journey to Washington, I came upon this article in the Los Angeles Times:

SUE Carpenter pays about $6,100 a year in federal income taxes. But she might owe just half that amount if she had a mortgage, and nothing at all if she had minor children.

The fact that Carpenter doesn't have these deductions makes her part of a dwindling group: U.S. taxpayers. An estimated 50 million Americans won't pay any federal income tax this year. That's nearly a third of all adults, up from 18% in 1980.

To many, the shrinking tax base is not a big deal. Most of the people who don't owe Uncle Sam are of modest means. They don't pay because Congress approved tax credits aimed at helping working families and sought to encourage homeownership by making mortgage interest deductible.

I happen to be one of those people who get mortgage intrest deductions. Keep reading...

In 2005, a White House advisory panel proposed an array of changes aimed largely at simplification, including scaling back the mortgage interest deduction that for generations had helped persuade renters to become homeowners.

The panel also called for eliminating deductions for state and local tax payments and restricting tax-free health insurance benefits for employees.

Predictably, the real estate industry, healthcare providers and dozens of other special interests rose up in protest. The proposals went nowhere.

The article goes on to talk about some of the deductions we Americans get every year on our income taxes.

A few years ago, a friend who is an accountant said that one of the easiest ways to make the tax system simpler was to eliminate deductions. I would tend to agree, if we lived in a perfect world. But the fact is, we all like our deductions, be they the mortgage intrest deduction and the deduction I get off the interest on my student loans and I don't see many people wanting to give them up-unless they got something in return.

I know this might raise hackles, but I am beginning to wonder if a flat tax would be a good idea. I'd have to do more research, but I do wonder...

The Running Man

It was 1983. I was a freshman in high school. That fall, I decided to join the cross country team at my high school. Now you have to know, that I was a slow runner. I finished the race, but I always brought up the rear.

One day we had a race in a Swartz Creek a suburb of Flint, Michigan, my hometown. I was bringing up the rear, as usual. At some point, I started to hear some shouting and I discovered it was directed at me. Some young white boys decided this was a good time to taunt me spew some racial slurs. I believe the “N-word” was used as was some reference to watermelons. I kept running, though I did tell the young hooligans to go to hell under my breath.

As I kept running I saw one my teammates, who was also African American, running swiftly in the direction of the young men. It was later that I found out that he basically stared at the young men until they slinked away.

After I finished, people commented on how I acted. I didn’t react to their taunts, I just kept running. The words were hurtful, of course, but I kept running.

My parents always taught me that as an African American I would face racism. They also taught me to handle it with some grace.

As we talk about Imus affair, I have to think of something that Alan Stewart Carl said in his post. As an African American, living in even in this enlightened age, I am going to face racism and bigotry. I have faced racism and bigotry. My guess is that a lot of African Americans have faced some situation like this. Unlike Imus’ stupid remark, what I faced nearly a quarter century ago didn’t come from some old craggy guy trying to be cute; it came from hate.

On Sunday, we will commemorate the day Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in major league baseball. One the things I’ve learned about Robinson is that he faced some vicious taunts by white players and spectators and yet he never lashed out at them. He knew if he did, he would set back the cause of intergrating baseball. He knew that he had to pick his battles.

I think that Alan is correct, we need to teach people that the world we live in is harsh and that we need to develop thick skins at times. We need to teach them that there are times when you fight and times when you simply let the words slide off your back. And we need to teach that when people hurl invectives at you, whether in jest or otherwise, that we respond with dignity and grace, showing ourselves better than those who say hurtful things.

I believe that African Americans, women, gays and everyone need to stop seeing themselves as victims and instead of see themselves as survivors, willing to face the world no matter what it throws at them.

A Letter to Jesse and Al

You know, I really don't know what to say about Don Imus getting axed, but I will let Jason Whitlock say a few things:

I’m calling for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the president and vice president of Black America, to step down.

If judged by the results they’ve produced the last 20 years, you’d have to regard their administration as a total failure. Seriously, compared to Martin and Malcolm and the freedoms and progress their leadership produced, Jesse and Al are an embarrassment.

Their job the last two decades was to show black people how to take advantage of the opportunities Martin and Malcolm won.


Rather than inspire us to seize hard-earned opportunities, Jesse and Al have specialized in blackmailing white folks for profit and attention. They were at it again last week, helping to turn radio shock jock Don Imus’ stupidity into a world-wide crisis that reached its crescendo Tuesday afternoon when Rutgers women’s basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer led a massive pity party/recruiting rally.

Hey, what Imus said, calling the Rutgers players "nappy-headed hos," was ignorant, insensitive and offensive. But so are many of the words that come out of the mouths of radio shock jocks/comedians.

Imus’ words did no real damage. Let me tell you what damaged us this week: the sports cover of Tuesday’s USA Today. This country’s newspaper of record published a story about the NFL and crime and ran a picture of 41 NFL players who were arrested in 2006. By my count, 39 of those players were black.

You want to talk about a damaging, powerful image, an image that went out across the globe?

We’re holding news conferences about Imus when the behavior of NFL players is painting us as lawless and immoral. Come on. We can do better than that. Jesse and Al are smarter than that.

Hmmmm, what's worse, an old white guy who was trying to be cute, or some black athletes who are are basically criminals?

He keeps going...

Jesse and Al might win the battle with Imus and get him fired or severely neutered. But the war? We don’t stand a chance in the war. Not when everybody knows “nappy-headed ho’s” is a compliment compared to what we allow black rap artists to say about black women on a daily basis.

We have more important issues to deal with than Imus. If we are unwilling to clean up the filth and disrespect we heap on each other, nothing will change with our condition. You can fire every Don Imus in the country, and our incarceration rate, fatherless-child rate, illiteracy rate and murder rate will still continue to skyrocket.

A man who doesn’t respect himself wastes his breath demanding that others respect him.

We don’t respect ourselves right now. If we did, we wouldn’t call each other the N-word. If we did, we wouldn’t let people with prison values define who we are in music and videos. If we did, we wouldn’t call black women bitches and hos and abandon them when they have our babies.

If we had the proper level of self-respect, we wouldn’t act like it’s only a crime when a white man disrespects us. We hold Imus to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. That’s a (freaking) shame.

Exactly.

Everyone's A Little Bit Racist

Everyone's a little bit racist
Sometimes.
Doesn't mean we go
Around committing hate crimes.
Look around and you will find
No one's really color blind.
Maybe it's a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.

-from Avenue Q

I've given the whole Don Imus thing some thought and the thoughts that I have are mixed. One the one hand, what Imus said regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team was waaaay over the line.

But then I start to think about how people are reacting towards his words. Yes, they are bad, but they way people act, you'd think Imus just burned a cross.

I'm not saying Imus should be treated with kid gloves on this. I think his two week suspension is justified. But let's think about this. Imus isn't the only person that has said something racist or sexist or homophobic. For example, Jesse Jackson, who is demanding Imus' head, called New York, "Hymietown" back in 1984. Or, let's talk about why the NAACP gave actor Isaiah Washington an Image Award, even though he called a fellow actor who is gay a "faggot?"

And let's face it: a lot of hip-hop artists call women, "bitches" and "hos" like it was going out of style.

The video and the lyrics above come from the Broadway play "Avenue Q" and the words make sense: we all have some prejudice of some type. Lot's of African Americans have biases against Jews, Asians and gays; there are gay folk that are prejudiced against blacks and so forth. The sad fact is, this is a very human condition and we all have some prejudice towards some group. The challenge is to overcome it, not to pretend we are pure as the drive snow.

Again, I'm not saying that what Imus did was no big deal: what he said was racist and sexist and his suspension is justified. But I don't think we should start acting like what he did is the unforgiveable sin. Imus should be given a second chance, and not be treated as if he were a member of the Klan. In the end what he did was utter some words, horrible and hurtful words, yes, but words nonetheless. In the history of African Americans, we have faced far worse.

So my advice to is to calm down. Let Imus deal with what he said. Maybe his meeting with the women will open his eyes. But let's also know that none of us is without sin. We all harbor some bias.

Let he that is without sin...

McCain and a History Lesson

As I’ve been reading the blogs, I’ve been noticing a certain stream of consciousness concerning John McCain-and that is, that his campaign is over.

Now, I do think his campaign is in crisis, but we all might want to wait calling McCain a corpse at this time.

Let’s have a history lesson, shall we?

Back in 2003, long before a person casted a vote, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean was considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2004. He received a huge amount of media attention. Meanwhile, John Kerry’s campaign seemed to be sputtering and it seemed that he was going to lose.

And then the people voted.

Howard Dean came in third in Iowa and it went downhill from there. He went from being the presumptive front-runner to become a joke. In the end, the only primary that Dean won was his home state. John Kerry, who was considered a goner, went on to become the Democratic nominee.

I say this because we are still several months from the primaries and caucuses. In the end, that’s the only poll that matters. McCain might well implode and fizzle out before January 2008, but we don’t know that yet and it’s pretty stupid to declare him dead when no one has voted yet.

I still think McCain needs to retool his campaign to widen the base instead of pandering to the GOP as it is. And yes, I think McCain is in trouble because of trying to become the establishment candidate. But the thing is, we don’t really know what is going on in the mind of potential primary voters. People in media think they might know this, but in reality they don’t know anymore than the average joe on the street.

So, I will just sit back and not make any predictions on McCain’s future until the people have spoken. Maybe I will be proved wrong and McCain is done, but my guess is that McCain is not done yet. If this guy could survive the "Hanoi Hilton" he can survive a presidential campaign.

Blogging Break

Since I am a pastor, I will be busy this weekend with Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter, so I will not be blogging. See ya all on Monday.

Dear John Mc Cain,

Dear Senator,

So, I see that you tinkering with your campaign after getting reports that you aren’t raising so much money as your GOP rivals. When I heard about this, I had hoped you were going to announce that you would return to your so-called maverick status in 2000. Alas, what I learned was that you were employing some of the same fundraising ideas that the President has used in the past.

Listen, John, (can I call you John?) your campaign isn’t doing so well. Lot’s of people thought you would be the nominee next year. As the saying goes, Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. You had been denied the nomination seven years ago, so it would make sense that it should be your turn to shine.

But things aren’t going according to plan, are they? I mean Mitt Romney is raising more money than you and Rudy Giuliani is the front-runner in spite of his socially liberal views. So, now you are basically hitting the reset button at least financially.

But John, the problem isn’t that you aren’t raising enough money. The problem is your message or lack thereof.

You kind of became the darling of a lot of independents in 2000. You talked a lot about what you wanted the Republican party to be about, what you wanted America to be about. I think there were a lot of people who wanted to hear this message and they did what they could to help you. Your condemnation of the Religious Right was a breath of fresh air. Then came South Carolina and the Bush campaign spreading vicious rumors and your campaign was over. I can only say this from afar, but I think you were hurt by that. Like a kid who touches a hot stove, you have recoiled back and become cautious. You have made winning important and will do what it takes to get there.

When you started making nice with President Bush in 2004, I kind of understood that. You are a Republican through and through and you wanted to be the loyal solider. Unlike a lot of people, I don’t think that everyone who has dealt with the President is evil. It also made sense to patch things up with the President. A protracted fight with the President would not help you in the long run, so it’s best to be cordial.

That said, I think you went a bit too far. You have started to court the Religious Right, the same people you said were corrupting the party. I’m not mad that you spoke at Liberty University last year- the speech was not a capitulation to the far right and was quite good. And you got a better response than what you got at the New School a few days later.

But I don’t understand you trying to talk to people like James Dobson. I don’t taking positions that would appease the far right. These moves tend to alienate you from independents- the people who made your campaign in 2000.

The other fact is that most social conservatives don’t trust you. No matter what you have done to kiss and make nice, they are still mad for what you said about the far right in 2000. As “holy” as some of the people think they are, practicing forgiveness is not something they are well known for.

I also don’t understand your trying to become the successor to the Bush legacy. The past six years has given us wasteful spending, and intractable war and an inept response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Frankly, what you are doing is getting independents upset at you and not convincing the far right- not a winning combination.

Senator, the GOP and American conservatism is in crisis. In some way it is a problem of being successful: we helped end the Cold War, and brought down tax rates from ridiculous levels to something more sane. However, some of this can be blamed on the acquiescence of the GOP to the Religious Right and the Bush Administration’s incompetent governing. I don’t need to recap all that has gone wrong, but I think the GOP is need of a change and you should be focusing on this.

I also think the Republican Party needs to start being a more diverse party than it has been. Under Karl Rove, the party has basically gone after the far right using such issues as gay marriage as wedge issue. But you can only reach so many social conservatives and this strategy only leads to narrow victories, not the landslides that candidates like Ronald Reagan once received.

I would also add that this campaign of going after gays and lesbians is going to destroy the GOP. There are a lot of gays and lesbians that would vote Republican, if the party were more accepting of gays. I would add that the anti-immigration tone of some in the GOP is also a bad move. It's one thing to have differences concerning our national immigration policy, but too many in the GOP have crossed the line into bigotry.

I think you tend to believe in a small government, but also one that is effective- something similar to your hero, Teddy Roosevelt. The fact is that most Americans believe in small government, but they also want a government that works. In short, Americans want governments that are "small and smart" instead of "big and dumb," which is what we have witnessed during the last six years of George Bush.

This means that you need to start being more vocal on fiscal responsibility. We Republicans always want to keep taxes low and favor tax cuts. But the problem with the present GOP fiscal policy is that we seem to want tax cuts all the time. However, we don't want to create tax cuts at the expense of a balanced budget and not during what many consider wartime. In the past you were against the first round of tax cuts in 2001, but you have since changed your position to ameliorate the base.

The thing is, I don't believe that is a good plan. If we truly are in war, then it seems foolish to keep pushing for tax cuts. We need those resources to go to our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think if you went back to your budget hawk ways, you would excite those who are appalled at the growth of government during the past eight years.

I could go on. The point is, what is considered the base in the GOP is not where the people are at and you know this. The GOP needs to expand its base and it's membership. That's what Ronald Reagan was all about. He was interested in growing the party.

The GOP that Reagan encountered was one that was in need of reform. The problem today, is that the GOP needs to be reformed again. The current version of the party is horribly out of date and will not be viable.

I know that you were hurt badly in 2000 and you've learned to be careful. And maybe you can't be the person you were seven years ago. I can understand learning from your mistakes. But trying to be the sucessor to the President's legacy is not an answer. I think you need to find a way to separate yourself from the President and be your own man. You don't have to declare war on the Religious Right, but you don't have to try to get them to like you either. Trust me, they never will.

Senator, we need you to stop pleasing the powers that be and try to lead the party in a different direction. Bush-style Republicanism has been discredited. We need someone who is a visionary and I know that is what you are deepdown.

It's not too late. You can still turn things around. But you need to be willing to be a bit more risky.

Thanks for listening. Take care.

Rev. Dennis Sanders

Carter Redux?

This is just me wondering:

After reading Michael van der Galien’s post on Rudy Guliani’s views on Executive power, I started thinking about something; could the next President we get become so weak that he or she will be ineffective? Could we see another Carter-type presidency?

Now, I am not saying that we need another President like the current one that has amassed more and more power at the expense of civil liberties. And while I like Guiliani a lot, I am skittish about his views on power. But I wonder if we are going to go from one extreme to another.

In the 1970s, we witnessed a President that amassed power and threw the nation in a crisis. After he resigned in disgrace, the electorate gave a former governor from a southern state, Jimmy Carter, the keys to the White House. But many people saw Jimmy Carter as very weak and not able to really rally the people. The image that probably sticks in people’s minds is that of a President that trapped by the Iranian Hostage Crisis that was visualized in the failure of Desert One.

In two years, President Bush will leave the political scene. Will the next President be one who will bring more balance to the system of checks and balances, or will it be someone that is weak? Will we have someone who won’t be an effective executive like Carter was?

I don’t know the answer to that, of course. All I know is that as much as I don’t want an Imperial Presidency, I don’t want a weak Presidency either.

Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word

"It's sad, so sadIt's a sad, sad situation, And it's getting more and more absurd, It's sad, so sad, Why can't we talk it over, Oh it seems to me, That sorry seems to be the hardest word."

-Elton John

This week, millions of Christians will be commemorating the death of Jesus culminating with the celebration of Easter when we believe Christ was raised from the dead. For Christians, Christ’s life and death signifies God coming in our midst and walking amongst us and dying for us. God showed grace when humanity deserved punishment. Followers of Christ are urged to live lives of grace just as God did in Christ.

So, why the mini religious lesson? (And even moreso, why the Elton John lyrics?) Maybe because grace is so missing in American politics. There is not much sense of forgiveness or even humanity among the diehard partisans.

That has been evident among some on the left in regard to Matthew Dowd’s regrets concerning working for the Bush Administration. Some, including myself, who read the New York Times article, felt bad for Mr. Dowd. He truly believed that he was doing the right thing. James Moore doesn’t feel that way. He refuses to forgive Dowd for his working with the Bush Administration. He made his bed with the devil and now he must lie in it, according to Mr. Moore.

I don’t know what has happened in American politics that people have taken politics so seriously that they hate those who don’t agree with them or consorted with the “enemy.” I’ve said a lot about how hard-hearted conservatives have been towards liberals, but liberals can be just as cold-hearted as well.

It’s funny: one of the main criticisms is that the Bushies never liked to admit a mistake. Critics wanted a president and advisors that were “open-minded” and willing to change their mind. So, when one advisor does just that, instead of getting praise, he gets more judgement for not seeing his mistake in the first place.

One of the passages of Scripture we read during Lent was the famous parable of the Prodigal Son. In the story, the younger son, who had shamed his father by demanding his share of the inheritance, and then wasted his money until he was flat broke, decides to come back to the homestead. He makes his way back home and is welcomed lavishly by his father. Some biblical scholars believe that the young son’s return was nothing more than a scheme to get more money from his father. Whatever the case, the father welcomes him. The other son, was mad about how the younger son acted and how he was celebrated by his father when he was the loyal son who never left. The father responds that both sons are welcomed.

James Moore and others are acting like the older son, mad at the past sins of the “younger son” Matthew Dowd. Maybe like the older son, they are justified in their anger, I don’t know. But it seems to me that they need to get off their high horse and give Mr. Dowd a little bit of grace.

Grace is something that is missing in American politics. It’s grace that allows us to see each other as fallible humans instead of arbiters of truth. Mr. Dowd thought he was doing the right thing and now he thinks he was wrong. In a political culture when we never want to admit we were wrong, I think what Mr. Dowd did was important and should celebrated, not condemned by arrogant blowhards.

And They Call it Puppy Love...

As the song goes, love is strange.

A few years ago, I met this guy that I had an extreme crush on. He was cute and a bit of a curmudgeon, like me. I tended to bypass some of his faults as being part of his adoring character. The relationship never did work out and later on, I started to see some of his traits were not really that cute after all.

A lot of people who once really liked the President are starting to feel the same way. In the days after 9/11, I really did think that President Bush was a godsend and was looking forward to voting for him come 2004. The Iraq came and his support of the so-called Marriage Amendment and it all went downhill for me. If you read some of Andrew Sullivan's entries back circa 2001-03, you could see that Andrew definitely had a big crush on Bush. If you read Andrew now? Not so much.

In light of that, you might want to read how former Bush strategist Matthew Dowd has fallen out of love with the President. It's a heartbreaking story in my view. Why? Because this President could have been a better president than he was. And yet he wasn't. but while it is sad to see what could have been, there is also some hope in this article. After the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign, Dowd went to work for the Scharzenegger re-election campaign, which was defintely more unifying than the presidential campaign of three years ago. Dowd has learned that it is better campaign to all the people and not just a slim majority:

“I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people,” he said, “but bring the country together as a whole.”

He said that he still believed campaigns must do what it takes to win, but that he was never comfortable with the most hard-charging tactics. He is now calling for “gentleness” in politics. He said that while he tried to keep his own conduct respectful during political combat, he wanted to “do my part in fixing fissures that I may have been part of.”

One would hope that as the Bush era comes to a close, we will go to a more "kindler and gentler" style of campaigning and governing. We need someone who will talk about America as a whole and not seek to divide us.

Why the Gonzales Affair Matters, Part Two

This about sums it up:

The central unanswered question is whether the president and attorney general were shaking up the prosecutor corps to make it better or to make it into a political weapon to help the Republican Party.

That was today's editorial from the Chicago Tribune, not a paper known for wacky, liberal views.

Andrew Sullivan picks up on that and runs with it, by looking at a recent report which shows the Bushies have really been busy remaking the Justice Department into a fiefdom of the President:

From 2001 through 2006 the Bush Justice Department investigated elected Democratic office holders and office seekers locally (non-state-wide and non federal offices) at a rate more than seven times greater (nearly 85 percent to 12 percent) than they investigated local Republican elected office holders and seekers. This was so even though, throughout the nation, Democrat elected officials outnumber Republican elected officials at the rate of only 50 percent to 41 percent. Nine percent of elected officials are Independent/Other.

Is this what we want? Agencies of the government being used to smash the opposition?

Gonzales should go. Now.

Global Warming and "Know Nothing" Conservatives

"The issue of environmental quality is one which transcends traditional political boundaries. It is a cause which can attract, and very sincerely, liberals, conservatives, radicals, reactionaries, freaks, and middle-class straights."
-Russell Kirk.

Russell Kirk is considered one the luminaries of American conservatism. You have to wonder what he would think how some who call themselves conservatives are enforcing an ideology that says global warming doesn't exist. The LA Times notes today in an editorial about how a small minority of conservatives are keeping Republicans on the anti-global warming side even though there are many in the GOP that would like to have some say in the issue. These rigid views comes even as the business lobby is coming around to the idea that something has to be done about climate change. The Times notes:

...Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Rep. Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.

Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.

The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.

Now, I don't like Al Gore much either, but that doesn't mean I think that the topic of Climate Change is somehow a lefty conspiracy. What's amazing and sad is that this has become a political issue. It boils down to "if the Democrats are for it, then we have to be against it." Everything in the GOP these days is about politics and how to stick to the Dems and not about governing. With some in the business community like Dupont, leading the way on climate change, the GOP leadership might be heading towards being irrelelvant, becoming a small band of know-nothings, like those who believe the moom landing was staged.

For a more realistic Republican viewpoint, you might want to read this speech by David Jenkins of Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Thanks to Michael van der Galien for the tip.

The Cody Statement

I thought I would share a statement made six years ago, but gay and straight Republicans. For some reason, the document has been ignored, and should be shared.

Here is the Cody Statement:

We are Republican because we believe in limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and personal responsibility;

We strive for Unity without the tyranny of uniformity, because the greatness of the Republican Party, like the greatness of America, is found in our tolerance for diversity;

We are full members of the Coalition that elected President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney; and Republicans everywhere, and we accept our corresponding rights and duties as such.

Some of us are straight, some of us are gay or lesbian, and some of us think it is nobody's business but our own what we are. All of us are American -- unique, multi-dimensional, defying any one label but united by three common commitments:

We are committed to Freedom; we believe everyone should be included in America's proud progression toward full civil equality for all, without regard to sexual orientation. Neither victim nor villain, we seek no special privilege, but we deplore being penalized. Many of us simply want to be left alone -- a creed of many Wyoming persons. We believe a government powerful enough to “give” all citizens what they think they might want will inevitably be powerful enough to take it all away.

We are committed to Family and recognize families form the core of civilized society, whichever of the many loving forms families may take in 21st Century America; we are joined in our commitment to be true to our ancestors, who fought and died, strove and sacrificed so that we could enjoy the blessing of Liberty today. We are committed to love and protect each other in the present, and we trust that the work we do will make our communities and our country a better place for future generations. We believe well-intentioned people always can find ways to live together in harmony, if we are just to try.

And while government can help ensure a good society, it cannot make a great society---only free people, acting in their myriad creative and generous ways, can accomplish that task.

We are committed to a respect for the Faith of the Founders; most of us, although not all of us, worship God or a Higher Being. But no matter what our private beliefs, we are all publicly devoted to an America in which everyone is free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. At the same time, we recognize the value and importance of moral and ethical standards. Cognizant of the violence which tears at our country, we band together in common defense against every kind of violence and hatred.

These are our commitments. We will certainly not agree on every issue, and we may vigorously disagree on some issues. But we are here because we believe sexual orientation should be a non-issue within the Republican Party. And so, inspired by our common commitments, we make these pledges.

We pledge to help the Republican Party become a truly “big tent,” welcoming all who share its values under its benign unfolding.

We pledge to help all Americans -- all Americans -- understand the great philosophical principles of the Republican Party and to encourage support for candidates wedded to the true spirit of those principles.

We pledge, in short, to be “Cody Republicans”: a Republican who is very traditional in holding the ideals of rugged independence, integrity, fairness and being respectful of your friends and neighbors; and persistent in our commitment for those ideals to apply equally to all.

We, the members of the Republican Unity Coalition, put our hand to this credo, The Cody Statement, in Cody, Wyoming, August 6, 2001.

Two Kinds of Conservatism

The recent spat between California Governor Arnold Scharzenegger and talk show host Rush Limbaugh shows two examples of modern conservatism.

The first example is what I will call "pragmatic conservatism" that is exemplfied by Arnold and the National Associations of Evangelicals. This type of conservatism is interested in results. While they don't see eye to eye with liberals, they are willing to cut deals to get things done. They are more interested in solving problems (health care, the environment, Dafur) than they are in fighting Democrats. The solutions they propose tend to be more market-based than the Democrats. This type of conservative isn't that interested in divisive social issues.

The other example is what I call, "political conservatism." This strain, is more interested in scoring politcal points than they are in producing actual policy. This example is clear exemplified by the Bush Administration. Unlike the pragmatists, they see those who oppose them as the enemy and seek to find ways to weaken their opponents. They are not interested in policy except when it serves their political interests. They use divisive social issues (abortion, homosexuality) and fear to bring out voters.

These are the two conservatisms that are out there today. It is interesting to note that one of these won handily in 2006 while the other one was "thumped."

There are many in California who are mad that Schwarzenegger isn't acting like a "true Republican," which I guess means, not hating the Democrats enough, pretending global warming isn't real, and not hating gays. The funny thing is that some of the most ideological Republicans don't really do anything. I think right now at this time, people want things done and if the Republican party wants to have a decent future, it might want to focus more on finding conservative solutions to problems and less on trying to pin people like myself and my partner as the bearers of all that is evil in the world.

From the "I Kid You Not" Department

A Southern Baptist Minister muses about a hormonal patch that could prevent your baby from being gay.

Ugh.

Why the Gonzalez Affair Matters

I know that there has been some shrugging of shoulders in the blogosphere as to why the issue concerning Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and the firing of eight US Attorneys simply because they weren't loyal enough.

Now at the surface, it doesn't seem like a big thing. These attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and they can be replaced at any time. It's quite normal when there is a change in party for the lawyers to resign or be fired by the incoming president. Gonzalez didn't do anything illegal in that matter. If the president wanted to fire all the attorneys because they had the wrong color hair, that's his (or her's) perogative.

There are a few things that are chilling here:

First, these firing took place in the middle of a presidency at the beginning of a second term. Second, these were attorneys already appointed by President Bush. Finally, the reason they were let go, was not because they weren't doing a good job, but because they weren't loyal enough.



Maybe it's me, but you would think you'd want US attorneys to at least appear impartial and fair since they represent the people of the US, not President Bush and not the Republican party. Suppose the gay man is the victim of a hate crime that somehow broke some national law. If that US attorney was hired because he was a soild Republican, would he truly prosecute the perpetrators? Or flip the script and make the US attorney a hired hack of a Democratic president. Would a Republican or conservative feel comfortable seeking help from them?

What has happened here is not illegal, but it could be potentially damaging to our justice system. Would anyone trust them? Would we know if they would work for all the people or just some of us?

A lot of people have seen the Bushies as creating some kind of a authoritarian or theocracy here in America. I think it is rather sexy to think we are fighting against some fascistic regime, but in reality, none of this happening. We still live in a relatively free society. Also, the people who make up the Bush Administration make crappy ushers of an authoritarian society. We've been witness to their incompetance too many times to count. If they were that nefarious, you'd think they would be better at all this. Russia's Vladimir Putin is the master, in that he is creating an authoritarian state without the public really knowing it. And if they had a role in the poisioning a Russian ex-pat, they really are masters in that they left no fingerprints on the body.

The Bushies aren't that good. However, what I do think they are doing is bring us closer to becoming some kind of bannana republic, where the leaders are corrupt and office are handed out to those who gave the most money to the President (witness the Michael Brown/FEMA disaster). Loyalty wins out over competence. Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a reporter for the Washington Post, writes in his book, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone" about how some of the people hired to oversee reconstruction in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, were not given jobs based on expertise, but on their loyalty to current GOP orthodoxy (such as, were they pro-life or not).

That's what bothers me about the Bush Administration. I don't care if you are in favor of big or small government, you at least want your government to work and you want to trust it. I don't think we are at the level of corruption in countries like Nigeria, but we have slipped a bit. Under Clinton, FEMA was transformed from a federal joke of an agency to a top-notch disaster management team. It was headed by a professional, James Lee Witt, the head of the Arkansas version of FEMA. When Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, the head of FEMA was Michael Brown, a person with no experience in disaster management and whose only claim to fame was being a contributor to the Bush campaign. The people in Louisiana and Mississippi needed the federal government to come in and manage the situation. They trusted that the Feds would come in and help. That didn't happen. Meritocracy was replaced with nepotism.

Nepotism should have no place in a government. The government is not a place for the President to put all his friends in office. Yes, you would like people of similar philosphy, but you also want to know they can do the damn job.

That's why this scandal matters. The Bush Administation has done damage to the good name of the US government, making it a place where ideological purity is placed above anything else and in the end the people suffer, whether its the people of Iraq, New Orleans, or any other place.

The Death of Neoconservatism?

Michael van der Galien and I have had a polite argument about neoconservatism. I tend to think it had good intentions when it started in the 70s as an alternative to the so-called New Left, but has degenerated into a philosophy that is focuses on a belligerent foreign policy and basically on bigotry towards Islam. Michael has a far less generous view, seeing the who ideology as dangerous. However, we both agree that neoconservatism has had a big influence in the GOP and it has hurt the party.

These days, Neoconservatism is not very popular among the general public. With Iraq becoming an albatross for the US, there is a lot of anger for neocons for having got America into this mess. So, with things going badly, there is a lot of talk about the coming demise of this movement. Jacob Weisberg has basically written an epitath:

...whether or not the neo-cons are prepared to face it, there are increasing signs that their moment is finally over. At the Defence department, Donald Rumsfeld has been replaced by Robert Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group and an affiliate of the realist school associated with the previous President Bush. Paul Wolfowitz, the architect who wanted to build a new Middle East on Saddam’s rubble, has been moved to the World Bank, where he observes a Robert McNamara-like silence on the failure of his war. Another former Pentagon official, Douglas Feith, is under investigation for misrepresenting intelligence data to make the case for the invasion.

At the State department, Condoleezza Rice is returning to her realist roots and now actually seems to direct policy. She has embraced shuttle diplomacy in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, is considering conversation with Syria and Iran and even made a nuclear deal with North Korea. These steps signify a broader shift away from what the neo-con defector Francis Fukuyama calls “hard Wilsonian” ideas and back towards the less principled, more effective pragmatism of Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser, and James Baker, former secretary of state.

The most important sign of all is the fading influence of Mr Cheney, who for six years dominated foreign policy in a way no previous vice-president ever has. Mr Cheney is discredited, unwell and facing various congressional investigations. He was badly damaged by the Libby trial, which exposed his ruthless mania to justify a war gone wrong.

But the larger factor in Mr Cheney’s demise is that his neo-conservative hypotheses have been falsified by events. Invading Iraq did not catalyse a new Middle East; isolating North Korea advanced its nuclear programme; high-handed unilateralism has reduced American power. At the outset of his presidency, Mr Bush thought himself lucky to have a number two who did not aspire to his job. He may now grasp the hazard of lending so much power to someone with no incentive to test his views in the political marketplace.

As disciples of Bernard Lewis, it is unlikely Mr Cheney and the neo-con crusaders will apologise for what they have wrought. Like Mr Bush, they look to the long span of history for vindication. It will indeed be eons before anyone trusts them again.

I think it's too soon to start writing obituaries. For some reason, journalists and others love to write about the demise of so-and-so movement, usually after an election loss or when something has gone wrong. I've heard more often than not about how the Religious Right is finished, and yet we see them coming back to prominence again and again.

Neoconservatism is at a nadir right now, but that doesn't mean it is finished. Movements can also grow dormant, with thinkers "going underground" and waiting until there is an opening.

If you want to end a movement, you need to challenge it. Conservative Realists will need to start chugging out papers and studies as to why we need a less agressive foreign policy than the one the neocons have been pushing. In short, we need to present an alternative.

The neocons still have think tanks and thinkers with book contracts who can still peddle their ideas to the public. All they need is a politician that is willing to listen and boom, they are back in power.

So basically, unless I see a death certificate, I will tend to hear all those reports about the demise of the neocons as premature.

Let a Thousand Conservatives Bloom or Sign Up Now and Get a Free Totebag!

Pete Abel over at Central Sanity explains that he is not ready to give money to the Republican Party at this time. He explains:

It's increasingly difficult for me to tolerate the repeated references to Ronald Reagan and the multiple commitments to returning the GOP to Reagan's principles, especially when the apparent platform for doing so may be limited to three planks. As defined in Ensign's latest plea, they are the war on terror, immigration reform, and sustaining Bush's tax cuts.


The first two on that list are certainly worthwhile, but where's the strategy?


How exactly will Republicans, if they regain control of the Senate, suggest we conduct the war on terror? Will Reagan's effective combination of strength and diplomacy be restored?


On immigration reform, I'm encouraged by Ensign's language – "common sense reform that keeps our economy going and respects the rule of law." And yet, President Bush (rare as such moments of lucidity might be for him) actually made a relatively decent proposal on how to accomplish that reform, but the former GOP majority nixed it. (Granted, that nixing might have been due more to the belligerence of the House than the Senate; I honestly don't recall. Still, I hope the reader will excuse the error if there is one. Recent history compels me, fairly or not, to paint the whole lot of them with a skeptic's brush.)


And on tax cuts, yes, that's quite "Reaganish" in tone, but what about a balanced budget or even some old-fashioned Republican fiscal restraint? Haven't seen that in a long time, and I miss it..


Net: Before I can donate even a single hard-earned dollar to the cause of restoring a GOP Senate Majority, I need to first see some proof with my proverbial pudding. Other conservative-inclined individuals might accept shallow platitudes, honorable Senator, but I simply can't.

I can totally understand his frustration and anger. I'm also going to let you in on something:

I haven't given a dime to the GOP, not at the national level and not at the state level. Why? Because the current party leadership doesn't reflect my views.

However, I do give money to Republican organizations that do reflect my Republican values. They, in turn, support Republican elected officials and candidates who reflect those values. Some of those groups include:

• Republicans for Environmental Protection- a group that promotes conservation;
• Log Cabin Republicans - a groups of gay and lesbian Republicans promoting equality within the GOP and in the larger society for gay and lesbian Americans;
• Republican Leadership Council- A group led by former New Jersey Governor Christie Todd Whitman and former Senator John Danforth who promote moderate Republican values;
• Republican Majority for Choice- a group of pro-choice Republicans.

There are probably others that I don't know about, but I would tell Pete he should consider giving money to these groups. They are in an uphill battle against the far right and they need support. The sad thing is that with the exception of the Log Cabin Republicans, none of these organizations recieve a lot of press attention. My guess is that the media has so bought into the notion that the GOP is made up of only neocons and theocons that they don't bother. I think that's a shame because they are standing up for the real conscience of the GOP.

This leads to another question. For some reasons, Americans tend to look at poltical parties and political philosophies in terms of black and white, vanilla or chocolate ice cream. I am thankful for Michael van der Galien who tries to show that political philosophy is much more diverse than liberal or conservative (which in Europe have vastly different meanings).

The fact is, conservatism doens't have to mean tax cuts all time, spend like crazy, and hating gays. There are many styles of conservatism beyond what passes for conservatism. Americans need to start seeing more nuance in out politics instead of thinking that there is only one way of thinking. Why should I let the neocons and theocons (and the media) determine who is a true conservative?

Do I feel at home in the GOP now? No, not totally. But I do know of the history of the GOP and I will make a home in the GOP. I consider myself a squatter right now and I'm not leaving.

Such political philosophies out there include:

• Liberal Conservatism;
• Conservative Liberalism (I think this is the one I most closely identify with);

I just think it's high time for Americans to start thinking outside the box and not let others define us.

Are you NeoCon?

You can find out by taking this quiz.

I came out as a realist.

Simpson Tells It Like It Is

Take that Gen. Pace:

In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis' communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is "immoral" and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing "immoral"?

Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that "gay" is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman's on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end "don't ask, don't tell." This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.

-Former Senator Alan Simpson.

These days, it is hard to find a Republican who proudly supports gay and lesbian Americans, so when one does, I'm definitely going to talk about it.

Kudos to the good Senator for speaking up and calling for an end to a ridiculous policy and for taking on the less-than-honorable General for his comments.

More on Hagel

The Washington Post's William Arkin thinks the Nebraska Republican will be the GOP nominee.

He says:

It is my own dream that America is aching for new ideas and new politics and that it will equally reject the pre-selected choice of the absurdly partisan Democrats while turning its back on any Republican ideologue seeking the presidency on an even more extreme red vs. blue coloring.

That would leave (Barak) Obama and Hagel to actually go up against the conventional wisdom and the machines, a presidential campaign that is actually about ideas.

Thoughts?

Chuck Hagel's Non Announcement Announcement

I'm still trying to figure out why Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel made this big announcement to discuss his future and then tells the public he hasn't decided yet.

Such is the world of politics.

I'm my humble opinion, I really don't know what he is waiting for. As he said in his speech yesterday, the nation is looking for something new:

I believe the political currents in America are more unpredictable today than at any time in modern history. We are experiencing a political re-orientation, a redefining and moving toward a new political center of gravity. This movement is bigger than both parties. The need to solve problems and meet challenges is overtaking the ideological debates of the last three decades—as it should. America is demanding honest, competent and accountable governance.

The GOP is at a unique crossroads. Bush Republicanism is being discredited; having push the party from it's ideological moorings. No particular brand of conservatism is dominant; there is a vacumn waiting to be filled. I have no idea if Mr. Hagel is going to be the savior of the GOP, but nevertheless, he should at least throw his hat in the ring and give it a try. I know there are many who think his anti-war views will sink him among Republicans, but I don't think that is true. I think GOP voters are looking for someone who is willing to see the Iraq mess in a sober light.

The short of it is that Hagel should just get off the pot and run. If he believes the politcal ground is shifting, which it is, then he should be leading that change and helping people see a new kind of Republicanism that is suitable for the 21st century.

Back From Paradise

Sorry for the lack of posts- my partner and I left the cold and snow of Minnesota behind to spend a week in sunny Mexico. I am now back, so expect postings shortly.

The Gore Mansion Flap: Big, Fat Hairy Deal.

I am not a fan of Al Gore.

I think he is a pompous jackass and none to good of a campaigner since he was the second in command to popular president and somehow managed to not win the 2000 election handily.

That said, I do commend the former Vice President for his work on global warming. He has been a committed environmentalist forever and hopefully, his documentary, "An Inconvienent Truth" will get more people interested in try to less the impact of climate change.

Having said all this, I think the current tempest in a teapot about Gore's mansion and all those Hollywood liberals jumping into limos and living in large house is full of....well, this is a family blog so I will simply say it's a bunch of malarkey.

Why you say? Well, maybe playing to sterotype as a gay man, I like to watch HGTV, the home improvement channel. What I find interesting is how many people in our country want houses with large master bedrooms, master baths (with two sinks), large kitchens with the latest high-end appliances and media rooms. I remember on one show a single woman bought a 4300 sq foot home for herself and her dog.

Cleaning that house has to be sheer hell.

The point of the matter is this, I don't think that Gore should be castigated because he lives in a big house. If that's the case then we better start pointing fingers at all those people who live in "McMansions" in the suburbs or who are tearing down old houses in the cities to be replaced by the McMansion's urban counterpart.

Yes, Mr. Gore probably should be living in a smaller house. I mean, all of his kids are grown and how often does he live there? But the fact is, Gore could live in a some hovel or go all Messiah like and just live where he can and his critics would still make fun of him. Why? Because they don't believe in global warming.

The organization that is making a stink about Gore's house also has doubts on the who phenomenon of climate change. So, are they really raising a legitamate issue or are they just trying to prove their point that climate change isn't a major issue?

Second, Mr. Gore isn't the only person living in a house that is bigger than what he needs. Many Americans seem to think we need to have a large house to fit our lifestyles when we could do with a lot less. My partner and I are looking for a home. We are looking for a place that will fit his grand piano. We aren't looking for a 5000 sq. foot home, but a modest home between 1000 and 1500 square feet. That's more than enough for the two of us and our two cats. If we are going to start pointing fingers, we need to point them at more places than a liberal windbag.

Finally, there is this. Mr. Gore does deserve criticism for something related to climate change, but it isn't about living in a big house. The thing is, for eight years he had access to one of the world's most powerful people and for some odd reason, global warming didn't get much attention when Gore was in office. THAT to me is something people should be asking. But our friends in Tennessee wouldn't ask that question, because then it means that they would have to acknowledge global warming and then they would have to do something about it.

So, let's lay off Mr. Gore on the house, shall we? It's a big non-issue and we have bigger things to worry about.

Calling Rick Santorum....

Robert Novak opines in his latest column that there is a feeling among the Republican base that the three leading candidates for the 2008 GOP nomination, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are not conservative enough for the GOP.

A "push poll" that was done for former governor of Virginia James Gilmore, shows that the "big three" might be considered too liberal to be nominated. In the push poll (which of course had Gilmore at the top) participants were told things that might alienate conservative voters: such as Giuliani's support for gay rights, McCain opposing tax cuts and Romney not making abortion illegal when he was governor.

What's interesting about this all to me is the defination of "conservative." According to the push poll and probably in the minds of many a Bush Republican, a true conservative, will always support a tax cut, will ban gay marriage and not give gays any rights, will ban abortion and will ship illegal immigrants back to Mexico.

But what Novak and probably a lot of Republians forget, is that there are many kinds of conservatism and not just their own (bigoted and narrow-minded, IMHO) viewpoint.

Fellow blogger Michael van der Galien links to an article about Rudy Giuliani, that presents a conservatism that I line up with:

Mayor Giuliani is calling on the Republican Party to redefine itself as "the party of freedom," focusing on lower taxes, school choice, and a health care system rooted in free market principles.

Delivering a policy-driven overview of his presidential platform yesterday, Mr. Giuliani outlined the agenda in a Washington speech before a conservative think tank that sought to make clear distinctions between his vision and that of the Democrats, if not his rivals for the Republican nomination in 2008. The former New York mayor's proposed redefinition of the Republican platform would signal a shift away from any focus on social issues, on which Mr. Giuliani is much less ideologically aligned with the party.

Mr. Giuliani talked about taxes, education, and health care, saying they are areas where Republican ideas trump those of Democrats.

Democrats, he said, would want to raise taxes to pay the higher costs of a war. "That shows a dividing line, and to me, a misunderstanding of how our economy works," Mr. Giuliani said. He said that while Republicans believe that the American economy is "essentially a private economy," Democrats "really believe, honest, that it is essentially a government economy."

Citing the tax cuts of President Kennedy, Mr. Giuliani said the Democrats' move away from a low-tax policy was one reason he left the party to become an independent and later a Republican.

On education, Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that he had more success overhauling the New York City welfare system than its public schools, but he lauded "school choice" programs that allow parents to use government money to send their children to private schools. Those initiatives have long drawn criticism from some who contend they amount to an abandonment of public schools.

Mr. Giuliani promised to take on the nation's public school system, but he said would not seek to dismantle it. "I would not destroy it," he said. "I would revive it, reform it, and change it."

While saying the government needed to "find ways" to expand access to health insurance, Mr. Giuliani criticized Democratic proposals for universal health care that he said would threaten a "socialization" of the American medical system. "That would be a terrible, terrible mistake," he said. The solutions, he said, "have to be free market solutions. They have to be a competitive system."

Notice that he doesn't talk much about gays or abortion. He seems more concerned about things that most Americans are concerned about: health care, education, taxes. Giuliani is showing a different kind of conservatism that isn't obessed with social issues, which the government should not be so involved in, and more focused on "bread and butter" issues from a conservative standpoint. Rudy's conservatism is more of the traditional "classical liberal" stripe than the social conservative style and if the GOP is smart they will latch on to this form of conservatism than waiting for a "Social Conservative Moses" that will lead them to the promise land.

There is no "conservative void." There is void of imagination among the Republican base, who only seems to want someone like a Rick Santorum as their nominee.

We're All Liberals Now? Yes and No.

As you might recall, I recently commented that there should be a Euston Manifesto for conservatives. That call has acutally started to ignite a discussion and I wanted to focus on one part of that discussion here.

In a post today, Callimachus thinks the idea of a manifesto is somewhat ridiculous, because a true conservative doesn't exist. In reality he says "we are all liberals now."

Flag on the play.

I think one has to define what one means by liberal and conservative because there are many different meanings. Alan Stewart Carl agrees somewhat with Callimachus' statement and notes that for as much as the Left carps about George Bush, he is very much a liberal.

Well, what does that mean?

If you mean liberal in the American context (ie: Ted Kennedy is a liberal), then I don't see how one could call our current President a liberal. In the United States, Liberal usually means someone that is probably a Democrat and believes in certain things, such as government intervention in the economy. What we call Liberal is what many in Europe or Latin America would call a "social democrat" or even "socialist."

Michael P.F. van der Galiën, a Dutch blogger, describes what "liberal" means on the Continent and we Americans get the name all messed up.

As a European liberal I have to admit that the meaning and use of the word liberalism in America is both confusing and annoying. I’m somewhat of a ‘proud liberal’. Whenever a person who advocates higher taxes, more government influence, more government programs, etc. is called a ‘liberal’, I shake my head and remember myself of the fact that the term liberalism has underwent quite a significant change in America.

Liberalism, in short, stands for as little government influence as possible. Some liberals (for instance there are progressive or development liberals) agree to more government influence than other liberal do (clasically liberals and liberal conservatives and think less highly of ‘the market’, etc., but generally Nic’s definitions are good and easy usuable.

Now, neither Callimachus or Alan meant liberal in the American sense, but in the more overarching sense, in that most people are "liberal" in the Western sense, (ie: liberal democracy). However, the Euston Manifesto was not a bunch of liberals, but a group of mostly people on the political Left.

I think Callimachus is wrong to say there are no conservatives. They exist and they are liberals as well-just a different kind of liberalism, classical liberalism, the type of liberalism advocated by people like Edmund Burke.

When I say that there needs to be a manifesto of some type for American conservatives, I am looking from the context of what is going on in the Republican Party. It is a party that has strayed from the principles of limited government, freedom, fiscal restraint and tolerance. Many in the GOP and those that have left, became frustrated with the GOP's lurch toward the far right, supporting tax cuts any all times, damning the fiscal implications; going after gays and lesbians and eroding civil liberties. Government has expanded in the Bush years, going in the opposite direction that it had during a Democratic presidency.

The party has been corrupted and there needs to be some gathering of people who say, we stand for limited government, free enterprise, equality of all persons, fiscal restraint and against reckless spending, bigotry, etc. The fact is, there are many people who are not "liberals" in the American sense, who want to stand up for what is decent and against that which corrodes our Republic. I think there are those who either see the GOP as a home or want to, but can't because of it's current sad state who want to state clearly who they are and what they believe.

So, yes we are all "liberals" now, in the larger sense. But I don't have time to simply discuss semantics when radicals are destroying the party whose orginal values mean a lot to me. So, I will push on.

Love and Justice

I grew up in as an Evangelical Protestant. About 15 years ago, I ended up in mainline Protestantism, mainly because it was more focused on issues concerning justice and well, they were more tolerant of gay folks like me.

Most mainline churches tend to be both theologically and politically liberal, so it has always been an odd fit for me considering that I tend to be socially liberal but a tad more conservative. One of the things I have seen in this more liberal church is how much emphasis they place on two things: love and justice. My liberal brothers and sisters tend to believe that Christian are called to love everybody and that everybody is welcome in the Church. I totally agree with that. Second, they place a belief in justice for those who are oppressed and that is also something I believe in. However, I tend to think at times we don't see the limits of either value. As a seminary professor once told me, justice and reconcliation (or love) can't be reconciled. I would add that they are held in creative tension and to rely too much on one is dangerous. With that I agree as well and this comes into play in the current debate concerning the Episcopal Church in the United States and the role of gays and lesbians in the church.

As you might well know, the the Primates (head of churches) of the Anglican Communion met in Tanzania recently. They gave the American branch of the church and ultimatum: stop ordaining gay bishops and blessing same-sex unions or leave the Communion.

Like I said earlier, this isssue could put love and justice at odds with each other. One the one hand, there are many Episcopalians that want to find some way to remain united despite the differences. They believe in trying to be loving even when they don't agree. And example of that comes from the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori. She notes:

A parallel to this situation in our tradition might be seen in the controversy over eating meat in early Christian communities, mentioned both in the letter to the Romans and the first letter to the Corinthians. In those early communities, the meat available for purchase in the public market was often part of an animal that had been offered (in whole or in part) in sacrifice in various pagan religious rites. The troubling question in the Christian community was whether or not it was appropriate to eat such meat - was it tainted by its involvement in pagan religion? Did one participate in that religion (and thus commit apostasy) by eating it? Paul encourages the Christians in Rome and Corinth to recall that, while there may be no specific prohibition about eating such meat, the sensitive in the community might refrain if others would be offended. The needs of the weaker members, and the real possibility that their faith may be injured, are an important consideration in making the dietary decision.

The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict understanding of the biblical tradition and to the main stream of the ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters, and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol. Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.

God's justice is always tempered with mercy, and God continues to be at work in this world, urging the faithful into deeper understandings of what it means to be human and our call as Christians to live as followers of Jesus. Each party in this conflict is asked to consider the good faith of the other, to consider that the weakness or sensitivity of the other is of significant import, and therefore to fast, or "refrain from eating meat," for a season. Each is asked to discipline itself for the sake of the greater whole, and the mission that is only possible when the community maintains its integrity.

Using text from the Apostle Paul, she tries to uphold the idea of keeping community in the midst of differances. That is obviously a Biblical tradition and one that all Christian should respect.

But are there limits? My take is yes. There are times that trying to keep the greater whole together has to be sacrificed for the sake of justice.

The Anglican group, Integrity, which works for gay/lesbian equality, was less charitable than the good Bishop. Their news release states:

“The primates of the Anglican Communion have utterly failed to recognize the faith, relationships, and vocations of the gay and lesbian baptized,” said Integrity President Susan Russell, responding to the communiqué released today from Dar Es Salaam.

The Rev. Michael Hopkins, immediate past President of Integrity had this
reaction: “Jesus weeps, and so do I. If the House of Bishops (or any other body with actual authority in this church) capitulates to these demands and sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity, it will have become the purveyor of an “anti-Gospel” that will (and should) repel many.”

I don't think there are easy answers here. Reconcliation is important and I think more than anything we should try to hold together. The church is not made up of people who all think the same and we are much richer when we are diverse. However, at what point must we sadly, break relationship for a while? When someone makes unreasonable demands and could inflict pain on another, is it not time to chose justice over love?

Love and justice are always in tension. I think at times we are going to lean one way or the other. My own view is that the Episcopal Church hold fast to their gay positive views and if it means they have leave, then they have to leave. However, they should do it lovingly and to always extend a hand of welcome in case they come to themselves. I believe as Christians we are called to love in all are actions, even when it means breaking relationship with someone for good reasons. What bothers me about the Integrity statement is that it is all justice with little love.

One thing that I wish pastors would do more is preach and teach the "greyness" of our Christian walk. We mainline Protestants think that we can love and welcome everyone and have justice, but things don't work so well easily in real life.

I have no idea if this all makes sense to people, but I just had to share.

Good News from the Equality State

It is wrong for one segment of society to restrict rights and freedoms from another segment of society. I believe many of you have had this conversation with your children.


And children have listened, my generation, the twenty-somethings, and those younger than I understand this message of tolerance. And in 20 years, when they take the reigns of this government and all governments, society will see this issue overturned, and people will wonder why it took so long.


My kids and grandkids will ask me, why did it take so long? And I can say, hey, I was there, I discussed these issues, and I stood up for basic rights for all people.
-Dan Zwonitzer, Wyoming Republican State Senator.

I think you need to highlight those Republicans that stand up for gay rights, and this is one of those cases. State Senator Dan Zwonitzer along with two other GOP senators voted against a bill that would not recongize gay couples married in Massachusetts. You can read the rest of his speech here.

In a time when presidential candidates are bowing before the far right, it's refreshing to see a Republican elected official stand up for what's right and not what's popular.

McCain and Fawell, Together at Last

"This is my faith, the faith that unites and never divides, the faith that bridges unbridgeable gaps in humanity. That is my religious faith and it is the faith I want my party to serve, and the faith I hold in my country. It is the faith that we are all equal and endowed by our creator with unalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
-Senator John McCain, February 28, 2000.

Remember when John McCain called people like Jerry Fawell and Pat Robertson, "Agents of Intolerance?"

These days, we are seeing a John McCain who is basically whoring himself to get the vote of people whose religion is less about "binding together" (which is what religion means) than it is about dividing people.

And we thought Mitt Romney was the only flip-flopper.

The sad thing is that McCain and Romney have not really read the tea leaves. While the far right might have some pull in the GOP, the average person is looking for a new kind of politics. American conservatism is in a crisis. George Bush has basically made his bed with the far right and we got a GOP that got us into an unwise war, ran up the deficit and targeted gays. This should not be what conservatism is all about, and McCain and to a lesser extent, Romney could have argued for a more sensible conservatism that was inclusive, strong on defense and the war on terror, respects civil liberties, and adheres to the old value of fiscal conservatism. Instead, they have basically tarted themselves up to get people like Fawell to like them.

What is interesting is that while McCain has gone to Relgious Broadcasters Convention to court social conservatives, Rudy Giuliani has opted not to go. It might be too early to look into what this means, but it is nice to see Rudy isn't trying to suck up to hard right in the way that McCain is. McCain very well might win over enough hard right supporters to win the nomination and yet lose the general, because he has angered centrists and independents like myself.

McCain can have his lovefest with Fawell and Co. Just don't expect liberal conservatives like me to join you.

A "Euston Manifesto" for the Right?

I've been wondering why there is no Euston Manifesto for the Right and Center Right. The Manifesto is signed by left-liberals who believe in defending democratic values and human rights. They were concerned in seeing so much of the Left that seemed more interested in Anti-Americanism and excusing terrorism, than they are in supporting democracy.

I am glad to see this coming from the Left. It is definitely needed.

But this presents a question: why haven't conservatives come up with something like this. At least here in the US, there are many who quite upset about the current trajectory of conservatism. Bloggers like Andrew Sullivan and John Cole are fairly upset at what is going on, so why are they not writing something that shows what conservatism should be instead of what is going on?

If there are any conservatives who read me, Republican or independent, would you be interested in developing a Manifesto of our own?

Hot Air and Other Thoughts (aka Venting My Spleen)

As the House of Representatives finishes up it's debate on the non-binding resolution that is expected to be voted on today, one word comes to mind:

Arrogance.

I've listened to snippets of the speechifying and all I can say is that both sides seem to have big chips on their shoulders. The pro-war people (mostly Republicans) are basically saying a vote for the resolution is a vote for al Queda. Those who are anti-war (mostly Democrats) are using the time tell us all how stupid the President was and is and reminding us that the voters sent a message back in November.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing all the certainties on both sides. It would be worthwhile to hear one lawmaker who isn't sure of what to do in this situation instead of providing easy answers that gives the rabid supporters of both camps good vibes.

I don't know what we should do in light of Iraq. Some say we should stay, but I don't know if this "surge" is going to do anything. Some others say we should leave, but then I don't know if that is a good idea either. The fact is, none of know what could happen in Iraq. We might have a good guess, but we don't know.

There are good reasons for both staying and going, but I would like to have our folks in DC be a bit less arrogant and more humble about this issue. Let's stop placing blame and start finding a way to solve this issue.

The other thing stuck in my craw is all the talk about how wonderful it is to have a "debate" about Iraq as if we haven't been allowed to talk about this issue since the war started. People have been sharing their opinions for years and that includes those on the Hill. What hasn't happened on the Hill is one of the second branch of government's duties: congressional oversight. That is what the prior GOP-controlled Congress failed to do.

Another thing that has bothered me is this. There is the old saying that goes, "sucess has many parents, but failure is an orphan." How true that is when it comes to Iraq. When the war started, a lot of the offical punditry was pro-war. For instance, Andrew Sullivan was basically slobbering over the president and being the Administration's number one cheerleader, as was Tom Friedman. Now, I'm not like some who want to fire pundits who got it wrong, but part of what bugs me that in many ways these journalists (and yes, most of them are journalists) kind of ran away from their duties. I've read some of Sully's entries from 2003 and it's interesting how much he had drunk the Kool-aid. He lavished extreme praise on the effort and heaped scorn on those who went against the war. Again, I'm not for some kind of witch hunt, but I do hold him somewhat responsible for not at least asking some questions about war. Sullivan talks a lot these days about a "conservatism of doubt" as opposed to a "conservatism of faith." What gets my blood boiling is that he failed to live up to his own beliefs. He never questioned if Iraq was wise, or if it was really tied to the real objective of getting binLaden. Sully and other pundits hold some sway over public opinion, so why weren't they more skeptical? You didn't have to be a Bush-hater to have some honest concerns.

Humph.

Rudy Rising?

In 1996, Bob Dole was considered the GOP nominee simply because it was his turn. He was the Vice Presidential candidate in 1976 and ran for President in 1988. By 1996, many thought it was "his turn" to run for President and he did, losing to Bill Clinton.

As we head towards 2008, there was initial thought that this was John McCain's turn after having lost the bid for the GOP nomination in 2000. However, the old GOP rule of giving someone the nomination because it is their turn, may not apply in 2008. Why?


Two words: Rudy Giuliani. The former mayor of New York City, is turning out to the man the to beat and may end up stealing McCain's thunder. Now, it is still early and there are other candidates that might take the nomination like Mitt ( I was for gay rights, but now I have seen the light because I want to be president) Romney, but there does seem to be a buzz about "America's Mayor."

More than a few journalists have written off Giuliani because of his socially liberal views on abortion and gay rights. And yet for some reason, there is still in a buzz in some GOP circles.

It's too early for me to say whether Rudy has a chance. I think there are indications that he just might for a few reasons.

First, I think that many social conservative voters are waking up and smelling the coffee after last November's losses. Many may not be looking for such a true believer like President Bush, who might have fuliflled all their wishes and yet subjected them to stinging defeat. After such a loss, there might be some room for pragmatism and looking over someone's "faults." When push comes to shove, a major political party wants to win.

Second, he is a hawk, which will speak highly in this age we live in. Terrorism is still an issue and people want someone who will fight terror smartly. His experience on 9/11 cemeted his image in the minds of many that he was a tough fighter. Will that translate into a conflict with Islamic fundamentalism? I don't know. On the down side, he is very supportive of the President's policies in Iraq at a time when most people, including many Republicans, have lost faith in this war. He's going to have to explain how he would handle Iraq differently and set a time table to getting our men and women home. I don't think the American public will accept an open-ended commitment- I know I won't.

Third, Rudy might spark the interest of moderate Republicans and independent voters. The mistake of the past six years has been to focus on the far right and ignore centrists. We have seen the end result. GOP leaders may have had enough of Rovism and are ready to start building a true coalition.

Of course, all of this is speculative. The GOP might just fall back to its old ways and choose someone like Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, who might be a darling in the primaries, but wouldn't play in Peoria. Rudy's liberal views on gay rights and his dressing in drag might offend some social conservatives enough to doom his candidacy. A lot can happen in a year.

However, Giuliani's enterance into this race might be the shot in the arm that the GOP needs. Only time will tell though if the base will accept the former Mayor or look for a "far right messiah" who supports their views.

Andrew Sulivan makes his case for Rudy, as does the "Boi From Troy."

There's Nothing About Mary

I think it sucks to Mary Cheney.

It sucks because she is reviled by both the Right and the Left, and the only reason she is reviled is because she is the daughter of the Vice President, Lord Vader, I mean Dick Cheney.

Now, I don't like Dick Cheney. I think he has done tremendous damage to American democracy with his belief in an almost Imperial Presidency. I think he should be properly criticized for not saying anything as the GOP gay-baited in order to win votes.

That being said, I don't get all the venom that comes particularly from gays about Ms. Cheney. Andrew Sullivan, who seems to bounce from supporting Ms. Cheney to reviling her, supports
Dan Savage's latest rant which was pointed at Ms. Cheney. When Cheney says that her soon to be baby is not a "political statement," Savage retorts:

You’re a Republican, Mary, you worked on both of your father’s campaigns, and you kept your mouth clamped shut while Karl Rove and George Bush ran around the country attacking gay people, gay parents, and our children in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. It’s a little late to declare the private choices of gays and lesbians unfit for public debate, Mary.

So, because she worked on her father's campaign and she's a Republican, she doesn't deserve any privacy. Well, I wish she had said something, but I didn't expect her to. Why? Because it was her father. In the case with most political families, if there are any disagreements, they are usually kept away from the public. I mean, it's public knowledge, that Pappy Bush isn't happy with Bush Junior. But you don't see Senior saying anything publicly. You might not like that. I might not like that. But that's what happens in the world of politics.

What bothers me here is that we somehow expect Ms. Cheney to denounce her father and to have spoken out against the far right way back in 1989.

As I have said, I have no truck for Ms. Cheney's father or his boss. But we need to leave her alone. If she wants to support her dad and support anti-gay campaigns, then that's her choice. I may not like it (and I don't,) but it's her choice. She is the daughter of the veep, not the spokesperson for gay America.

In my view, some of the criticism that comes concerning Ms. Cheney is more about the fact that she is a Republican. I think for a lot of people, it is hard to see someone who is gay also belong to a party whose leaders are so anti-gay. As someone who has been part of Log Cabin Republicans for five years and has spoken out against bigotry, I am still viewed as someone who supports anti-gay politicians because I tend to vote more for people who have an "R" behind their name. Like some on the Right, some gay people can't let Mary Cheney be herself.

I know that some will get angry with my views, but let's just leave Ms. Cheney alone. Let her have her baby in peace with her partner. In time, I hope she will become more forceful and more willing to step out, but let that happen in her own time.

As the bumper sticker says, I will focus on my own damn family. My partner and I will live our lives. I will allow Ms. Cheney and Ms. Poe to live their own.

Two other voices for leaving Ms. Cheney alone can be found here and here.