An They'll Know We Are Christians...

The Family Research Council has spoken about the New Jersey ruling on gay marriage. Here are a few choice selections and my viewpoints:

This decision is nothing more than an act of veiled judicial activism and is completely out of step with the recent string of court decisions which upheld the basis for traditional marriage in promoting the well-being of children.

So, I guess the New Jersey court isn't supposed to think for themselves, but just follow what all the other states are doing. Forget deliberation.

Did you fall asleep during civics class?

The legislature should ignore the court's ruling and follow the lead of 20 other states that have already passed amendments to protect this sacred institution. Otherwise, the legislature will become nothing more than the lackeys of an activist judiciary.

Okay, so it's judicial activism when the court rules against you. So, what is it when it rules in your favor?

And why does the state need to protect something that is "sacred?" I didn't know God needed protection.


Again, you all seem to forget your civics lessons: there are three branches of government, not two. The court interprets the law created by the legislature. If the court says a law is unconstitutional, the legislature can come up with another law to see if it will pass muster, or challenge the ruling. Simply ignoring it threatens the very nature of our system of governing and is not an option.

As to the legislature being "lackeys" what a bunch of crap. They are not lackeys. They make tons of laws that the court doesn't say anything about. I will say this again, the court's role is to interpret the law and make sure it is passing constitutional muster. They are a check against the legislature and the executive. But then again, since you tend to tend to ignore checks and balances (again with the civics), I guess I should not be surprised that you think the court should be nothing more than handmaiden to the legislature and executive.

Sheesh.

The Pluses and Minuses of a Republican Loss

It's becoming conventional wisdom that the GOP will be losing its hold on Congress come November 7th. And as much as I don't like the sound of "Speaker Pelosi," I think will be a good thing if this happens. However, I also think there will be some downsides as well.

First the good things. Let's face it; six years of one-party rule from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other, has resulted in a inept governance from both Congress and the President. Republicans got used to being power and walked away from first principles. A party that preaches fiscal conservatism, has allowed the deficit to skyrocket; a party that preaches small government, has allowed the government to grow faster than it did under Democrat Bill Clinton. A party the preaches federalism has put its nose in state matters, such as the Oregon Physician Suicide law. A party the preached pragmatism in foreign policy, got involved in a war in a far away place it had no business being involved in. A party that preached equality, now openly castigates gays and immigrants.

A loss in 12 days might help the GOP see how far it has fallen. A Fortune Magazine article notes that losing an election might help a party reform itself, getting rid of the fat that comes from being in power so long. Cait Murphy notes:

Power may be corrupting, but it is also addictive. That's why no party likes to lose an election. But the truth is that sometimes a loss is just what is needed to regain a sense of purpose and energy. And that's why the Republicans need to lose in November.

In 1974, for example, Britain's Conservative Party lost. Disillusioned Tory voters failed to turn out and more than a few, tired of the tired Edward Heath, decided what the hell, and voted Labor.


In the aftermath, small groups of Tories, both in and out of government, sat down and thought. In think tanks, and party clubs, through pamphlets and speeches and arguments and chats over tea, they set out to define what it meant to be a Conservative. The answers - lower taxation, rolling back the state from the private economy, a reassertion of British confidence - brought the Tories four straight wins.

(hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)

So, a loss could drive a lot of Republicans to start talking amongst themselves and figure out what kind of party they want to be. As Murphy says in her article, it has happened among the GOP before. In the aftermath of Watergate, the party's conservative wing began talking and deciding what it meant to be a Republican. The result was Ronald Reagan's win in 1980. This is also what happened to the Dems in the late 80s and early 90s after losing three presidential elections in a row. The result was a win by Bill Clinton in 1992.

Such a conversation is truly needed at this point. The fear is whether or not the GOP is ready for such frank talk. You see, a loss on November 7th could also make party leaders and rank and file believe that they weren't pure enough. If they were more purely "conservative" and were able to get the social conservatives out to the polls, they would have held on. This might only cement the relationship the GOP has with the far right. Remember that the lesson learned by the GOP from the closness of the 2000 election was not to make an appeal to the center as conventional wisdom would have taught us, but to bring out as many social conservatives to the polls with issues like gay marriage. We could very well see the party thinking it didn't connect with the Religious Right and that it needs to be more faithful.

I'm hoping we see the former. We need to face some hard truths about ourselves. But I'm enough of a pessimist to think we might choose the easy route, instead.

If conventional wisdom holds, we will find out on November 8th.

The Fox Effect

Reason Magazine's Hit and Run Blog reports that the ad showing Michael J. Fox advocating for stem cell research is having an effect in this years midterms.

Have You No Shame, Mr. Limbaugh?

Yet another example that Rush Limbaugh really is an idiot.

The ad is below, in case you want to see it. How you could not have some pity for Mr. Fox is beyond me.

The Hundreth Post : Chris Shays' Meltdown

There are some interesting posts in the blogosphere about the troubles in the GOP as of late.

First off, is the sad turn of seeing moderate Republican congressman Chris Shays of Connecticut self-destruct. Shays has a good record on many issues like gay rights and the environment. He has been part of a small bulwark of good Republicans against the far right. This year he is in a tight race against a Democrat who is hammering Shays for his support of the Iraq war. It seems that all the pressure is getting to him, because in the last week he has made some stupid comments about the Foley scandal and the abuse of prisioners at Abu Gharib. On the Foley issue, Shays lashed out, saying that at least no one died in this scandal, making a reference to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick affair, circa 1969.

Okay, that was a comment that at least I could let slip (said in the heat of the moment and all). However, then he unleashes this:

U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays was under fire yesterday after saying in a debate earlier this week that the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison was not torture but rather a "sex ring" involving National Guard troops.

Note to Mr. Shays: if you a running as a Republican in a Democratic district where there is a lot resentment over a certain war conducted by a certain president of your party, it is wise to not do anything that will rile up those important voters that you need to win.

Shays may have very well sealed his fate with that statement. I can just see Democratic operatives producing ads with his incredibly stupid statement.

As Joe Gandleman notes, Shays feels he has to defend the GOP since he is being linked to the party. Maybe. But wouldn't Shays win more votes in saying expressing his outrage at the Foley scandal or saying that Abu Gharib was a sad statement in American history? It seems at this point he needs to assert his independence from the party leadership (something he has done in the past) than trying to prop up a failing party. Saying what he has said already will only make his Democratic opponent more attactive.

I think it would be a shame to lose Mr. Shays. He is one of those great "Yankee Republicans" that the party needs to counter the radical right. But if he loses on November 7th, he only has himself to blame.

Wanted: National Coming Out Day For Gay Conservatives

So now, in the wake of the Foley scandal, there are moves afoot to out gay Republicans staffers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Frankly, I've found all "outing" by a bunch of self-righteous gays on the left to be repugnant. Time and time again, these outings don't do anything to further gay rights. No one should be dragged out of the closet.

That said, I think it's high time for gay Republicans working on the Hill to come out. As Andrew Sullivan has noted, many Republican lawmakers know they have gay staffers and don't care, so why stay in the closet?

Well, one reason is that many lawmakers and staffers are afraid of the Relgious Right. Lawmakers especially are worried that groups like the Family Research Council will come after them in the primaries. But the staffers and lawmakers need to realize the far right isn't as powerful as we all like to think. Case in point? Jim Kolbe. As Scott Olin Schmidt, aka Boi from Troy notes the retiring Arizona congressman has been out and proud since 1996 and he was never driven out by the religious nuts. Schmidt says just as much:

For their own political interests - and that of equal rights, in general - it makes sense for gay Congressmen, mayors, Senators, state and local lawmakers who are in the closet to come out now. Being gay should no longer be a deep secret every Republican has to keep. One man has been sending suggestive messages over the internet to teenagers - Mark Foley. So, right now, to Republicans, being gay is de minimus compared to being a gay who cruises teenagers.

Any Republican coming out now would see barriers - perceived or real - to higher office fall by the wayside. Such an announcement would be also be critical for the cause of gay civil rights. It would remind America that being gay does not mean being a pedophile and maybe remind people that, in fact, 98% of pedophiles are heterosexuals.

Many will fear that supporting tolerance of gays and lesbians will endanger the votes of the Religious Right - but evidence is to the contrary. After all, where would they go? To support the Party of Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank?

Indeed. Why do we give these people so much power? They are only powerful because we fear them, and in reality, they really can't hurt us- at least not politically.

Schmidt adds that his Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, hasn't suffered in the opinion polls because his support of gay rights.

So, why are gay and gay-friendly Republicans bowing down to people who frankly don't share Republican views of limited government in such an area as love? These people aren't true conservatives, so why should we care what they think? To quote "Mr. Conservative" himself,

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality.

I don't think conservatism or the GOP are inherently anti-gay. However, many of us are cowards for not standing up for justice when it is demanded that we do so. If more Republicans came out, if more Senators and Representatives stood up for their gay staffers, hell if more Republican parents publicly supported their gay children, the gay rights movement would progress light years from where it is now and the religious right would be sent packing.

Outgoing Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans, Patrick Guerrerio, wrote an impassioned essay last year calling for gay conservatives to step out into the sunshine. He concludes:

For many conservatives, coming out will come with real and profound sacrifice. Thankfully, we can find role models in and inspiration from a new generation of Log Cabin members who are coming out in some of America's most conservative places, joining new Log Cabin chapters in places such as Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, and the Carolinas. They are coming out to family members who sometimes turn them away from the Thanksgiving dinner table if they insist on bringing their partners, in towns where they're the only openly gay person, in traditional churches where they've heard intolerance from the pulpit, in high schools without gay/straight student alliances, and in workplaces where there are no protections that prevent them for being fired for simply being gay. They are the real heroes of today's LGBT movement and they need and deserve to be given a helping hand in the days ahead.

That helping hand needs to come from gay conservatives. We hold the key to changing the hearts and minds of fellow Republicans, conservative Democrats, and people of faith. In the not too distant future, the history books will record who had the courage to come out of the closet and lead us to victory when it mattered most. Only with the help of gay conservatives can our movement achieve victory over the radical right. Only with the help of gay conservatives can we prevent the radical right from hijacking the Republican Party. Only with the help of gay conservatives can we defeat the voices of fear and intolerance that are feverishly working to deny any and all civil recognition for gay families. The history books will note not only those who had the courage to stand up, but sadly also, those who remain silent. The time is now.

Amen.

The Politics of Character

In the wake of the scandal surrounding former Representative Mark Foley, Democrats are now looking into the lives of GOP challengers to get some political ammunition.

On one level, I can understand this. My own party has made character asassination an artform. In short, it's karma time for the GOP. But on another level, I find this annoying no matter what party is doing this. It seems to reflect the times: one party portrays themselves as virtuous, and the other side is the bride of Satan.

Frankly, character or virtue is not that important except in extreme cases, like the now disgraced Foley. No one, I mean no one, is a saint. We aren't electing angels to office but fallible human beings, so we have to cut people some slack.

I think both parties need to lay off the character plank. As we are seeing with the GOP, trying to pass yourself or party off as perfect tends to bite you in the ass sooner or later.

Mark Foley Doesn't Speak for Me: A Gay Republican Speaks

The Mark Foley scandal threatens to make life hard for gay men in general and gay Republicans in particular. The former congressman's salacious instant messages with teenaged boys have unleashed stereotype of gay men as sexual predators ready to feast on innocents.

But it also paints a very distorted picture of gay Republicans as self-loathing, closeted individuals who knowingly support anti-gay politicians. Recently, David Corn, a writer for the Nation, questioned why gay Republicans, well why we exist:

Let's be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen?

Of course , Mr. Corn was talking about gay staffers on the Hill, but he might has well been talking about gay Republicans in general since I've heard that argument before.

Well, let me tell you MY story.

I am an out gay Republican man who lives with his partner in a house in North Minneapolis. (My partner is an ardent Democrat, and somehow we maintained a truce. He's too cute to argue with.) I'm a pastor and I don't hide my sexuality. I'm not putting it anybody's face, but I'm not hiding. For nearly five years, I've been part of Log Cabin Republicans. As a part of Log Cabin, I've worked on campaigns of those candidates who are "fair-minded" and support gay rights. Along with others, I've spoken out against Republican politicians who support policies that hurt gay Americans.

The question always comes, how can you support a party that doesn't like you? This again brings up the image of someone who just blindly support anyone with an "R" behind their name. Since this question usually comes from Democrats, let's turn that question around: do you support the Democrats because they like you? I would think most gay Democrats support their party for many reasons ranging from social programs to the environment to national security. Neither I nor any of my gay Republican friends support Republicans who are anti-gay. We believe in many of the values of the GOP: limited government, low taxes and a strong national defense (though the argument can be made that these days, the current leadership doesn't reflect these values anymore). However, gay Republicans, at least most Log Cabiners, won't support someone who wants to limit our rights as Americans.

Log Cabin Republicans want to change the party's stance on gays. It does us no good to simply leave the party and allow the far right to control the party. We want to send the bigots packing the same way that Democrats did to Southern segregationists four decades ago.

It is not easy to be a gay Republican. You are attacked by the Religious Right and by other gays. Try having a booth at Gay Pride. Every year for several years, our local chapter has had a booth at Twin Cities Pride. Many times you will recieve dirty looks and even sometimes slurs from people. We are constantly characterized as the equivalent to "Jews for Hitler." While I do agree that gay Republicans should be out, because that helps the cause of gay rights, I can understand why some chose to keep a low profile; no one wants to face the verbal assault from fellow gays.

Mark Foley is a sad individual. For years, he denied being gay. He finally did only when he was caught red handed. Foley might be a gay Republican, but he sure as hell doesn't represent the many gay Republicans that I know who are out and proud and are NOT trolling the internet to have virtual sex with people who weren't around during the Reagan Administration. He should not be viewed as the template for all gay Republicans. He chose to live in the closet and it is now the closet that has destroyed him.


I would ask those who lean more to the left to actually get to know some gay Republicans. Listen to them. We are not apologists for the far right. We live out in the open and work hard for equality. Don't allow one pathetic lawmaker from Florida be the only example of gay Republicans.

Liberal Conservatism? Sign Me Up.

Los Angeles Times columnist Niall Ferguson has another great column about the rise of "Liberal Conservatism," a strain of conservatism that is socially liberal and pragmatic instead of partisan and narrow in its social vision. Ferguson talks about how this kind of conservatism is taking root in Europe, primarily in the British Conservative Party and the Swedish Moderate Party.

It's also starting to take root here in America, with elected officials like California governor, Arnold Scharzenegger, who backed a hike in the state minimum wage and combating global warming. Ferguson didn't talk about this, but I think another politician that is exhibiting "liberal conservatism" is John McCain. Read his speech to the UK Conservative Party Conference recently and you can see some of this in action.

In my own personal view, the current Republican party is bereft of ideas and without any principles. From Iraq to Katrina, we have seen a party more interested in short term political gain than in ideas that will benefit this nation for years to come. A party that was once committed to fiscal disciplne has run up the nation's credit card. A party that believed in small government, has in turned favored big government. As many have said, this isn't the party of Roosevelt, Goldwater or Reagan, but the party of Dobson, Santorum and Katherine Harris.

What's needed is a new and vigorous conservatism, that is less ideological, more humble and basically efficient and pragmatic. I think our British brothers and sisters are showing the way. When the dust clears after November 7, the Republican Party needs to take a serious look at this more open minded conservatism.

For Conservative Party Leader David Cameron's "Liberal Conservative" foreign policy, please read here.

A sign of the Apocolypse?

I'm not a big fan of Fox News. Don't get me wrong, unlike liberals, I think they have a right to broadcast their news which tends to be pretty biased towards the right, I just decide not to watch it. All very libertarian.

That said, when Fox News says something like this, you know that it's pretty bad for the GOP.

I will blog more on the Foley scandal, but my short take? Hastert should step down. Not for the good of the GOP (even though I'm a Republican and I'm not crazy of having a Speaker Pelosi, I think the GOP needs to have their clock cleaned), but because he was in a position to do something about all of this and didn't. If the situation was reversed, the GOP would demand the head of a Democratic speaker and we should ask for no less.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.

Lose Ben Stein's Mind

I've always liked comedian Ben Stein because of his monotone delievery. He was always the scense stealer in the Wonder Years, the sitcom from the late 80s-early 90s.

I think that's gonna change after this tirade:

We have a Republican man in Congress who sent e-mails to teenage boys asking them what they were wearing, and an entire party, the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers' unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women. I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. (Take a look at anyone renting Endless Summer next time you are at the video store.)

Don't get me wrong. My very best friend is gay. I have many gay friends and they are great people. But how the Democrats, the party of gays, can be coming down this hard on a MC who's gay is simply beyond belief. One of my top, favorite congressmen, Barney Frank, is openly gay. Might he say a word in defense of his fellow gay MC right about now? Hmm, I thought not.

Yeah, there's nothing better than after finishing a sermon, kicking back with my partner and watching some kiddie porn and chatting with fifteen year old boys online.

Please. A man who says he lives in Beverly Hills and Malibu should know a thing or two about real gay men than peddaling these lies.

Churchill and the Golden Rule

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
-Matthew 7:12, aka The Golden Rule

Niall Ferguson writes in today's LA Times about the recent bill passed by Congress that might very well allow torture. He cites examples of countries like Japan, which during WWII reinterpreted the Geneva Convention to treat POW's rather inhumanely.

Ferguson does understand why Congress and the American public in general might support torture. I understand it as well: we are only five years after the nightmare of 9/11 and frankly, we are scared. But Ferguson also notes that while these law might make Americans feel safe, it might very well expose us to torture. He cites why a very famous conservative opposed torturing his enemies:

...Winston Churchill insisted throughout the war, treating POWs well is wise, if only to increase the chances that your own men will be well treated if they too are captured. Even in World War II, there was in fact a high degree of reciprocity. The British treated Germans POWs well and were well treated by the Germans in return; the Germans treated Russian POWs abysmally and got their bloody deserts when the tables were turned.

Few, if any, American soldiers currently find themselves in enemy hands. But in the long war on which Bush has embarked, that may not always be the case. The bottom line about mistreating captive foes is simple: It is that what goes around comes around. And you don't have to be a closet liberal to understand that.

In short, Churchill lived by the Golden Rule; act how you would like to be treated. What's interesting is that today's so-called "conservatives" seem to talk a lot about the Bible and yet don't live out some of the words that Jesus said.

Fascinating...

9/11: Who's Really Responsible

"The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it...I don't think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists -the Islamic fanatics-who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."

The person who said this is talking about September 11, 2001 and is the one American politician that knows that dark day intimately...former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani.

There has been a lot of hullaballu over who is to blame for not stopping 9/11 with conservatives trying to tar President Clinton which gets liberals up in arms, and liberals (such as President Clinton) blaming President Bush (remember all the "My Pet Goat" stories?).

It's pretty pathetic that five years after this horrid event where 3000 people were killed in the space of 90 minutes conservatives and liberals are still trying to score political points about who is to blame. There is really only one person or group to blame: Osama bin Laden and his ilk. What's past is past. We can't change what happened. All we can do is try better in the future to prevent the fanatics from doing this again.

Guliani continues:

"Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush...they did the best they could with the information they had at the time."

I frankly don't give a rat's behind which president slipped. I think both Clinton and Bush could have done better and I also think they tried. But pinning blame on either does nothing to stop the terrorists from planning another 9/11.

I wish that more politicians would follow Guliani's example and stop using such a horrific event for political gain. The times are too important to be wasted on a pissing match.

Joe Gandleman has a worthwhile if somewhat biased piece on Guliani's run for the Republican presidential nomination.

Hyperbole or Right on Target?

Andrew Sullivan is an interesting guy. Early in the Bush Administration, he was a defender of the president, but these days, he is solidly against the Administration. Sometimes he is incredibly insightful, and at other times, he is given over to hyperbole-his postings being nothing more than rants.

Today, he continues to express his objections to the torture "compromise." I agree with him on this, but then he veers into this:

Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider. (emphasis mine.) And the war that justifies this astonishing attack on American liberty is permanent, without end. And check the vagueness of the language: "purposefully supported" hostilities. Could that mean mere expression of support for terror? Remember that many completely innocent people have already been incarcerated for years without trial or any chance for a fair hearing on the basis of false rumors or smears or even bounty hunters. Or could it be construed, in the rhetoric of Hannity and O'Reilly, as merely criticizing the Great Decider and thereby being on the side of the terrorists?

So, the question is, has democracy ended here? Is it 1973, when Augusto Pinochet overthrew the elected Chilean government and took over?

If this was a few years ago, I would have easily dismissed this. But hearing more and more about how the Bushies have sought diliberately to enlarge excutive power makes me at least wonder. However, I don't think we are a dictatorship; unless Bush and Cheney are planning to halt the 2008 elections or something. I do believe that the Bushies are eroding democracy in our country, but I don't think it has left us.

I'd like to know what others think. While I don't trust the Bush Administration anymore, I have a hard time seeing this as the end of American democracy. Please don't send rants. I want to hear reasoned speeches. Thanks.

On the Torture "Compromise" or Battle Without Honor or Humanity

The views on the agreement between a maverick group of Republicans led by Senator John McCain and the White House are all over the map. Some are just yelling, screaming positions we've already heard before. I've found two commentaries that are thoughtful and worthwhile. First up is Jeremy Dibble of Charing RINO. He states in his Saturday post, about how the Bush Administration basically pretended to compromise and then decided to go their own way. Jeremy writes:

...I think the senators (McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner)did get a great deal more than they had originally, and they forced the White House to give up some major points. However, I'm afraid that they took the negotiations at face value, and while it pains me to have to say it, I can draw no other conclusion but that this Administration headed by this president is incapable of good-faith negotiation and honest dealing(emphasis mine)... McCain, Warner and Graham deserve some credit for wringing water out of a stone. Unfortunately, it's clear now that that water is undrinkable.

Andrew Sullivan draws the same conclusion about the Bushies, and gives some speculation about why McCain "gave in:"

I've long tried to give McCain the benefit of the doubt on all of this. He has been the sole figure able to resist this president's permanent seizure of emergency powers - to detain any person at will without charges or recourse to courts and to torture them at will. McCain is, I believe, a good man. But he has obviously decided that he cannot win this one. He has decided that the best he can do is prevent a formal breach of the Geneva Conventions, keep the military itself away from torture, while allowing domestic law to be reinterpreted to allow all the torture techniques previously used by the CIA. It is easy to condemn him. Too easy, perhaps. He may have done as much as he possibly can to prevent torture without playing directly into Karl Rove's hands. It is clear that if McCain continued his opposition, the Bush machine would have done all it could to kill his nomination prospects. And if he fails to win the nomination, and a Christianist Rove-backed candidate seizes it, then the future for American liberty and a decent conservatism would be even darker than it already is. I'm guessing that's how he has rationalized it. He's not dumb enough to trust the good word of George W. Bush. And he's not dumb enough to fight a battle he cannot win - now.

Then there are more cynical interpretations. It is in McCain's interests for the Republicans to do very badly this fall, so he can position himself as their savior in 2008. By taking the torture issue off the table, he removes one of Rove's key weapons in the campaign: to portray the Democrats as too cowardly to torture the perpetrators of 9/11 and therefore too weak to defend the nation. It's b.s., of course, but that's beside the point. It works. So this deal may temporarily help the Democrats in November (which may explain their own supine cowardice on the subject).

I know there are some that think McCain, et. al are wimps. I tend to like McCain and I think he really does want to make sure our government doesn't torture. But I also think he is probably a realist. This administration, led by Karl Rove, would go after McCain as hard or even harder than they did during the presidential campaign of 2000. The problem here is not that McCain gave in or the Democrats didn't stand up, but that this Administration cares nothing about the rule of law. It thinks that because it won an election, it can do what it likes and damn the Congress, Geneva Conventions and the like. It is shocking to see conservatives, who philosophically believed in law and tradition, doesn't seem to care about those long-held Burkean traditions.

So, kudos for the McCain gang for standing up to the president. It's too bad that the President and his gang have no honor.

Who Would Jesus Torture? OR What Part of "Violence to Life and Person" Don't You Understand?

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

The Geneva Convention. Article 3.

The Bush Adminstration thinks that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention is vague. Does anything in the above paragraph even looks vague? It seems pretty clear: treat prisoners humanely. What Bush wants to do is make Geneva vague to give the military cover as the use "agressive interrogation."

What's interesting is how the president's far right base is reacting to this. This group that loves to talk about how pro-life they are seems to support the use of torture. The Traditional Values Coalition, led by the Rev. Lou Sheldon, is urging Congress to back the Bush plan. Here is what Mr. Sheldon says:

TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon said American military and intelligence experts are hampered by a vague "outrages upon personal dignity" statement in Article Three of the Geneva Convention of 1950.

"We need to clarify this policy for treating detainees," said Rev. Sheldon. "As it stands right now, the military and intelligence experts interrogating these terrorists are in much greater danger than the terrorists. Civil suits against our military personnel are tying their hands as they try to get vital information which will save the lives of our young military people and the innocent."

"Our rules for interrogation need to catch-up with this awful new form of war that is being fought against all of us and the free world. The post -World War II standards do not apply to this new war.

"We must redefine how our lawful society treats those who have nothing but contempt for the law and rely on terrorizing the innocent to accomplish their objectives. The lines must be redrawn and then we must pursue these criminals as quickly and as aggressively as the law permits.

We have to redefine how we treat our enemies? This from the group that worries about my partner and I getting hitched would "redefine marriage?"

The enemy is evil, so we need to be as ruthless as we can be. Please. Our nation has faced Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, two of the biggest threats of the past century and we never compromised our values.

The threat from terrorism is real. And I agree that we have to be agressive in trying to stop these people from harming us or other lawful societies. And yes, people like Kahlid Sheik Muhammad, are heartless monsters. But we as a nation have a history of treating even monsters with respect, not because they've earned it, but because we are America, and we adhere to certain values that other nations ignore. Treating our enemies with respect proves we are more moral than we are.

I am not a pacifist, but it seems to me that Christians need to follow the example of Jesus who loved everyone. Jesus calls us to treat even our enemies with respect. Seems like Rev. Sheldon forgot to read Matthew 5:43-48.

Liberals, Neoconservatives and Terrorism

Alan over at Maverick Views has a great commentary about Ambivablog's take on left of center blogger Jack Whelan's view on the current age we live in.

(I know, there is a lot of the he-said-that-she-said-that-he-said going on here, but trust me, there is a method in this madness.)

To sum up Whelan's view, the reason we have Islamic fundamentalism is because of the US presence in the Middle East. If we just leave them alone, then the terror will stop.

Alan, sums it better than I can:

This is, as Amba says, a seductive worldview. For one, it puts all the power in our hands and very little in our enemy's hands. It's a worldview where our own actions determine our fate completely. If we want to protect ourselves from terrorism, we need only change our actions towards the societies from which terrorists spring. Our enemy’s actions are merely subsets of our actions. If we change, they'll change.

He also adds that the neoconservative viewpoint of things is basically the mirror opposite:

This is, not surprisingly, just about the opposite of the neo-con worldview which believes that changing ourselves is unnecessary and even pointless. Neo-cons contend that we need to force or at least strongly encourage changes in the societies that breed terrorism.

The problem is, the alternative view, the neo-con view, has been misplayed and mishandled and now seems even more naïve than the standard liberal view. Key neo-cons like Rumsfeld and Cheney have too often minimized the consequences of our own actions while maximizing the villainy of our enemies. To make it worse, this administration chose a very military-centric path towards changing the Middle East. A path that has created a great deal of bloodshed and is still very far from success.

What we have here are two competing ideologies centered around how they view the US: one side, the neocons, view America as the paragon of virtue, the nation that can do no wrong. It can send suspects to nations that torture without worrying about how it will look in the wider world because America is pure and in a just fight against agents of evil. It can use tactics such as waterboarding which, if they aren't torture, dance pretty damn close to the line, because it is America. In this view, America answers to no one and whatever it does, it does for the right reasons.

On the other side is the more liberal view of America that sees the nation as an oppresive bully that seeks to establish a hegemonic empire. This America oppresses people around the world, especially in the Middle East. In their view, the reason 9/11 happened was because of stand towards Israel, or the war in Iraq, or the fact that we have bases in the region. If we just let people in the Middle East or Latin America, just live their lives, then everything will be okay.

My own take is that both views are way off the mark. America has been considered a paragon of virtue because we have held ourselves to high standards not because we are Americans or blessed by God or what have you. What the neocons fail to understand, is that we are in an ideological struggle and we must work to show Muslims worldwide and in the Middle East in particular that America is not the satanic power bin Laden and his ilk say we are. This is not simply a struggle where we can bomb people into submission, but we must work to pursuade. An example is how the US helped Indonesia after the Christmastime tsunami in 2004. The view of America in the world's largest Muslim nation rose several points because of our acts of kindness. If we had more images of Navy helicopters giving good to greif stricken Indonesians instead of those horrid images from Abu Gharib, we would do more to combat Islamic fundamentalism than any "alternative" interrogation techniques.

Liberals, on the other hand, have to start taking the Islamic fundamentalist threat as seriously as they do Christian fundamentalism. Both fundamentalisms seek to roll back the values that we in Western liberals societies hold so dear. Liberals rightly worry about people like James Dobson, who want to put gays back in the closet, but downplay Islamic fundamentalists who frankly want gays executed and aren't too friendly towards women's rights.

Liberals also have to stop thinking that we aren't the cause of everything bad in the world. Yes, America has many sins, I'm not denying that. But it is not as simple that the 9/11 hijackers or Osama or any other extremist is doing bad because we treated them terribly. It was because they bought into a dangerous theology that told them that to be holy and righteous, one must kill innocents whose only crime is their nationality. Liberals have to stop this sort of dualistic think that views America as wholly evil, while viewing others around the world as pure innocents. There is evil in the world and sometimes America is guily of it. But sometimes so are others.

America is neither a saint or a devil. We are a nation that tries to do right but at times makes mistakes and sometimes even big wrongs. We need to develop a worldview that seems America and the world as it is-not as we would like it to be. In this struggle against terror, we need to be clearheaded and not looking with glasses that fit our ideologies.

"They've Already Won."

Andrew Sullivan shared this You Tube link today. It's comes from the movie, "The Siege" that talks about terrorists attacking New York and the American response. The movie came out in 1998, long before 9/11, but the images of the naked Arab man ready to be tortured ala Abu Gharib and Denzel's prophetic speech make this scene ever the more timely.

Iraq: Land of Hacks

A few months ago, I came to the conclusion that history will judge the Administration of George W. Bush poorly, not because of his policies, as much as because of the poor execution of those policies.

One example is Iraq. I opposed the invasion, as did others, but even if it wasn't wise, the president and his administration had the chance to prove people wrong and make Iraq a functioning democracy with a stable society. The Bushies blew that opportunity and as this Washington Post story shows, when it came to rebuilding Iraq, political patronage trumped experience more often than not.

I agree with Justin Gardner: you need to read the whole story to get a glimpse at how the Bushies doling out jobs to people basically knew nothing about the task they were given.

But at least voted they for the President.

As Andrew Sullivan notes, this administration only cares about politics and getting their friends in power. Yes, this happens in all administrations in some degree, but with Bush, it has become an artform. From Katrina to Iraq, we see incompetence on a grand scale.

I'm looking forward to 2008, when we can elect an adult for President.

It's Time for Them (Republicans) To Go

Washington Monthly, (which is a liberal magazine) has an interesting series of articles by conservatives that are looking forward to seeing the GOP lost control of Congress because the movement has lost its way. I haven't read all of the articles, but here a sampling of what I read so far.

The first is by Jeffrey Hart, a former speech writer for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan:

The United States has seen political swings and produced its share of extremists, but its political character, whether liberals or conservatives have been in charge, has always remained fundamentally Burkean. The Constitution itself is a Burkean document, one that slows down decisions to allow for “deliberate sense” and checks and balances. President Bush has nearly upended that tradition, abandoning traditional realism in favor of a warped and incoherent brand of idealism. (No wonder Bush supporter Fred Barnes has praised him as a radical.) At this dangerous point in history, we must depend on the decisions of an astonishingly feckless chief executive: an empty vessel filled with equal parts Rove and Rousseau.

Successful government by either Democrats or Republicans has always been, above all, realistic. FDR, Eisenhower, and Reagan were all reelected by landslides and rank as great presidents who responded to the world as it is, not the world as they would have it. But ideological government deserves rejection, whatever its party affiliation. This November, the Republicans stand to face a tsunami of rejection. They’ve earned it.

While Hart takes a more philisophical viewpoint, former congressman Joe Scarborough shoots from the hip:

During the 1990s, conservative Republicans and the Clinton White House somehow managed to balance the budget while winning two wars, reforming welfare, and conducting an awesome impeachment trial focused on oral sex and a stained Gap dress.

The fact that both parties hated each another was healthy for our republic’s bottom line. A Democratic president who hates a Republican appropriations chairman is less likely to sign off on funding for the Midland Maggot Festival being held in the chairman’s home district. Soon, budget negotiations become nasty, brutish, and short and devolve into the legislative equivalent of Detroit, where only the strong survive.

But in Bush’s Washington, the capital is a much clubbier place where everyone in the White House knows someone on the Hill who worked with the Old Man, summered in Maine, or pledged DKE at Yale. The result? Chummy relationships, no vetoes, and record-breaking debts.

Finally, Bruce Bartlett thinks a GOP loss this year will good for the Republican party in the long run and also force the Democrats to show its cards:

Divided government has... advantages... For one, it restrains government spending. The budget surpluses of the late 1990s resulted mainly from Bill Clinton’s unwillingness to support the Republican Congress’s priorities and its unwillingness to support his. For another, it improves our foreign policy. We had divided government during 36 of 55 years between 1947 and 2001, which meant that both parties had to take responsibility for the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (the first one). America is much more effective in the international arena when it has a high degree of bipartisanship in its foreign policy. In the not-too-distant past, Republicans including Arthur Vandenberg and Democrats including Daniel Patrick Moynihan understood this. With the current war in Iraq, however, Democrats who support the war are forced to oppose it, and Republicans who oppose the war are forced to support it. This makes other countries unsure of our resolve and commitments.

Those who worry that divided government would compromise our efforts in Iraq shouldn’t be overly concerned. As the minority party, Democrats today are free to criticize our efforts in Iraq without having to offer constructive alternatives. But put them in the majority, and they’ll suddenly have to put up or shut up. Let them defund the war and implement an immediate pullout if that’s what they really think we should do. At least it would force the administration to explain itself better and face some oversight, for which the Republican Congress has essentially abrogated all responsibility. Polls will quickly indicate which side has made the better case.

Finally, on a purely partisan level, I believe that loss of one or both houses will strengthen the Republican Party going into 2008. It will force a debate on issues that have been swept under the rug, such out-of-control government spending and the coziness between Republicans and K Street, home of Washington’s lobbying community. Afterwards, the party will emerge stronger, with better arguments for keeping control of the White House. Also, Democrats may well be placed under so much pressure from their left-wing fringe that they’ll be forced into politically self-destructive acts such as trying to impeach President Bush. Every Republican I know thinks Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the best things they have going for them. Giving these inept leaders higher profiles would be a gift to conservatives everywhere.

Losing might be the best way to get the GOP back to its conservative roots. We will see come November.

In Memoriam

Alabanza: In Praise of Local 100
by Martín Espada

for the 43 members of Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Local 100,
working at the Windows on the World restaurant, who lost their lives in
the attack on the World Trade Center

Alabanza. Praise the cook with the shaven head
and a tattoo on his shoulder that said Oye,
a blue-eyed Puerto Rican with people from Fajardo,
the harbor of pirates centuries ago.
Praise the lighthouse in Fajardo, candle
glimmering white to worship the dark saint of the sea.
Alabanza. Praise the cook's yellow Pirates cap
worn in the name of Roberto Clemente, his plane
that flamed into the ocean loaded with cans for Nicaragua,
for all the mouths chewing the ash of earthquakes.
Alabanza. Praise the kitchen radio, dial clicked
even before the dial on the oven, so that music and Spanish
rose before bread. Praise the bread. Alabanza.

Praise Manhattan from a hundred and seven flights up,
like Atlantis glimpsed through the windows of an ancient aquarium.
Praise the great windows where immigrants from the kitchen
could squint and almost see their world, hear the chant of nations:
Ecuador, México, Republica Dominicana,
Haiti, Yemen, Ghana, Bangladesh.
Alabanza. Praise the kitchen in the morning,
where the gas burned blue on every stove
and exhaust fans fired their diminutive propellers,
hands cracked eggs with quick thumbs
or sliced open cartons to build an altar of cans.
Alabanza. Praise the busboy's music, the chime-chime
of his dishes and silverware in the tub.
Alabanza. Praise the dish-dog, the dishwasher
who worked that morning because another dishwasher
could not stop coughing, or because he needed overtime
to pile the sacks of rice and beans for a family
floating away on some Caribbean island plagued by frogs.
Alabanza. Praise the waitress who heard the radio in the kitchen
and sang to herself about a man gone. Alabanza.

After the thunder wilder than thunder,
after the booming ice storm of glass from the great windows,
after the radio stopped singing like a tree full of terrified frogs,
after night burst the dam of day and flooded the kitchen,
for a time the stoves glowed in darkness like the lighthouse in
Fajardo,
like a cook's soul. Soul I say, even if the dead cannot tell us
about the bristles of God's beard because God has no face,
soul I say, to name the smoke-beings flung in constellations
across the night sky of this city and cities to come.
Alabanza I say, even if God has no face.

Alabanza. When the war began, from Manhattan to Kabul
two constellations of smoke rose and drifted to each other,
mingling in icy air, and one said with an Afghan tongue:
Teach me to dance. We have no music here.
And the other said with a Spanish tongue:
I will teach you. Music is all we have.

The Walmart and the Democrats

My parents and I are a study in contrasts...sort of.

I'm a centrist Republican, they are dyed-in-the-wool New Deal Democrats. I drive a late model Volkswagen made in Mexico, they are retired autoworkers who are proud United Auto Workers members. Where these contrasts get a bit strange is where we shop for discount goods: I tend tend to shop at Target; they shop at Walmart.

Walmart. This behemouth of a retailer is considered basically evil by many people. I've decided not to shop there because of some of their labor practices. My parents are quite aware of this, and yet shop there anyway. In fact, when the visited me here in Minnesota recently from my native Michigan, they got gas at the local Sam's Club because they are members and it's cheaper than regular gas.

I don't understand why my parents shop at a place that seems antithetical to their beliefs, but they do and maybe I don't have to understand.

What's interesting to me is that many of the people who object to Walmart tend to be more middle-class. People like myself like to go to Target which tends to market itself as an upscale discounter. Walmart appeals to the working class folk like my parents who don't care about design, they just want something at a good price.

All of this has led to me to wonder if a lot of the protest against Walmart has more to do with class than it has to do with things like health care or wages. I mean, Target probably pays the same wages that Walmart does in markets where they both compete. Walmart is even getting into the organics business,joining the trend among retailers to offer healthier and sustainable foodstuffs.

The Los Angles Times has a worthwhile editorial about how the Democrats are shamefully demonizing Walmart. Here's a choice quote:

At an anti-Wal-Mart rally last week in Iowa, [Joe]Biden noted that the retailer pays people $10 an hour, and then asked: "How can you live a middle-class life on that?" It's clearly the company's fault, at least from a skewed senatorial perspective, that all Americans cannot live a comfortable middle-class life. How dare it pay prevailing retail wages? Bayh, who appeared at another rally, was quoted as saying that Wal-Mart is "emblematic of the anxiety around the country." That may be true. But if it's the emblem he's worried about, he should stay in Washington and work to make healthcare more affordable for working families.

The gusto with which even moderate Democrats are bashing Wal-Mart is bound to backfire. Not only does it take the party back to the pre-Clinton era, when Democrats were perceived as reflexively anti-business, it manages to make Democrats seem like out-of-touch elitists to the millions of Americans who work and shop at Wal-Mart.

The fact is, many working class joes, like my parents, shop at Walmart. They care about issues, but they tend to want their government to solve those issues. They aren't that concerned about how evil a company is. Which gets me back to class. Are those who rail against Walmart really concerned about worker wages or are they just looking down at a retailer that caters to people that aren't as trendy? And are the Dems making a mistake in taking up a cause that is championed by people who may not really be in tune with the realities of the American working class?

The Times seems to be making that point:

One reason the Democrats may have a tin ear on this subject is demographic. Certainly most of the party's urban liberal activists are far removed from the Wal-Mart phenomenon. The retailer has thrived mainly in small towns and exurbs, which is one reason a Zogby poll found that three-quarters of weekly Wal-Mart shoppers voted for President Bush in 2004, and why 8 out of 10 people who have never shopped at Wal-Mart voted for John Kerry. Denouncing the retailer may make sense if the goal is to woo primary activists, but it's a disastrous way to reach out to the general electorate. Or to govern, for that matter.

The fact is, a lot of my friends who dis Walmart are people like myself: we shop at more upscale places like Ikea and Trader Joe's. These places are precieved as being more upper middle class; Walmart is more working class; and despite all the talk of caring for the less off, I would bet that a lot of those who profess Walmart as Satan and shop at these more upscale places wouldn't want to be caught dead with those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

These days, I still don't shop at Walmart as much. But my opinion of how to deal with them is changing. Maybe instead of demonizing them, we should try to find ways to work with them. It's a good thing that Walmart is pursuing the organic market and that should be praised. Maybe we should also work with them to find ways to provide better living standards instead of always fighting with them. Maybe if politicians are so concerned about low wages and inadaquate or no health care, they should work for a better minimum wage and affordable health care in Washington (and not just bring it up during election years).

I think that if the Democrats want to become a majority party again, then it needs to actually become the "lunch box party" again. When I see more Kerry bumper stickers in more affulent areas than in working class areas, you know the Dems have a class problem.

As for those who detest Walmart; maybe we need to go there once in a while just to see "how the other half lives" instead of sitting in our comfortable areas talking about stuff we don't really know anything about.

Hagel States the Obvious or Hagel Tells It Like It Is

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is one of my favorite GOP leaders. I like him because he calls a spade a spade and he did that on Sunday on the current state of the Republican Party:

"First time I voted was in 1968 on top of a tank in the Mekong Delta," said Hagel, a Vietnam veteran. "I voted a straight Republican ticket. The reason I did is because I believe in the Republican philosophy of governance. It's not what it used to be. I don't think it's the same today."

Hagel asked: "Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in '68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined _ fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government?"

His frustration does not lead him to think Democrats offer a better alternative. But Hagel wants to see the GOP return to its basic beliefs.

"I think we've lost our way," Hagel said. "And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable."

If the GOP gets its head handed to them in the fall; one hopes they would come back to the party Hagel knew. That's a party I would be proud to be a part of again.

Late Night Musings on the Middle East

The recent dust-up in the Middle East has brought out predictable responses from people. Some see what Israel did today as being nothing more than a bully. Others think Israel was justified to stop a weapons transfer and castigate the UN. It's oh so simple: one side is the good side and the other the bad side. "We support Israel," says one side, "We support the Palestinians," says another.

Eric Black, a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune summed up nicely how people view the Middle East situation in his Big Question Blog:

If Israel is defending its right to exist against hostile, violent neighbors who reject that right, then using its military strength — even when it kills non-combatants — to defeat those who harbor visions of destroying the Jewish state seems at least understandable, probably reasonable.

If, on the other hand, Israel is an aggressive, expansionist power that harbors visions of a Greater Israel in all of historical Palestine, leaving no possibility of a viable homeland for those who now live in Gaza and the West Bank, then attacks on Israel by Palestinians and their sympathizers, maybe even attacks that Jerusalem and Washington categorize as terrorism, start to seem understandable, maybe even justifiable.

You can get a lot deeper into the details than this. And, as with most X or Y questions, you can start splitting the Xs and the Ys and seeking additional options. But, after years of learning about, thinking about and writing about the conflict, the essential perception that this is a conflict about Israel’s existence, or that this a conflict about Israel’s occupation of land captured in 1967, is the central question from which most of the rest of your perceptions and beliefs will follow.

Couldn't have said it better.

The thing is, it's not so easy. I mean, Israel does have a right to defend itself and there are people who want to destroy Israel. If a terrorist group was making daily life in my town miserable, I might understand the need to strike back. In it's short history, Israel has time and again faced enemies that wanted to basically wipe it off the map, so I can understand it's fear. Throw in a history of being a people without a land and then facing near genocide on the European continent and you've got a people that will damn sure try to prevent anyone from messing with them again.

On the other side are the Palestinians and other Arab states. The Palestinians have lived on the land for generations and they slowly see their land being taken away from them. The live in squalor and face a humiliating life. They long for a place to call their own. Other states like Lebanon want to create thriving societies. Even Syria, who is definitely not a nice country, wants part of the terrorities Israel seized in the '67 war back. There is good and bad on the Arab side, but they have some just concerns.

I think Israel is going to have to negotiate with its neighbors. The Palestinians are going to have to comply and work had to prevent terrorists from stopping the peace process.

I'm not one to say I support so and so. What I want is for Israeli kids and Palestinian kids to not have to live in fear. I want Lebanese kids to enjoy their beautiful country and not have to worry about bombs falling on their house. If there is a side I'm on, it's one that will find a just peace for all sides involved.

There is more I want to write about this, but it's late.

Thoughts on the Liberman-Lamont Smackdown

Here are a few thoughts Connecticut Democrat Joe Liberman's loss against anti-war candidate Ned Lamont:

Note to Centrist Democrats: Welcome to my World. For the past 30 years or so, we've seen Centrist Republicans being driven to the point. The far right has targeted more moderate politicians, like Michigan's Joe Schwarz, claiming they are not true Republicans. I think we are in the infancy of a new movement to remove those Democrats who are not considered Democratic enough. Just as Centrist Republicans are tagged as "RINOS" (Republicans in Name Only) expect Centrist Dems to be considered "DINOS" (Democrats in Name Only). The Deaniac/Daily Kos/Firedoglake crowd has learned a trick or two from the far right: firing up the "base" means requiring purity of thought and purpose. The far left has seen the effectiveness of the Karl Rove tactic and has decided to copy the tactic. Because of Liberman's close association with Bush and his contrarian nature, he was considered a heretic not an indepentdent thinker. It's going to get tough over the coming months and years for moderate Democrats and I expect to see a lot of either marginalized Dems or former Dems in the near future.

This leads to my second observation:

Liberman was but the first to fall. There are commentators like EJ Dionne who say this is not the beginning of a purge of moderates with in the Democratic Party since others politicians who initially supported the Iraq War are not being targeted this year.

Poppycock.

The reason the netroots went after Liberman is because he was low hanging fruit. He was the most visible target and the one that was easiest to pick off. Remember when, Hillary Clinton was booed earlier this year for her stance on Iraq? Centrist Democrats will have to be careful how they deal with issues like the war. Look for the netroots to demand that Democrats in Washington to support an immediate withdrawl or face their wrath. It may not happen this year, but watch 2008. Presidential and legislative candidates might not get the support of the party rank and file if they equivocate on this issue. My guess is that you will see centrists either change their tone to please the netroots or deal with the consequences.

Now, on yo Liberman:

Liberman should give it up. I can understand that he wants to run as an independent and part of me agrees with that. But I think Liberman should just fall on his sword for now and lay low for a while. Maybe join a think tank or some place like the Democratic Leadership Council where he could opine on policy. Maybe even consider an independent presidential candidacy in 2008 (Unity '08, anyone?).

The reason is that however noble his intentions might be, his independent run will burn bridges with the Democrats. Notice that a lot of Republicans are supporting Liberman. Some are good guys, like Chris Shays, but there are also some not so good guys. This will only confirm the suspicions of many that Liberman is really a Republican or at least a tool of the Bush-Rove team. I think right now it would make more sense to "play the good soldier" and step a side for a while and pondering his next moves instead of being tagged (however unfairly) as a quisling.

Look for nothing to get done. It's interesting that back in the days when the two major parties were less ideological than they are now, a lot of stuff got done. The GI Bill, the Interstate Highway Act, the Civil and Voting Rights Acts and the environmental laws of the late 60s and 70s, such as the Edangered Species Act were all passed during this time. Since both parties have become more ideologically rigid, there has been less work done by Congress. It's not that there aren't things that need to be done, but both parties are more interested in rallying their bases and playing "gotcha" with the other party. Take Social Security reform. Yes, the president's plan was terrible, but instead of proposing a better solution, the Democrats played obstruction. The same thing happened a decade earlier with health care reform when the Republicans played the same game. The Clubs for Growth and MoveOn.orgs of the world don't really care about serving the public. What they want to do is attack the other side and expel those who don't hue to their ideology.

Like some others, Liberman wasn't my favorite politician. I disagreed more than I agreed with him. I'm saddened by his loss not because I like him, but because we our political parties are becoming more conformist with less room from tolerance. What we see are people who place party before country and who are more interested in politics than in statecraft.

There are those who say that we need clarity to show what the parties stand for, to give people a choice. For those of us in the middle, it gives us the choice to support neither.

I'm wary about the prospects of a third centrist party, but as both parties harden, that prospect might become more of a reality.

A New Site for Centrist Republicans

There is a new site out there ala Red State for Centrist and "Goldwater Republicans." It's called GOP Progress and it launched today. The editor, Liz Mair, says this is a gathering place for mainstream Republicans:

WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM is an interactive blog site created to give moderate and small “l” libertarian Republicans a forum for expressing their thoughts, discussing policies and politics, and meeting and networking with like-minded individuals.

The site is designed to allow users to read high-grade political commentary, including interviews with moderate political leaders, op-eds by Members of Congress on topical issues, and articles on major policy issues, while also having the opportunity to interact with the editors, moderate political leaders, and fellow moderates and libertarian-leaners through the use of diaries, and comments on stories.

In short, WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM offers mainstream Republicans the opportunity to form a strong, organized, online community capable of influencing policy and politics in our party, and our country—and to have fun while doing it.

If you are a centrist or libertarian Republican, I would suggest logging on getting involved.

Christian Zionism: Not that Innocent

In a recent post about Evangelicals and Israel, Alan Stewart Carl talked about a number of people in the American Evangelical community who fervetnly support Israel. He views these groups as very helpful in supporting Israel:

Pat Robertson claims the support is born of a shared covenant and a common enemy (radical Islam). Of course, others point out that evangelical support for Israel is also heavily influenced by Biblical interpretation. The prophecy of Armageddon and the second coming of Christ cannot occur unless Israel is whole.

It is this aspect that has led many to view the Evangelical/Israeli alliance with skepticism and derision. But I think such distrust is misplaced. Yes, the Biblical tale of Armageddon isn’t particularly nice to the Jews, but there’s no evidence that any of these Evangelical groups are planning to hurry things along. They are sincere in their support of Israel and should not be condemned simply for believing in the Book of Revelations.

History does not offer many examples of overt let alone fervent Christian/Jewish alliances. Anti-Semitism has been the norm for centuries upon centuries. So I, for one, am glad to see such pro-Jewish voices coming from American Christianity—even if I don’t agree with every policy position they put forth.

Given that the Democratic Party has traditionally been and still very-much is a pro-Jewish, pro-Israel party, it appears as if America can proudly claim to be the most anti anti-Semitic nation on Earth (well, outside of Israel). That’s at least one positive unifying belief in today’s divided culture.

I really fear that Alan is not that aware of what has been called "Christian Zionism" and that it has severe implications for peace in Middle East and the war against Islamic fundmanentalism.


First, one should know what these "Christian Zionists" are all about. This

defintion comes from Donald Wagner:

Christian Zionists insist that all of historic Palestine -- including all the land west of the Jordan which was occupied by Israel after the 1967 war -- must be under the control of the Jewish people, for they see that as one of the necessary stages prior to the second coming of Jesus. Among their other basis tenets:

• God’s covenant with Israel is eternal, exclusive and will not be abrogated, according to Genesis 12:1-7; 15:4-7; 17:1-8; Leviticus 26:44-45; Deuteronomy 7:7-8.

• The Bible speaks of two distinct and parallel covenants, one between God and Israel, one between God and the church. The latter covenant is superseded by the covenant with Israel. The church is a "mere parenthesis" in God’s plan and as such it will be removed from history during an event called the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 5:1-11). At that point, Israel, the nation, will be restored as the primary instrument of God on earth.

• Genesis 12:3 ("I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you") should be interpreted literally -- which leads to maximum political, economic, moral and spiritual support for the modern state of Israel and for all the Jewish people.

• Apocalyptic texts like the Book of Daniel, Zechariah 9-12, Ezekiel 37-8, I Thessalonians 4-5 and the Book of Revelation refer to literal and future events.

• The establishment of the state of Israel, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, the rise of the Antichrist and the buildup of armies poised to attack Israel are among the signs leading to the final eschatological battle and Jesus’ return for his thousand-year reign. The movement looks for the escalating power of satanic forces aligned with the antichrist that will do battle with Israel and its allies as the end draws near. Judgment will befall nations and individuals according to how they "bless Israel."

Christian Zionism, which includes the group Alan, refers to, don't believe in any attempts at peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, especially the Palestinians. It also tends to be anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. Here is what Pat Robertson says about a "two-state solution (Israel and a Palestinian state):

If a Palestinian State is created in the heart of Israel with sovereign power to deploy troops, import modern weapons-even weapons of mass destruction-and operate with full secrecy and diplomatic immunity, the ability of the State of Israel to defend itself will be fatally compromised.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake-the entire world is being convulsed by a religious struggle. The fight is not about money or territory; it is not about poverty versus wealth; it is not about ancient customs versus modernity. No-the struggle is whether Hubal, the Moon God of Mecca, known as Allah, is supreme, or whether the Judeo-Christian Jehovah God of the Bible is Supreme.


If God's chosen people turn over to Allah control of their most sacred sites-if they surrender to Muslim vandals the tombs of Rachel, of Joseph, of the Patriarchs, of the ancient prophets-if they believe their claim to the Holy Land comes only from Lord Balfour of England and the ever fickle United Nations rather than the promises of Almighty God-then in that event, Islam will have won the battle. Throughout the Muslim world the message will go forth-"Allah is greater than Jehovah. The promises of Jehovah to the Jews are meaningless.


"We can now, in the name of Allah, move to crush the Jews and drive them out of the land that belongs to Allah."


In short, those political initiatives that some have asserted will guarantee peace, will in truth guarantee unending struggle and ultimate failure. Those political leaders who only understand the secular dimension of Israel's existence and who cavalierly dismiss the spiritual dimension will find that they receive the mess of pottage of Esau rather than the inheritance of Jacob.

Some groups like the

International Christian Embassy promote a view that Israel belongs only to the Jews and that anyone who divides the land (which would include the West Bank and Gaza) would fall prey to God's wrath.

In short, these groups do not want to give the Palestinians one piece of land. They have rejected agreements from Camp David, to Oslo to the current "Roadmap." For them, to divide the land is to commit a grave sin.

What is also interesting as that Christian Zionism tends to ignore the Palestinian and Arab Christians who have resided in the area for nearly two millenia. Corrine Whitlach of the Churches for Peace in the Middle East, notes:

U.S. Christians travel to the Holy Land as pilgrims and are a major segment of the tourism industry. They visit the holy sites but most have virtually no contact with Arab Christians themselves. Arab Christians hold strongly negative views of Christian Zionism, which is considered by some to be an instrument of Western colonialism and American imperialism. The zealous support given Israel’s claim of sovereignty over all of Jerusalem and the building of settlements in “Judea and Samaria” by these Western Christians angers both Christian and Muslim Palestinians. Some evangelical churches have supportive relationships with settlements.

Among Palestinians, there are the traditional churches – Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox and Roman Catholic – and the so-called “reform” churches established in the 19th century – Lutherans and Episcopalians or Anglicans. They work ecumenically through the Middle East Council of Churches. These Christians consider themselves, and are considered by the Muslims, to be an integral part of the Palestinian community, even though they are a minority of less than 2%.

From his Jerusalem office, Bishop Munib Younan, of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, has written that “Christian Zionism is the enemy of peace in the Middle East.” The Rev. Naim Ateek, director of Jerusalem’s Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theological Center, has called pre-millenialism a “heresy” and Christian Zionism a “menace.”

Just because they support Israel, doesn't mean these people are good. In my view, they hold views that are rather bigoted towards Arabs. They also will only make the crisis worse not better. Israelis rightly need security and need to not have to face daily rocket attacks or suicide bombers. However, the Palenstians need a place they can call their own. Both are important and negotiators from around the world have to work to hammer out a lasting peace that will honor both sides. The Christian Zionists are an anathema to any peace process.

The Christian Zionists also threaten our campaign against terror. People like bin Laden have used the Palestinian conflict as a recruitment tool to join his genocidal brand of Isalm. We need to find ways to "drain the swamp" and not give bin Laden and ilk a leg up.


Finally, I want to speak as a Christian pastor. The Jesus I worship is one who brought people together. He met people from all walks of life, Jewish, Samaritan and Roman. I don't see how once can merge an ideology that seems to be very narrow in its viewpoint with a God who loved the whole world and sent his Son to bring us all salvation. As a Christian, I believe God loves both the Jew and the Arab, the rabbi and the iman.

Mainstream Americans should not ally with these people. They are not interested in peace. No matter how you slice it, Christian Zionism is just another form of religious fundamentalism.

Paris (of the Middle East) Is Burning

Beirut's Southern Suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, after Israeli airstrikes. Courtesy the Washington Post.

As I see and hear of the devastation going on in Lebabnon these days, I am reminded of the late summer and early fall of 1982 when I was about 12. I was recuperating from a tonsilectomy and basically spent the day watching TV, especially CNN (yes, I was a news junkie way back then). The civil war in Lebanon filled the TV screens, especially the Israeli invasion. I remember seeing damaged buildings everywhere as this once beautiful seaside city was being pummulled from within and without.

Of course, the civil war ended in 1990 and Lebanon slowly tried to rebuild itself. Beirut once again became the "Paris of the Middle East" a cosmopolitian city, trying to put its past behind it.

And now it's all blown to hell. Literally.

As I've listened to the news and read all the blogs, several things have come to mind regarding the situation.


Criticism of Israel doesn't always equate anti-Semitism. Every time a dustup occurs in the Middle East someone somewhere, most likely in Europe, criticizes Israel and predictably, someone somewhere, most likely in the United States, accuses the critics of either aiding and abetting anti-Semitism or calling them bigots outright.

I find such name calling silly to say the least. One can criticize the government of Israel for an action and yet not be bigoted toward Jews. No government, especially a democracy like Israel, is above reproach. In the recent case, I think Israel was right in hitting Hezbollah after the group took two Israeli soliders, but it overstepped its bounds by then attacking civilian centers like Beirut and destroying Lebanon's civic infastructure. That shouldn't make me an appeaser to anti-Semitism. There is a lot I disagree with on the other side as well, that doesn't mean I'm anti-Arab or anti-Islamic.

Yes, there are some people who are downright haters of Jews and Israel and they should be condemned. But those who are cheerleaders for Israel (and to a lesser extent the Palestinians) need to stop painting all who have a contrary view with such a broad brush.

Israel's Unilateral Peace Process didn't work. Very seldom do bloggers say they made a mistake, but this one will. I tended to think that Israel's plan of pulling from Lebanon in 2000 and pulling out of Gaza last year was the best way to ensure peace in the current context. Many supporters who side with Israel are indignant that Hamas and Hezbollah still mess with Israel after they made these moves of peace. But the problem here is that these tactics were made just by one side. The Palenstinians were ignored in the process over Gaza which gave Hamas an opening. One news source I was reading noted that Israel pulled out of the Sinai two decades ago, and the baorder between Egypt and Israel remains secure. The reason? Because the two nations came to the table and hashed things out. In 2000 and 2005, Israel just pulled out expecting the other side to just be quiet. The only way peace can be achieved here is through hard fought diplomacy, not by just going it alone. The past week has taught me that Israel has to get back to the negotiating table with the Palestinians as well as other regional actors to make peace. Taking your marbles and refusing to play doesn't ensure that the rockets hitting Israeli cities like Haifa will stop. Which relates to the next thing I've learned:



The United States needs to go back to being an "honest broker" and acutally use diplomacy. This President seems to think that the way to solve things in the Middle East is through the barrel of a gun. Also, you don't talk to evil actors like Syria or even groups like Hamas. Can the military bring about peaceful solutions? Sometimes. I mean utterly defeating Germany and Japan in World War II did bring about a lasting peace. But the Middle East of 2006 isn't Europe and Aisa circa 1942. Diplomacy means that sometimes you have talk to people that you can't stand. Because the US has this "moralistic" foreign policy where we don't have anything to do with bad people, we have boxed ourselves in a corner and basically have nothing better to do than to watch. In the past, someone like a Herny KIssinger or James Baker would be flying to Damascus or Jerusalem and meet with leaders to get the two warring parties to stop. Now, I don't think James Baker had some kind of lovefest with the late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, but Baker knew that al-Assad the elder was a power broker and you had to sometimes deal with a devil for the greater good.

We all know that Syria has pull with Hezbollah. So why isn't President Bush sending Condi Rice to Damascus and talking to Bashar al-Assad?

Elections alone don't make a democracy. The Bush Administration has made democracy promotion a main part of his Middle East policy. So, we have seen elections and Iraq and the Palestinian terroritories and to a lesser extent Lebanon. In all cases, the result have been relatively weak governments unable to perform basic services. When governments are weak, the you have terrorists like Hezbollah coming in and filling the void.

Maybe this is further proof that Bush isn't much of a conservative, but shouldn't he be trying to bolster institutions that make a democracy strong? What good does it do to see people vote for governments that can't secure people or get rid of terrorist organizations?

I need to make clear that I don't have a dog in this fight. While I am criticizing Israel, none of the actors have clean hands. The Palestinians and other Arab states also share the blame and that's why the United States need to be a broker and not taking one side.

I hope the warring can stop and I hope peace can surely come to the region. I don't have much hope with the current actors, but I do have a little hope.

Stem Cells

You know, I've never written about this issue before. I guess there's a first for everything.

President Bush finally got out his veto pen today. After five years in office and saying yes to everything Congress sent to his desk, he decided to say "no" to a bill that would have allowed more research on embryonic stem cells.

While the President has made his far right base happy, you have to wonder what the implications will be for congressional Republicans this fall. With a majority of Americans approving stem cell research, and Americans already in a bad mood towards the Republican leadership, methinks the public will want to punish the President for his veto and sacrifice a few GOP legislators.

For me, this cuts both ways....sort of. You see, just this past week, I found out that my 80-something Aunt Nora was diagnosed with Alzhiemer's. So, this research might prove helpful to her and millions of others who are struggling with this disease. I am upset at those who don't say anything about the unused embryos until they might be considered for stem cell research. If they are so important, why don't they protest these embryos being stored and even thrown out after a time?

On the other side, I feel uncomfortable with those who see embryos as just a bunch of cells. Well, yes they are cells, but an embryo is potential life and should at least be treated with respect. Are they the moral equivalent of human being? No. If I have to choose between my Aunt Nora and an embryo, I would have to choose my aunt. This shouldn't mean that we treat the embryo as something of little value. Because of its potential, there has to be a certain amount of respect in how we use it. The long and the short of is, that an embryo is more than a toenail, but it ain't Aunt Nora either. In our rush to pursue this technology, we have to be careful that embryos don't become a commodity. I think the scientific community has done that and I also think that's why we need federal funding and oversight-to make sure that embryos aren't treated as something to be bought and sold.

Time will tell how the President and the Republican party will pay for today's veto. What I do wonder is what the President would say to my Aunt Nora and her children.

Israel vs. Lebanon: A personal view

I haven't said anything yet about the recent conflagration in the Mideast, though I probably will say something soon. In reading all the press acounts, radio reports, TV news, I get the sense that people look at this crisis with a sense of distance. We take sides and forget that in the middle of all this, there are people on both sides that are scared to death. Israelis and Lebonese are hiding in fear of being hit by bombs. Children are frieghtened.

Slate Magazine linked to this Lebonese blogger who shares a letter between an Israeli and his friend in Lebanon.

Read this and remember that while governments and terrorist groups fight amongst themselves. It is the PEOPLE that are being affected.

A Rainbow of Bigotry or Lady Liberty Sings the Blues

Courtesy the New York Times.



Lady Liberty got an
"extreme makeover" by a Memphis megachurch. The attempt is another scary mixing of church and state. I could wax about the rise of the "Christianists" as Andrew Sullivan calls those who use religion for political ends, but I want to talk about the fact that the so-called Christianists are not as some would believe, a bunch of lilly-white nutcases. For example, World Overcomers Outreach Church, the folks behind this defiling of the Statue of Liberty is an African American congregation. The New York Times piece talks about the fact that the pastor, Alton R. Williams has taken out full pages ads condemning gay marriage. Indeed, if you look at their church website, you can sign a petition to support the Federal Marriage Amendment and you can call the church if you desire to "free" from homosexuality.

My observation is that many pro-gay people, especially on the left end of the spectrum, tend to ignore the fact that the anti-gay movement is not simply a bunch a white bigots singing a second verse of bigotry. Sometimes they say that anti-gay African Americans are duped by whites or that they are being used. The long and the short of it is this: 1)Blacks don't know any better; and 2) Because of our experience with racism, we are more sensitive to how gays are treated.

The fact is, blacks do know better. I grew up in the Black Church. I faced a lot of homophobia. I remember being teased in church. I remember hearing a pastor preach against gay marriage during a Christmas Eve Sermon. I also know that at my parent's church, the pastor (who was having an affair)objected to having a lesbian working with the church choir, even though the congregation loved her.

The fact is, African Americans are human beings. We are as capable as anyone else to love and hate people. The fact that we faced three centuries of discrimination doesn't necessarily mean that we are more loving towards others.

Maybe one of the biggest challenges right now is that the Black Church needs to face up to its own homophobia and the larger pro-gay forces need to stop prentending that we African Americans are the "noble savages" and realize that the anti-gay forces doesn't just include the likes of white preachers like James Dobson. Gay groups need to soundly condemn pastors like Apostle Williams as much as they do the Dobsons, Fawells and Robertsons of the world.

Hate can come in many colors.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.

Happy Independence Day

Every Fourth of July, National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" does a dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence with various reporters and hosts from NPR. It's always a good listen, so sit back and enjoy.

Have a good Fourth.