A Letter from a Gay Christian Conservative

It's not often that I start to write something shaking in anger, but two fellow conservatives, Joe Carter and Daniel Larison have done just that with their callous response to a Newsweek cover story on gay marriage. What's so callous about it, is that their words are written without understanding the life of gay person, who isn't interested in tearing down society, but just wants that he and his partner have the same rights that Joe and Daniel have. What makes me mad is that they are so willing to judge me and those who favor gay rights as something beyond the pale, as heretical to the Christian faith that I have belonged to since I was a child, a traitor to conservatism, when I have in choosing a partner for life, done what is most conservative.

But first you have to know something about me. First, I am a devout Christian. I grew up in the black Baptist church and also in evangelicalism. I am proud of that heritage. As I grew older I knew that I was different, that I felt different. But back then, I didn't think one could or should be gay, I thought it a sin. As I graduated from colllege I decided to do some real studying on the issue; being an evangelical, I thought it important to do what I was taught to do: study scripture. It was there that I learned more about what the Bible really said about homosexuality. I came to wonder if what I was taught was totally correct. I made some cautious steps to start to wonder if what was said was in the Bible was really there after all. I remember one day, lying in bed thinking on all these things, when I felt like I was in the presence of God. I felt as if I revealed to God that I was bisexual (I could only accept that I was bisexual at the time, more caution). I felt God's answer as total warmth. There was no hate or anger, just love.

Now, I am not that much of a mystic, but I have to believe that experience was from God.

Skipping a few years, I was now fully accepting of being gay and then another thing happened: I have a call to be a minister. This time, I went forward in faith, knowing that it was God through the Holy Spirit that calls people to a life of service. I went into seminary and was ordained in 2002. It was hard at first because of restrictions for openly gay clergy, but today I am an out person serving God as a minister.

In 2005, I met my partner Daniel. He's the son of a Lutheran pastor and still works in the church as a church musician. After two years of dating, Daniel wanted to get married. I didn't understand why one would want to go through such an endeavor, but he did. Daniel is a big political liberal, I am a conservative and yet, it was the liberal that wanted a ceremony, a way of publicly expressing our love and mutual joy for each other, to care for each other.

In many ways, we are opposites: he's white, I'm black. He's an extrovert, I'm an introvert. He grew up in small towns in North Dakota, I grew up in a small city near Detroit. But the thing is, we are there for each other. We support each other and care for one another.

Larison makes a case that those of us in favor of gay marriage and homosexuality in general are playing fast and loose with the Bible. But if what God's word is what it is, if it is unchanging, then we shouldn't eat shrimp, or wear mixed fabrics, or get a divorce. If God's Word is "unchanging" then I guess as an African American, I should still be a slave.

I find all of this hyperactivity concerning homosexuality among fellow conservatives with sadness. I wish that instead of hiding behind the Bible, they would listen for God. I wish they would talk to gay people. I wish they could listen to how we have been hounded out of families and churches.

The fact is, this kind of fear is devasting to the conservative movement. Gay marriage is not about destroying hetrosexual marriage. It is instead about gays doing something most conservative, entering into a long standing tradition. Traditions change over time, but they are still traditions.

Conservatives have much to be proud of. We have defeated communism and worked for a smaller government. But I fear that the stain of homohobia will hamper our movement for decades to come.

The GOP's "God Problem," Part Two

Conservative columnist Rod Dreher, has an interesting column in today's USA Today, where he defends the role of religious conservatives in the Republican Party. What's interesting about the piece is how yet again, a religious conservative paints themselves as the victim and bashes anyone that complains about them as being a stooge of liberals.

But maybe what is more fascinating still is how much these religious conservatives live in a cocoon, thinking that what is popular in GOP circles is what is popular among the whole nation.

Take Dreher's notion on how important the Religious Right is to the GOP:

Republicans interested in rebuilding the party would be fools to shun us. White evangelicals (and, to a lesser extent, Mass-going Catholics) are the GOP's backbone. Just more than a third of President Bush's 2004 vote came from white evangelicals — and they turned out for McCain in comparable numbers. Cut social conservatives loose and you get a GOP that, as blogger Daniel Larison archly puts it, is "the party of all the remaining Episcopalians, Californians and New Yorkers who prefer lower taxes."

In the opinion of Dreher and others, religious conservatives aren't just a part of the GOP, but they are the GOP. Take them out, and all you have is a little coalition that couldn't win dogcatcher.

But Dreher is only focusing on the percentage of white evangelicals that make up the Republican vote. He forgets that there is a wider public out there and the Republicans are losing that vote. Remember those white evangelicals that Dreher says are the "backbone" of the GOP? Well, they are shrinking:

In 2000, according to CNN’s exit polls, 42% of voters claimed to attend church on a weekly basis. That number remained steady in 2004, but dropped to 39% in 2008. 55% of those voters supported McCain in 2008. About 60% of them supported Bush in 2004 and 2000. With most young voters thinking that the church is too involved in politics and incorrect on the issue of homosexuality (most young voters support gay marriage, too), what is the Christian Right to do?

Additionally, religious candidates are increasingly marginalized as regional candidates. With the weird exception of Iowa, Mike Huckabee was only able to win Southern states in the Republican primary season. Sarah Palin’s favorability ratings were only in the positives in the South by the end of the election season. The two of them are religious populists, very appealing to a niche section of the base, but with absolutely no ability to attract independents, Northeasterners, or people on the coasts. Whether one wants to assail them as “elitists” or not, they did just decimate our candidates and we need to appeal to them if we’re going to be a majority party.

And by the way, those elitist jerks were voting for our candidates just a few cycles ago.

Let's take a look at the youth vote, which Obama won:

voters ages 18 to 29, almost one-fifth of the electorate, went better than 2-to-1 for Obama.

Here, too, the trends in the past couple of elections have been all Democratic. Some of that is because there are more minorities among younger voters; some of it is the lousy economy, and some the opposition to the Iraq War.

But interviews and survey data suggest that another reason is tolerance, and the feeling that on matters like gay rights and race relations, Republicans are out of step. Most young people have no trouble with gay relationships.

Cultural conservatives celebrated that three states, California, Arizona and Florida, voted last month to ban gay marriage. They will learn these were pyrrhic victories much like the anti-immigration measure California Republicans rode to electoral success in 1994, where they won an election and lost a generation.

Research suggests that once young people cast a few votes for one political party, it’s often a lifetime habit.

Did John McCain lose soley because of the Religious Right? No. Dreher is correct that there are a lot of reasons that McCain lost. But the fact is, the Religious Right did play a role in loss nevertheless. Americans still have the whole Terry Schiavo fiasco in their minds, and young people don't understand why people who claim to be religious are so interested in banning same sex marriage or not allowing women to get an abortion if they are raped, or banning embryonic stem cell research, when a loved one is dealing with Alzheimers or diabetes. Conservatives are correct when they say culture matters; it's just that the GOP is on the losing side.

Conservatives have long believed that faith has a role in our civic life. I have no problem with that, being a person of faith myself. What is wrong is that American conservatism has held too long to a narrow understanding of faith and has given it too high a place of honor. Religious conservatives seem to only notice their own faith and not realize that we are a multi-religious society. They really believe that the GOP stands for "God's Own Party" instead of realizing that a sucessful political party has to be willing to reach out to all Americans, even those that may have a different faith or none at all.

The problem with Dreher and others like him is that their conservativism is too myopic. It doesn't see a need to expand the tent and appeal to the center.

Until that happens, the Republicans will be destined to be a regional party.

Building A Progressive Republican Movement: An Interivew with Travis Johnson

A few weeks ago, I got an invite to join a group on Facebook called Progressive Republicans. The group was described as "...Republicans interested in social justice, civil rights and a clean environment as well as a small government and strong national defense." I was curious about it and the person behind the group. A few days ago, I decided to see if I could interview the person behind that Facebook group as well as a blog. The following is a conversation with Travis Johnson the founder of Progressive Republicans.

First off could you tell me a little about yourself: where you live, your age?
I’m a 33 year old father of a three year old. We (My daughter, my wife and me) live in Reston, Virginia. I pay the bills by working in high-tech for a firm here in Northern Virginia.

How long have you been a Republican? Have you been involved in any campaigns?
I’ve been a Republican since lat 1993-early 1994. I was President of the College Republicans at my University and worked on Secretary Kemp’s staff during the 1996 Presidential campaign.

The GOP's "God Problem"

I believe there is an old story about a prominent liberal Democrat who upon hearing that President Nixon won re-election, expressed shock. How could that be, she thought, she didn't know anyone who voted for the Republican.

The story has been used to show how Democrats can end up living in a little bubble where the only reality that exists is that which is around them. They were never curious to look at the wider culture and admit that there were people who might have other views and who were in essence being ignored.

In some ways, the same can be said about some in the GOP these days. In the wake of a devastating loss, no one wants to admit that the GOP has a problem. Like the family that doesn't want to admit that uncle so-and-so is an out and out drunk that needs help, the GOP doesn't want to accept the reality that it has a problem that needs to be address if it is to remain a viable political party.

That problem is the "God problem." It's the problem of allowing religious zealots to control the party that has driven what could be good conservatives away.

In today's Washington Post, Kathleen Parker (a conservative writer that has been on a tear recently since she called for then VP candidate Sarah Palin to step down) writes a blistering attack on the GOP for not owning up to it's "God Problem:"

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.

So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.

She calls for the GOP to bring religion back to being a matter of the heart instead of on the front lines of what it means to be conservative. Why? It's all in the numbers:

Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.

Parker's poison pen is in a similar vein to an op-ed written by former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman who says that among the myriad of reasons for John McCain's loss, chief among them was the social conservatism of Palin:

Following the conventional wisdom of the past two presidential elections, McCain tried mightily to assuage the Republican Party's social-fundamentalist wing. His selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose social views are entirely aligned with that wing, as his running mate was clearly meant to demonstrate his commitment to that bloc. Yet while his choice did comfort those voters, it made many others uncomfortable.

Palin has many attractive qualities as a candidate. Being prepared to become president at a moment's notice was not obviously among them this year. Her selection cost the ticket support among those moderate voters who saw it as a cynical sop to social fundamentalists, reinforcing the impression that they control the party, with the party's consent.

In the wake of the Democrats' landslide victory, and despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the GOP are arguing that John McCain was defeated because the social fundamentalists wouldn't support him. They seem to be suffering from a political strain of Stockholm syndrome. They are identifying with the interests of their political captors and ignoring the views of the larger electorate. This has cost the Republican Party the votes of millions of people who don't find a willingness to acquiesce to hostage-takers a positive trait in potential leaders.

Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It's long past time for the GOP to do the same.

Of course, both women have been rebuffed by conservative bloggers. Erika Anderson over at Culture 11 said the column was like "swallowing soap." Anderson then issues what seems to be the standard line from the Religious Right: we are victims.

The Christian religion is an important part of American culture and cannot be chopped off because people like Parker and Christine Todd Whitman aren’t concerned with those issues.

What is interesting here is how Anderson seems say that only th Religious Right constitutes American Christianity. Nevermind the millions of Christians who don't associate with the far right, but are who would still consider themselves conservative. For Anderson, saying anything bad about Christian conservatives is being anti-religious and masking what is the true problem that ails the GOP. Whatever that is.

I think the problem with whiners like Andersen as well as Jonah Goldberg, is that they live in a conservative echo chamber that doesn't allow them to see what is going on outside of Washington. Having worked for several years in Log Cabin Republicans and being a Republican in the liberal bastion that is the Twin Cities, I can say that things are different around here. I know of people who would be loyal Republicans but refuse to get involved because of the party's stance on issues like gay rights and same sex marriage. Goldberg can complain about how bigoted Parker is, but he ignores how bigoted the Religious Right has been to gays and lesbians, which has had a big effect on the GOP.

What many conservatives have failed to see is how the social conservatives have really turned off potential converts. Try going to a district convention where the talk is always about things like same-sex marriage. Political parties in America are built on coalitions, but the social conservatives just don't play well with others.

Frankly I don't see how being against gay marriage or gay rights in general, being pro-life, or being against stem cell research became the heart of what makes one a conservative these days. What about the emphasis on small or limited government or being fiscally prudent or being strong on national defense?

Is the heavy reliance on social conservatism the only reason the GOP failed this year? Of course not. There are many reasons why the GOP lost. But when you have a bunch people talking about how two men are going to destroy American society as we know it, who think the only way to deal with illegal immigration is to deport 12 million people instead trying to find ways to make them legal and to also stem the tide of illegal immigration and who are more concerned with what happened in 1970 than in what is happening today, you have a party that is not in tune with the times and is not willing to reach out to people who may not agree with the whole agenda, but still could be vital parts of a conservative coalition.

Maybe a few years in the political wilderness will amount to an "intervention."

The Green Conservative: An Interview with Jim DiPeso

These days, it seems rather odd to use the word "conservative" and "environmentalist" in the same sentence. But that wasn't always the case. Recently, I interviewed Jim DiPeso, who is the Policy Director for Republicans for Environmental Protection, a national organization for "Green Republicans." The group's mission listed on their website is this:

Republicans for Environmental Protection was founded in 1995 to resurrect the GOP's great conservation tradition and to restore natural resource conservation and sound environmental protection
as fundamental elements of the Republican Party's vision for America.

On a personal note, I have been a member of REP since 2001. During the interview, we talked about the GOP's environmental heritage, how it got off track and what lies ahead.

Thoughts from the Son of An Autoworker

I was born and raised in Flint, Michigan, a company town. Both my parents worked for General Motors. My dad came from his native Louisiana to work at Buick from 1953 to 1992. My mother got on a plane in Puerto Rico and headed to Michgan in 1963. After stints as a teacher and a nurse’s aide, she ended up at AC Spark Plug in 1967. With the exception of some stints in the 80s due to health issues, she worked from ‘67 until 1992.

I came along in 1969, a little over a year after they married. I can remember growing up around cars. I remember driving in Dad’s 1965 Buick Wildcat. It was a sweet car.

In the late 70s, times in Michigan started to get bad. Gas prices went up and the Big Three got flat footed in responding. They ended up making cars that no one wanted. People stopped buying American cars and went to the more efficient cars from Japan: the Toyotas and Hondas.
Meanwhile, things in Flint changed. Plants closed, and people were laid off. Businesses started to leave. Unemployment rose and rose and for a time in the early 80s, Flint had the nation’s highest unemployment rate. The town went from a clean city to an economic basket case.
I left Michigan for good in 1992. Flint was still losing plants and would continue to see GM shed more and more jobs.

I still come back to Michigan to visit my parents. Flint is a shadow of its former self. The population was around 200,000 when I was born; now it is around 100, 000.
These days, I worry about the state of GM. My reasons are personal: my parents. Both of them are now GM retirees in their 70s. I wonder what would happen should GM go under. I know that their pensions are insured by the government, but will they get their full pension or some pittance?

If there is anyone that would like to say “good riddance” to the Big Three, it should be me. For decades, the companies made cars no one wanted, spent time making gas-guzzling SUVs and basically drove away a generation of car buyers. That includes myself, who is the proud owner of Toyota Prius.

I would also say (out of earshot of my parents) that the United Auto Workers forced the automakers into contracts that were not sustainable.

I agree that the Big Three got themselves into this hole. But I have to say that in the end, I think the feds should consider giving them some kind of financial help, with strings attached, of course.
I know, some would say that the free market means that you are on your own. Some would also say that we can’t “nationalize” every industry. After all, it’s only throwing good money after bad.
Most would say that if the Big Three go, life will go on. This is what Megan McArdle has to say about autoworkers:

GM can’t be saved. It needs to go into bankruptcy, which is the only possible
way I can see to adjust its legacy labor problems, and possibly provide
sufficient shock to the corporate culture to allow the company to make a
competent car. Even that may not work. And it’s going to involve a whole bunch
of pain for everyone.

But unless we’re willing to essentially nationalize three auto companies,
that pain is going to come, sooner or later. And if we want to keep auto workers
from feeling pain, then we should just up and give them money. There’s no reason
to waste steel on a lot of crappy cars.

Forgive me, but I want to know what planet she is on. Autoworkers have been feeling pain for a long time. Look at the factories that sit empty or the ones that have been razed. Think about all the jobs lost. There are people that have been feeling pain for 30 years.

A recent NPR interview thinks that if one or more of the Big Three close, the costs would be big. And let’s not forget that if the companies close, so do the suppliers and every business that depends on autoworkers. States like Michigan would become economic disasters.

All this has been met with some annoyance. Again, I understand. But I also know what could happen in states that have a heavy American auto presence. The results would not be pretty.
I do wonder if those who don’t seem to care about this, do so because they have never lived in working class towns like Flint. It’s easy for someone in California to say to Ford to “go hang,” when your job isn’t going to be affected. But for someone who has seen the downturn up close, this isn’t something to take lightly.

So, even though it goes against my conservative fiber, I hope that President-elect Obama does do something to help. Hold them to promises, make them pay back loans, whatever. But don’t tell us that this pain is good for us. Because I sure as hell know it isn’t.

Gays, Blacks and Marriage

The defeat of Proposition 8 in California and the fact that a large proportion of African Americans voted in favor of banning same sex marriage is of course, an important issue for me and bisects both my race and my sexuality. Many in the gay community are upset about how blacks helped sink the measure while others are saying that African Americans and Latinos shouldn't be scapegoated.

I come at this with a lot of mixed feelings. One the one hand, I am frustrated at how the gay community tends to pretend that gay persons of color don't exist and then have the nerve to get angry when people of color vote against gays. On the other, I am upset at the homophobia that is present in the black community that forces gay men and lesbians to live lives on the "down low," hiding their sexuality from their loved ones.

As an African American, I have to say that racism and homophobia are not the same thing and the predominantly white gay community needs to be aware of that. I'm not minimizing homophobia, but I am just asserting that it is different than the discrimation that blacks have felt. But even more so is the fact that when the subject of gay marriage is brought up in the media, the people we see are all white. It's as if blacks or Latinos or Asian gays don't exist. So, if you are black person going to vote for this measure and you see no black people being portrayed, then why would you vote for it? It's just going to help white folks.

But as a gay man and as am African American gay man, I know how pervasive homophobia is in our communities. Growing up, I remember being chastised if I bent my wrist downward, since that would tell people I'm gay. Because I didn't act in the hyper-masculine way that all black boys were supposed to act like, I recieved my fair share of the "faggot" epithet. And I remember preachers condemning homosexuals from their pulpits and the derogatory chatter in barbershops. Because of all this, gay African Americans have tended to hide in plain sight, downplaying their sexuality.


Prop 8 passed for a lot of reasons, but two main reasons is because of racism in the gay community and homophobia in the black community. We can't try to shut our eyes to either sin.

In my view, state and national groups have to be more willing to be truly inclusive. Stop just talking about white gay couples, but seek out mixed or couples of color.

And please stop linking gay rights to the civil rights movement. Black people find that belittling to their struggles. Find other ways to influence African Americans.

But the other thing that has to happen is that African Americans have to confront their own homophobia. Gay African Americans have to come out and be bold. We have to live our lives in the open and not hide.

Straight African Americans who are gay-supportive need to also speak up and condemn homophobes in our community. Black parents of gay children need to speak up for their kids.

There is a lot of work to be done, but nothing will change as long as we point fingers.

And So the Rebuilding Begins...

I was going to blog about this sooner, but it looks like there is already an effort among Republicans to retool and renovate the GOP. Called "Rebuild the Party," it's a group of young conservatives under the age of 40. In many ways, they have learned from the Obama campaign and are using technology to help in finding ways to modernize the party.

Here are a few words from the homepage:

As Republicans, we face a choice.

Either we can spend the next several months -- or years -- trying to figure out what just happened, excusing our defeat away as a temporary blip or the result of a poor environment, and waiting for Barack Obama to trip up. Or we can refuse to take this defeat lying down, and start building the future of our party now.

2008 made one thing clear: if allowed to go unchecked, the Democrats' structural advantages, including their use of the Internet, their more than 2-to-1 advantage with young voters, their discovery of a better grassroots model -- will be as big a threat to the future of the GOP as the toxic political environment we have faced the last few years.

The time is now to set in motion the changes needed to rebuild our party from the grassroots up, modernize the way we run campaigns, and attract different, energetic, and younger candidates at all levels.

We must be conservative in philosophy -- but bold in our approach. We don't need a slight tweak here or there. We need transformation. We can't keep fighting a 21st century war with 20th century weapons.

This is a document about bringing the Republican Party into the future -- and it isn't just about strategies and tactics.

They also seem to be saying it's fruitless to look for another Reagan:

Revitalizing the party will have much to do with how we talk about issues and standing on principle. And, above all, it will require leadership.

At the same time, waiting for a political savior to materialize out of thin air is not an option. Eventually, strong new leaders will emerge. And when they do, they must inherit a party stronger than the one in its current state. Our grassroots must be stronger and more open. We must inspire young leaders to want to run for office as Republicans.

There are several ideas afoot, but there is one that makes the most sense and it basically copies what the Democrats did in 2006 and 2008:

By 2012, the Republican Party will field candidates in all 435 Congressional districts in America, from inner city Philadelphia to suburban Dallas, and our leaders must be held accountable for progress towards this goal. With an 80 plus vote margin separating Democrats from Republicans in the House, it's time to widen the playing field, not narrow it. While our targeting has gotten narrower, honing in on a class of seats we feel entitled to because they lean Republican, Democrats have been stealing traditionally 60-40 Republican seats right and left. It's time to return the favor.

What's more, it won't be good enough to run perfunctory races in safe seats. 2008 showed us that every seat -- Republican or Democrat -- is potentially a target. If you aren't seriously challenged this time, chances are you'll be challenged the next time, or the time after that. Incumbents who don't prepare for this reality will find themselves scrambling to catch up when the inevitable happens. That means that our party needs to set a new standard that campaigns will be professional and fully staffed in each and every seat.

That's a good strategy, but that will also mean that they have to make some accomdations on social issues due to location. The Dems ran candidates that were more conservative in areas that leaned more Republican. If this group wants to run candidates everywhere, especially in districts that lean Democrat, then they need to run candidates that are pro-choice and pro-gay rights to have a shot. Here in Minneapolis, the GOP seems to always run people who are socially conservative in a district that is not even close to that.

All in all, Rebuild the Party has a good idea and is not just a flash in the pan. It's headed up by Patrick Ruffini, a GOP operative and seems to be pretty diverse, with people accross the GOP political spectrum. They have also added a tool where people can suggest ways the GOP can change and also vote on those issues.

I don't know if this has a chance, but who knows? If you know of someone who is a conservative and under 40, you might want to pass this along to them.

Message to the GOP: You're Close to Losing Me.

As I write this a day after Election Day, I feel a bit angry, not at the election results, but at the party that I have tried to make a home in: the Republican Party.

For years, I have been involved in trying to help steer the party away from the hard right and more to the center right. It has not been easy and at times, it has felt rather fruitless.

Tonight, it not only seems fruitless, but pointless.

Republican leaders seem to have a tin ear when it comes to dealing with the future of the party. The message to them after two losses was that they are not conservative enough, as if people are crying for earmark reform and not health care reform.

This is what Brent Bozell has had to say about last night's losses:

The liberal wing of the GOP has caused the collapse of the Republican Party. It is no longer a viable player in the political conversation, and deservedly so: For a decade it has spat on the values of Ronald Reagan. Conservatives let it be known on Tuesday in races all over the country that it has had enough with the betrayal.

There's a liberal wing of the GOP? Please. There hasn't been an active liberal wing of the Republican Party for about 30 years. When you lose the last Republican in New England, you don't have a liberal wing. If there was a wing, I'd be joining that party.

The frustrating thing is that the party has closed their eyes to people like: someone that is economically conservative, but socially liberal. If you saw my ballot yesterday, it was split ticket, Obama at the top, but the GOP downballot. I'm someone that is open to taxes, but also wants the budget balanced, and I don't want to us to go back to the bad old days of 70 percent tax rates. I think health care reform is important, but I don't want the government running the show, just making sure that everyone has access and help those who can't pay. I think welfare reform was a good idea and think that charter schools are a good thing that could help our educational system. I am strong on defense. I believe in immigration, but I also think that those who come into the country illegally have to pay something for breaking the law before we talk about a path to legal citizenship. I am for regulation, but not at the expense of the entrepenurship that has fueled America.

What is hopeful is that there are people like David Frum, David Brooks, Ross Douthat and others who are calling for a more responsive conservatism. But the thing is, the people in charge aren't listening. On Thursday, members of the far right are going to meet as if the answer is to be more conservative instead of responding to the needs America as it is today. Isn't that conservative, to view the world as it is, not as what we would like it to be?

In the end, I don't know how long I will stay. I'm not going to the Democrats because I just don't agree with all of their ideology. Philosophicaly, I am a conservative. But the GOP is losing someone like me. I know of many who have left or are just hanging on.

The Brent Bozells of the world can meet and talk about how they need to "more conservative." That's a ticket to a looong time in the wilderness.

John McCain's Classy Act

One of the reasons that I have liked John McCain is because he adheres to some old values like honor and respect. As the Arizona Senator delivered his concession speech, he did it with the grace and humility that is classic John McCain.

How we lose is just as important as how we win. If Obama showed solemity in winning, McCain showed honor in losing. Kudos to Senator McCain.

A More Perfect Union

It's hard for me to hold back tears right now. Philosophically, I am a conservative and a Republican, so some level it is sad to see the GOP lose so dramatically.

But I am also an African American. My father grew up in the Jim Crow South, and I've faced my share of racism and discrimination. Tonight, as my partner Daniel and I heard now President-elect Obama speak, I started to shed tears and that says a lot, since I don't cry that often.

I'm crying because something unimagninable happened tonight. Something I had never dream would happen anytime in the near future. A man that has skin like mine, was elected the President of a country that only a generation ago gave its former slaves full civil rights.

Maybe the most telling thing tonight as I watched the returns come in was to see when Iowa was called for Obama. The news person circled the statistic that revealed the percentage of African Americans living in the state that started Obama down this road: 2 percent. A state with 2 percent of African Americans was able to vote decisively for an African American. We may still have a long way to go, but we have really come a mighty long way.

In the coming weeks and months, the task of governing will begin. President-elect Obama will face a nation with a lot of troubles and the GOP has to begin the hard task of rebuilding again.

But for tonight, I will celebrate and wish Obama the best. I will also thank God to live in a country where a skinny kid with a funny name can become President.

And I will probably shed a few more tears.

My Choice: 2008

My partner Daniel and I went to vote at our polling station around noon today in North Minneapolis. It was nice and sunny here in Minnesota for early November, with temps in the upper 60s. Strangely, there were no lines at the station, so we went in to vote immediately...almost.

Daniel and I had moved five blocks away and we didn't think to update our the state with our new address. Thank goodness that Minnesota is one of the few states that has same-day registration, so we were able to re-register and then vote.

As I've said before, I voted for Obama for President. But I voted a split ticket, voting for Republican Norm Coleman for Senate. He is the incumbent and while most of my liberal friends can't stand him, I have appreciated his pragmatism, his ability to get things done when he was mayor of St. Paul and in his time in the Senate where he has reached accross the isle to pass legislation. It's interesting that the normally liberal Minneapolis Star Tribune endorsed Coleman. Kinda similar to Obama, I am voting because of temperment than because of specific policy.

As for Coleman's challenger, Al Franken? Well, Minnesota has already had one entertainer in Jesse Ventura that turned out to be a disaster in some cases.

More thoughts later today...

Dennis' Election Prediction

Let's see if this turns out the way I am predicting:

Madelyn Dunham

This is pretty heartbreaking, regardless of your political persuasion.

Understanding An Obamacon

Since I am now one of those "Obamacons," I wanted to ask a question to those who are questioning those who would jump ship and vote for someone that is so opposite of our views.

Daniel Larison can understand why people are upset:

the most credible pro-Obama argument that can be made is that the GOP must be held accountable and Obama is not McCain, but I still don’t think that is a persuasive case for casting a vote for Obama, much less urging others to do likewise. You have to believe strongly that a McCain Presidency would be an intolerable disaster for our country, but for the most part the people who are most inclined to believe this about him are not the ones going over to Obama. Many have hedged their Obama endorsement with paeans to the “old” McCain whom they once liked and their alleged Obama endorsements are filled with disappointment that McCain has let them down, as if to say, “I can’t believe you’re making me do this.” Pretty clearly, the Obamacon phenomenon is on the whole not really an endorsement of Obama or anything he proposes to do, which is why most of the endorsements coming from the right cannot withstand much scrutiny. That’s the whole point: the Republican ticket is so unappealing to these people that they will vote for its defeat in full knowledge that there is little or nothing to say on behalf of the man they’re electing. That is how complete Republican failure now is. Imagine how much worse it might have been had the Democrats nominated another “centrist” Southerner.

But he also thinks we are kidding ourselves:

Endorsing Obama is a vote of no confidence in the Republican Party, but in a weird way it is also an expression of what is probably utterly misguided hope that the Republicans will learn from the defeat and adjust to new political realities. It is also a failure of imagination to the extent that Obamacons sometimes rhetorically ask, “How much worse could it get?” It could get much, much worse, and Obama endorsers have put themselves in the odd position of taking on some responsibility for what is to come while having absolutely zero influence, but if it doesn’t bother them I can’t get very worked up about it.

In fact, we might be. We could be electing a very liberal president with a liberal Congress that will basically leave Obamacons high and dry. But I think instead of saying that we are setting ourselves up for a heartbreak, one should be asking why are people defecting. To put it another way, instead of mocking the people who jump off the ship, the GOP and the conservative movement should be asking why the ship is sinking. Larison aludes to this in his last paragraph:

Far more important in the aftermath than coming up with new and amusing ways to mock the Obama endorsers is an effort to understand and remedy the profound failures that made this phenomenon possible before a major realignment does occur.

Right now, that question is not being asked. That's understandable, since the leadership of the GOP is probably in denial right now. However, after Tuesday, bloggers, writers and GOP leaders need to ask what has happened to Good Ship GOP and how to best right the ship. (Pun intended.)

The truth is, people having been jumping ship long before McCain ran for President. There have been many Republicans that have been disgusted with how the GOP has run the country over the last few years. But the leadership has ignored those voices. So, the people decided to answer in a way that people would understand: by not voting for the Republican candidate and voting for the other party's candidate.

Is it silly? Maybe. I can say personally that my vote is less for Obama, than against the GOP. I don't know, how else can people send a message that things are not going right among conservatives?

Will it work? I don't know. Having the GOP lose Congress in 2006 didn't do much to help the GOP understand that it has a problem and that it needs to change.

I don't really want a liberal mandate. But the conservative movement is in such a shambles, maybe it needs to have a "time out" before it can assume leadership again.

WWRRD?*

Republicans Against 8 has released one final ad before Tuesday's vote that if approved, could ban same-sex marriage in California which has been legal since the summer. The ad goes back in time to 1978, when the Briggs Initiative threaten to ban gay teachers from teaching in schools. Ronald Reagan came out against Briggs. It then flash forwards to the present when the current governor and fellow Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger came out against banning gay marriage:


If you know of people in California, please share this message with them.

*WWRRD stands for What Would Ronald Reagan Do?

Why Same Sex Marriage Matters (To Me)

A few weeks ago, my partner Daniel woke me out of a deep sleep. He was complaining of chest pains, so we got dressed and went to a nearby hospital. I went into emergency with him as they tried to find out if this was his heart or something else. It turned out he was having a gallbladder attack and he was scheduled to have surgery the next day.

The day of surgery, I met up with his sister and her husband and also placed a copy of Daniel's health care directive in my backpack just in case.

In the end, everything turned out okay, but all through the experience I was wondering how the medical staff would look at me, who in their eyes had no legal standing. Lucky for us, when we explained that we were partners, the staff treated us with kindness.

When some fellow Republicans and other conservatives talk about how same sex marriage will destroy society as they know it, I wonder if they think about something as mundane as hospital visits. You see, I was lucky in that Daniel and I live in an area where there is some tolerance for gays (I guess liberals do have their uses at times). And we were lucky that we were able to afford the $900 we had to pay a lawyer to make sure we had the right to make medical decisions on each other's behalf.

But that's all that we have: luck and the ability to pay for some legal protection. If we lived in area that was not as tolerant or didn't have good-paying jobs, we would have been in big trouble.

Heterosexual couples get these protections simply by signing a marriage license. But same sex couples don't enjoy those privileges automatically.

Many of my fellow conservatives see Daniel and I as a threat to society. But that fact is, same sex couples are doing something that is fundamentally conservative: wanting to enter in to the institution of marriage. We want to form stable families like our parents did.

There was a time when many gay people didn't even think of marriage or when they did, they might have seen it as a repressive tool. But these days, as we have become more open and more mainstream, we want to form life-long partnerships with each other.

I want to know how in the world Daniel and I can be a threat by simply wanting to make sure we see each other in the hospital or make sure we can get each others benefits upon death or other boring things like that.

If a church doesn't want to marry same sex couples, they are free to do so and I would defend that right. It's the conservative thing to do. But I want to have the right to legally marry my husband and be left alone. That's the conservative thing to do as well. Why do people who claim to want small government, want to have the same government decide who can get married and who can't? Isn't that government activism, something that is not very conservative?

My Dad grew up in Jim Crow Louisiana. He has told me that when he first moved to my native Michigan, he would sometimes drive down South to visit his mom. In Michigan, my Aunt Nora would fix a basket of food for him to eat on the way down, and his mother would do the same thing in Louisiana for his return trip. Why? Because in the 1950s, he couldn't pull over and stop at a restaurant for food, since they didn't serve blacks. He also couldn't stop at hotel for the same reason, which meant taking a snooze on the side of the road.

I know that those who are opposed to same sex marriage and for things like the amendment in California don't like being called bigots. They say this about larger issues. But the fact is, the only reason one would support such an amendment is because they have a problem with being gay. There is just no way around that.

Same sex marriage matters because we are talking about my life and the life of my partner and many of my gay friends who are also partnered. It's simply about our lives and the freedom to live our lives without interference from the State.

That sounds conservative to me.

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

We haven't even voted yet and there are people thinking about 2010.

One of the things that I have noticed over time is that the hard left in the Democratic Party is acting very eerily to the far right in the GOP: looking for those who don't fit their agenda and taking them out via elections.

The Hill Newspaper is reporting that a new progressive group backed by two unions, MoveOn.org and two liberal bloggers are planning to target centrist Democrats in 2010 by running progressive candidates against them:

The Accountability Now coalition, whose members include the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), MoveOn.org and the United Steelworkers of America, plans to target members of Congress who waver on their agenda. The group is raising money to fund progressive primary challengers in 2010.

Created by liberal bloggers Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com and Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, the Accountability Now political action committee has already raised $500,000 since starting up in March. The group hopes to press Democrats to use their majorities to pass liberal legislation and work with a White House occupied by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

“A lot of people see this as the way to make sure Obama is able to do what he wants to do,” Hamsher said.

Progressives in the party are trying to make sure that wayward Dems tow the party line or else face a challenge.

Republicans have long had "witch hunts" to get rid of people who were not conservative enough. I think that has diminished the party in the long run, because it is the appeal to the center that wins elections, not trying to be pure enough.

What these progressive activists fail to see is that appealing to the center is what has made Senator Obama so popular and has brought the party back into power. You think they would have learned that by now.

H/t: Poligazette

Notes from a Disgruntled Hollywood Conservative

My partner told me about this post by Los Angeles Times blogger Patrick Goldstein, where he interviews Michael DeLuca, a Hollywood conservative (a rarity) who is leaning towards Obama in this year's race, but grudgingly. His words read like something I would say, heck it IS something I said. He liked McCain, but wonders what happened to the McCain of 2000:

As much as I’ve been impressed by Barack Obama’s ascension, I was sure that this year would be an easy call for me. McCain would have been my choice in 2000 had he survived the South Carolina bloodbath and won the nomination, and I was looking forward to having a chance to vote for him this time around. Then a funny thing happened on the way to the election. The McCain of 2000 vanished, and the man on the left who was supposed to stand for a new kind of politics proved he could pander with the best of them, in a decidedly old style of politics. Where to go now? What to do? Anguish has set in.

After the incompetence and cronyism of the last four years, fours years that I admittedly voted for, I swore to myself that this time I would be extremely well versed in all the issues and every candidate’s positions. I watched every single primary debate on both sides, I’ve read every op-ed piece, seen every pundit, heard every radio talk show host and devoured issue after issue of the Economist and Foreign Affairs. Through it all I’ve watched McCain 2008 with increasing alarm. The move to the hard right, that convention, the stutter-step on the economic crisis, the robo-calls, Palin’s positions and lack of gravitas, they’ve all stopped me in my tracks. There’s something more emotional than policy at work on me here. It may be shallow, but it’s affecting my gut and it has to do with the “type” of leader these men are revealing themselves to be. Disappointingly partisan and not transformative or maverick enough by half.

But don't count him as someone who is look at Obama with rose-colored glasse, either. He thinks both candidates are not ideal by a long shot:

Obama’s initial painting of McCain as out of touch and caught in a perpetual “senior moment” insulted my intelligence and offended my sense of fairness, as has McCain’s shocking effort to paint Obama as anti-American. When I want to believe the myth of “Obama the messiah,” he opens his mouth and sounds an awful lot like the hell-spawn of Jimmy Carter and George McGovern. When I want to believe in the McCain of 2000, the man who decried the “agents of intolerance,” he then goes out and seeks their endorsements. Like many Americans, I operate out of a base of centrist common sense. It makes sense to me to not raise corporate taxes in the middle of a recession if you want to protect job creation and lower the risk of inflation. It makes sense to me not to give tax refunds to people who pay no income tax. It makes sense to me to not afford regimes like Iran the same treatment you’d give countries like the former Soviet Union.

On the other hand, common sense also tells me it is blasphemous to threaten something as sacred as the U.S. Constitution by suggesting we use it to deny people equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. Common sense tells me it’s about time the right stops calling evolution a “theory.” It’s not. Common sense tells me not to trust the government to get between a woman and her doctor on reproductive rights, nor to trust it with the power of life and death in the form of the death penalty. I want the government to keep its boot off my neck, hands out of my pocket, eyes out of my bedroom, I want it to keep the playing field fair so people can achieve and not just collect handouts, and I want it to keep us safe. That’s it. That’s a common sense role for government. Where’s that candidate?

Where, indeed. But maybe the part of the interview that was telling was this:

Maybe it is unrealistic of me to be a pro-choice, pro-school voucher, anti-affirmative action, pro-business, pro-environment, pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, pro-globalization, pro-universal health care, pro-tax cuts, anti-pork barrel spending, pro-war on terror Republican, but that’s where I am.

I think this sentence is telling because it sums up what is wrong with the GOP and the conservative movement as a whole: it has become rigid, only wanting people who line up with some imaginary checklist on who is a conservative and who is not, instead of trying to build a coalition of people who may not agree on everything, but agree on many issues.

The people who are falling over themselves at the sight of Sarah Palin seem more than willing to let people like this go by the wayside and vote for Obama. The enemy of good is the perfect, and that is what is going to determine how long the GOP stays in its well-deserved wilderness.

The Idea of Sarah

Danielle Crittenden, the wife of conservative writer, David Frum, is putting a lie to the belief among some conservatives that the only people against VP candidate Sarah Palin are elitist snobs who go to Ivy League Schools. But Ms. Crittenden is no such person. She never went to college, having gone straight into the family business of running a newspaper and becoming an "ink-stained wretch." She says that she like the idea of the Alaskan governor:

I love the idea of Sarah Palin. She conforms to an early American (and pre-feminist) ideal of womanhood: rifle on one hip, baby on the other. I love her modern incarnation of this ideal, complete with Sex-in-the-Tundra wardrobe and kick-ass Jimmy Choos (even if they are paid for by the RNC). I love the idea she represents "common sense" over fancy-pants theorizing. I love -- and certainly identify with -- her real world, "out there" experience over her opponents' closed-off years in Washington. Truly, there are few women I'd rather share a beer with.

On that note, I would agree. I like the idea of this folksy, gutsy woman who is tough as nails. The whole "hockey mom-field dress a moose-pistol packin' mama" thing is certainly appealing. That said, I agree with Crittenden when she says:

The problem is that the reality of Sarah Palin does not match the idea of Sarah Palin. It's as plain as day -- glaringly obvious! -- that she's unfit for the job she's running for. We wouldn't expect the best darn regional car saleswoman to be appointed the next vice president of General Motors. We wouldn't fly in a commercial plane piloted by someone with a Cessna license because we trusted her gut. We wouldn't follow a woman into battle because she's a crack shot at moose hunting. Why is it unreasonable -- or snobbish! -- to have expected a better choice from our party for the next potential leader of the free world?

And please don't reply with, "The other side doesn't have experience either!" That's an argument you can make without having graduated from elementary school.

I think part of the problem that I see is that many on the Right, especially the hard right are in love with idea of Palin and think that anyone be just one heartbeat away from the presidency. But conservatives are supposed to be realists, and the reality to me is that she is way out of her league and saying so, should not make you an elitist.

It's fine and dandy to pick someone from outside the Beltway, but they should at least have some idea who what they are doing, and so far, Ms. Palin hasn't gone beyond the act we first saw at the GOP convention.

Ideas are great and necessary. But our ideas also have to stand up to reality and the idea of Sarah just doesn't cut it.

(By the way, I went to Michigan State University, hardly an Ivy League school.)

Two More Ads from Republicans Against 8

Republicans Against 8, an initiative by Log Cabin Republicans to defeat the California proposition that would ban same-sex marriage has released two more ads: "Join Us," and "Defending Freedom."

Here is how both ads are described:

“We are Friends, We are neighbors…We are Republicans, We Are
Democrats,” states, “Join Us,” one of the newest ads produced by Republicans
Against 8. “Join Us” features a cast including Log Cabin members Steven Sion,
Carol Newman, and Len Greco, West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Chairman Joe Clapsaddle and Here! TV Network stars Brian Nolan and David Moretti...

Speaking directly to straight Californians, “Defending Freedom” highlights the accomplishments of gay and lesbian Californians in protecting the rights of their fellow Americans. Former U.S. Prosecutor Carol Newman, Boeing Rocket Scientist Sherry Green and Vietnam Veteran Paul Fredrix talk about their role in protecting the freedoms of their fellow Americans, then ask their fellow Californians to defend their freedoms by voting “NO” on Proposition 8.

And here are the two ads:





Even if you don't live in California (and I don't), this is an important issue, especially for me and many my friends. Please consider donating to either Republicans Against 8 or the the No on 8 Campaign.

Why I'm (Grudgingly) Supporting Obama

One more rat is leaving the ship...

This is not the easiest post for me to write. I am at heart, a moderate Republican, a conservative. I have been involved with the party and have supported GOP candidates. I'm not looking forward to the coming Democratic tsunami that's coming. I have many liberal friends and I'm married to one, but that doesn't mean I always agree with them- which is why I am a Republican.

I also like John McCain. McCain has been a committed conservative and a reformer. He has been a leader when it comes things like climate change and immigration at a time when many in the party seem to put their heads in the sand at such issues. He also has a long history of reaching accross the isle and working with his ideological opposite in order to get things done. When he uses the slogan, "Country First" in his campaign, I know it speaks to his willingness to put his love of country over simple partisanship.

I want to vote for John McCain, I really do. I've given money to his campaign, I supported him in the Caucuses. But in recent days, I have found that I just can't pull the level for Mr. McCain. Not this time.

Running for President is basically a two-year job interview. We get to see how these people react during the interview and we make up our mind as to who can best do the job. For a long time, I thought the best person would be McCain, with his experience and knowledge especially on issues like foreign policy. But over time, McCain has made some mistakes and Mr. Obama has played a better hand that has made me think this guy could at least do a good job as President, even if he is a Democrat.

So, what has made me look at the young Senator and bypass someone that I consider an American hero? There are a few, that I have mentioned before, but I will repeat them again:

Sarah Palin. I've said it before, but I will repeat it again: she is just not ready. McCain made a lot of mistakes in this campaign, but picking the Alaskan governor was among the worst. She might fire the imagination of the true believers, but she has lost the moderates in the GOP and independents. McCain might have thought picking this "maverick" would have picked up some votes among independents and women, but as well have seen, her red meat rhetoric has turned many people off. She is now making forays into support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and has even had trouble saying that abortion clinic bombers are terrrorists, bring the stinging rebuke of conservative blogger Rick Moran of being a "moral coward." McCain just didn't do proper vetting of Palin and will end up costing him the White House and it also might permanently damage his reputation.

The Financial Bailout. When McCain said that he was suspending his campaign in late September to take part in negotiations in the financial "bailout" package, I thought this was a noble idea: signature McCain putting country first. It turned out to be a disaster. As the New York times has shown, he hardly said anything as the House GOP was balking. There is also no record of him working with Democrats on the package. McCain has a storied history of working accross the isle to get things done. He could have done that here; working to bring both sides together. And yet, what he did was nothing but show. When the package failed a few days later, it was McCain who had egg on his face, while Obama looked cool under pressure. If McCain could fail this test, then what would happen as President?

Lack of Policy. Yes, McCain is a hero. Yes, he is a maverick. But the decision to run soley on biography when the GOP brand was in the toilet was a mistake. He could have gone the route of French President Sarkozy who also had to run against a very unpopular predecessor and against a rock-star Socialist rival. But he chose not to. He could have ran as he tried to in 2000 as a different kind of Republican that could salvage the party and lead in a new direction. But that would require new ideas and new policies. He offered very little, which allowed the Democrats to tar him as Bush II. I have yet to read the Times piece about the campaign, but reports say that for the most part, McCain and his campaign were about repackaging and repackaging McCain and not concerned with proposing new ideas and new ways to jump start the GOP and move it towards the wide center.

Not tending towards his base. McCain had a base-among moderate Republicans, Reagan Democrats and independents. He could have ran on this base and created a new GOP coalition for the 21st century. But instead, he ran on the old Christian Right base which tends to skew old and male. Yes, I know that some of the commentators would say that this was suicide. But since we are now seeing political suicide happen, one has to ask, it is more important to widen the base, create a movement, or rely on the same old, same old? The reason that moderates like Colin Powell, William Weld, Arne Carlson and several others are jumping ship is because McCain failed to cultivate a relationship with his "base." So, like a person spurned by their lover, they find another with flowers and open arms.

The debates. Actually, it was the second and third debates. I remember being 11 years old and watching the 1980 debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the picture of cool, while Carter seemed off his game. Fast forward 28 years later, and it is Obama that shows a sense of maturity that looked presidential, while McCain seemd unsure of himself and trying to please too many people. A telling moment in the third debate, was when the subject of abortion was brought up. McCain seemed to not know which message to bring up. He shared that he had voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg,a liberal who supports abortion rights, and then try to shore up his pro-life bona fides. He wanted to show he was willing to be the maverick and also be the loyal Republican on the same issue. It didn't work. I'm not saying one can't be pro-life and vote for a pro-choice judge, it's just that he didn't come off as confident. Perception is reality and McCain didn't come off as presidential during the debates, but came off as petty and small-something I thought I'd never say about John McCain.

While I am supporting Obama, it is with trepidation. I worry that once in office he will veer too far to the Left, pleasing the Democratic base. I can only hope that with so much support from independents and Republicans, that he will realize that he has to govern from the center or face a backlash in 2010.

As David Brooks said, John McCain would have made an awesome president. He is and will always be a hero to me. But he became a prisioner of a GOP that seems blind to seeing that it needs to become a movement again, reaching towards the center- instead of a party of resentment and exclusion.

So, with sadness and hope, I will vote for Obama. Hoping the Illinois Senator will listen to the center and sad at what might have been with John McCain.

Sorry, Senator McCain. I just can't pull the lever for you.

Republicans Against 8

The common perception is that the GOP is anti-gay. While there are many Republicans who are homophobic, there are also many who are very gay-friendly and willing to stand up for gay rights and in this case against Proposition 8, the proposal that would ban gay marriage in California.

One such person is Tom Campbell a former Republican legislator in California. He says:

Republicans believe deeply that government should be limited. Government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives. That's why, as a Californian and a Republican who has held elective office at the federal and state levels, I will be voting No on Proposition 8...

We've seen the walls fall down that once stood against women's rights; the same has been true for racial equality. When my mother was born, women still couldn't vote in many states. When I entered school, black and white couples couldn't get married in many states. It's easy to forget those things, but it wasn't all that long ago. Someday, we'll tell our children that, when two adults in our state who wanted to get married were told they couldn't, we had the chance to change that. I want to be able to tell the next generation that I was part of ending discrimination, not making it a permanent part of the law.

It's important that Republicans stand up to the discriminatory forces.

Log Cabin Republicans of California has taken part in the effort against Proposition 8 called Republicans Against 8. They have released two ads, including this one called "Backwards:"

Cheers to Campbell and other straight Republicans for their willingness to stand up for people like myself and my partner.

Colin, John and Me

I look up to Colin Powell.

He's a fellow black man that happens to be a moderate Republican like myself. When there was speculation back in the mid-90s that he might run for president, I was hopeful. Here was a black man who had a real shot at the White House. When he became Secretary of State under Bush, I was excited that we had our first African American Secretary of State, a black man sharing the world stage.

But it wasn't sheer racial pride that has made me an admire of the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was a moderate in his party. Save one other person, he was the head of a more moderate face of the party, one that was inclusive and spoke to our dreams and hopes and not simply our fears.

So, when Colin Powell decides to break with his party and support Barack Obama, that says something to me.

It's not as Rush Limbaugh says about a black guy supporting a black guy. What is says is how the GOP has lost centrists and independents that are key to helping the party win. If it were simply race, then Powell would have endorsed him long ago. No, this is about the dead end that the GOP, Colin Powell's party, MY party has reached- it has done everything to focus on the base and the result come November 4 is that it will for a time, be an undignified rump,having scared off everyone that could have made it a winning party.

When this election season began in January, I was pulling for John McCain. He was the only one that I wanted. When it was Minnesota's turn to vote, I supported him in the GOP caucus. I knew that he had a good environmental record and a solid history of reaching accross the isle. I knew he was a centrist conservative that could bring our nation together.

But he had to face the current GOP and that meant changing. I tired to hang on, knowing that this is what one has to do to get elected. The election is the silly season.

But what has soured me on McCain is what has soured Powell- the choice of a someone that isn't ready to be President. Maybe McCain thought he had to please his base. But in doing so, he scared off moderates and independents and even a few conservatives in the long run.

And maybe that shows one of the mistakes of the McCain campaign: he forgot to take care of HIS base: moderates and independents, moderate Republicans and Democrats that appealed to his way of governing. His focus on drilling, allowed Democrats to effectively paint him as against the environment when his record suggested otherwise. His willingness to focus on tax cuts, something he once opposed, again allowed his opponents to paint him as a big spender. Both moves frustrated his original supporters.

During the final debate, McCain said that he wasn't President Bush and that Senator Obama should not run against the President. One wonders, why didn't he say something like that six months ago? What if he proposed a new agenda, a new conservatism?

Like Mr. Powell, I still think McCain is a good person at heart. But he has not given people like Powell and myself a reason to support him. I think Powell's decision is something that is taking place among many Republicans tired of shenanigans of the last few years. Many of us hoped the Arizona Senator would chart a new course, but it didn't turn out the way we expected.

What Limbaugh and to some extent, McCain, miss is that moderates and independents are important to a party's success. The old strategy of the base plus one can't cut it.

Ronald Reagan showed us a conservatism that was inclusive and expansive. For some reason, his followers in the GOP have missed that message. In his 1977 speech called "The New Republican Party," Reagan had this to say:

And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives: I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.

McCain forgot to widen the base. Maybe he has been listening to his consultants or hemmed in by the far right, but it shows that we Republicans have forgotten what Reagan told us so long ago.

What I hope is that after this election, the seeds of a new Republican party is born. I still believe in the GOP and still think it can change for the better. Yeah, I know that makes me a fool, but I am a conservative and this is my home.

In the end, Colin Powell had to do what he had to do: stand on principle and be true to himself. I just wish that was something John McCain had done.

Great Depression 2.0, Meet New Deal 2.0

The reason that John McCain and the rest of the GOP is failing this year is not because of media bias, or dirty tricks by the Obama campaign, but because conservatives have run out of ideas. McCain has never been an idea person, hoping that people would elect him on his august resume.

But you can only go without new ideas for so long, which is why the GOP is getting its head handed to them come November.

But I tend to think this is a Republican lost and not a Democratic win meaning, just because the GOP isn't doing so well, that doesn't mean that Democrats have new ideas ala Bill Clinton in 1992.

The Democrats have pretty much abandoned the "New Democrat" strategy, which placed a more centrist face on the party. It was that willingness to co-opt conservative ideas that gave Clinton two terms in the White House. But the base thought such moves were nothing more then "Republican-lite" and have worked to cast the Democrats in a more traditional liberal mold. Because of that, and because of the utter failure of the GOP under George W. Bush, we have a Democatic party running on policies that are 70 years old.

Politico is reporting that Democratic lawmaker see a need to bring back some of the programs that had their start in the Great Depression. Call it New Deal: The Next Generation.

With visions of a massive liberal majority in the next Congress and the power to remake economic policy for the next generation, Democrats are dusting off their New Deal history books and openly discussing the idea of re-engineering Depression-era agencies for the 21st century.

Several lawmakers want to bring back the Home Ownership Loan Corp., and others have discussed resurrecting the defunct Reconstruction Finance Corp., a federal program that made direct loans to businesses. Others see a lame-duck stimulus bill less as a short-term cash infusion for the economy and more as a long-term, government-driven jobs creator — a kind of modern Works Progress Administration that invests in infrastructure, bridges and roads.

The recent mess on Wall Street has led some to think that desparate times call for desparate measures and so we get this supposed New Deal sequel.

I think it can be wise to look at what worked in the past, and since the New Deal has been such an important part of history for the Dems, that makes sense. But it seems like they are trying to recreate some golden past instead of trying to work for the future. My personal feelings on government intervention aside, maybe some New Deal-style programs would make sense, but the fact is, we don't have the economy we had in 1933. Also, it's still murky as to whether or not a depression is an outcome. A lot of experts think we are headed more towards 70s-style recession than 30s-style depression. So, if that's what we are headed for, does it make sense to have such a big response?

I'm not saying the government should have no role. In such a crisis as this, government needs to have a role to keep us from entering a 21-century depression. But I wonder if this dream to establish a Second New Deal is overkill. The Dems need to come up with ideas that fit the current times.

The GOP have no ideas and that's bad. But to have the Dems dust off old ideas isn't any better and voters can only take that track for so long.

Long Time, No Post

I know, it's been a while since I've posted here. I've been posting a lot over at the Moderate Voice as one of the few center-right voices. I've also been trying a tandem post thing at the Square Deal, but don't know how long that will last. Here are a few examples of what I've been doing:

• John McCain, Sarah Palin and Gay Rights

• Sarah Palin on Hot-Button Issues

• GOP and Diversity

I haven't decided if I'm going to start blogging here again, but I just might. Stay tuned.

Obama-Drama and the McCain Drain

Just a couple of interesting articles:

• John B. Judis thinks that Obama's "new-politics" is looking more like the old McGovern coalition and that might spell trouble in November.
• Salon's Walter Shapiro has an article that Obama is having trouble closing the deal with Democrats.

On the Republican side. You'd think John McCain would be doing rather well with Hillary and Obama fighting each other. You'd think wrong.

• Jonathan Cohn thinks Democrats need to chill about all the intraparty fighting going on. His reason. Just look at McCain's poll numbers.
• Ross Douthat agrees.

The Way We Were...And Are

Around 1977 or so, my dad and I started going to this barbershop on Detroit Street in my hometown of Flint, Michigan. It was called Eddie and Earl’s Barbershop and it was your typical African American barbershop, if such a thing exists. Black men from all walks of life would come to this shop to get their hair cut, especially for church on Sunday.

While I was waiting my turn and reading copies of Jet and Ebony magazines, I remember seeing a poster that caught my attention. It read: BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL.

Those words were important back then. It was the 70s and the civil rights movement of the 60s was a very recent memory. I remember grown-ups sporting Afros and celebrating Black Pride. My mom bought encyclopedias on Black History to remind me that my people had a proud past. After centuries of being told by this country that we were dirt, Blacks in America starting feeling good about themselves.

It was during that time that black pastors like Jeremiah Wright took the pulpit preaching black liberation. While I’ve had mixed feelings on liberation theology, it was an attempt to see that the words of God were not simply about the “sweet by and by” but about justice here and now. I can imagine his words against a nation that prided itself in being ordained by God were a breath of fresh air to blacks as well as a few liberal whites.

My problems with Rev. Wright’s words are not that he isn’t patriotic enough. Christians place God first, not the flag. What does bother me is that his words reflect a nation that doesn’t exist anymore.

This is not to say that America has licked its racial problem. That will take time to solve and we still have issues (such as people who think hanging a noose is funny). But the fact is, America has changed in many ways. In the 1950s, my Dad couldn’t get a hotel room when he was traveling. He faced overt discrimination growing up in Louisiana. Today, he can stay in a hotel room in Tennessee and get a hot meal at a restaurant.

The America that Wright has preached about is one that seems irredeemably racist. It will always treat blacks as second-class citizens. It is an America without hope.

But the fact is, this society has changed. Overt discrimination is no longer in fashion. Blacks hold high positions in political office. And of course, a black man is running for President. Black America demanded the United States live up to its words and it did - for the most part.

I think that’s what bothers me about Rev. Wright as well as others: it’s as if the achievements of the last 40 years never happened. No, we can’t rest on those laurels, but we shouldn’t ignore them either.

Maybe Rev. Wright’s words made sense when Black America was still trying to find its voice, it’s self-esteem. Maybe those words were needed when White America turned a blind eye to its own hate. But I don’t know if they are needed now. To look at what words are needed now, one can only look at the man that has sat in the pews of Rev. Wright’s church: Barack Obama. I don’t always agree with him politically, but his words of hope and unity talk about the best in this country and that together, black and white and everything else, we can tear down the remaining walls of discrimination.

On the Wright Controversy

You can read what I think about the Obama-Wright controversy by going to the Moderate Voice.

Life Imitates Art and Visa Versa

A few bloggers and other media folk have noticed that this presidential campaign seems to strangley follow the last two seasons of NBC's The West Wing, where a fictional presidential campaign took place. According to Slate, the similarities of the character Matt Santos, an idealistic Latino congressman from Texas and Senator Barak Obama is not by accident. Check out this video from Slate to learn more.


I feel the need to go to a store and buy those last two seasons.

The Brain- Dead Republicans

It's been nearly seven months since the bridge collapse here in Minnesota. Right or wrong, it has become a symbol of our crumbling transportation infastructure.

For several years, transportation has been a burning issue. We were slow to light rail transit, and our freeways, built when the Twin Cities was a much smaller metro area, are full. Governor Tim Pawlenty (a potential VP candidate for John McCain), has taken a strong "no new taxes" pledge to the delight of hard core conservatives. Of course, a government has to do things like maintain roads, so Mr. Pawlenty has decided to use bonding bills to pay for some improvements, which is basically putting things on a credit card to pay someday. The Democrats, with the help of a few Republicans, crafted a bill that would raise the gas tax by five cents (something that hasn't been done in twenty years) , add to the sales tax in the metro area to pay for transit and raise license fees for new cars. The bill was vetoed by the Governor, but was overidden by the House.

The result for the dissident Republicans was that they were punished, losing leading leadership positions and quite possibily facing intra-party challenges.

I share this because it is part of the problem with the Republican party these days: it can't tolerate independence. The party of the man that once said, "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor," seems more interested in making sure everyone toes the line to what they think is party orthodoxy.

Of course, it is important to have some sense of ideological cohesion. Ideology gives some framework to a political party. But ideology should be loose fitting lest it be a straight jacket.

And the analogy of a straight jacket makes some sense: those who seek purity tend to stop thinking. You don't have to use your brain if all you do is adhere to party tenets all the time.

This is why John McCain is still not loved by the hard core conservatives: he's willing to think for himself. He is definitely conservative, but in a democracy where one works with others who don't share the same views, he works with Democrats to get legislation passed. Things get done, but he angers the hard core because he isn't upholding the party line.

To me, such thinking is proof of a party in decline, a party turned in on itself. Punishing heretics might make one feel good, but after a while people start falling away. That's what has been happening to the GOP for years. People get tired of being called "RINOs" and traitors and walk away. I know a fair number of people who have left the GOP because of such narrow thinking.

Frankly, it's way past time for a Republican Reformation. There need to be new ideas to fit the times. But it might take losing this year and in 2010 and in 2012 for the GOP to see it needs to become the party of ideas again.

Myers-Briggs: The Presidential Edition

Emily Yoffee has an article up about the personalities of Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John McCain. If you've ever done Myers-Briggs, you will understand it.

For the record my personality type is INTJ.

Will Obama Really Appeal to Centrists?

Barak Obama fascinates me.

He can give speeches like no one else in a long time. As I've said before, he reminds me a of many a black preacher I heard growing up. He's a black man that seems to appeal beyond African Americans to persons from various walks of life and states that have low concentrations of African Americans.

But he also troubles me.

Not in some sinister way, but in the way Centrist, including a few Republicans are falling in love with him. He seems to be picking up independents in the same way that John McCain is. In fact, the Illinois Senator is looked at in the same way as the Senator from Arizona, someone that can attract people from the other party. However, as far as I can tell, and I repeat, as I far as I know, while Mr. Obama's cross party appeal is big on style and short on substance, while Mr. McCain is the opposite.

Obama has one of the more liberal records in the Senate. In some case, that's not a big deal. McCain is far more conservative than people assume. What is different is that McCain has reached out to the other side at the risk of offending the GOP base. He was part of the "Gang of 14." He reached out to Sen. Ted Kennedy, liberal icon/archenemy to craft an immigration deal that brought the wrath of many on the hard right. Many in the base don't like him because time and time again he has gone his own way.

Froma Harrop explains:

He had the fiscal discipline to vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the decency to complain that they unfairly favored the rich. He's OK on the environment, concerned over global warming and against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He supported tighter fuel-economy standards and opposes torture. John McCain is not an embarrassment.

Then there is Obama. David Brooks offers his record:

Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

Now, McCain could back away from his maverick persona as he has done on some occasions and that could spell trouble come November. But the thing is, McCain at least has a record of making his party's base mad for not always being the loyal solider. Obama hasn't done that.

In recent blog entry, my fellow blogger, Jeremy Dibbell wrote about seeing Obama in Boston. He really like the candidate and he explains what it was like to see the Senator:

Was it worth it? You bet. It's not every day that one has the opportunity to hear (and spottily see) the governor, two senators, a presidential candidate and 10,000 friends, all ready for a new kind of politics, a new way of doing things, and a new vision for America.

Maybe Jeremy sees something I don't, but it's hard to see how Obama will do things differently. Don't get me wrong; even though I am a Republican, I would like to believe Obama could bring about a politics of unity instead of one of division. But I do wonder if Obama is the centrist hope. His actions don't seem to live up to his words.

McCain's Decent Conservatism

As I was coming home tonight, I listened to some of John McCain's victory speech after winning today's Potomac Primaries. I found the speech interesting, because it seems to offer a window into John McCain's philosophy and character. I could be totally wrong, but he seems to offer a more decent and civil conservatism that is far different from the stuff we are used to hearing.

He does go after the Democrats, but he seems to express what is wrong with their ideas instead of saying that they are evil. He expresses a desire for small government, stating that government isn't the answer to every problem, but without all the anti-government rhetoric. He is willing to listen to those who disagree with him.

There is no talk about "family values" or other hot button issues.

This is a face of the GOP that I think many people would like to see; a party that is dedicated to small and efficient government, one that is strong on defense and willing to work with the opposition for the common good. This is a message that can reach across party lines and attract independents.

McCain is far from perfect. His more tempered brand of conservatism might be too little too late after eight years of a disastrous Republican presidency. But at least for tonight, I saw a Republican and conservative that I could be proud of.

McCain, the American Sarkozy?

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, offers up a very good reason why John McCain could win in November and it's because he is appealing to independents and Democrats. That might seem strange, since Obama-fever, but Fund explains:

How could that be? The answer is that the same maverick streak and occasional departures from conservative orthodoxy that make conservatives queasy have the opposite effect on independents and even some Democrats. Mr. McCain's favorable numbers with independents exceed those of Barack Obama, who has emphasized his desire to work across party lines.

The self professed establishment of the GOP, the Limbaughs, Coulters and Hannitys think that to win it is important to be as right wing as one can be. They don't seem so concerned of the fact that they only represent a small faction of electorate.

Fund notes that only McCain can make inroads into the so-called "Blue States" and also hold the "Red States."

Fund then makes the case that McCain is the American version of Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President. His predecessor, Jacques Chircac was very unpopular and the Socialist candidate was offering change. Here is what Fund says:

In some ways Mr. McCain resembles Nicolas Sarkozy, the French conservative who won last year's presidential election even though the retiring president, Jacques Chirac, was unpopular and a member of his own party. "Like Sarko, who was of Chirac's party but not of Chirac, America's swing voters have intuited over the years that there is little love lost between McCain and George Bush," says the blog Race42008.

Mr. Sarkozy was able to convince a majority of French voters that he represented real change that would improve conditions, while his socialist rival, Segolene Royal, represented risky change that could make matters worse. That is precisely the challenge Mr. McCain faces this year against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

I tend agree with the viewpoint. Of course, anything can happen, but McCain has a better shot at the White House because he appeals to people beyond the Republican base.

In short, it comes down to doing the math.

If Romney won the nomination, you would have probably have an energized base, but that's it. Independents would not vote for him and neither would Democrats. The GOP is too weak at this point to rely only on the hard right. McCain still has an allure with independents and Democrats and could swing them over to the GOP.

Why do people like Rush Limbuagh not see this?

Maybe because they are too busy listening to the sound of their own voice.

Or flunked math.

Romney:To Thine Ownself Be True

Howard Fineman has an excellent piece on the folly that was Mitt Romney's campaign.

The thing is, if he had ran as the fiscal conservative , social moderate that he did in the past, he might have been a contender. I certainly would have considered him.

But his willingness to throw gays under the bus in order to get the GOP nomination made him untouchable for me and probably for many other moderates who might have liked his managerial experience.

But he gave up trying to woo moderates and independents and instead decided to run for President of the Republican party instead of the United States.

Last December, I visited the Sloan Museum in my hometown of Flint, Michigan. There was an exhibit on the struggle to get a fair housing ordinance passed, a law that would outlaw racist practices that kept blacks from living in predominantly white areas. Demonstations took place on the lawn of city hall. In one photo, then Michigan Governor George Romney, Mitt's dad, was chatting with the Mayor of Flint. He was in favor of the fair housing ordinance and spoke in support.

Goerge Romney had courage. He was a popular governor and reminds us of a time when Republicans stood for fairness.

I have to think that somewhere out there George Romney has to be disspointed at his son's lack of courage.