Or: A Funny Thing Happened While Investigating the Lesbian Web Site That Ran Up Against the Mormon Web Host: I Stumbled Across an International Incident.
First things first: There are only five hard-and-fast rules I follow in life, without exception:
1. Keep your marriage vows.
2. Be nice to people until they give you a reason not to be.
3. Give money to homeless people, and never question what they’re going to do with it.
Frank Rich has another kick-butt column in today’s NYT, this time dissecting the “essence of Palinism” (”emotional, not ideological”), and the meltdown of the flailing (and amnesiac) GOP that sees Sarah Palin as its last Great White Hope.
Somebody’s in serious need of schoolin’, and there’s nobody else I see who’ll take him on, so… here I am. It won’t be the first time I’ve tried to get through to him, and it probably won’t be the last.
Settle in for a long one, friends — and if you’re not in the mood for a long one, bookmark this post and come back to it when you’ve got a bigger block of time to read — really read. This involves themes of power, denial, religious delusion, blame, accountability, and “ex-gay” suicide — themes far larger than any grudge I might hold against my homophobic hometown ex-mayor.
In short, the consensus among more than a few very influential, high-profile Christian Right insiders is this:
“We screwed up. We’ve lost the culture wars, and it’s our own fault. Not because we were wrong — we are never wrong! — but because we thought we could jam our 14th-century morality down everybody else’s throat through the Republican Party, and we screwed up by compromising our ‘values’ in order to function as an extension of the Republican Party. With nowhere else to turn, maybe we ought to give up on political lobbying — without disengaging politically altogether, mind you — and go back to concentrating on ’service, prayer and education’ just like — gasp! — real Christians.”
Is the Christian right finished as a political entity? Or, more to the point, are principled Christians finished with politics? …
The older generation, represented by such icons as James Dobson, who recently retired as head of Focus on the Family, has compromised too much, according to a growing phalanx of disillusioned Christians. Pragmatically speaking, the Christian coalition of cultural crusaders didn’t work.
For proof, one need look no further than Dobson himself, who was captured on tape recently saying that the big cultural battles have all been lost.
Shortly thereafter, in late March, Christian radio host Steve Deace of WHO Radio in Iowa aggressively interviewed Tom Minnery, head of the political arm of Focus on the Family … whom Deace described as “the Karl Rove of the religious right”…
It wasn’t exactly a Limbaugh-Obama matchup, but it was confrontational, and corners of America’s heartland and Bible Belt have been buzzing ever since.
Deace’s point was that established Christian activist groups too often settle for lesser evils in exchange for electing Republicans. He cited as examples Dobson’s support of Mitt Romney and John McCain, neither of whom is pro-life or pro-family enough from Deace’s perspective.
Compromise may be the grease of politics, but it has no place in Christian orthodoxy, according to Deace. …
[E. Ray Moore, founder of the South Carolina-based Exodus Mandate, an initiative to encourage Christian education and home schooling, who considers himself a member of the Christian right] thinks the movement is imploding.
“It’s hard to admit defeat, but this one was self-inflicted … In the modern era of the Christian right, we have traded these proven methods for a mess of pottage … and often in a shrill and nagging manner, which makes our God look weak in the eyes of the world.”
Amen to that, says [columnist Cal Thomas, a former vice president for the Moral Majority]…
Meg Whitman, the guiding force behind eBay for a decade, is running for California governor, according to sources close to the Internet giant’s former CEO.
Whitman, who rocketed onto the national political stage in 2008 as a high-profile backer of Republican presidential contenders Mitt Romney and John McCain—
—plans to make a formal announcement soon that she is seeking to become the GOP’s nominee to replace termed-out Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2011.
On Dec. 31, Whitman resigned from eBay’s board of directors as well as two other corporate boards. One close associate called the moves “a clear signal” that she is running for governor and does not want “her corporate activities to interfere.”
The source asked not to be named because Whitman, 52, wants to make a formal announcement in four to six weeks. But he added that Whitman, who has been openly considering a run for months, made her final decision after consulting with her family over the holidays.
Despite her wealth and ties to the eBay brand, Whitman is almost certain to face State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner of Los Gatos, a tech-multimillionare Republican who has been preparing a run for governor for more than a year.
Lemme tell you about Steve Poizner. Steve Poizner has been running for, or making noises about running for, anything for more years than I care to remember, sinking $5 million of his own money into a failed run against Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (my assemblyguy, a good guy, and an actual Democrat) in 2004 (during which his slate mailers made it very, very difficult to tell Poizner was a Republican — gee, I wonder why?).
Maybe Poizner doesn’t realize it, but those of us who don’t like him believe he’s never done anything politically in this state that wasn’t a mere stepping stone to the governorship.
I don’t like Poizner. I don’t like anything about him, and I wish he’d retire and just have a grand old time living off the brazillions he made from the sale of SnapTrak to Qualcomm. Preferably back in his home state of Texas, so I wouldn’t have to hear his name again.
And you know what? If all the Democratic and Green contenders vanished off the face of the earth, and it came down to being forced to choose between Poizner and Whitman, I’d choose Poizner.
That’s how I feel about Meg Whitman.
Anyway…
Former GOP Congressman Tom Campbell who lives in San Jose, also has formed an exploratory campaign. And should she beat them, she’s likely to face a well-known Democrat; among those who have expressed interest in the Democratic nomination are Attorney General Jerry Brown, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and perhaps even U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Hella hard to say how Newsom or Brown would do. Feinstein, that old corporate DINO, would probably beat any Republican. (I can’t see myself voting for Feinstein for so much as town jester, but if push came to shove…)
Whitman spokesman Henry Gomez said she resigned from the corporate boards of eBay, Procter & Gamble and DreamWorks Animation “for personal reasons. She wanted to clear her calendar of obligations in the new year. In terms of her political ambitions, I cannot comment.” …
More at the link… including the note that “Forbes estimated her 2007 net worth at $1.4 billion.” Why can’t these brazillionaires just shut up, go away, and enjoy the spoils of screwing their customers? (Not that all billionaires are evil; in Whitman’s case, you can ask longtime eBay sellers how they feel about eBay’s business practices. While you’re at it, you should ask the Australian government, too.)
Also of interest is mention of Whitman registering as a Repug only in 2007, and her “spotty voting record,” which her spokesman indicates was a result of her being too busy making money and raising a family to vote.
Reminds me of how Sonny Bono never registered to vote until he was 53 years old — and did so only because he had to at least be registered in order to run for mayor of Palm Springs. (And if you don’t know the idiotic reason he ran at all, read this — but be prepared for a concussion when your hand involuntarily smacks itself against your forehead.)
It also pisses me off that a woman, any woman, would use the excuse of raising a family for anything, especially voting, which commands all of about ten minutes of one’s time every two years. If you want to devote your life to raising kids, more power to you — but don’t you dare add fuel to the idea that women can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, and all we’re good for is staying home to cook and pop out babies.
Of course, Whitman ran eBay while she was raising her kids, but that’s not going to mean much for the Neanderthals jonesing for any excuse to say, “See? Women just aren’t suited for politics. They were designed to stay home and have babies.”
Christ on a trailer hitch. Could Meg Whitman do, or be, anything more antithetical to progressivism?
Happy New Year, folks! We have so many interesting things to talk about — it’s amazing, the clarity one gains in just two short days away from the world, such as the perfect argument-killer to the same old crap you keep hearing from the anti-equality goons, but we’ll get into all of that later, I promise.
Right now, I just want to make a note for my fellow Bay Area-ites who love day spas as much as I do (not that I’ve been able to afford to go in years, but that’s beside the point):
Watercourse Way, in Palo Alto, used to be among my favorite places to get an hour-long massage, and then avail myself of the private rooms for the jacuzzi, sauna, cold plunge, etc. Well, no more. I made the sad discovery that the facilities manager, one David Bena, not only contributed money to destroying my marriage, but was a longtime Bush supporter, and is most likely a Mormon, judging from his contribution to put the gay-hatingest Mormon of them all, Mitt Romney, into the White House. To wit:
Revolting. Utterly revolting. I am disgusted beyond words that I ever spent a dime there (and, believe me, it’s not cheap), and very saddened that I will never again patronize Watercourse Way — but extremely happy I found this out now, before taking my wife there.
Instead, we’ll be going to Well Within, which is sheer heaven on earth. (I sincerely doubt I’m going to find any anti-gay contributions by WW employees; we are talking Santa Cruz, after all. )
Role Of Religion In Presidential Campaign Heads 2008 ‘Top Ten’ List Of Church-State Stories
The role of religion in the presidential campaign tops the 2008 “Top Ten” list of top church-state stories, according to the editors of Church & State.
The monthly magazine, published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is the nation’s only news periodical devoted exclusively to the intersection of religion and government.
Said Church & State publisher Barry W. Lynn, “It was a wild and crazy year. To tell you the truth, I’m glad it’s coming to a close. I’m hopeful 2009 will be a lot better.”
After studying the past 12 months of news, the editors selected the following 10 stories as the most important and most interesting church-state developments for the year.
1. The Role of Religion in the Presidential Campaign: Not since 1960 when John F. Kennedy the first Roman Catholic president was elected, has religion played such a large role in a presidential campaign. News media representatives grilled candidates on what sins they had committed and what their favorite Bible verses were. Barack Obama fought false rumors that he is secretly a Muslim, and Mitt Romney’s Mormonism became a controversial topic. Candidates were held accountable for the incendiary comments of their pastors and their clergy supporters, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and TV preacher John Hagee. Many observers thought the whole thing was an unholy mess, especially in a nation that separates religion and government.
2. The Resurgence of the Religious Right: While pundits and progressives have proclaimed the demise of the Religious Right, the fundamentalist political movement remained extraordinarily powerful. Republican John McCain found it necessary to name evangelical Sarah Palin as his running mate to mollify the GOP’s restive religious base, and Religious Right forces rammed through bans on same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona. Moderate evangelical Richard Cizik was forced out as government affairs representative at the National Association of Evangelicals after coming under fire from Religious Right forces.
3. The Battle Over Gay Marriage: Bans on same-sex marriage were approved in California, Florida and Arizona with conservative religious forces leading the drive. California’s approval of Proposition 8, with massive funding from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was particularly contentious. The Mormons, joined by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and evangelical Protestant congregations, were successful in passing a constitutional amendment that takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry and reflects church doctrine in civil law. The issue now moves back to the state Supreme Court.
4. The Ascendancy of Rick Warren: Once known primarily as a mega-church pastor and best-selling author (The Purpose Driven Life), the Rev. Rick Warren has rapidly moved into position as the nation’s most prominent preacher, despite right-wing views on reproductive freedom, gay rights and church-state separation. Warren, a Southern Baptist who heads Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., is viewed by progressives as Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt with an ace PR team. After hosting a presidential debate stacked toward John McCain and being asked to give the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, many think Warren seems destined to be the new Billy Graham.
5. Religious Right Influence at Justice Department: Religious Right influence at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was exposed this year. According to an internal DOJ investigation reported in the media in July, senior aides in the department used religious and political criteria to hire staff members for non-political positions. Monica Goodling, a top adviser to the attorney general, checked to see if job applicants were “pro-God in public life” and held right-wing views on abortion, homosexuality and other issues. (Goodling is a graduate of TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Regent University.) DOJ also posted a legally dubious memorandum this year insisting that the federal government may give grants to “faith-based” social service agencies that discriminate in hiring, even if Congress has explicitly banned such bias.
6. Battles Over Creationism in Public Schools: New battles have erupted over the teaching of evolution in public schools. Blocked by the courts from teaching fundamentalist religious concepts directly in biology classes, Religious Right forces are trying a backdoor strategy. They are demanding that schools teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, a euphemism for creationist ideas. Over the heated objections of educators, scientists and civil liberties activists, the Louisiana legislature approved an “academic freedom” law encouraging such instruction in the state’s schools. Now the Texas State Board of Education is debating a similar proposal as part of its 10-year review of science standards.
7. Church Politicking Plot: The Religious Right’s dream of building a fundamentalist church-based political machine took a big step forward in 2008 when more than 30 pastors used their pulpits to endorse Republican political candidates. They acted at the behest of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a wealthy Religious Right legal outfit that wants to challenge the federal tax law ban on partisan politicking by tax-exempt groups. The ADF, which was founded by TV preachers and other religious broadcasters, hopes the Internal Revenue Service will revoke participating churches’ tax exemptions leading to a court showdown.
8. Defeat of Jeb Bush Referenda: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush saw his school voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2006. Undeterred, the now former governor’s allies on an obscure tax commission engineered two measures onto the November 2008 ballot that would have repealed the state constitution’s ban on public funding of religion as well as diluted its provision for a strong system of public schools. To Bush’s dismay, the state Supreme Court on Sept. 3 struck the referenda from the ballot, derailing the scheme.
9. Blocking of ‘Christian’ License Plate: The South Carolina legislature unanimously approved a special “Christian” license plate featuring a bright yellow cross, a stained-glass church window and the words “I Believe.” Backed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, four local clergy and two minority faith groups challenged the government favoritism toward one faith. On Dec. 11, a federal district court blocked issuance of the plates. The judge’s action may forestall similar sectarian plates under consideration in other states.
10. The Christmas Wars: It has become an annual holiday tradition Religious Right groups and their allies in the right-wing media launch a yearly crusade to stop the alleged secularization of Christmas and to pressure government to include Christian symbols in the holiday mix. They rail against stores’ use of the term “Happy Holidays” and insist that advertisements say “Merry Christmas” instead. This year, much of the attention focused on a Washington State battle where an atheist Winter Solstice sign was positioned near a Christian Nativity scene in the state capital. Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly and an array of Religious Right scolds lambasted Gov. Christine Gregoire for allowing the anti-religious sentiment. Ironically, credit for the atheist display actually should go to the Alliance Defense Fund, a Religious Right legal group that sued Gregoire last year, insisting that the Capitol is an open forum where a Nativity scene (and all other forms of speech) must be allowed.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. Americans Unitied for Separation of Church and State Links: Homepage; Americans United (Press Center); Americans United (Action Center)
Did Mitt Romney really say it? No matter — Tom Minnery, James Dobson’s radio sidekick, says he did. Which only reaffirms the thing that always gets many magic underpants into a terrible twist: The fundy-gelicals who sweet-talked the Mormons into doing their anti-gay bidding have never thought Mormons are Christians — only useful idiots. Of course, you knew that. We knew that. In fact, everybody knew that — except the Mormons themselves, who just can’t accept the truth that they’ve been had.
Chino found this enlightening 19 seconds of video:
Coming from the Salt Lake Trib, you’d expect the usual Mormon self-pity piece, but it’s not as bad as all that. Oh, the defense of the LDS church is apparent — it “endured back-stabbing from would-be friends,” was “attacked as belonging to a cult,” and was “cast as pariahs during Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign,” etc.” — but to writer Peggy Fletcher Stack’s credit, “A year of scrutiny for the LDS Church” spends its last third acknowledging the church’s strange-bedfellows alliance with the evangelicals who disdain Mormonism, and asking how (and if) the church will deal with the consequences of its high-profile political involvement, even quoting Wayne Besen without comment:
In June, Mormons joined the Preserve Marriage Coalition at the request of Archbishop George Niederauer, the San Francisco Catholic leader who had previously led the Diocese of Salt Lake City. The First Presidency sent a letter to all California Mormons, urging them to support a ballot measure known as Proposition 8, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.
The same Evangelical groups that had demeaned Mormonism as a cult during Romney’s campaign were now the LDS Church’s allies in the California fight.
“These new defenders of the Mormon faith have long been the most prolific Mormon-bashers in the nation,” said Wayne Besen, executive director of the Brooklyn-based gay-rights group Truth Wins Out. “[The two groups] have nothing in common but their anti-gay rhetoric.”
The measure passed on Nov. 4, and in the ensuing days, angry supporters of gay marriage protested outside LDS temples across the nation.
“The church’s support of Proposition 8 created a loud backlash and may make the church a symbol for the constriction of civil rights,” [Philip Barlow, Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University] says. “Will the church dig in on what it sees as a moral and constitutional issue or will common cause help repair or forge new allegiances with Evangelicals?”
Not many years from now, 2008 may be seen as a turning point for the LDS Church in addressing the reality of homosexuality, he says.
The church’s theology was formed at a time when homosexuality could only be construed in biblical terms as “abomination,” he says. “Because of experience and science, today church leaders see the issue in a more complex light. They distinguish between feelings and actions, and they acknowledge that we do not know the originating causes of same-sex attraction.”
LDS founder Joseph Smith once said that ” ‘by proving contraries, truth is made manifest,’” Barlow says. “As is the past, this may be a painful but auspicious moment in LDS history.”
No doubt it will be. Whether the “truth is made manifest” sooner or later is the question; the answer depends not on LDS, Inc., but on individual Mormons, and the strength (or lack) of their desire to realign the church’s priorities with the goal of working harmoniously with the larger, reality-based world in which they live — or be content to continue wearing their self-imposed persecution complex as a badge of honor.
…our tireless hero Chino (and at Kos) stopped in with some most enlightening comments, and a link to an astounding timeline of the Mormons’ longterm plan to screw over the gays, at StopTheMormons.com. It’s an absolute must-read, must-bookmark.
Homewood Suites Liberty Station and Courtyard by Marriot Liberty Station.
They are co-owned by Huntington Hotel Group (note: NO relation to the Huntington Hotel on Nob Hill, SF). Brent Andrus, co-principal of this privately owned hotel corp gave $20,000 to yes on 8!
SAN DIEGO June 6, 2007 - Significant progress is being made at Huntington Hotel Group’s 150-room Homewood Suites by Hilton hotel and 200-room Courtyard by Marriott hotel, joining the Liberty Station community at the corner of North Harbor Drive and Lanning Road.
These two hotels, designed by architects Awbrey Cook McGill, comprise 17.81 acres of Liberty Station’s 37-acre hotel district. The hospitality district is one of the last major components to the hundreds of acres at Liberty Station already devoted to residential, office, retail, historic, arts and cultural, park and recreation space.
…but there are many more properties involved. From a cached page on the Huntington Hotel Group Web site (because the real thing is, strangely, “down for maintenance”):
Huntington Hotel Group is comprised of numerous companies owned and controlled by Brent Andrus and Kevin Keefer with specific expertise in development, hotel operations, financial management, and construction management to ensure an all-encompassing hotel company. Huntington has developed over $200 million in real estate in California and Maryland over the last six years and has five additional Marriott and Hilton hotels in various stages of development, which will bring their portfolio to an excess of 2,400 rooms.
Huntington’s business centers around developing, owning and managing Marriott and Hilton branded hotels in markets somewhat insulated from overbuilding due to high barriers to entry.
Huntington was admitted to the prestigious Marriott Partnership Circle in May 2003 and again in December 2004 for demonstrating a deep commitment to Marriott’s brands, business objectives, guest satisfaction and values. At the 2003 Marriott Owner’s Conference, Huntington was presented with the Construction Excellence Award for the design and construction of their Courtyard in Burbank, California.
A 3.5-acre site in the NoCal city of Campbell was acquired by Irving, TX-based Huntington Hotel Group for the development of a new 162-room Courtyard by Marriott hotel. The parcel, located at 655 Creekside Way, was sold by Sand Hill Property Company, which already had the site entitled prior to the sale. The price was not disclosed.
The property is highly visible from Hwy 17 and is located near where the highway intersects heavily trafficked Hamilton Ave in Campbell, which is situated just seven miles southwest of San Jose in Santa Clara County. The property is within walking distance of the city’s downtown, The Pruneyard office/retail center, and a light rail station.
ALSO:
Kevin Keefer, president of the Huntington Hotel Group (Andrus’ partner), donated the maximum $2,300 to Mitt Romney for president in 2008. (What does that tell you?)
If you didn’t think acceptance by “mainstream” Christian denominations was a big carrot for LDS, Inc., as the key to increasing Mormon political power, think again. I really don’t want to waste any more time saying “I told you so” when Mitt Romney comes dangerously close to kicking Barack Obama out of the White House in 2012, so pay attention.
• Evangelicals are rushing to defend the Mormons from “attacks” by those mean, scary homosexual activists.
• Professional anti-gay preacher Jim Garlow is “hosting an event in which Catholics and Evangelicals are meeting with LDS officials so that we may affirm their role in the campaign and . . . discuss how to defend the LDS from the scurrilous attacks upon them, and the mob-like frenzy that is being stirred by those who cannot accept the will of the people on Prop 22 and Prop 8.”
• Garlow sent an email to 7,200 pastors (who, he doesn’t say) directing them to “defend” Mormons from the pulpit, and to direct their congregations “to speak out in defense of the Mormons.”
• The Radical Right’s plan is to step up the anti-gay rhetoric on their vast media network — Christian radio and the like.
• They’re hoping to diffuse (not de-fuse, but diffuse) our protests by giving us multiple targets; i.e., why aren’t we protesting the Catholics or the evangelicals as fiercely? (Answer: Because, dummies, Mormons FUNDED 40% of the hate campaign against us, on the orders of the Mormon church itself. God, these people are dense. But don’t worry — we know exactly what the Knights of Columbus did. And anyone who doesn’t know we’ve been fighting the James Dobson-led anti-gay crusades since day one just hasn’t been listening.)
• The blogger who offers all this insight opines at length, finally dismissing Andrew Sullivan’s dead-on review of the Jerry Falwell-Mitt Romney team-up to attack the spectre of marriage equality in California before it happened (which is crucial to understanding how the religious radicals pulled this off, so read it) as a “flight of fancy,” downplaying any anti-gay conspiracy between evangelicals and Mormons — right on the heels of explaining the current conspiracy (code word: “solidarity”) between evangelicals and Mormons!
• The only funny part: The blogger has a sudden stroke of conscience and apologize for “creedals” calling Mormonism a cult. I guess when your party platform has been reduced to “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” you have no choice but to pretend you don’t ridicule Mormonism as “false Christianity” behind their backs.
Forty-three Democratic legislators, including leaders of the California Senate and Assembly, filed a brief Monday urging the California Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and incoming President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg signed the friend of the court brief, filed with the state Supreme Court.
No Republican legislator signed the petition, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, denounced the anti-gay marriage measure over the weekend. …
“The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary, and often short-lived, majorities,” the legislators said in the document, written by attorneys at the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. …
In their brief, lawmakers described the 500,000-vote margin as a “bare majority,” and said it was “compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law.”
“Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group,” the brief says.
“If Proposition 8 takes effect, this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities,” it continues.
The action contends that the ban, created by the initiative that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, cannot be done by a mere constitutional amendment. Rather, it must be done by a revision of the entire Constitution and the Legislature would have to be involved. …
As expected, head H8er Frank Schubert makes a lot of bitter, empty remarks — and start flogging the “blacks-and-Latinos-hate-the-gays” crap all over again:
Also, Schubert noted, there was a huge Democratic turnout — although many Democrats, particularly African Americans and Latinos, don’t support same-sex marriage and voted for Proposition 8. Exit polls showed blacks supported the measure 70% to 30%.
One of the closing ads featured Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Popular though she is, Schubert said, it was odd that Proposition 8 foes would select Feinstein to lecture voters, including minorities, about discrimination.
“It had the feel of a lily white, liberal campaign,” Schubert said.
Once again, folks, this black-versus-gay division is coming from the Prop 8 camp, and they are doing everything they can to cause a massive rift between African-Americans and gays.
Why? Short reason: LGBTs and blacks are two of the most solidly loyal factions of the Democratic Party, and such a rift threatens to destroy any last shred of “party unity” for the Dems.
(And here’s another tidbit for you to chew on: Why was the Mormon church so deeply involved in Prop 8? Well, if you plan to run a Mormon Republican for president in 2012, namely Mitt Romney, what better way is there to maximize your chances than to destroy the opposing party?)
Too many Californians were fooled by the Proposition 8 camp’s lies and dirty tricks the first time — don’t you fall into this trap.
I will repeat:
The source of the Blacks-versus-Gays rift is the Yes On 8 camp. Believe nothing they say. Nothing.
Surely (I know: Don’t call you “Shirley”), you’re more than aware of what the Family Research Council is: the biggest sack of lying gasbags in the entire anti-gay industry. (Sure it’s an industry; you think there’s not money to be made in promoting hate?)
But just in case you’re learning only now about the filthmongers who exist on this planet for no other purpose than to make our lives more difficult than necessary, here’s a crash course:
Now, onto the upcoming hatefest, via a FRC press release:
FRC Action’s Values Voter Summit to Rally Activists Ahead of ‘08 Election
Lou Dobbs, Newt Gingrich, Gov. Mitt Romney, Dr. Bill Bennett and others confirmed to speak
WASHINGTON — August 21 — Only 60 days before voters choose the next President, FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council, will host the third annual Values Voter Summit along with co-sponsors Focus on the Family Action, American Values, Alliance Defense Fund and the Family Research Council. Last year’s event drew over 400 members of the media from every major media outlet in America and almost 2,600 people from 49 states and foreign nations.
Confirmed speakers include Newt Gingrich, Dr. Bill Bennett, Gov. Mitt Romney, Lou Dobbs, Lt. Gov Michael Steele, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Phyllis Schlafy, Star Parker, Michael Medved, and actor Stephen Baldwin. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have been invited but have not confirmed.
“This event is a call to action for voter participation, education and training and a rallying event for patriotic Americans who want to transform the political landscape on issues such as the sanctity of life and marriage, illegal immigration, religious freedom, health care, radical Islam, judicial activism, Hollywood’s influence, the media and much more,” said FRC Action President Tony Perkins.
According to the Cox News Service, the Values Voter Summit is an “event that may alter the contest” and will provide “clues to the enthusiasm for the McCain-led GOP ticket among Republican-leaning evangelicals.”
The Values Voter Summit 2008 will be held September 12-14 at the Hilton Washington Hotel in Washington, D.C. The first day will be capped off with a concert by renowned Christian rock group Sonicflood. On Saturday evening, Chuck Colson will be honored at a gala dinner featuring the Grammy-nominated group Avalon as entertainment. An exhibit hall, radio row, book signings, and much more will be packed into this three-day conference.
The line-up reads like a Who’s Who in Hate. Oh, wait — did I say “like”?
Normally, I breeze by the homophobic garbage on Democratic Underground, partly because I don’t haunt the halls of DU anymore (unless I’m tipped off to a particularly interesting meltdown going on in real-time), and mostly because I don’t see the point in torturing myself watching my people battle those hopelessly (and happily) entrenched in their own bigotry. I wasted six years battling the “Some of my best friends are gay, so I’m an expert on what’s homophobic and what’s not” brigades myself, and it was, indeed, a complete waste of time I could have spent doing something, anything, more productive… like trying to teach goldfish to drive.
Hearing there was something of a meltdown going on (again), I ran across a post by a gay DUer I’ve long liked and respected, who (for the umpteenth time for any LGBT DUer) pointed out the pervasive compulsion to label George W. Bush, or Karl Rove, or pretty much any right-winger as “gay.” This is different from outing a right-winger who really is gay (or at least a verifiable down-low type like Larry Craig); this is the Everyone We Hate is Gay syndrome, and it’s ugly, and extremely offensive to gay people.
After reading the usual “I don’t see any homophobia, so it doesn’t exist” replies from DUers who either have a serious memory disorder, or feign blindness to the neverending stream of homophobia right in front of their keyboards, I thought I’d ever-so-helpfully dredge up a few examples of what they’re “not seeing”… which, apparently, is too herculean a task for the Google-impaired.
Here are 1) the original post in question, and 2) two of the nastiest, most insensitive replies:
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-04-08 02:57 PM Original message
I’ve been around here for years and it just never stops. Virtually every foul Republican is referred to as “gay”. It happens over and over. It’s against the rules and the mods do try, but it never ends. Why?
They say that doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result is the definition of insanity so I don’t know why I keep expecting it to change.
I don’t know what to do, but I don’t like how DU makes me feel.
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-04-08 03:08 PM Response to Original message
15. Virtually every foul Republican is referred to as “gay” - By whom?
Quit painting everyone with one brush stroke please.
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-04-08 03:21 PM Response to Original message
22. Do you always make shit like this up?
I have been here quite a while and can’t recall a single instance of a Republican being called gay for the hell of it. Now, if they are gay AND closeted AND a homophobe, I can see that.
You probably wanna run back to FR if you wanna concoct fables out of whole cloth.
For these “I can’t recall” folks (who can never again claim that DUers just don’t do this sort of thing), here’s a memory-refresher (and this, my friends, only scratches the surface):
And the winner of the Most Offensive Asshat on DU in 2008 (So Far) Award goes to “kurtboss,” who — to the credit of the DU admins — has since been banned:
kurtboss (361 posts) Mon Aug-04-08 09:05 PM Original message
Okay, let’s just make clear that there is nothing wrong with being Gay, however employing this strategy does make use of the negative cultural stereotypes about homosexuality. It’s exploiting it…but, to a good end.
So, here’s the deal. I want opinions. I don’t know if he’s really gay, but it doesn’t matter. This is hardball politics. A war, healthcare, the economy, etc all ride on this election…so it’s probably worth getting dirty for a couple months. I believe this can destroy his chances for victory by putting this seed of doubt in the minds of bigots.
1. The GOP Evangelicals HATE gays
2. Obviously easy to exploit McCain’s obsession with Obama–it’s practically pathetic at this point and noted everywhere in the media
3. He’s in the Navy. Village People anyone? It gets awfully lonely on ships.
4. To tie this up for you…McCain is already questioned by the Evangelicals and absolutely requires they turn out for him in droves. It’s his weakness.
How to attack it? Viral email. Youtube some effete moments put together…perhaps the infamous hug?? McCain is pretty pro-gay as GOP guys on policy isn’t he??? Check out the four photos below in what my FIRST and only google image search turned of of McCain hug
As for transphobia (or: Everyone We Hate is Transgender), there are far too many references to “Mann Coulter” to waste my time listing them all; see for yourself.
Don’t even get me started on the “prison rape is funny” posts — or the “Gays will lose us the next election! / Gays lost us the election!” scapegoating that happens every two years, like clockwork.
* While Hillary Clinton is not a right-winger, she is loathed as much as Bush, Rove, and all the rest by a substantial portion of DU. Remember, the ploy is called Everyone We Hate is Gay.
The state legislature will likely take up a bill to repeal the 1913 law that prevents non-resident same-sex couples from marrying before the close of the legislative session at the end of this month.
Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston), the champion of the legislation in the Senate, said she expects the repeal bill to come up for a vote in the Senate on Tuesday. She declined to say what she expected the vote count to be, but said she was optimistic the repeal bill would pass. …
Gov Deval Patrick, who has long supported repealing the 1913 law, said he looks forward to signing the repeal bill should it reach his desk. …
…[T]the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1913 law in a 2006 decision in response to a court challenge from Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), but [State Rep. Robert Spellane (D-Worcester)] said the law has blatantly been used to discriminate against same-sex couples. …
The 1913 law prevents out-of-state couples from marrying in the Bay State if their marriage would be considered void in their state of residence. Legal experts differ on the original intent of the law, but many have argued that it was designed at least in part as a way to prevent interracial couples from coming to Massachusetts to evade anti-miscegenation laws in their home state. The state had not enforced the law in decades until shortly before same-sex couples began marrying in Massachusetts in 2004.
Then-Gov. Mitt Romney resurrected the law, using it to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples from out of state to prevent Massachusetts from becoming “the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.” … In response to GLAD’s suit challenging the law, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the 1913 law was constitutional, but said that states must expressly ban same-sex marriage in order for Massachusetts to deny residents of those states the right to marry. Currently couples from California, Rhode Island, and New Mexico may marry in Massachusetts. …
Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said the California decision helped bolster support for repeal within the legislature. “We’re thrilled that it’s looking very good right now, and we’ve talked to lots of legislators about it, and we’re finding a significant amount of support for the measure. I believe the support has been turbocharged since California won the right to same-sex marriage because by not being the only state in the nation, that made a difference,” said Isaacson. …
When you get hate mail this impudent (which is just-this-short of a physical threat), you know you’re hitting a raw, shredded, glistening-bloody nerve — which means you know you’re doing something right:
Name: Warren Bigley email address: warrenbigley@yahoo.com Message: Yeah it looks like you ran out of false stories to make up about conservatives 2 years ago huh? How would you like to debate? I can come to you or you can come to Ohio and we can have an oldfashioned liberal vs Conservtive debate.
But like every other liberal i am sure you are to cowardly to take me up on it.
Warre W Bigley Leader of the conservative cause
REMOTE_ADDR: 75.109.158.119 HTTP_USER_AGENT: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506) DATE: 20:21:32 2008-5-1
If I had any clue as to what you were talking about, “Warre,” I might address it, but since you make no reference to, well, anything, it stands to reason that you’ve been trolling the Internet looking for any good, strong, liberal Americans you haven’t yet smeared. And you found me. Awwwwwww!
Who are you anyway, little boy? Oh, wait, you’re the “Warren W. Bigley” who was put on disciplinary probation by West Virginia University “for issuing a press release as president of a student Republican group the school said was not properly registered,” aren’t you?
No wonder your panties are in a twist, “Warre” — you’re a Mitt Romney supporter, and you’ll never be able to get over the fact that nobody wanted your whacked-out, Dark Ages, gay-hating dog torturer to come within 100 miles of the White House.
“Leader of the conservative cause”? How ridiculous you are! If you only knew…! You’re the leader of nothing, “Warre.” You’re a snot-nosed little punk who thinks he can bully everyone else into silence.
Well, guess what, little boy? That may have worked on the playground, but it doesn’t work now. I’ve come up against far more fearsome bullies than you, “Warre,” for longer than you’ve been alive.
And why would I ever want to “debate” a liar who accuses me of making up “false stories”? I would never “debate” you, kiddo, as your style of “debate” would probably entail putting a bullet through my head the moment you realized your tough-guy, banty-cock posturing was crumbling like the Walls of Jericho against my reason and logic. Why would I want to go up against such a whack-job as yourself? You, Romney, the Taliban — you all scare me for the same reason. You sound like a crazed idealogue who is completely and utterly out of control.
By the way, that you were accepted into West Virginia University — or any institution of learning above the third grade — is utterly amazing. Does WVU have an affirmative action program for the terminally illiterate?
Helpful tips:
• Punctuation is your friend.
• In accordance with every manual of style in existence (in English, at least; is English your native language?), we spell out all numbers from one to ten.
• “Old-fashioned” / “old fashioned” is not one word.
• “Conservtive” is spelled “conservative.”
• The word “to” in this case (”i am sure you are to cowardly”) should be spelled “too.”
• The word “i” in the same sentence should be capitalized (”I”).
• Your name is spelled “Warren,” Warren, not “Warre”.
P.S. Your offer to come to California is declined, “Warre.” You are not welcome here. We are a peaceful people, and we don’t want raging, puffed-up, self-important little bigots here. Now, as nicely as I can put it: Get lost, loser, before I report you to your mommy, and she grounds you from using your My First Big-Boy Computer™ for a month.
P.P.S. I hope you enjoyed the attention you got from me, punk. I did it so that if some crackpot hunts me down and kills me, there will be a public record of your nut-ball email for the investigation.
In explaining its reasons (experience, we agree, is a major one) for endorsing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, GayWired Media takes a fresh approach:
As LGBT people fighting for the right to marry—the right to a legal recognition of partnership—no one knows better what Hillary Clinton has faced in her fight to be treated as her husband’s equal. With the exception of Eleanor Roosevelt, the First Lady’s position was always that of loyal “spouse” whose job it was to smile, nod and support her husband. Hillary Clinton was the first woman to step into the role of first lady ready to fight in a public forum… for better or worse, and as anyone who read headlines during her eight years in the White House knows, the press and the right-wing made her fight tooth and nail for the respect she earned.
Well done. And equally well done is this succinct summary of Barack Obama’s liabilities in the area of equality:
But whereas Clinton’s support of LGBT issues is consistent — in her autobiography Living History, she calls “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” a terrible “compromise” of her husband’s presidency — we get the sense much of Obama’s support is merely PR. The omission of the word gay from his South Carolina victory speech and refusal to remove openly homophobic gospel singer Donnie McClurkin from a performing engagement on his campaign trail further support those fears.
At first glance, none of the candidates for president on the Republican side express anything resembling a strong commitment to LGBT rights. In fact, many express the opposite. But one holds a strong commitment to state’s rights—a commitment that, thus far, has protected LGBT rights at the federal level while discouraging any amendment to the constitution that would prohibit same sex marriage. Coupled with his commitment to ending the war in Iraq and putting an immediate end to this costly and misleading charade, Ron Paul may look like the dark horse to lead America beginning in January, 2009, but he’s far better suited for the role than many of his fellow party members would have you believe.
And certain Southerners still scream, “States’ rights!” while defending slavery.
We will give GayWired credit for proving that gay folks are not just single-issue voters, as it takes Paul’s stance on the Iraq war into account:
Ron Paul is that rare politician who has gone out on a limb—the only Republican nominee to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution, he says the war in Iraq was sold to Americans with false information and if elected president, he would begin yanking troops out of the Middle East immediately—no disrespect to the issue of gay marriage, but as far as we’re concerned, ending the war is the most important issue at stake this election.
And we must admit GayWired’s reasoning also takes a fresh (well, novel) approach:
Though Paul isn’t known to be an avid supporter of gay rights, he opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, has said “don’t ask, don’t tell” fails because it doesn’t take into account heterosexual behavior that is disruptive to service and has said he has no interest in interfering with two individuals in a social, sexual or religious sense. That said, he was an outspoken critic of the Supreme Court’s decision on Lawrence v. Texas which deemed sodomy laws unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. Though he called the law ridiculous, his support of states rights, he argued, gives the State of Texas the right to regulate sex using local standards.
A consistency that, while bizarre, is almost refreshing. His view on the rights of the individual and of the state have defined his entire career. Better the devil you know or the devil who shape shifts depending on how he’s doing in the polls?
We still think GayWired is off the hook endorsing Paul — or any Republican; where is it written that a news outlet must endorse a candidate from each party? Well, maybe it is a requirement with for-profit companies — but still: If we were forced to endorse one of the remaining Republican candidates (that is, remaining as of GayWired’s press deadline), we would have picked Rudy Giuliani.
Make no mistake: We can’t stand Giuliani — but when the other choices are McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Paul, choosing Giuliani is like choosing to have one eye gouged out, as opposed to having all four limbs amputated.
Having already run over Mary once, Liz prepares to back up and do it again.
Well, we assume Liz Cheney, the not-lesbian daughter of The Big Dick and his wife who’s not a lesbian but appears obsessed with lesbian sex, hates the guts (or at least the oh so sinful lifestyle) of Mother Mary— er, her sister, Mary Cheney, the boyish, brainless lesbian turncoat we love to hate (because she got hers, so to hell with everybody else).
It’s bad enough that Neocon Liz was working for the presidential campaign of Fred Thompson, until the ugly, mediocre actor with the hearing problem (or maybe just the stupid problem) dropped out of the race, but now Liz is working for Mitt Romney as senior foreign policy adviser (so Mitt’ll have some good-sounding made-up reasons to bomb Syria and Iraq and anybody else he damn well pleases back to the Stone Age the very second he receives divine inspiration to visit blood atonement upon them non-believin’ heathens).
I tell you, if my sister decided to work on getting Rabidly Anti-Gay Magic Underwear Man — who believes that a dead parent is better than a gay parent (helllllo, Mary!) — into the White House, I’d disown her (after I tried to have her involuntarily committed).
[T]he endorsement is likely to be well received among conservatives who comprise a critical primary voting bloc in both Florida, which votes Tuesday, and the 22 states voting Feb. 5.
Romney has also enjoyed the support of aides with ties to the Bush family, including top assistants to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former President George H.W. Bush.
Liz Cheney, 41, is the elder of Dick and Lynne Cheney’s two daughters. Her younger sister, Mary, has been more prominently in the public eye after revealing she is a lesbian and having a son last year with her partner, Heather Poe, despite the administration’s opposition to gay marriage.
Liz Cheney, the mother of five children, said in a statement: “Throughout his campaign, (Romney) has distinguished himself as a leader who can guide our country with a clear vision for overcoming the threats we face today. … I look forward to working with Governor Romney because he is the leader our country needs.”
Now, we don’t really give a hoot what idiotic pursuits Liz Cheney chases, and quite frankly, we don’t have a whit of sympathy for that elitist little traitor Mary Cheney either.
We’re just struck by how not surprised we are that one Cheney would throw another Cheney even further under the bus. (And we will be even less surprised if Mary Cheney comes out to support her sister’s decision.)
As Republican family dynamics go, politics (which, for those people, translates directly into money and power) is always thicker than blood.
Nevertheless, we think Liz Cheney sucks. And not in a good way.
A few (quite a few) dumb-butts keep insisting that nobody other than “a few fringe gay activists” know, much less give a hoot, about Barack Obama’s continuing association with the anti-gay religionist brigades.
Well, listen up, dumb-butts: If you thought Obama’s hypocritical, two-faced, double-dealing, under-the-table, behind-the-scenes, low-down, dirty crap-o-rama was flying under the “mainstream” radar (how’s that for the most mixed metaphor in history?), here’s some news for you: You’re wrong. Again. And so’s your Saint Barry.
From CBS News, which found Carrie Budoff Brown’s piece from The Politico “valid” enough to pick up this morning:
Gay Community Still Wary Of Obama
. . .
“If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community,” Obama told 2,000 worshippers Sunday at Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, where King once preached. “We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.”
. . .
Yet … At the same time as Obama’s Sunday speech, gay bloggers were digging into the background of the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a spiritual adviser to President Bush who endorsed Obama a day earlier.
. . .
The twin developments appeared to encapsulate the tension inherent in Obama’s embrace of what he calls a new style of politics, his belief in forging alliances even with those who hold fundamentally different views.
In this case, he has spoken out against homophobia in front of black audiences while embracing some black religious leaders who are resistant to gay rights.
“People are confused,” said Wayne Besen, a gay activist and founder of Truth Wins Out, a New York organization aimed at countering the “ex-gay” movement. “We see one report of him saying powerful words. Then he is hanging out with some shady characters. People don’t know what to make of that.”
Wayne, darlin’, we love ya, we really do, but what “people” are you talking about when you say, “People are confused”? Obama cultists, perhaps, are confused, as they should be — but not one clear head that’s been following this stroke-Peter-while-screwing-Paul game Obama’s been playing has ever been “confused” in the least.
I’ve known “what to make” of Obama since the day he told us gay folks to STFU — no matter how long and loud and hard we protested, that self-loathing faux-”ex-gay” Donnie “Gays Are Trying to Kill Our Children” McClurkin was going onstage to woo the homophobes, no matter what (and woo he did).
By Monday, Caldwell’s church, Windsor Village United Methodist in Houston, scrubbed its Web site of any reference to the gay conversion program, Metanoia Ministry.
. . .
“I got to tell you, this is going to sound real stupid, but I didn’t know it was on our website,” Caldwell said. “I was surprised and embarrassed by it. I’m embarrassed from the standpoint that I should have known. We have 120 ministries at the church. You can’t be on top of everything.”
When asked if he opposed such programs, Caldwell said: “It’s not a ministry of the church. It is not supported financially by the church. It is not located at the church. That is pretty much where I am with it.”
. . .
But blogosphere skepticism has persisted, in part because of this connection: Barbara Hicks, a church staff member and treasurer of the church’s Prayer Institute, is listed as the contact for Metanoia Ministry. She uses a church phone number and email address.
“That is my ministry,” Hicks said Tuesday when reached at her church office.
She directed further questions to Caldwell, who said Hicks “does it on her own.”
How stupid do these people think we are? Caldwell and Hicks are playing the “Go ask your mother / Go ask your father” game. And it stinks — to high heaven. If either of them were so secure in the rightness of their “ministry,” neither would try passing the blame off on the other.
And neither would disgust me half so much if they would accept responsibility for their hateful, anti-gay brainwashing “ministry.” I’ve got more respect for Fred Phelps — at least that crazy old bastard stands by every vile word he’s ever spat out of his brittle old chapped lips, and doesn’t blame his sickening actions on anyone else.
I’ve said the same about Huckabee and Romney and all the rest of the screw-the-gays Republican candidates: At least they make no bones about where they stand — and about what they’d like to do to me.
Or, to quote Duane Wells yet again: “I never thought I’d say this, but Mr. Obama’s duplicitous stance on gay and lesbian rights circa the Donnie McClurkin controversy has given me something of an appreciation for George W. Bush’s no-nonsense approach to politics. I may not agree with a thing that comes out of curious George’s mouth, but at least he doesn’t piss in my cornflakes and tell me that he filled the bowl with whole milk. No sir. If there is a good thing to be said about President Bush it’s that he will tell you he’s going to piss in your cornflakes, then he will actually piss in your cornflakes and then he will hold a press conference defending his right to piss in your cornflakes. There’s no deception. It’s honest and clear… whether you like it or not. With Obama that is unfortunately not the case.”
“It matters who you are endorsed by because these are the people who are going to be calling in favors,” Besen said. “The gay and lesbian community has the right to be disturbed when such individuals are standing up beside Obama.”
Read those words again: “It matters who you are endorsed by because these are the people who are going to be calling in favors.”
Damn right.
You hear that, all you Obamaites who keep whining like a bunch of little girls: “Obama’s not responsible for the views of everyone who endorses him!” Take off your blinders: If you believe that a candidate’s backers don’t expect — or get — anything in return for corraling votes and money for that candidate, then you don’t know the first thing about politics. That’s the way it works: You wash my back, I’ll wash yours. Why the hell do you think the Bushites have been courting the Radical Religious Right all these years?*
If you don’t understand that, then you’re too naive — or just too stupid — to vote this time around. Learn something about the world, and maybe by 2012 you’ll be ready to come join the grown-ups back in Realityville.
* And why do you think the RRR came thisclose to abandoning the GOP altogether? Because the GOP didn’t deliver, that’s why.
Now, don’t you Obamaites use that as an excuse to sing that old song that goes: “Obama’s just courting conservative Democrats. When he gets in office, he’ll lead the fight for gay equality!” That’s a pile of crap, and you know it; it’s the same damned song we hear every election cycle. And consider this: If Obama is making promises — to any group, including the Radical Right — that he has no intention of keeping, what does that say about his honesty?
There’s little I can say that hasn’t already been said in the wake of Barack’s love-fest with Ronald Reagan, in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal (given in order to gain the paper’s endorsement) — except: If you don’t understand the outrage, you’re either too young to remember, or appreciate, the enormity of the damage Reagan and his nest of freedom-hating vipers inflicted on America — and don’t give a damn about learning your nation’s history — or you were a Reagan voter who’s still in denial.
For the rest of us still trying to heal from the Reagan Era, this is what the fuss is all about — or, more accurately, this is what Obama is all about:
Ronald Reagan More Effective Than Bill Clinton:
“I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Obama did not specify what he believes those “excesses” were. But Reagan is widely credited with leading a rightwing backlash against the gains of the civil rights and feminist movements that preceded his 1980 election.
Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement. The libertarian anti-government ideology of an unaccountable large liberal government was designed by ideological conservatives to take advantage of the backlash against these ‘excesses’.
What about the civil rights movement, which had a huge effect on the ’60s. Was that an excess? Were people who protested the Vietnam War, because they felt it was fundamentally wrong, much the same as many of us feel concerning Iraq, an excess? What about the strong feminism movement? Was that an excess? Or how about the new found concern of the environment? Was that an excess too?
His narrative completely excludes stagflation, high gas prices, and the hostage crisis in Iran. Think they might have been factors in the 1980 election?
He also fails to reconcile the fact that Reagan won just 50.7% of the vote in 1980 (his landslide was in 1984) with his theory that there was a unified national mood.
He also fails to explain why, if the nation was so unified, 1980 saw one of the strongest third-party campaigns in 20th century American history.
Moreover, Obama ignores the racism that was fundamental to Ronald Reagan’s campaign. Recall that Reagan began his campaign with a call for state’s rights in Philadelphia, MS.
He [Reagan] was openly — openly — intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment.
I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change.
Sen. John Edwards January 17, 2008
[Reagan] never did make a similar peace with the “welfare queens” he fabricated out of whole cloth to push his anti-compassionate conservatism. Nor with the African Americans he insulted by launching his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were slaughtered by the Ku Klux Klan in 1964. Nor with the Berkeley students demonstrating in a closed-off plaza whom he ordered tear-gassed by helicopter in 1969.
Nor, last but not least, with the tens of thousands of AIDS corpses whose disease he did not even deign to publicly acknowledge until 1987.
When I think about the 60s and the 70s, I think about Medicaid, Medicare, the Environmental Protection Agency, Community Development Block Grants… It’s astounding to me to have this blanket endorsement of a right wing attack.
When he says government in effect grew too much in the 60s and 70s… Reagan agreed with that. This is not simply a tribute to Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric but an endorsement of some of the substance.
Barney Frank (D-Mass.) Conference call January 18, 2008
Republicans: The Party of Ideas
“I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there… over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.”
So I suppose that means George Bush (past 7 years), had some good ideas? I suppose he thinks Bob Dole’s ideas were better than Clinton’s in ‘96? Does he think Gingrich had the right ideas in the ’90s?
The Republicans were the party of ideas for the last 10 to 15 years, because they were challenging conventional wisdom? OK, now I’m completely boggled. Is Obama talking about the same GOP I know — the Republican party of Tom DeLay and George Bush? The party in which candidates compete to see who can do the best Reagan impersonation? This is the party that’s challenging conventional wisdom? What’s going on here?
Paul Krugman Reagan and Obama The Conscience of a Liberal January 17, 2008
That’s not the way I remember the last 10 to 15 years.
I don’t think it’s a better idea to privatize Social Security. I don’t think it’s a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don’t think it’s a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to medicare recipients. I don’t think it’s a better idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt.
Sen. Hillary Clinton Conference call January 18, 2008
The Republicans have been the party of ideas for the past ten to fifteen years? Including the last seven years of Bill Clinton’s administration? Really, Mr. Obama?
So just what did William Jefferson Clinton do for blacks and Latinos?
Since the economy is the hot topic these days, let’s just look at what President Clinton did for minorities in terms of economic gains. …
Unemployment Rate for African Americans and Hispanics Remains Historically Low. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the Hispanic unemployment rate has dropped from 11.3 percent in January 1993 to a record low of 5.8 percent in March 1999. The unemployment rate for African Americans has fallen from 14.1 percent in January 1993 to 8.1 percent in March 1999 — one of the lowest levels on record for African Americans.
Here are additional economic accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore administration — as of 1999 (during the administration’s second term) — that also had a direct positive effect for minorities…
. . .
Listen, Mr. Obama. If you think that President Clinton and Vice President Gore accomplished those amazing turnarounds for the economy and for minorities by singing “Kumbayah” with Republicans, you’ve just shown how naive you are.
And you’ve exposed how uninformed you are about the brutal history of U.S. politics where every progressive step is spattered with the blood, sweat and tears of all who fought so hard for those gains.
How we yearn for those 1990s that you dismiss, Mr. Obama.
[The interview] also re-aroused my suspicions that Obama is not a real Democrat, given as he is to touting GOP talking points on Social Security and presenting far weaker economic stimulus and health care plans than his rivals. Are his real political views more like Reagan’s than the Democraty party’s? It’s quite possible.
Worst of all, it reminded me of Obama’s dreamy attitude about the presidency. He thinks he can just be the “vision” guy and get “smarter people” around himself, and that the governing will take care of itself.
Never mind that George W. Bush — taking off where Ronald Reagan began — has decimated all key federal agencies of their most experienced staffers and devastated the agencies’ budgets, so much so that some will have to be rebuilt from the ground up.
JedReport was unable to reach Newt Gingrich, the chief intellectual of the Republican Party for comment. JedReport was able to confirm that Albert Gore, has had an idea or two over the last fifteen years, however.
Not “Invested” in the 1960s, Yet Can Read Baby Boomers’ Minds (Oh, and By the Way, the Boomers Can Go to Hell)
“I didn’t I didn’t come of age in the battles of the 60s, so I’m not as invested in them. So I think I talk differently about issues and I think I talk differently about values, and that’s why… um, I-I think we’ve been resonating with the American people.
“I think… And, by the way, when I say this sometimes, it’s-it’s interpreted as ‘I don’t think anybody who’s a Baby Boomer should be president’ — that’s not what I’m saying, but what i’m saying is… I think the average Baby Boomer has moved beyond a lot of the arguments of the 60s but our politicans haven’t. We’re still having the same arguments, you know, it’s all around cultural wars and it’s all, you know, even when you discuss war, you know, the frame of reference is all Vietnam — well, that’s not my frame of reference, you know, my frame of reference is what works. And my— even when I first opposed the war in Iraq, my first line was: ‘I don’t oppose all wars.’ You know… it… it… specifically to make clear this is not just a… anti-military, you know, 70s love-in kind of approach.”
In one fell swoop, Obama disparages the success-filled, non-stop efforts of millions of people during the 1960s and 1970s…
News flash: Barack Obama isn’t invested in the 1960s. No kidding. He’s not invested in reality either.
. . .
The 1970s peace movement helped stop the Vietnam war. It’s what drew John Kerry to the Senate to give one of the most electrifying speeches from a military veteran in U.S. history.
. . .
The cult of personality of Reagan, now Obama, has another thing in common. The arrogance to seduce the masses into believing something that isn’t so. Obama is convinced that Reagan was transformational, but misses on what grounds that transformation occurred.
That Obama made his case by attacking the “anti-military” Democratic rabble who Reagan also blamed for bringing this country to its knees in the 70s, because of the peaceniks’ love-in kind of approach, which was the in thing after the carnage of the Vietnam war, without realizing what he’s doing proves Mr. Obama’s cluelessness.
Reagan was the antithesis of “an anti-military, you know, 70s love-in kind of approach.” Now we find out that Obama is too. Who’s going to tell John Kerry?
Good Grief! That’s Me on the Left January 18, 2008
Astounding isn’t it? Yep, let’s put the guy who brought us “Iran-Contra, “Star Wars,” and “the largest deficits then ever known” up on a pedastal and claim he transformed this nation with “clarity” and “optimism.”
“One of the things I’m very proud of about this campaign is that I think we’ve already changed the political dialogue. When you think about it, you know, when Mitt Romney starts talking like me — which wasn’t the case… You have somebody like Huckabee who is doing very well basically taking a similar tone… I think we are shifting the political paradigm here.”
He was talking about the very same Mitt Romney who has spent more money on attack ads than all the other presidential candidates combined. Just over two weeks ago, CNN reported:
Two negative ads recently launched by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has spent more on advertising than any other candidate, either misrepresent his rival’s records or include distortions, according to a CNN analysis of the commercials. (emphasis added)
This is the man who Barack Obama proudly cites as evidence he has brought about a shift in political paradigms?
. . .
Confused? So am I. I honestly have no idea what in the hell Obama is talking about.
It’s either another one of Obama’s completely meaningless bloviations or a political analysis conducted on a geometric plane I’ve never heard of before (perhaps for those times when triangulation just won’t do).
Mind you, I’m not saying that Obama didn’t put on a fine display of triangulation in the video. …
After Obama’s Reagan love-in, a quote I posted January 16 from Ed Pilkington is, if not prescient, far more pertinent than ever:
“Look further back still and the pattern is repeated. In 1990, while a second-year student at Harvard, [Obama] had the audacity to stand for election to head the Harvard Law Review, one of the country’s most prestigious legal publications. He beat off 18 other candidates to become its president (savor the moment: He was elected president Obama).
“David Goldberg, a civil rights lawyer who was a runner-up in that poll, recalls that Obama won by reaching out to right-wing law students, several of whom went on to become key legal advisers in the Bush administration: ‘We were a really polarized group of students, and he managed to span us all.’”
Notice a pattern yet?
Reagan — the Hollywood red-baiter who rose from president of the Screen Actors Guild to president of the United States even though he was already senile. Reagan who gave us tax cuts and “trickle down” economics that didn’t work — except for the rich and richer and richest. Reagan who let “mommy” (Nancy) run the white house with the aid of her astrologer. Reagan whose horse was smarter than he was.
Give me a break. One of the most disgusting sights in recent years was the genuflecting before this total fraud that went on at his funeral. And the hypocritical bullshit being trumpeted by the networks! Where were all the actors and writers and directors whose lives he ruined? I guess they were dead. But — what, me worry? — in America nobody knows one crumb of history, so Ronald Reagan’s vicious red baiting, how he rose to prominence by smearing other actors and writers and directors, was totally forgotten.
I suppose Mr. Obama has forgotten too — scholar of history that he is. Perhaps he was not alive in the 50s so he knows nothing about it — the Army-McCarthy hearings, the smearing of creative artists who donated to Spanish Civil War Relief even though they were not “card-carrying” communists. They happened, like my parents, and their friends, to have given money to help little Spanish children, orphaned by the Spanish Civil War — and ever after they trembled lest Ronnie Reagan and his ilk witch-hunt them.
Nowadays, as we grapple with the malevolence of President Bush, it’s Reagan we remember as the sensible one. At the risk of speaking ill of the dead, let memory at least acknowledge that there was much about Reagan that was not so sensible.
It’s not just more evidence that Obama was willing to say whatever it took to get the conservative editorial board to endorse him. It’s worse. It’s much worse.
It is further evidence that not only does Obama have no sense of the history of the last half of the 20th century — wait until you see the video below the fold — but also that he really is as conservative as his weak health care plan and far weaker economic stimulus plan have hinted. (Then there’s his use of GOP scare-tactic talking points on Social Security, and how he has been embraced by the right — including George Will who last year compared Obama to Ronald Reagan…
On the issue of Obama’s lack of “investment” in the struggles of the 1960s and 70s, and his obvious lack of personal experience of recent American history, here’s another quote from my post of January 16:
“Despite his skin color versus mine, I am not at all convinced that Barack Obama’s ties to the Civil Rights era equate with mine; when my snow-white third-grade class was being introduced to our first black classmate, Obama was living in Indonesia. We both attended Catholic school — but somehow, I cannot imagine that young Barack was inundated by the issue of American race relations (on the news, in the movies, on the cover of newsweeklies, and in lengthy class discussions — yes, even before my age reached double digits) as I was.
. . .
“I wasn’t quite four when the Watts riots exploded — and exploded with such repercussion that I remember them as well as I remember the endless news footage of the Vietnam War, and the nightly body count out of Southeast Asia.
Does Obama remember any of this? Did he even hear about it before he returned to the U.S. at the age of ten — when even the Summer of Love was a quickly-fading memory?”
Liberals always talk as if only the conservatives of our own generation were scary, and the conservatives of a previous generation kind of cuddly. Not helpful. Reagan really did almost blow the world up.
Look, I know this is weedy stuff and probably doesn’t matter to the average voter under the age of 45. But to long time liberals who lived through this period as an adult, it’s like waving a red flag in our faces. Reagan ran explicitly against the left (and in the process normalized the kind of indecent talk that made Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter millionaires.) Because he won big in 1984, leaders in both parties accepted this omnipotent Reagan myth and have run against liberalism ever since — and have ended up, through both commission and omission, advancing the destructive conservative policies that brought us to a place where we are debating things like torture. It would be helpful if ending the era of Democrats running against the liberal base could be part of this new progressive “trajectory.”
Some of us also remember the early devastating AIDS epidemic sweeping through the gay community without a word of support, comfort, or recognition from Ronald Reagan.
Some of us remember the lies about “Welfare Queens” he used to justify horrible callous, usually racist rhetoric about vulnerable fellow citizens.
Some of us remember illegal drugs sold on the streets of our cities to pay for illegal arms to the Contras and torturers and death-squads, while Nancy piously suggested we “Just Say No” as the racist War on Drugs ramped up here.
Some of us remember that an extreme minority of anti-democratic fundamentalist zealots started calling themselves “The Moral Majority” in the Reagan years.
Some of us remember Reagan telling us “government is the problem” and then seeing to it that whenever Republicans are in charge they would damn well prove it.
Some of us remember how Reagan sold the lie that giving to the rich and taking from the poor would create prosperity that would “trickle down” to the poor anyway.
Some of us remember Reagan tearing down Carter’s solar panels from the White House and his choice of James Watt as environment secretary.
Some of us remember “Ronbo” belligerently making war noises, throwing his weight around, and joking about nuclear strikes.
Some of us remember PATCO, and Reagan’s war on the unions that created a democratizing middle class (even if it never managed to extend to people of color as it so urgently needed to do).
Ronald Reagan was an evil bastard and he set the stage for the even worse Killer Clowns of the present Administration.
Feel good bullshit about the affable Gipper is dishonest and dangerous and damaging and we will not stand for it.
No, Ronald Reagan didn’t appeal to people’s optimism, he appealed to their petty, small minded bigotry and selfishness. Jimmy Carter told people to tighten their energy belts and act for the good of the country; Ronald Reagan told them they could guzzle gas with impunity and do whatever the hell they wanted. He kicked off his 1980 campaign talking about “state’s rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi — the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964’s Freedom Summer. He thus put up a welcome sign for “Reagan Democrats,” peeling off white voters who were unhappy with the multi-ethnic coalition within the Democratic Party.
One of his first acts was to fire 11,000 air traffic controllers in 1981 — one of the most devastating union busting moves of the past century. And his vision of deregulation didn’t free the country up for entrepreneurship, it opened it up for the wholesale thievery of the savings & loan crisis. He popularized the notion that all government is bad government and in eight short years put in place the architecture for decades of GOP graft and corruption.
There’s enough hagiography of Reagan on the right, I don’t think Democrats really need to go there.
…if you think, as Obama does, that Reagan’s rise to power was premised on a sunny optimism in contrast to an out of control government and a society rife with liberal excess, then you don’t understand the conservative movement. Reagan tapped into greed and fear and tribalism, and those are powerful forces. Ignoring that isn’t going to make them go away.
It’s not as if nobody saw this coming — the warnings were there, over and over and over again. Did anyone think the Donnie McClurkin flap was an isolated incident? The easy dismissal of the Baby Boomers? The attack on church-state separatists?
(What “attack on church-state separatists,” you ask? Better you should ask, “Which attack on church-state separatists?” But here’s just one example, from his keynote address at the Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for a New America conference: “At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word ‘Christian’ describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.” Nice job broadbrushing those of us who believe in Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” as a bunch of Christian-haters, Obama.)
Here are just a few — a very few — of the warning signs (note the dates):
Just before U.S. Sen. Barack Obama admitted on the TV television program “Meet the Press” last fall that he was thinking about a run for the presidency, host Tim Russert asked him to define a great president.
. . .
Then, waxing more philosophical, Obama addressed the broader, cultural significance. “When I think about great presidents,” he said, “I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways so that, at the end of their tenure, we have looked and said to ourselves, that’s who we are. And … you know, there are circumstances in which I would argue Ronald Reagan was a very successful president.”
. . .
In terms of political philosophy, professional background and racial heritage, Obama and Reagan are distinctly different, one a figure of the new century and the other a representative of the previous one.
Look more closely, however, and you see a number of striking parallels between the young senator contemplating a White House campaign and the late, Illinois-born two-term president. …
. . .
Are such parallels predictive? Of course not. The disparity between Reagan and Obama in governmental experience is profound. Eight years as governor of the country’s most populous state is executive training that eight years in the Illinois state Senate and less than a full term in the U.S. Senate could never offer. And other differences abound.
But the intriguing similarities reveal two political figures possessing common traits, including vivid personalities with rare skill in connecting with the public. Both, in their ways, speak American, the distinctive dialect of the nation’s ideals and yearnings. Reassuring smiles and welcome wit of self-deprecating humor notwithstanding, electoral ambition is an animating drive for each.
In Reagan’s case, it took three campaigns spanning 12 years to reach the White House. Will Obama’s future follow such a course? His much-anticipated decision about 2008 will start to answer that question.
I recommend that every Dem read Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope” and read it with a critical eye.
I didn’t know much about Obama so I bought the book. It was an eye-opener.
He is laudatory of Ronald Reagan for his involvement in ending the Cold War. He makes no mention of the bloated military budget taking down the Soviet Union.
He says “Bush won two elections”. There is no mention of election fraud in either Florida or Ohio. He tells stories about first meeting Bush; he definitely was taken in by Bush’s “folksy” charm.
He refers to the “bankruptcy of socialism”.
He claims the press is only “distracted” not bought.
His discussion of 9/11 says nothing about questions disputing the “official” story of how it happened.
I found enough in it to give me pause about Obama, especially since he’s running a campaign on personality as opposed to policy.
That Reagan’s message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government, during a period of economic stagnation, to give middle-class voters any sense that it was fighting for them. For the fact was government at every level had become to cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities. Reagan may have exagerrated the sins of the welfare state, and certainly liberals were right to complain that his domestic policies tilted heavily toward elites, with corporate raiders making tidy profits throughout the eighties while unions were busted and the income for the average working stiff flatlined.
Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster.
pp. 156-157:
The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie — contained a good deal of truth.
As SusanUnPC wrote two days ago: “If that not-a-real-Democrat gets nominated, I’ll be watching ‘Mourning in America.’
“And so will all those young people so smitten with Barack Obama now.”
Here’s a nice, long thread at Democratic Underground that spells out many (’though hardly all) the reasons Ronald Reagan was the devil incarnate. Read it and weep, Obamaites — for that two-faced Janus you call a candidate, for your own naïveté, and most of all for the country you’re so willing to give up to the dogs — again:
…from a Reagan defender who admits he’s “too young to remember most of Reagan’s years, but… The research I’ve done indicates that he did not start any significant wars during the 80’s. He was very poised and did not act based on knee-jerk reactions.”
(The poster, thank goodness, has since been banned from DU.)
Are there any Obama cultists who don’t get it yet? Well, get this: You’re getting PLAYED, suckers.
We were wondering when we’d see the phrase “Great White Hope” headline an op/ed about Barack Obama (The Great White Hope was a play-turned-1970-film fictionalizing the life of black boxer Jack Johnson), and this past Sunday, we found it in the Washington Post: “Why Obamamania? Because He Runs as The Great White Hope.”
David Greenberg recaps the “giddiness bordering on exhilaration among voters” following Obama’s win in Iowa, and utter intoxication among “voters and pundits … heady with the hope that he can deliver not just ‘change’ … but a categorically different kind of change from Clinton or the Republican candidates.”
For a moment, our hearts skipped at the possibility that Mr. Greenberg was about to explain the words “hope” and “change” — words rendered completely indefinable by Obama and his supporters. “Hope for what?” we keep asking. “Change what, exactly?”
Mr. Greenberg is to be forgiven for being as unable to define these words in the context of Obamamania; neither Obama nor his starry-eyed supporters have been able to define them either. Confront an Obama supporter, and you’ll likely hear (as we have, repeatedly) some inane, automated response as “You just don’t get it,” or “It’s a shame you don’t have hope,” or “Don’t you want change?” or (the most chilling we’ve heard lately) “There’s still time for you to catch up with the masses.” (Masses of what? And who wants to “catch up with ‘the masses’”? Whatever happened to thinking for yourself?)
This, however, is our current favorite: “Obama is the only way we’re going to throw those Bush thugs out of the White House!” Never mind that come January 20, 2009, Bush and Co. will be vacating the premises, no matter who wins the presidency in ‘08. But that’s the sort of answer you get when you press Obamaites too hard for a definition of “change.”
Still, Greenberg doesn’t need to define the words “hope” and “change”; he explains Obamamania by defining what they aren’t, beginning with the question, “So what explains the magic?”
The most obvious explanation is Obama’s stirring oratory, with its notes of generational change and unity.
Well, we already knew that: Obama’s charisma is undeniable, and he’s comparatively young (just six weeks older than yours truly, in fact); he represents the first post-Baby Boomer generation, the Baby Busters (perpetually confused with GenXers) — who, believe you me, have precious little in common with the “Howdy Doody” generation with which we’re so often lumped. Seriously: While a “generation” lasts 20 years, a “baby boom” just doesn’t — and yet every American born between 1945 and 1964 is thrown into the Baby Boomer pot. A “baby boom” is supposed to be the result of an event immediately preceding a spike in births; does anyone really believe that folks were still making babies in 1964 as a result of World War II?
But I digress, as usual. Still, Obama’s age, and, more striking, his tenuous ties to the rest of us Busters, are important considerations I’ll address in a moment. Right now, let’s get back to Greenberg’s herculean attempt to explain the Obama phenomenon (and note how Greenberg uses the word “seduction,” perhaps the most common word associated with the mystery of Obamamania):
The key to his seduction, though, resides not just in what he says but in what remains unsaid. It lies in the tacit offer — a promise about overcoming America’s shameful racial history — that his particular candidacy offers to his enthusiasts, and to us all.
Obama’s allure differs from the infatuations of past election cycles because it can’t be traced to what he has done or will do. In his legislative career, Obama has produced few concrete policy changes, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a rank-and-file fan who can cite one.
And there you have both the reason for Obama’s popularity, and the very thing that frustrates those of us not infected by the Obama bug to the point of distraction: His appeal lies in nothing he’s ever actually done, but in vague, feel-good… er, vibes. (Well, there’s one thing Obama may share with the rest of the Busters: I, too, once grooved on indefinable “good vibes.” Of course, it was the early 1970s, and I was about ten at the time.)
Not since 1896 — when another rousing speechmaker, William Jennings Bryan, sought the White House — has the zeal for a candidate corresponded so little to a record of hard accomplishment. But merely asking if Obama has done enough for us to expect he’d be a good president misses the point, because that measures the past rather than imagining the future.
Greenberg certainly has his finger on the pulse of the Obamanation: Asking about hard accomplishment misses the point — the point being: You’re killing my buzz, man — stop asking logical questions, and just get with the groove, baby.
Since when was it such a radical idea to demand that a potential President of the United States have a little more to fall back on than good vibes?
But that is another no-no question to the Obamaites: You’re not allowed to cite Obama’s distinct lack of experience in matters beyond the borders of the state of Illinois.
“Oh, sure,” the Obamaites cry, “Hillary has ‘experience’ — but do you want the same old corporatism that’s dominated the White House since the 1980s?”
(This is usually followed by “You’re just a Hillary supporter anyway!” Which is far from the truth — although the hostile fervor of the Obamaites has served to push many of us previously-anti-Hillaryites squarely into the Hillary camp — but that’s another thorn we’ve snipped before, and will no doubt snip again.)
Frankly, “the same old corporatism” under Bill Clinton worked just fine for me, thanks very much; despite Big Dog’s spectacular (and unforeseen) failures and downright betrayals in the area of gay equality, those eight years between 1992 and 2000 were the best eight years of my life, in terms of quality of life. Is it selfish to long for the days when I was making a very healthy paycheck in a field (I.T.) that has since dried up like Kakadu in July? Perhaps. But never lose sight of the fact that principles must come second to the little luxuries of life — like eating, and living indoors. The most principled civil-rights activist in the world isn’t much use to anybody if s/he’s on the street and starving to death.
Yet if Obama charms us by pointing to tomorrow, he doesn’t come bearing a new ideological vision.
True. And that throngs of voters are willing to cast their lot for a candidate whose ideology changes with every shift in the wind should make us all very nervous. One thing I’ve said repeatedly throughout this long, long campaign, in regard to Obama’s calculated machination of pitting Southern religionists against gay and lesbian Americans: You have to give the Republican candidates some credit for honesty; at least I knowRomney and Huckabee and all the rest loathe my very existence as a gay American, and will fight me head-on. In contrast, Obama’s talk doesn’t match his walk.
Don’t sing me that old song, “Obama is the best candidate for gay rights — just look at his voting record!” (This means you, Chris Crain, who, not-so-incidentally, keep harping on that stale old right-wing rumor that Hillary is a lesbian.) There’s little difference between Obama’s voting record on LGBT-equality issues and that of any other mainstream Democrat with at least two ounces of brain matter left in his or her skull.
Where Obama steps out of line — way out of line — is in his deceitful and downright mean campaign tactics, his shameless pandering to shameless bigots (particularly those who should know better), and his unwavering insistence that lesbians and gay men are simply not worthy of the same rights (or, more accurately, privileges) that he enjoys. See: McClurkin, McClurkin, McClurkin, and Barack’s latest hit with a bullet: “We Are All Sinners (a.k.a. The Wink-Wink-Nudge, Bush-Style Code Words for Religionists Song).”
Yet, believe it or not, I still don’t think Obama at his core is a raging homophobe. I believe he is completely indifferent to gay and lesbian Americans, and we pop up on his radar only as a commodity — or liability.
Obama is simply an opportunist — which again, is more worrisome: I know where all the Republican candidates stand on the issue of my rights; they make no bones about it. As Duane Wells wrote so very plainly and perfectly: “I never thought I’d say this, but Mr. Obama’s duplicitous stance on gay and lesbian rights circa the Donnie McClurkin controversy has given me something of an appreciation for George W. Bush’s no-nonsense approach to politics. I may not agree with a thing that comes out of curious George’s mouth, but at least he doesn’t piss in my cornflakes and tell me that he filled the bowl with whole milk. No sir. If there is a good thing to be said about President Bush it’s that he will tell you he’s going to piss in your cornflakes, then he will actually piss in your cornflakes and then he will hold a press conference defending his right to piss in your cornflakes. There’s no deception. It’s honest and clear… whether you like it or not. With Obama that is unfortunately not the case.”
And consider this: If Obama so readily and freely throws gay Americans under the bus for sake of cozying up to a contingent (whose votes he was almost certainly assured of anyway), who’s he going to throw under the bus next? He’s already told the Baby Boomers that they’re for all practical purposes irrelevant — will your particular demographic be the next rendered “irrelevant,” a mere monkey wrench in the Obama machine?
It appears that Obama’s only “ideology” is one of winning, at any cost. He doesn’t actually stand for anything, other than some fuzzy concept of “hope and change.”
And, to paraphrase Alexander Hamilton: If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything. And Obama has proved, time and time again, that he’s susceptible to following, blindly, a lot of bad advice. That’s assuming, generously, that Obama is not the instigator behind the cruelest of his own campaign calculations; on the other hand, it’s Obama’s campaign, and Obama should be the one calling the shots.
Quite a dilemma, this: Should we be more worried by a candidate who surrounds himself with the most un-principled advisers and does whatever they tell him to do (a grim portent of the way President Obama will pick and choose his cabinet), or by a candidate who is himself so ruthlessly ambitious that he will discard the most faithful voting blocs in his own party in order to “reach out” to groups whose “principles” run counter to very idea of democracy itself?
“At crucial moments through his career,” writes Ed Pilkington, “he had what he calls the ‘audacity of hope’: where others might have stepped back, he reached out, both in terms of his personal ambition and in terms of his appeal to supporters outside the natural Democratic tent.
“When he made the Boston speech he was not even yet in Congress: He was a Chicago lawyer running at the time for one of two Illinois seats in the US Senate. That race was in itself a long shot: a black man, as he says in his first book Dreams from My Father, ‘without organizational backing or personal wealth, and with a funny name,’ competing to become only the third African American since the post-civil war period of Reconstruction to serve in the Senate. He won, galvanizing support in white areas as well as black.
“Look further back still and the pattern is repeated. In 1990, while a second-year student at Harvard, he had the audacity to stand for election to head the Harvard Law Review, one of the country’s most prestigious legal publications. He beat off 18 other candidates to become its president (savor the moment: He was elected president Obama).
“David Goldberg, a civil rights lawyer who was a runner-up in that poll, recalls that Obama won by reaching out to right-wing law students, several of whom went on to become key legal advisers in the Bush administration: ‘We were a really polarized group of students, and he managed to span us all.’”
Notice a pattern yet?
In his WaPo op/ed, Greenberg draws a parallel between Ronald Reagan’s empty, feel-good rhetoric, and Bill Clinton’s 1992 win due to being “the first Democrat since the 1960s to formulate a viable and vital new liberalism — one rooted in years of policy wonkery, a frank reckoning with his party’s failures and an early recognition of the importance of globalization.” But…
…where Clinton converted voters to his philosophy with binder-thick proposals, from AmeriCorps to welfare reform to the earned-income tax credit, Obama fans rarely tout his specific ideas. No one claims his agenda entails radical innovation or differs much from Hillary Clinton’s. On the contrary, Obama’s ideology, insofar as he has articulated it, seems to be a familiar, mainstream liberalism, heavy on communitarianism. High-minded and process-oriented, in the Mugwump tradition that runs from Adlai Stevenson to Bill Bradley, it is pitched less to the Democratic Party’s working-class base than to upscale professionals.
The Obama phenomenon, then, stems not from what he has done but who he is. As the social critic John McWhorter has written, “What gives people a jolt in their gut about the idea of President Obama is the idea that it would be a ringing symbol that racism no longer rules our land.” He is the great white hope.
Greenberg delves more deeply into the race issue, then hits upon an idea that — commensurate with my encounters with the frenzied throngs — is a very uncomfortable idea to Obama supporters:
Obama’s rhetorical gifts clearly contribute to his allure. But that allure resides not simply in the mellow timbre of his larynx but, more deeply, in his near-perfect pitch in talking about race to white America. Obama doesn’t shun race altogether — if he did, he would provoke suspicions — and he certainly doesn’t “transcend” race, whatever that means. But neither, as the social theorist Shelby Steele has written, does he rub white America’s face in its corrupt history of slavery and segregation. Traditionally, whites have appreciated such gentleness.
History provides a precedent of sorts: In 1960, John F. Kennedy, a dashing, almost aristocratic figure who defied many nasty stereotypes of Irish Catholics, made Protestants feel not just safe in voting for him but downright virtuous. They could flatter themselves that they were not prejudiced while still choosing a candidate as cultivated as any Brahmin. Similarly, Obama — whose strongest appeal has thus far been to upscale white liberals — allows those whites to feel good about themselves and their country. He lets them imagine that a nation founded for freedom yet built on slavery can be redeemed by pulling a lever.
At the same time, Obama doesn’t threaten or discomfort whites. He doesn’t strike them as wronged or impatient, or as the spokesman of a long-subjugated minority group or even as someone particularly culturally different from themselves.
Ouch. In other words, white liberals may be leaping at the chance to finally alleviate all that deeply-ingrained white-liberal guilt without actually addressing the issue of race head-on.
This idea, whether correct or not, is one few Obamaites confront easily or willingly. Rather, many immediately discard it with the accusation that it somehow impugns Obama’s qualifications for the presidency (whatever those as-yet-unexplained “qualifications” may be). It doesn’t — nor it is a “racist” thought (the growing chorus of “Racism!” from the Obamaites every time The One’s suitability for the presidency is questioned, for any reason, is deafening). Rather, it is an idea worth consideration and discussion; if nothing else, the truth could provide some clues about the makeup of Obama’s base: What percentage of Obama supporters really are white liberals proud to say they support a man of color — and secretly relieved to support that man as an imaginary panacea for race conflict in this country?
Obama above all should be most interested in the answer to this question, if for no other reason than to attempt to dilute the potential “Bradley effect” (when white voters publicly espouse their support for a non-white candidate, but vote for the white candidate when alone in the voting booth), a phenomenon that appears to have some Obama supporters worried. Witness Obama’s projected win — and surprise loss to Hillary Clinton — in New Hampshire.
Greenberg addresses yet another issue Obama supporters are loath to confront:
As much Kansan as Kenyan, Obama does not descend from families who suffered American slavery or Jim Crow. His family tree has fewer slaves than slaveholders, fewer chains than Cheneys.
That’s what I meant by Obama’s “tenuous ties to the rest of us Busters.” As mentioned, Obama and I are the same age; neither of us can recall the Civil Rights era as clearly as our elders (Obama and I were both two-going-on-three in 1964), yet I, at least, remember dim news images of firehoses in the streets of Birmingham, and attack dogs unleashed — and, much more clearly, my first, timid step approaching a black child at a playground. While I didn’t understand what it was I understood, I understood there was a difference between us, and that there were some very bad people in this world who would be very angry about my playing with a black child (or, as we were taught was the proper word at the time, a Negro).
Despite his skin color versus mine, I am not at all convinced that Barack Obama’s ties to the Civil Rights era equate with mine; when my snow-white third-grade class was being introduced to our first black classmate, Obama was living in Indonesia. We both attended Catholic school — but somehow, I cannot imagine that young Barack was inundated by the issue of American race relations (on the news, in the movies, on the cover of newsweeklies, and in lengthy class discussions — yes, even before my age reached double digits) as I was.
The issue was all around me; no one my age was allowed to forget the vast divide between whites and blacks in the United States. Was Obama, insulated literally on the other side of the planet, as aware at the same tender age of the volatile schism between black and white “back home”?
I wasn’t quite four when the Watts riots exploded — and exploded with such repercussion that I remember them as well as I remember the endless news footage of the Vietnam War, and the nightly body count out of Southeast Asia.
Does Obama remember any of this? Did he even hear about it before he returned to the U.S. at the age of ten — when even the Summer of Love was a quickly-fading memory?
Greenberg continues:
This background may be what some people (mainly blacks) have meant when they asked the regrettable question of whether Obama is “black enough” to earn their votes. But Obama has always been black enough for his elite white enthusiasts, who would never presume to judge an African American’s racial authenticity — indeed, are all too happy to have such a question be kept, by prevailing norms, off limits to them.
Ouch, again.
Some pundits scratched their heads when Obama was trailing Clinton among black voters. (He’s now pulled even or ahead.) But it made perfect sense. Clinton had a track record of working for African Americans’ interests.
And yet it’s Clinton’s track record Obama supporters decry as the same old, same old — as opposed to, I guess, this hazy promise of “change” from Obama. No one put it better than Senator Clinton herself at the New Hampshire debate: “Making change is not about what you believe. It’s not about a speech you make. It is about working hard. …
“I want to make change, but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change. I’m not just running on a promise of change. I’m running on 35 years of change. I’m running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies.
“So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don’t need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I’ve already made.”
Clinton is a known quantity. We know what she’s accomplished, and she’s clear on what she intends to deliver. Obama is not.
…is a fantasy of easy redemption. America’s racial history — mixed into our culture at its foundation — will be with us always, even as personal prejudice recedes and inequality is chipped away. For all we know, a President Obama might make the so-called underclass his top priority. But Obamamania — the phenomenon, not the man — leads us to believe that if only we vote for an African American, an avatar of “change” and healing, we can slough off the burdens of our past — the burdens of finding answers to problems such as the rising number of out-of-wedlock births, the obscene size of the black male population behind bars, the rotten state of city schools, the simmering white resentment about affirmative action, the black-white gap in life expectancy and the cascade of government failures that turned Hurricane Katrina from a breakdown of emergency relief into a disgraceful racial scandal.
Obama’s boosters are not fired up about finally confronting those intricate and intractable problems, for which the answers lie not in identity but in politics and policy. Inspiring and exhilarating as it is, Obamamania allows us to sidestep the hardest challenges, at least for now.
That is what worries me the most: that Obama will be swept into the White House on a wave of “easy redemption” that “allows us to sidestep the hardest challenges, at least for now.”
I’m no fool: Any change would be welcome after seven years of allowing ourselves to be cowed into submission by a rogue administration with an out-of-control tinpot dictator in charge.
But do we want to “sidestep the hardest challenges,” now or in the future? Haven’t we buried our heads in the sand long enough?
Gay City News reports on the overtly hostile Republican reaction to gay and lesbian voters in New Hampshire, the “quieter” Democratic outreach to LGBTs — and the Obama camp’s conspicuous silence on the entire matter:
The appearance of ACT UP members and other universal health care advocates at a John McCain rally in Salem, New Hampshire this past weekend — which by its conclusion had some Republican attendees ripping the signs from the hands of protesters and forcing them from the hall — was the exception rather than the norm at candidate gatherings across the state.
There was, in fact, little LGBT visibility at town hall meetings across New Hampshire, despite the fact that the advent of civil unions in the state on January 1 was among the biggest of recent local political stories.
Outreach to lesbian and gay voters and political efforts by them seemed to be taking place in quieter, more intimate settings. …
Members of the local LGBT community turned out, as did two New England gay political stars — Barney Frank, the Massachusetts congressman, and David Pierce, a state representative from Etna in northern New Hampshire, near Hanover.
Frank, as is his custom, emphasized that the fortunes of the LGBT community and of the Democratic Party are inextricably linked, dismissing Republican Mitt Romney as “synthetic” but warning that John McCain poses the greatest threat.
“We have an important role to play in this election,” he told the crowd. “We in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community need to work on changing the atmosphere of hate and fear that is sweeping this country. We need to improve the lives of all GLBT people and by working to elect Hillary Clinton for president, we can do it.”
He acknowledged, as well, the role that his sister, Ann Lewis, plays as a chief honcho in the Clinton political operation.
The leading Democratic candidates had small groups of staffers handling LGBT requests about their campaigns and calling on local gay businesses, such as bars and restaurants, and other organizations to drum up support. Candidate flyers, bumper stickers, buttons, and brochures were piled high in several such establishments.
Curiously, though, calls and visits to the official Obama for President headquarters in Manchester to get an official statement or to interview staff or volunteers proved unsuccessful. No one associated with the campaign wanted to go on the record, or even comment on background, about the Illinois senator’s posture on LGBT issues.
Despite a giddy mood that swept that campaign as it anticipated a second-straight win, which in the end did not materialize, it is not clear that LGBT enthusiasm for Obama’s candidacy grew measurably in New Hampshire after his dramatic win last week in Iowa. Voters who spoke to this reporter welcomed his voice in the race, but seemed uncertain how supportive of the community he would prove to be.
Clinton appeared all around to be a better-known quantity. …
“No one associated with the campaign wanted to go on the record, or even comment on background, about the Illinois senator’s posture on LGBT issues.” Well, we’ll be more than happy to comment on the Illinois senator’s posture on LGBT issues. Oops, wait — we’ve already commented on the Illinois senator’s posture on LGBT issues, repeatedly. His posture, in a single word, is: duplicitous.
Is it any wonder that LGBT Americans — particularly those previously lukewarm or even downright antagonistic toward the senator from New York — appear to be rallying around Hillary Clinton in increasing numbers? It’s no wonder to us; Kucinich, the most egalitarian of the bunch, doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell, while the other three relatively gay-friendly candidates (Richardson, Gravel, and Dodd) have dropped out of the race.
Funny thing, this growing gay support for Hillary: The Obama supporters have continually accused those of us burned and genuinely disheartened by the Donnie McClurkin affair as exhibiting “faux outrage” to mask the “fact” that we’re all Hillary supporters anyway. And now, thanks to Obama’s continued insistence on not making amends with the LGBT voting bloc — and the continued insistence of many of Obama’s supporters to dismiss our very real concerns as “faux” anything — has pushed untold numbers of LGBT voters squarely into the Clinton camp.
This, I know. A diehard Kucinich supporter — up to the day he threw his support behind Obama — I once said I’d rather jam sharp sticks through my skull than cast a vote for Hillary. As things stand today, I plan on voting for Hillary in the California primary. As my (much) better half often says, it’s not a vote for Hillary — it’s a vote against Obama.
For my radical change of mind, Obama and his supporters have no one to blame but themselves.
Apparently, smooth-talking Mitt Romney is so desperate to win over the extreme right wing of the Republican Party that he is willing to turn a blind eye to the racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, and anti-gay policies of Bob Jones University and its leadership. Romney was in Columbus, Ohio yesterday bragging about this week’s endorsements from Bob Jones University Dean Robert Taylor and chancellor Bob Jones III, calling their support “a positive step.” [Columbus Dispatch, 10/18/07] Earlier this week, Romney’s campaign manager in South Carolina said the campaign was “proud to have the support of Dr. Jones.” [Greenville News, 10/16/07]
Embracing Bob Jones University and Bob Jones III is hardly something to be proud of. Not only did Bob Jones University lose its tax-exempt status because of its discriminatory policies, but Bob Jones III himself has a history of disturbing statements. In a “President’s Corner” column posted on the school’s website, Jones III called Catholicism and Mormonism “cults which call themselves Christian.” After the school removed the post, Jones III reportedly ordered it reposted in order to avoid giving anyone the impression that he had changed his views. [Associated Press, 3/16/00] Bob Jones University refused to admit African-American students, banned interracial dating until 2000, refused to honor Martin Luther King, published fifth grade textbooks that called Catholicism a “false religion,” and banned gay alumni from campus–particularly noteworthy considering Romney’s statement just last week that he opposed discrimination against gay people. In Columbus, Romney sidestepped questions about whether he agrees with those policies and rhetoric, saying the questions were “not really relevant today.” [Columbus Dispatch, 10/18/07]
“If smooth-talking Mitt Romney is so proud to be endorsed by Bob Jones and the school’s leadership, he should be able to tell the American people whether he supports their despicable rhetoric and policies and whether he would allow the school to receive federal funds,” said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. “He may be desperate to win over extremists in the right wing of his Party, but his failure to be straightforward about which racist, discriminatory and anti-gay policies and statements he is proud to be associated with speaks volumes about his campaign.”
Mitt Romney Proud of Bob Jones Endorsements…
Romney: Bob Jones Endorsements “A Positive Step.” Romney, making his first public appearance of the campaign in Columbus, told reporters that Jones’ backing was “a positive step” in his effort to reach out to evangelicals who disagree with Mormon doctrine, although he conceded that he didn’t know whether it’s “100 percent resolved yet” that evangelical voters would support a Mormon for president. [Columbus Dispatch, 10/18/07]
Romney South Carolina Campaign Manager “Proud” of Jones’ Support. Terry Sullivan, Romney’s South Carolina campaign manager, said he doesn’t think Jones’ endorsement will turn off voters who may be wary of Jones’ religious views. “We’re proud to have the support of Dr. Jones and look forward to his help in delivering Gov. Romney’s conservative message to the voters,” he said. [Greenville News, 10/16/07]
What Exactly is He Proud Of?
Bob Jones III’S Anti-Catholic, Anti-Mormon Rhetoric
Bob Jones III Protested Catholicism, Other Religions. In 1994, Jones III protested an agreement between evangelicals and Catholics in the south, saying that “The Christian Church has as much reason to separate from Catholicism as it does from Islam, Mormonism, or any other of the world’s religious deceptions.” The university’s website referred to Catholicism as “a cult which calls itself Christian.” Former university president and founder Bob Jones Jr. called the Pope the antichrist and referred the University’s collection of Catholic art as false, saying that “There is not a lot of good Protestant Christian painting. I had to buy Catholic pictures, despite the falsehoods in them.” [Associated Press, 4/8/94, 9/11/87; Christian Century, 5/5/93; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 6/30/91; Arizona Star, 3/7/00]
Jones III Reposts Anti-Catholic, Anti-Mormon Column on School Website. After it was reported that the message referring to Catholicism and Mormonism as cults in the “President’s Corner” of the Bob Jones University website was removed, school President Bob Jones III reposted the attacked. Jones III reposted the comments to show that nothing had changed about his views, he said. Reports about the removal were “totally misleading” Jones III said, because they implied the removal was “for suspect reasons or because of embarrassment or cowardice.” “In order to leave no doubt in anyone’s mind of the university’s integrity and absolute commitment to its biblical principles, the article in question has been reposted,” Jones III said. [Associated Press, 3/16/00]
Website Statement: The statement which Jones III removed and then reposted stated the following: “The diminution of evangelistic enterprise to cults which call themselves Christian, including Catholicism and Mormonism, is frightening.” [Associated Press, 3/16/00]
Bob Jones Textbooks Condemn Catholicism. Bob Jones University’s textbooks speak out against Catholicism. One book states that “Luther and other Protestant reformers exposed the false doctrines of Roman Catholicism that had clouded God’s truth for centuries.” A fifth-grade social studies book produced by the school said that Roman Catholics practice a “false religion” [San Francisco Chronicle, 12/17/96; Virginian Pilot and Ledger Star, 3/19/93]
Bob Jones University’s Racist History
Bob Jones University Lost Tax-Exempt Status Because of Racial Discrimination. Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status in 1970 for refusing to admit African-Americans. The school then changed its policy but still prohibited any interracial dating or marriage. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court supported an IRS decision to remove tax-exempt status from the school for its dating policy, which included rules such as “students who date outside their own race will be expelled.” [The Tax Lawyer, Winter 1984; World News Digest, 5/27/83]
University Still Banned Interracial Dating in 1998. In 1998, James Landrith, who is white, tried to apply to the school even though he is married to an African American woman. According to NPR, Landrith received this response to his application: “I noticed on your application that you are interracially married. Bob Jones University does not endorse this. It would be no problem for you to be a student here as long as your wife was not or vice versa.” [NPR, 4/15/99]
Bob Jones University Dropped Ban on Interracial Dating in 2000. On “Larry King Live” in March 2000, Bob Jones III said that the university had dropped the ban on interracial dating as of March 3, 2000. Jones said the national scrutiny the school has received since Bush’s appearance led to the decision to drop the policy. Jones III also said that the foundation for the ban was still true — “that God made the races separate for his own purpose, and it is wrong to break down the barriers God erected, that it could lead to dangerous ‘one-worldism,’ just like globalism …” according to the Globe and Mail, but that students and alumni were coming under too much criticism for the policy. The ban was put in place in the 1950s, when an Asian family threatened to sue the school after their son, a student there, almost married a white student. [Larry King Live, 3/3/00; Associated Press, 3/5/00; Globe and Mail, 3/9/00]
Interracial Dating Still Requires Parental Permission. Three days after announcing that the ban on interracial dating was dropped from school policy, BJU President Bob Jones III announced that students must tell their parents if they become involved in an interracial relationship. “We will carry out the will of your parents,” Jones III said at the school’s chapel service. “They will need to have a say in this.” The new policy says that parents must send a letter to the dean of men or women approving the relationship before the school will allow it. Jones also said that most people disapprove of interracial dating and marriage. “I think that’s evidenced by the fact that so few people are interracially married,” Jones said to students. “When you date interracially or marry interracially, it cuts you off from people. [Associated Press, 3/7/00]
Bob Jones University Refused to Honor Martin Luther King, Jr. According to a former student of Bob Jones University, the school refused to fly the campus flag at half-mast after Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, and the president referred to King as an “apostate,” one who abandons the Christian faith. [Chicago Tribune, 6/4/92]
Bob Jones University Is Anti-Gay
Bob Jones University Threatened to Arrest Gay Alumni. In October 1998, Wayne Mouritzen, a retired minister and Bob Jones University graduate, received a letter from university officials telling him to not return to the school because he is gay. The letter from the school’s dean said that “as long as you are living as a homosexual, you, of course, would not be welcome on the campus and would be arrested for trespassing if you did visit.” Bob Jones spokesman Jonathan Pait said the policy applies only to graduates, and also covers cult members, unrepentant criminals, or other alumni who are believed to have strayed from the school’s teachings. “We can’t tell our alumni what they can and can’t believe,” Pait said. “But we can say, ‘You’ve made your decisions; please do not return.’” The school did allow those banned alumni to visit its religious art gallery so the gallery does not lose its tax-exempt status. [Boston Globe, 10/24/98; Christianity Today, 12/7/98]
Flashback: Romney Opposed Discrimination Against Gays. Romney said, “‘I’m not in favor of discrimination. I do not oppose and I very much support equal opportunity in education, equal opportunity in employment, in housing and so forth for gay people.’ He added that as Governor one of his cabinet members was gay. Romney’s statement of support for ‘equal opportunity in employment’ might serve to remind his Democratic critics that he once was a supporter of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act during an earlier, more moderate, period of his career but has more recently become an opponent of the federal legislation which would protect gays and lesbians from employment-based discrimination.” [ABCNews.com, 10/10/07]
Praise Jesus, it’s the collapse of evangelical Christian rule in America. Rejoice!
. . .
Do you know this clenched and panicky group? Of course you do. They’re the throngs of megachurch lemmings Karl Rove masterfully manipulated and rallied and whored to Bush’s very narrow advantage in two elections.
They’re the ones who’ve made all the headlines and influenced all sorts of laws and national policy changes lo, this past half-decade concerning everything from stem cell research to gay marriage to evolution, sanitized school textbooks to failed abstinence programs to RU-486 restrictions to silly anti-science rhetoric, the ones who gasped in horror at a woman’s bare nipple and made a disgusting mockery of Terri Schiavo and actually applauded when John Ashcroft spent $8,000 of taxpayer money to throw some heavy drapery over the shamefully exposed breasts of the bronze (female) Spirit of Justice statue in the Hall of Justice. And so on.
. . .
Apparently, Bush’s GOP has let them down. They have not been content with BushCo’s anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-sex, pro-abstinence, anti-women, anti-science, pro-war, God-hates-Islam stance, nor have they been content with having their trembling hands around the throat of the preceding Republican Congress for half a decade and clearly they have been insufficiently humiliated by the happy slew of right-wing preachers and politicians who’ve been revealed as meth-loving, restroom-lurking, boy-fetishizing gay hypocrites.
According to the new plan, any current GOP candidate who now wants the valuable evangelical vote will have to prove himself not merely guided by conformist religious zealotry in all things (Hi, Mitt!), but will have to prove his unflappable support for the GOP stance in key issues across the evangelical board, primarily regarding the Big Duo: abortion rights and gay rights. Or, more specifically, the total annihilation of both.
Do you see? This is exactly why we can now rejoice. Because this is the delightful thing about the fundamentalist worldview (and, for that matter just about any strict religious worldview you can name), the thing that absolutely and forever guarantees its frequent and eventual downfall: It can never be sated.
. . .
And why? Because the fundamentalist mind-set is not so much a firm and rational set of beliefs based on thoughtful interpretation of strict Biblical screed as it is, well, a paranoid wallowing in fear. Fear of the Other, fear of change, of progress, of the new and different and young and the sexual and the truly spiritual. And as we all know from almost seven years of Bush, fear knows no reason. It knows no stability. Fear is simply insatiable, voracious, and about as un-Godlike as Jesus with a machine gun. …
Much more — and, as always, well worth the full read
Tweet This Post! 
)
How ridiculous you are! If you only knew…! You’re the leader of nothing, “Warre.” You’re a snot-nosed little punk who thinks he can bully everyone else into silence.
