11/05/2004
This is sad. Just sad.
As the fingers point...
Dems blame Newsom for the loss.
When Gavin Newsom decided to take on the issue of gay marriage, he did play into the hands of the Republicans. But that's no reason to back down. The Dems who are blaming Newsom (*cough*Feinstein*cough*) are just completely off base. Newsom's decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses accelerated the debate and discussion on this issue. Yes, it probably pissed off the evangelicals and drove them to vote (especially in the 11 states that had "Defense of Marriage" propositions, which includes Ohio), but what I find interesting is that the critique is coming from career politicians. It's coming from politicians who have made a career of ignoring their own constituents in order to save face or ensure reelection (I know that doesn't makes sense, but it happens).
I am a Christian. I am a Republican. But unlike the evangelical right, I am against a constitutional amendment or state resolution banning same-sex marriage. Why? Because I am a Republican. I believe the government should never tell me how to live my life or spend my money. It's not a complicated concept. Morality (as the conservatives define the term) should not be legislated.
I respect what Mayor Newsom did. It took tremendous courage because he knew that his political career outside of SF was done. Once he took his stand for gay marriage, any aspirations for Congress or the White House were dashed. But he understood, as a true public servant, that he was elected to represent his people. And represent them he did.
So lay off, you "pass the buck", "it's not me it's you", liberals. Let's not ignore the fact that Bush got the same percentage of the gay vote in 2004 as he did in 2000. You lost because you ran an unfocused campaign with a guy who never connected to middle America. You lost because Karl Rove is a political genius and knew that America was moving the right. You lost because you let him paint you as crazy liberals who want to kill babies, adopt terrorists, and allow gay sex in the public square. You lost because you let your guy windsurf and snowboard one day, and then shoot geese the next day. You lost because you thought that the American people would listen to Ashton Kutcher and Leo DiCaprio. You lost because you looked down on middle America, you called them ignorant, uneducated, rednecks. You lost because your candidate for First Lady ran her mouth and went after Laura Bush, one of the more beloved First Ladies of recent times. You lost because your candidate's daughter showed up at Cannes in a see through mesh dress that left nothing to the imagination. You lost because your VP candidate was made to look like a 12 year old boy ready to crawl into the fetal position after the current VP put him in his place. You lost because your guy said "I actually voted for the $86 billion before I voted against it."
Put simply, the Dems had no unity of message, ran an undiscipline campaign, let the Reps control the rhetoric and the perception (Swift Boat anyone?), and because John Kerry couldn't connect with regular folk.
When Gavin Newsom decided to take on the issue of gay marriage, he did play into the hands of the Republicans. But that's no reason to back down. The Dems who are blaming Newsom (*cough*Feinstein*cough*) are just completely off base. Newsom's decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses accelerated the debate and discussion on this issue. Yes, it probably pissed off the evangelicals and drove them to vote (especially in the 11 states that had "Defense of Marriage" propositions, which includes Ohio), but what I find interesting is that the critique is coming from career politicians. It's coming from politicians who have made a career of ignoring their own constituents in order to save face or ensure reelection (I know that doesn't makes sense, but it happens).
I am a Christian. I am a Republican. But unlike the evangelical right, I am against a constitutional amendment or state resolution banning same-sex marriage. Why? Because I am a Republican. I believe the government should never tell me how to live my life or spend my money. It's not a complicated concept. Morality (as the conservatives define the term) should not be legislated.
I respect what Mayor Newsom did. It took tremendous courage because he knew that his political career outside of SF was done. Once he took his stand for gay marriage, any aspirations for Congress or the White House were dashed. But he understood, as a true public servant, that he was elected to represent his people. And represent them he did.
So lay off, you "pass the buck", "it's not me it's you", liberals. Let's not ignore the fact that Bush got the same percentage of the gay vote in 2004 as he did in 2000. You lost because you ran an unfocused campaign with a guy who never connected to middle America. You lost because Karl Rove is a political genius and knew that America was moving the right. You lost because you let him paint you as crazy liberals who want to kill babies, adopt terrorists, and allow gay sex in the public square. You lost because you let your guy windsurf and snowboard one day, and then shoot geese the next day. You lost because you thought that the American people would listen to Ashton Kutcher and Leo DiCaprio. You lost because you looked down on middle America, you called them ignorant, uneducated, rednecks. You lost because your candidate for First Lady ran her mouth and went after Laura Bush, one of the more beloved First Ladies of recent times. You lost because your candidate's daughter showed up at Cannes in a see through mesh dress that left nothing to the imagination. You lost because your VP candidate was made to look like a 12 year old boy ready to crawl into the fetal position after the current VP put him in his place. You lost because your guy said "I actually voted for the $86 billion before I voted against it."
Put simply, the Dems had no unity of message, ran an undiscipline campaign, let the Reps control the rhetoric and the perception (Swift Boat anyone?), and because John Kerry couldn't connect with regular folk.
11/04/2004
Moving to the middle does not mean letting the Democrats win
MSNBC - Bush to consider Cabinet changes
I'm a little tired of hearing my Republican brethren haughtily reject the notion of crossing the aisle and extending a olive branch to the Democrats to heal this country. While I understand the argument (to the victor go the spoils), I just don't think it gets the Party or the Nation any closer to being unified and it sets up a pretty bitter 2008 fight.
Bush can set the tone early as he reshuffles his cabinet. He can show America that he's willing to help heal, while at the same time strengthening the Party. How about Condy taking over as Defense Secretary to be the first African American and first woman to hold that post? How about appointing Alberto Gonzalez to Attorney General? Would McCain or Giuliani be interested?
I'm a little tired of hearing my Republican brethren haughtily reject the notion of crossing the aisle and extending a olive branch to the Democrats to heal this country. While I understand the argument (to the victor go the spoils), I just don't think it gets the Party or the Nation any closer to being unified and it sets up a pretty bitter 2008 fight.
Bush can set the tone early as he reshuffles his cabinet. He can show America that he's willing to help heal, while at the same time strengthening the Party. How about Condy taking over as Defense Secretary to be the first African American and first woman to hold that post? How about appointing Alberto Gonzalez to Attorney General? Would McCain or Giuliani be interested?
Country before Party.
From a Salon.com article:
But like many liberals I'm betting on the Armageddon theory of politics.
Bush and the GOP majorities in the House and Senate will make things so bad
in the next four years that the country will never elect a Republican ever
again. So here's hoping things get much, much worse!
Really? Your guy didn't win so you hope the country goes to hell so you can gloat in four years? Not the most mature response.*
*But to be fair, the conservative blogs with headlines like "Fuck the Donkeys" isn't exactly mature either.
Yeah, I fahted. JEALOUS?
Thank you, Lorne Michaels for choosing to team Poehler with Tina Fey for Weekend update. So far, so good.
Here are some highlights from the last three shows:
ELTON JOHN: Hello, Tina. Where's my Jimmy boy?
FEY: Oh, well, he's gone..Amy's here now.
ELTON JOHN: You're not really my cup of tea, dear. If you know what I mean..
POEHLER: ...cause you're superhumanly gay?
ELTON JOHN: Yes.
-----
FEY: The newest trend among students at Brigham Young University are T-shirts that read, "I Can't. I'm Mormon." Which have been countered with T-shirts reading, "You Will. I'm Kobe."
-----
POEHLER: Britney Spears is recording a rap song about the recent controversies in her life. "I can't wait to hear that!," said no one.
Here are some highlights from the last three shows:
ELTON JOHN: Hello, Tina. Where's my Jimmy boy?
FEY: Oh, well, he's gone..Amy's here now.
ELTON JOHN: You're not really my cup of tea, dear. If you know what I mean..
POEHLER: ...cause you're superhumanly gay?
ELTON JOHN: Yes.
-----
FEY: The newest trend among students at Brigham Young University are T-shirts that read, "I Can't. I'm Mormon." Which have been countered with T-shirts reading, "You Will. I'm Kobe."
-----
POEHLER: Britney Spears is recording a rap song about the recent controversies in her life. "I can't wait to hear that!," said no one.
Wow. Now that was a vacation.
Apoligies to my regular visitors (the 5 of you) for the radio silence (a combination of work and personal happenings). But I'm back with rants and raves again.
I'll work to update the site over the next week, but you I am going to make a concerted effort (a Two Months Before New Year's Resolution, if you will) to write in everyday.
I've been asked what I want this site to accomplish. I've thought about it, and really it's just an outlet for me. I don't post anything with any expectation that it might actually be read. I think that it's more of a log of my subconscious, which is always running full speed.
That being said, if people do stumble onto the site, I would hope that this would be a mechanism for dialogue and discourse. Whether it's as trivial as whether Mischa Barton is the worst actress of TV, or whether the election of John Kerry would have dictated a change in U.S. relations with Israel, I want people to think and talk about it all. Feel free to disagree with me and post your thoughts. But be prepared for an absolute smack-down.
So sit back, go order yourself a grande extra hot no foam latte, and enjoy.
I'll work to update the site over the next week, but you I am going to make a concerted effort (a Two Months Before New Year's Resolution, if you will) to write in everyday.
I've been asked what I want this site to accomplish. I've thought about it, and really it's just an outlet for me. I don't post anything with any expectation that it might actually be read. I think that it's more of a log of my subconscious, which is always running full speed.
That being said, if people do stumble onto the site, I would hope that this would be a mechanism for dialogue and discourse. Whether it's as trivial as whether Mischa Barton is the worst actress of TV, or whether the election of John Kerry would have dictated a change in U.S. relations with Israel, I want people to think and talk about it all. Feel free to disagree with me and post your thoughts. But be prepared for an absolute smack-down.
So sit back, go order yourself a grande extra hot no foam latte, and enjoy.
