Republicans branching out to old Dem stronghold.

Tartarin

Yes, you are now obliged. Do we have a timeline on completion? You might want to consider Setanta's age and failing mind. Though he has it right on Lastman, an asshole of biblical proportions.

Walter

My god...you are a gem. But even this one, though close, ain't right.

this is better

As members of my generation were once wont to say:

Payback is a ************ . . .

That IS an archaism. Very charming touch of the past there.

The very one, Walter! Down the road from me. I thought it had more black on it. Will check next time I go down there...

Excerpt from cool Alan Simpson interview. He is a spokesperson for the RUC--Republican Unity Coalition.

NEWSWEEK: Why did you join the Republican Unity Coalition?
Allan K. Simpson: I don't think there's anyone in America [who] doesn't have someone close to them who's part of the gay or lesbian population. I met the head of the Log Cabin Republicans [a gay GOP group] almost 10 years ago when I was working on immigration [legislation.] They had the same conflicts about abortion, about taxes?-there really wasn't much discussion about the gay-lesbian issue. At the end of it I said I had no idea of the kind of anguish that they must go through, none. I said that if I can help turn that tide then I'd be glad to do so … Then there's my deep regard and affection for Dick and Lynne Cheney and [their gay daughter] Mary, whom I watched grow up.

One of the RUC's goals is to sideline the influence of religious conservatives in the GOP.
We don't have any concept of sidelining anyone. That's not our intent at all.

What about sidelining their agenda?
I'm not into anything but the awareness of tolerance and the importance of an honest appraisal of acceptance. It matters not to me what they do. I don't do those things to sideline anybody. We're not asking for anything special [for gays]?-just openness, honesty, tolerance. Even the word acceptance may not be good, because you don't have to accept anybody in life.

This doesn't sound like a traditional Republican speaking.
That's a stereotype. What's always curious to me is how liberal-progressive people are always babbling about how they never stereotype. Well, that's B.S. I don't know what the hell I am?-conservative, liberal? You figure it out.

How much is the religious right shaping the GOP's agenda?
I would see people at rallies as I campaigned for [the first President] Bush and [Bob] Dole and the second Bush and I would say: "You apparently are part of the Christian right. What do you believe that's so frightening to the rest of us?" They said: "We believe that the educational system is a failure. We think the entertainment industry is debasing America. We feel that the soaps in the afternoons consist of the horniest people that have ever [roamed] the earth scratching at every orifice. And we believe in God." What's wrong with those people? What is the evil of the "Christian right?" They believe in God and they believe in family values. What is so horrific about that?

I'm not judging their values, just asking the extent to which they are influencing the party?
It is always brought up in a negative way. That's the way it is.

What about their disapproval of gays?
I'm not comfortable with some of their views, especially with regard to homosexuality. My view doesn't match theirs on abortion. But I think the Republicans are getting smart enough now to realize [the value of] what Reagan said?-give me a guy who's with me 70 percent of the time instead of some jerk who's against me 100 percent of the time. The 100 percenters in our party are less, thank heavens, because the hundred percenters are the guys you want to stay away from. They're people who seethe. Those are the people who didn't vote [for George Bush in 1992] and gave us Bill Clinton. And if there's ever a group of people who think of the anti-Christ as Bill Clinton, then it's the archconservative right-wing people you and I describe.

Are you saying that because they'll back George W. Bush in 2004 whatever happens, he can start reaching out to moderates like those represented by the RUC.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that I think there's less chance this time of a flight of those people from the presidential race on the basis of their "agenda." They know that George W. Bush is listening to them.

Is the GOP's big tent getting smaller?
I don't think so. If you want to go and look at the big tent shrinking, go and look at the Democrats. The fabric is unraveling at the edge of their tent because if they nominate Howard Dean, they can kiss half the Congress goodbye.

The article and complete interview.

As I mentioned earlier...

...in every society there are people who will help steady the hand of someone trying to slit his/her throat.

Hey, it is their right to this -- poor, pathetic suckers.

Sofia

I have a large poster with your new avatar on it in the patriotic corner of my game room.

Re: Our Enlightened Neighbor to the North:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030707ta_talk_hertzberg

No, not Enlightened. More like normal. Where does that put the US? In the category of underdeveloped country, much the same as label our neighbor to the south. Canada, as Hertzberg points out, is more forgiving and generous towards us... Will we be getting those 21 candles on our birthcake soon do you think?

MSNBC-- GOP gay issues.

An interesting remark in the article...
"Even self-professed liberal, Dr. Howard Dean hasn't come out in favor of same-sex marriages."

Maybe everybody should put their cards on the table with this one. Don't assume all the libs are so pro-same-sex marriage.

They say Dean has been 'studiously' avoiding yea or nay on it.

totally agree sofia, on lots of issues

Yet another reason I love you.

If that's the only thing Dean doesn't mention on his run for the WH, he still gets my vote. I don't expect perfect; just 180 degrees from GWBush. c.i.

Good point, c.i.

ci-- I don't think any of us agree with 100% of our favored candidates ideas or programs-- I just think all the candidates should be forced to answer some of these more difficult (politically) questions.

I think same-sex marriage should be an equal opportunity political landmine. Let the Dems step on it, as well.

Personally, I don't believe same-sex marriages will be an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign. The Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Texas sodomy case has given the gay community enough validity to last awhile. Those in that community, the Supreme Court ruled, should have the same rights to privacy in their bedrooms as do those in all other "communities."

Yes, the candidates will have questions from reporters regarding same-sex marriages. The knowledgeable candidates will side-step these because they are not really important -- either to gays or to anyone else.

What is important is that each candidate must emphasize that it's time to end the gay witch-hunts which are prevalent throughout the country. The time has come to recognize that gays should be treated with human dignity. They should not be singled out as "queers" or "dykes," because the days of bullying gays should have passed decades ago.

The people on this thread who seem to think the same-sex marriage issue so curious are literally beating a dead horse. Neither you nor the candidates have looked beyond same-sex marriages to the question of same-sex divorces.

Same-sex marriages -- like heterosexual marriages already do -- involve the partners in a series of legal quagmires that begin with the marriage license. Should there be a divorce . . . well, that makes the quagmire thicker and more difficult to get out of.

No, the issue of same-sex marriage -- even with all the "press" including the Newsweek covers -- will not shadow the election of 2004. It is an issue about which the homosexual community itself is divided upon.

The issue of treating all Americans, indeed all people, with dignity and respect will be the larger issue for each candidate to address in his/her own way. Those muttering te-he-he under their breaths regarding same-sex marriages will have to save their pitiful attempts at demoralizing homosexuals for another election.

williamhenry--I think you made some points about decent treatment for everyone, but think you missed BIG on thinking the right to marriage isn't important to the vast majority of the gay community.

And, gay groups are gearing up to make it a known issue in the campaign. They probably won't get the press they would like during the heat of the campaign--but I bet it shows up in a debate--and the surviving candidates will have to answer to it.

I thought your 'divorce' conversation was a little odd. Gay peeps should have the right to marry and divorce like the rest of us.

You gotta admit, seeing some really flaming couples on "Divorce Court" arguing over throw pillows would make damn entertaining afternoon tv........

Litmus-test questions are depressing, not to mention pretty boring. If they marked the beginning of a discussion, that would be fine. But they most commonly, in present discourse, mark the end of any discussion.