Check it out on the Bush front page. From the folks who brought you "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
It's mean to wolves. And it makes me think of Dick Cheney.
“one homosexual can pollute a government office” —U.S. Senate subcommittee report, 1950
Friday, October 22, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Swift Yacht Vets
Go here and view "John Kerry & The Burning Question." It's amazing.
Also fun are the Swift Yacht Vets and Pleasure Captains for Truth.
Also fun are the Swift Yacht Vets and Pleasure Captains for Truth.
Thought of the day: on writing constitutions
"Men entrusted with the formation of civil constitutions should remember they are painting for eternity: that the smallest defect or redundancy in the system they frame may prove the destruction of millions."
- The Genuine Principles of the Ancient Saxon or English Constitution, an anonymous Revolutionary pamphlet, Pennsylania, 1776, emphasis in original; quoted in Bernard Bailyen, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Harvard University Press, 1967), 184
- The Genuine Principles of the Ancient Saxon or English Constitution, an anonymous Revolutionary pamphlet, Pennsylania, 1776, emphasis in original; quoted in Bernard Bailyen, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Harvard University Press, 1967), 184
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Polls, Manhunt, Oregon, my birthday, Gay.com, and wisdom
1) POLLS. While it's true that some polls put Bush eight points ahead of Kerry now while others show a dead heat, it's also the case that in the history of opinion polling, no incumbent presidential candidate has risen more than 1 percentage point in the final tally from his percentage in the last pre-election Gallup Poll, whereas challengers have typically received two or three points higher on election day than they did in the last poll. The conventional explanation for this phenomenon, among pollsters, is that those who remain undecided until the very last minute usually end up voting for the challenger. However, the demonstrably very high intensity of public interest in this year's presidential race introduces an unknown factor - as do the substantial spikes in registration and the massive get-out-the-vote organizations that each campaign has managed to organize. And while both parties accuse each other of election fraud and there's a decent chance this race, too, will end up in the Supreme Court, and although I sympathize with the bumper sticker that says VOTE FOR BUSH AND YOU'LL NEVER HAVE TO VOTE AGAIN, it's also true that this race will see unprecedented election monitoring. In short, to a remarkable extent, pollsters must concede that in this race, all bets are off. (It's true that opinion polls are, in a sense, a political evil; they distract attention from issues and probably contribute to the commercialization of elections. At the same time, opinion polling as a routine component of presidential campaigns has been a part of American political culture for the entire lifespan of my mother and father. It's just gotten more intense in the past decade since the invention of cable news and the 24-hour news cycle.)
My own fervent hope is that the collection of evidence that bloggers are amassing that President Bush wore some kind of earpiece, connected to a mysterious bulging contraption on his back, during one or more presidential debates, and that perhaps this is not actually such an unusual condition for Dubya at his public appearances, will become a major scandal and consume days of TV time in the coming thirteen days. (The White House claims that it was merely a case of a poorly tailored suit. Decide for yourself! Just click here to view incriminating video, photos, and analyses.)
2) MANHUNT. This is the name of Bravo's new hot reality-TV concept, "the search for America's most gorgeous male model," which I was happily able to enjoy at the gym today, where they have cable TV. The premise of the show is that forty stunningly hot young men from all over America, most of whom have never modeled before in their life, are hand-picked and brought to LA to compete for a six-figure contract with a top New York modeling agency. In the everyday lives from which they were snatched, they worked at jobs ranging from "retail sales clerk" to "law student," "real estate agent" to "construction worker."
The show has two parts, really. In Part One, the viewer meets all of the models, who are individually and as a group that's being brought together at a five-star hotel in LA for potentially quite a few weeks of grueling competition with each other. You see scenes like all the models, gathered together and hot-looking, gawking at their host, the supermodel Carmen Electra. The announcer tells you that this is a totally amazing feeling for these guys, to be right there with her - you even get to see one most-goreous aspirant say to the narrator, as if in confession, that he had a poster of Carmen on his bedroom wall back home. You see a slideshow-style presentation of each model, in which the viewer sees a very hot shirtless photo of the model on one half of the screen while the other side shows a series of bullet points, like this:
Then you get to see a few seconds of footage of the model saying something short, witty, and coy. Like, "I've always wanted to just live my life the best I can and you know hopefully give something back." Or "I've never thought of myself as a model, I'm just a college student, I just hang out with my friends and try to remember to go to class."
Go check out the models yourself; you'll see that most of them are white and have buff biceps, pecs, and abs. All but one or two have naturally smooth or one-hundred-percent waxed-and-shaven chests. A couple of them appear to be Latino and have surnames like Rodriguez; one or two looks a little bit Asian or maybe Filipino-looking. Some of them are in school studying something like Marketing, some are real estate agents, and some are baristas. One 21-year-old guy works as a batboy for the Atlanta Braves. Some of them have girlfriends; one 31-year-old Mormon most-gorgeous-aspirant has four kids. Most of them say they played sports in high school or college. A couple of them earnestly confess, during their short, witty, and coy 10-second video clips, that life is all in God's hands or that Jesus is their to role model.
In one totally fascinating case, you see an incredibly hot, African American six-feet-tall 19-year-old named Ron, who has elaborately coiffed, nearly Afro-sized curly hair. Ron's web-dossier announces that, asked "What's the one product or item you can't live without?" he replied "My hairspray and blow dryer." Ron grew up in a "broken home" in small-town South Carolina. Determined to become a male model, he worked his way up, first moving to Myrtle Beach (where gays were more accepted and he thought he could work as a model), and then (when it turned out there was no modeling work in Myrtle Beach) to New York City. Today, he is concocting plans to take the male modeling industry by storm. Asked how he would describe himself, answers, "I would describe myself as America's best male model. He also says something like, "I'm the gay one. Those straight football players can bring their testosterone or whatever, but I've got my fashion sense, and I'm counting on that to carry me through." (You can check out other elements of Ron's dossier here.)
In Part Two, this steadily dwindling group of models appear in two alternating styles of scenes, consisting of (1) various mental and physical challenges (e.g., in the episode I watched, the thirty remaining men were taken off to a remote country road, ordered to strip, and then learn how to skydive and be videotaped before, during, and after); (2) the stunning, heart-pounding melodrama of one or two or three or four of the contestants suddenly being kicked off the show by a shady modeling-industry heavyweight who appears out of nowhere and announces that unfortunately some of them are going to have to leave. One of these industry heavyweights, for instance, is a gracefully-aging fortysomething model, who, we are told, has spent the past 25 years "appearing in all the major mass magazines including the cover of GQ." ("I'm like, I'm thinking, I've never seen you," one of the model-aspirants says.) He tells us, "In some modeling shoots, you overbook the shoot, you have thirty models show up and you gotta send four of them away." This is highly, highly gut-wrenching for the models, who say things like "John, that guy was totally one of the most promising guys here. I totally can't believe that he was picked to leave the show."
Manhunt has several interesting functions. One, it provides numerous opportunities for product placements. For instance, during the trip out to the skydiving facility, the home viewer gets to see the models in little groups from a camera implanted in one of five or six shiny, black Cadillac SUVs that drive down the streets as a motorcade while the gorgeous male models, bouncing at every pothole, make banter over the question, "Where, oh where, might they be taking us?!"
Two, Manhunt provides a kind of snapshot of a range of experiences of postindustrial America. Except that the range is confined to people who admit that, yes, they get lots of compliments on their gorgeous bodies, and who've agreed to put their entire lives on hold for an indeterminate length of time while they attempt, in vicious competition, to remain on the show as long as possible and thus obtain the more lucrative post-expulsion career possible - perhaps singing pop tunes that somebody else wrote for them, or selling exclusive excerpts from their life story to media outlets. Interestingly, I have a former female housemate who might be on a reality show. I actually shared for several months a rather intimate walk-through bedroom suite. She recently completed her JD at the U of C law school, and has been weighing a number of post-degree options, including nonprofit work; some slightly more remunerative work that she would allow herself to do just until she could pay off her loans; or, if it did come through, a legal reality show that's to be in production over a couple of months this fall. I actually haven't heard, since I moved out of the co-op, whether or not she's really truly going to be on the show. But she had somehow made it far enough in the audition process that she was being flown out to LA, which meant she really had quite a good shot at getting on. I remember she said that if this did come through, she was going to be doing it in the weeks right before the November election, and that that would be kind of weird.
3) OREGON. I myself am going to Oregon next week, to spend the last eight days before November 2 canvassing against that state's antigay state constitutional amendment as part of an NGLTF "National Action," going door-to-door furiously every day from 4pm to 11pm (plus optional morning, afternoon, or late-night shifts). I'll be staying in Portland and doing my campaigning in the suburbs. Although I've never been to Portland, I actually have not one but two friends there. I've had romantic/sexual tension with both of them at one time or another, and I dated one of them for a year and a half in college.
4) MY BIRTHDAY. I broke up with Martin, who Thom called my "latest boyfriend" not too long ago, in the middle of my birthday party. Kind of a weird weekend. I mean, I still had a good time at the party for the most part, but the next day was kind of horrible.
5) GAY.COM. This just in from the "Just How Creepy Is the Commercialization of Gay Identity Going to Get?" Department. Gay.com, which has been a cultural studies journal article waiting to happen since day one, and incidentally is how I met Martin, has a new front page in which they celebrate going public (ticker name: LGBT). This means that the company has become a publicly traded firm on the NASDAQ exchange. Two photos show a huge ad for PlanetOut (the "parent company," in the "family" that includes Gay.com) on the world's largest stationary video screen in Times Square, and a ribbon-cutting ceremony with a caption explaining that the website had "celebrating its coming out party today." A banner headline says "PlanetOut Goes Public. To our community and members, thank you for your support." I'm glad to see that gay liberation has progressed to the point where the phrase "coming out" can now be used, in witty unselfconscious ad copy, to mean "becoming a publicly traded corporation."
6) WISDOM. When you are trying to overcome a problem, sometimes the best thing to do is put one foot in front of the other. Sometimes you just need a lot of time to yourself.
Also: Don't let developments in the political life of your nation, however appalling, get in the way of living your life. At least up to a certain point.
My own fervent hope is that the collection of evidence that bloggers are amassing that President Bush wore some kind of earpiece, connected to a mysterious bulging contraption on his back, during one or more presidential debates, and that perhaps this is not actually such an unusual condition for Dubya at his public appearances, will become a major scandal and consume days of TV time in the coming thirteen days. (The White House claims that it was merely a case of a poorly tailored suit. Decide for yourself! Just click here to view incriminating video, photos, and analyses.)
2) MANHUNT. This is the name of Bravo's new hot reality-TV concept, "the search for America's most gorgeous male model," which I was happily able to enjoy at the gym today, where they have cable TV. The premise of the show is that forty stunningly hot young men from all over America, most of whom have never modeled before in their life, are hand-picked and brought to LA to compete for a six-figure contract with a top New York modeling agency. In the everyday lives from which they were snatched, they worked at jobs ranging from "retail sales clerk" to "law student," "real estate agent" to "construction worker."
The show has two parts, really. In Part One, the viewer meets all of the models, who are individually and as a group that's being brought together at a five-star hotel in LA for potentially quite a few weeks of grueling competition with each other. You see scenes like all the models, gathered together and hot-looking, gawking at their host, the supermodel Carmen Electra. The announcer tells you that this is a totally amazing feeling for these guys, to be right there with her - you even get to see one most-goreous aspirant say to the narrator, as if in confession, that he had a poster of Carmen on his bedroom wall back home. You see a slideshow-style presentation of each model, in which the viewer sees a very hot shirtless photo of the model on one half of the screen while the other side shows a series of bullet points, like this:
- Trevor, 22
- From: Sandy Springs, Utah
- Retail Sales Clerk
- Loves to be the center of attention
Then you get to see a few seconds of footage of the model saying something short, witty, and coy. Like, "I've always wanted to just live my life the best I can and you know hopefully give something back." Or "I've never thought of myself as a model, I'm just a college student, I just hang out with my friends and try to remember to go to class."
Go check out the models yourself; you'll see that most of them are white and have buff biceps, pecs, and abs. All but one or two have naturally smooth or one-hundred-percent waxed-and-shaven chests. A couple of them appear to be Latino and have surnames like Rodriguez; one or two looks a little bit Asian or maybe Filipino-looking. Some of them are in school studying something like Marketing, some are real estate agents, and some are baristas. One 21-year-old guy works as a batboy for the Atlanta Braves. Some of them have girlfriends; one 31-year-old Mormon most-gorgeous-aspirant has four kids. Most of them say they played sports in high school or college. A couple of them earnestly confess, during their short, witty, and coy 10-second video clips, that life is all in God's hands or that Jesus is their to role model.
In one totally fascinating case, you see an incredibly hot, African American six-feet-tall 19-year-old named Ron, who has elaborately coiffed, nearly Afro-sized curly hair. Ron's web-dossier announces that, asked "What's the one product or item you can't live without?" he replied "My hairspray and blow dryer." Ron grew up in a "broken home" in small-town South Carolina. Determined to become a male model, he worked his way up, first moving to Myrtle Beach (where gays were more accepted and he thought he could work as a model), and then (when it turned out there was no modeling work in Myrtle Beach) to New York City. Today, he is concocting plans to take the male modeling industry by storm. Asked how he would describe himself, answers, "I would describe myself as America's best male model. He also says something like, "I'm the gay one. Those straight football players can bring their testosterone or whatever, but I've got my fashion sense, and I'm counting on that to carry me through." (You can check out other elements of Ron's dossier here.)
In Part Two, this steadily dwindling group of models appear in two alternating styles of scenes, consisting of (1) various mental and physical challenges (e.g., in the episode I watched, the thirty remaining men were taken off to a remote country road, ordered to strip, and then learn how to skydive and be videotaped before, during, and after); (2) the stunning, heart-pounding melodrama of one or two or three or four of the contestants suddenly being kicked off the show by a shady modeling-industry heavyweight who appears out of nowhere and announces that unfortunately some of them are going to have to leave. One of these industry heavyweights, for instance, is a gracefully-aging fortysomething model, who, we are told, has spent the past 25 years "appearing in all the major mass magazines including the cover of GQ." ("I'm like, I'm thinking, I've never seen you," one of the model-aspirants says.) He tells us, "In some modeling shoots, you overbook the shoot, you have thirty models show up and you gotta send four of them away." This is highly, highly gut-wrenching for the models, who say things like "John, that guy was totally one of the most promising guys here. I totally can't believe that he was picked to leave the show."
Manhunt has several interesting functions. One, it provides numerous opportunities for product placements. For instance, during the trip out to the skydiving facility, the home viewer gets to see the models in little groups from a camera implanted in one of five or six shiny, black Cadillac SUVs that drive down the streets as a motorcade while the gorgeous male models, bouncing at every pothole, make banter over the question, "Where, oh where, might they be taking us?!"
Two, Manhunt provides a kind of snapshot of a range of experiences of postindustrial America. Except that the range is confined to people who admit that, yes, they get lots of compliments on their gorgeous bodies, and who've agreed to put their entire lives on hold for an indeterminate length of time while they attempt, in vicious competition, to remain on the show as long as possible and thus obtain the more lucrative post-expulsion career possible - perhaps singing pop tunes that somebody else wrote for them, or selling exclusive excerpts from their life story to media outlets. Interestingly, I have a former female housemate who might be on a reality show. I actually shared for several months a rather intimate walk-through bedroom suite. She recently completed her JD at the U of C law school, and has been weighing a number of post-degree options, including nonprofit work; some slightly more remunerative work that she would allow herself to do just until she could pay off her loans; or, if it did come through, a legal reality show that's to be in production over a couple of months this fall. I actually haven't heard, since I moved out of the co-op, whether or not she's really truly going to be on the show. But she had somehow made it far enough in the audition process that she was being flown out to LA, which meant she really had quite a good shot at getting on. I remember she said that if this did come through, she was going to be doing it in the weeks right before the November election, and that that would be kind of weird.
3) OREGON. I myself am going to Oregon next week, to spend the last eight days before November 2 canvassing against that state's antigay state constitutional amendment as part of an NGLTF "National Action," going door-to-door furiously every day from 4pm to 11pm (plus optional morning, afternoon, or late-night shifts). I'll be staying in Portland and doing my campaigning in the suburbs. Although I've never been to Portland, I actually have not one but two friends there. I've had romantic/sexual tension with both of them at one time or another, and I dated one of them for a year and a half in college.
4) MY BIRTHDAY. I broke up with Martin, who Thom called my "latest boyfriend" not too long ago, in the middle of my birthday party. Kind of a weird weekend. I mean, I still had a good time at the party for the most part, but the next day was kind of horrible.
5) GAY.COM. This just in from the "Just How Creepy Is the Commercialization of Gay Identity Going to Get?" Department. Gay.com, which has been a cultural studies journal article waiting to happen since day one, and incidentally is how I met Martin, has a new front page in which they celebrate going public (ticker name: LGBT). This means that the company has become a publicly traded firm on the NASDAQ exchange. Two photos show a huge ad for PlanetOut (the "parent company," in the "family" that includes Gay.com) on the world's largest stationary video screen in Times Square, and a ribbon-cutting ceremony with a caption explaining that the website had "celebrating its coming out party today." A banner headline says "PlanetOut Goes Public. To our community and members, thank you for your support." I'm glad to see that gay liberation has progressed to the point where the phrase "coming out" can now be used, in witty unselfconscious ad copy, to mean "becoming a publicly traded corporation."
6) WISDOM. When you are trying to overcome a problem, sometimes the best thing to do is put one foot in front of the other. Sometimes you just need a lot of time to yourself.
Also: Don't let developments in the political life of your nation, however appalling, get in the way of living your life. At least up to a certain point.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Letters to the editor
To the Chicago Tribune:
In explaining why you have endorsed President Bush, the Tribune draws primarily on tired Republican rhetoric casting Kerry and the Democrats as insufficiently hawkish. But in the paragraph on domestic issues, your argument goes beyond banality to the point of near absurdity. Bush would be more successful in "critical areas like public education and health care" because he emphasizes "greater competition"? I don't see how any American who's lived through the past four years can make this assertion with a straight face.
Thankfully, your endorsement this year is entirely out of step with Illinois voters. And it is out of step with the needs of African Americans, women, and gays and lesbians - in other words, the vast majority of Chicagoans - whose rights are under assault by the current administration.
---
To USA Today:
Many of us in the gay community are bewildered that anyone believes the claim of the Bush spin doctors that John Kerry somehow invaded the Cheney family's privacy by mentioning the Vice President's openly gay daughter. Indeed, among gay Americans, the hypocrisy of the Cheney family has been a frequent topic of discussion for the past four years. The Vice President accepts his daughter's sexual orientation, yet participates in an administration engaged in the most aggressive assault on gay rights this country has ever seen. It is Cheney, not Kerry, who ought to be apologizing.
---
To the New York Times:
I am appalled that William Safire has been so thoroughly taken in by the Bush campaign's assertion that it was somehow scandalous for John Kerry to mention their openly gay daughter ("The Lowest Blow," Oct. 18). It seems to me that Safire must not have any openly gay friends, or at least none that he talks about politics with, because otherwise he would be aware that Dick Cheney's hypocrisy has been a subject of frequent discussion among gay Americans ever since he was tapped to join the Bush ticket in 2000. Most of us think it's appalling that the Vice President, while accepting his lesbian daughter, has silently watched his colleagues launch an unprecedented and mean-spirited assault on gay rights. It is Cheney, not Kerry, who ought to apologize, and whose behavior offends our sense of "decency."
To the Washington Post:
Republicans say it was "inappropriate" for John Kerry to mention Vice President Cheney's lesbian daughter, Mary, in the third debate ("Singling Out Mary Cheney," Oct. 18). But since Ms. Cheney is not only openly gay but has worked as a corporate liaison to the gay community, it is her father, who has collaborated in trying to make his own daughter a second-class citizen, who ought to be explaining his behavior.
As a gay American, I am outraged at the Bush campaign's attempt to cloak his failures and lies in a phony concern for our privacy. Using gay rights as a wedge to polarize the electorate is unfair - and it is fiddling while Baghdad burns.
In explaining why you have endorsed President Bush, the Tribune draws primarily on tired Republican rhetoric casting Kerry and the Democrats as insufficiently hawkish. But in the paragraph on domestic issues, your argument goes beyond banality to the point of near absurdity. Bush would be more successful in "critical areas like public education and health care" because he emphasizes "greater competition"? I don't see how any American who's lived through the past four years can make this assertion with a straight face.
Thankfully, your endorsement this year is entirely out of step with Illinois voters. And it is out of step with the needs of African Americans, women, and gays and lesbians - in other words, the vast majority of Chicagoans - whose rights are under assault by the current administration.
---
To USA Today:
Many of us in the gay community are bewildered that anyone believes the claim of the Bush spin doctors that John Kerry somehow invaded the Cheney family's privacy by mentioning the Vice President's openly gay daughter. Indeed, among gay Americans, the hypocrisy of the Cheney family has been a frequent topic of discussion for the past four years. The Vice President accepts his daughter's sexual orientation, yet participates in an administration engaged in the most aggressive assault on gay rights this country has ever seen. It is Cheney, not Kerry, who ought to be apologizing.
---
To the New York Times:
I am appalled that William Safire has been so thoroughly taken in by the Bush campaign's assertion that it was somehow scandalous for John Kerry to mention their openly gay daughter ("The Lowest Blow," Oct. 18). It seems to me that Safire must not have any openly gay friends, or at least none that he talks about politics with, because otherwise he would be aware that Dick Cheney's hypocrisy has been a subject of frequent discussion among gay Americans ever since he was tapped to join the Bush ticket in 2000. Most of us think it's appalling that the Vice President, while accepting his lesbian daughter, has silently watched his colleagues launch an unprecedented and mean-spirited assault on gay rights. It is Cheney, not Kerry, who ought to apologize, and whose behavior offends our sense of "decency."
To the Washington Post:
Republicans say it was "inappropriate" for John Kerry to mention Vice President Cheney's lesbian daughter, Mary, in the third debate ("Singling Out Mary Cheney," Oct. 18). But since Ms. Cheney is not only openly gay but has worked as a corporate liaison to the gay community, it is her father, who has collaborated in trying to make his own daughter a second-class citizen, who ought to be explaining his behavior.
As a gay American, I am outraged at the Bush campaign's attempt to cloak his failures and lies in a phony concern for our privacy. Using gay rights as a wedge to polarize the electorate is unfair - and it is fiddling while Baghdad burns.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Endorsements. No shockers, but strongly worded
New York Times (Oct. 17): We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Oct. 10): The world that Bush describes, and the world as it exists, are often two different places. For example, if we lived in a world in which Saddam Hussein really did possess weapons of mass destruction and really did have strong ties to al-Qaida, and if the Iraqi people really would welcome American intervention, then invading Iraq would have been the wise thing to do. But that world is not this world, and pretending otherwise has proved a tragic mistake.
And more importantly, the swing-state Philadelphia Inquirer (Oct. 10): The choice is vivid. The stakes are vast. Our nation is threatened by jihad warriors who scoff at boundaries. It stumbles toward a fiscal ruin that will punish our children. The rules that protect our air, water and health are weaker than we know. When 45 million of our neighbors fall ill, they have no insurance card to hand to the doctor.
Ann Coulter on her book tour: "You know, I think the terrorists would prefer for the Democrats to win this one."
Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Oct. 10): The world that Bush describes, and the world as it exists, are often two different places. For example, if we lived in a world in which Saddam Hussein really did possess weapons of mass destruction and really did have strong ties to al-Qaida, and if the Iraqi people really would welcome American intervention, then invading Iraq would have been the wise thing to do. But that world is not this world, and pretending otherwise has proved a tragic mistake.
And more importantly, the swing-state Philadelphia Inquirer (Oct. 10): The choice is vivid. The stakes are vast. Our nation is threatened by jihad warriors who scoff at boundaries. It stumbles toward a fiscal ruin that will punish our children. The rules that protect our air, water and health are weaker than we know. When 45 million of our neighbors fall ill, they have no insurance card to hand to the doctor.
Ann Coulter on her book tour: "You know, I think the terrorists would prefer for the Democrats to win this one."
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
"Two girls at once"
A Swarthmore classmate of mine wrote a blog for the Village Voice while working as a cocktail waitress at a strip club not far from Madison Square Garden during the Republican convention. Here's one of a number of delectable samples:
A Texas man sitting alone in front of the stage balked at the price of his glass of wine and insisted that I ask the bartender what brand it was.
When I returned with an answer, his indignation had subsided. "Why aren't you up there dancing?" he asked me, gesturing to the woman gyrating. (On the list of questions frequently asked of a strip-club waitress, this one is rivaled only by "Can we see some girls over here?") "Listen," he said, his already thick drawl slurred by alcohol. "I like buying beautiful women expensive clothes. I like taking them out to any restaurant in town." He went on, detailing his gentlemanly ways, for some time. I noticed he had a red, white, and blue ribbon pinned to his lapel.
Then he said, "I like playing with two girls at once--but that's not a requirement. If I wanted to pay for a girl to spend the night with me, I could." He wrote his cell phone number on the back of a business card. "But that makes me uncomfortable." He handed me the card. I saw the name of an energy firm.
(I get propositioned like this about once a week, but usually by couples.)
The man later told someone in the club he was a Washington lobbyist. I wondered if he would try to add a clause allowing "two girls at once" into the Republican Party's plan for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Monday, October 11, 2004
"Can't Win": Kerry's new pre-debate spin?
Check out "Can't Win," the latest and most aggressive Kerry TV spot yet. A preview of the next debate?
http://www.johnkerry.com/tv/
http://www.johnkerry.com/tv/
Christopher Reeve
"The really tragic thing that might happen is that if, in order to save the Catholic vote, if the president comes down on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, what will happen is there will be a black market created in the face of that, and women will literally be paid to donate eggs that will later be destroyed."
---Christopher Reeve, CNN,
---Christopher Reeve, CNN,
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Congressman John Lewis
Washington, DC – Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) released the following statement today in reaction to George Bush's reference to the Dred Scott case at the second Presidential debate in St. Louis on Friday night.
"I am relieved to hear that George Bush won't appoint judges who might reinstitute slavery. But unfortunately, we expect more than this from our judges and frankly, we need more than this from George Bush.
"George Bush's Dred Scott comments underscore the fact that when it comes to the African-American community, he is completely out of touch with the issues that concern us. The President's record is appalling – his administration is the most anti-African American in a generation.
"On Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, he announced his opposition to the University of Michigan Affirmative Action program and called it a 'quota.' The day after he laid a wreath on Dr. King's grave, he appointed anti-civil rights judge Charles Pickering, who once described cross burning as a 'prank.' A new United States Commission on Civil Rights report finds that 'President Bush has neither exhibited leadership on pressing civil rights issues, nor taken actions that matched his words.' And his Vice-President has admitted that he was somehow 'not aware' of the AIDS epidemic plaguing African American women.
"African Americans can't afford four more years of George Bush. We need leaders who understand the concerns facing our families and our community. We need leaders who will fight for our rights in this century."
"We have the power to change our President and come November 2nd, African Americans are going to elect new leaders. We're going to vote and we're going to vote in record numbers."
"I am relieved to hear that George Bush won't appoint judges who might reinstitute slavery. But unfortunately, we expect more than this from our judges and frankly, we need more than this from George Bush.
"George Bush's Dred Scott comments underscore the fact that when it comes to the African-American community, he is completely out of touch with the issues that concern us. The President's record is appalling – his administration is the most anti-African American in a generation.
"On Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, he announced his opposition to the University of Michigan Affirmative Action program and called it a 'quota.' The day after he laid a wreath on Dr. King's grave, he appointed anti-civil rights judge Charles Pickering, who once described cross burning as a 'prank.' A new United States Commission on Civil Rights report finds that 'President Bush has neither exhibited leadership on pressing civil rights issues, nor taken actions that matched his words.' And his Vice-President has admitted that he was somehow 'not aware' of the AIDS epidemic plaguing African American women.
"African Americans can't afford four more years of George Bush. We need leaders who understand the concerns facing our families and our community. We need leaders who will fight for our rights in this century."
"We have the power to change our President and come November 2nd, African Americans are going to elect new leaders. We're going to vote and we're going to vote in record numbers."
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Top Seventeen debate lines
I had an interesting experience of the debate, this time around, because I watched it in a group that included a Republican soldier. And not one of those Kerry Republicans, either, like you see in the MoveOn ads.
17. Kerry: I mean, "compassionate conservative," what does that mean? Cutting 500,000 kids from after-school programs, cutting 365,000 kids from health care, running up the biggest deficits in American history. Mr. President, you're batting 0 for 2.
16. Kerry: The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. And, Mr. President, just yesterday the Duelfer report told you and the whole world they worked. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President. That was the objective. And if we'd used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now, Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the war against terror.
15. Bush: People love America. Sometimes they don't like the decisions made by America, but I don't think you want a president who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing. You don't want to join the International Criminal Court just because it's popular in certain capitals in Europe.
14. Kerry: Mr. President, countries are leaving the coalition, not joining. Eight countries have left it.
13. Bush: I'm worried. I'm worried about our country. And all I can tell you is every day I know that there's people working overtime, doing the very best they can. And the reason I'm worried is because there's a vicious enemy that has an ideology of hate. And the way to defeat them long-term, by the way, is to spread freedom. Liberty can change habits. And that's what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.
12. Kerry: Actually, Mr. President, in 1997 we fixed Medicare, and I was one of the people involved in it. We not only fixed Medicare and took it way out into the future, we did something that you don't know how to do: We balanced the budget. And we paid down the debt of our nation for two years in a row, and we created 23 million new jobs at the same time.
11. Bush: First, the National Journal named Senator Kennedy [sic] the most liberal senator of all. And that's saying something in that bunch. You might say that took a lot of hard work.
10. Kerry: Let me begin by saying that my health-care plan is not what the president described. It is not a government takeover. You have choice. Choose your doctor, choose your plan. The government has nothing to do with it. In fact, it doesn't ask you to do anything -- if you don't want to take it, you don't have to. If you like your high premiums, you keep them. That's the way we leave it.
9. Kerry: Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money. And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too.
8. Kerry: I think John McCain called the energy bill the "No Lobbyist Left Behind" bill.
7. Audience member: Mr. President, how would you rate yourself as an environmentalist? What specifically has your administration done to improve the condition of our nation's air and water supply?
Bush: Off-road diesel engines -- we have reached an agreement to reduce pollution from off-road diesel engines by 90 percent.
6. Kerry: The Clear Skies bill that he just talked about, it's one of those Orwellian names you pull out of the sky, slap it onto something, like "No Child Left Behind" but you leave millions of children behind. Here they're leaving the skies and the environment behind.
5. Bush: So I tried diplomacy, went to the United Nations. But as we learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason: He wanted to restart his weapons programs.
4. Kerry: Now, the president wishes that I had changed my mind. He wants you to believe that because he can't come here and tell you that he's created new jobs for America. He's lost jobs.
3. Bush: I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
2. Bush: Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV. But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.
1. Kerry: Ladies and gentlemen, the right war was Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. That was the right place. And the right time was Tora Bora, when we had him cornered in the mountains.
17. Kerry: I mean, "compassionate conservative," what does that mean? Cutting 500,000 kids from after-school programs, cutting 365,000 kids from health care, running up the biggest deficits in American history. Mr. President, you're batting 0 for 2.
16. Kerry: The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. And, Mr. President, just yesterday the Duelfer report told you and the whole world they worked. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President. That was the objective. And if we'd used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now, Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the war against terror.
15. Bush: People love America. Sometimes they don't like the decisions made by America, but I don't think you want a president who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing. You don't want to join the International Criminal Court just because it's popular in certain capitals in Europe.
14. Kerry: Mr. President, countries are leaving the coalition, not joining. Eight countries have left it.
13. Bush: I'm worried. I'm worried about our country. And all I can tell you is every day I know that there's people working overtime, doing the very best they can. And the reason I'm worried is because there's a vicious enemy that has an ideology of hate. And the way to defeat them long-term, by the way, is to spread freedom. Liberty can change habits. And that's what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.
12. Kerry: Actually, Mr. President, in 1997 we fixed Medicare, and I was one of the people involved in it. We not only fixed Medicare and took it way out into the future, we did something that you don't know how to do: We balanced the budget. And we paid down the debt of our nation for two years in a row, and we created 23 million new jobs at the same time.
11. Bush: First, the National Journal named Senator Kennedy [sic] the most liberal senator of all. And that's saying something in that bunch. You might say that took a lot of hard work.
10. Kerry: Let me begin by saying that my health-care plan is not what the president described. It is not a government takeover. You have choice. Choose your doctor, choose your plan. The government has nothing to do with it. In fact, it doesn't ask you to do anything -- if you don't want to take it, you don't have to. If you like your high premiums, you keep them. That's the way we leave it.
9. Kerry: Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money. And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too.
8. Kerry: I think John McCain called the energy bill the "No Lobbyist Left Behind" bill.
7. Audience member: Mr. President, how would you rate yourself as an environmentalist? What specifically has your administration done to improve the condition of our nation's air and water supply?
Bush: Off-road diesel engines -- we have reached an agreement to reduce pollution from off-road diesel engines by 90 percent.
6. Kerry: The Clear Skies bill that he just talked about, it's one of those Orwellian names you pull out of the sky, slap it onto something, like "No Child Left Behind" but you leave millions of children behind. Here they're leaving the skies and the environment behind.
5. Bush: So I tried diplomacy, went to the United Nations. But as we learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason: He wanted to restart his weapons programs.
4. Kerry: Now, the president wishes that I had changed my mind. He wants you to believe that because he can't come here and tell you that he's created new jobs for America. He's lost jobs.
3. Bush: I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
2. Bush: Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV. But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.
1. Kerry: Ladies and gentlemen, the right war was Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. That was the right place. And the right time was Tora Bora, when we had him cornered in the mountains.
Friday, October 08, 2004
I'm all for class war.
Okay, Jesse's comment here raisees some interesting points that are worth arguing against:
1) The claims on both sides of the electronic voting machine question are hyperbolic. It is a serious risk, as we all realized after the Swarthmore students circulated the Diebold memos. But it's far from a sure thing that it will circumvent democracy in this election. Several of my friends are volunteering as election monitors, and if I weren't going to be canvassing in Oregon I'd do the same. Honestly, I don't mean this to sound glib, but it really is true that a lot of people died fighting for the right to vote and I think for me not to continue that fight today wouldn't feel right to me.
2) In my opinion, the history of the mass media reveals a more complicated picture than simply that of media consolidation. Yes, media consolidation is a very clear and present danger, but it's not clear to me that the condition of press freedom from censorship and self-censorship alike is today, overall, any worse than it was in 1960, or 1930, or 1900. And the fact that there are other trends, too, is demonstrated by the successful efforts of a blogger to get Trent Lott's comments about the 1948 presidential race into the mainstream media. Question: do people think the corporate control of the media is one way in which we live in a "New Gilded Age"?
3) Gerrymandering (named after, and spelled like, Elbridge Gerry) is not the same thing as intimidation and election fraud, and is more complicated. For now, I'll say only that if the overall level of voter intimidation was substantial in Florida in 2000, at the same time you have to admit that there is less intimidation than there has been in the past.
4) John Kerry is no Barack Obama. Still, he's not a DLC Democrat. He's my candidate for his record and proposals on the domestic HIV/AIDS crisis if nothing else, as I argued on p. 10 of this week's Windy City Times:
http://www.windycitytimes.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=6295
5) I'm all for class war. As I said when Queer to the Left was red-baited recently during an affordable housing debate and accused of advocating "the overthrow of the capitalist system"----where do I sign up?
1) The claims on both sides of the electronic voting machine question are hyperbolic. It is a serious risk, as we all realized after the Swarthmore students circulated the Diebold memos. But it's far from a sure thing that it will circumvent democracy in this election. Several of my friends are volunteering as election monitors, and if I weren't going to be canvassing in Oregon I'd do the same. Honestly, I don't mean this to sound glib, but it really is true that a lot of people died fighting for the right to vote and I think for me not to continue that fight today wouldn't feel right to me.
2) In my opinion, the history of the mass media reveals a more complicated picture than simply that of media consolidation. Yes, media consolidation is a very clear and present danger, but it's not clear to me that the condition of press freedom from censorship and self-censorship alike is today, overall, any worse than it was in 1960, or 1930, or 1900. And the fact that there are other trends, too, is demonstrated by the successful efforts of a blogger to get Trent Lott's comments about the 1948 presidential race into the mainstream media. Question: do people think the corporate control of the media is one way in which we live in a "New Gilded Age"?
3) Gerrymandering (named after, and spelled like, Elbridge Gerry) is not the same thing as intimidation and election fraud, and is more complicated. For now, I'll say only that if the overall level of voter intimidation was substantial in Florida in 2000, at the same time you have to admit that there is less intimidation than there has been in the past.
4) John Kerry is no Barack Obama. Still, he's not a DLC Democrat. He's my candidate for his record and proposals on the domestic HIV/AIDS crisis if nothing else, as I argued on p. 10 of this week's Windy City Times:
http://www.windycitytimes.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=6295
5) I'm all for class war. As I said when Queer to the Left was red-baited recently during an affordable housing debate and accused of advocating "the overthrow of the capitalist system"----where do I sign up?
Can you live with regret on Nov. 3?
That was the subject line of an email "from" James Carville I got this morning, which made me go online and give another $25 to the DNC.
I'm feeling guilty 'cause I was supposed to call Ohio and Colorado voters this week, and I just dropped the ball and didn't do it.
I'm feeling guilty 'cause I was supposed to call Ohio and Colorado voters this week, and I just dropped the ball and didn't do it.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Edwards victory. And Martin Luther King.
Woo hoo! Who knew Dick Cheney voted against the Martin Luther King holiday?
Friday, October 01, 2004
A letter to gay Americans
October 1, 2004
DEAR ALL THE GLBT PEOPLE I KNOW,
I’m writing to remind you about three things.
First, please note that in ten states, tomorrow is the last day you can register to vote before this November’s election. In fourteen additional states, you’ve got to do it within the next four days. Find out how to register in your state by visiting http://www.michaelmoore.com/takeaction/vote/register.php.
Second, remember the political power you have as a GLBT person. A December 2003 HRC poll found that while 77 percent of respondents consider themselves “out” as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, only 32 percent talk to their parents about public policy issues, and only 46 percent talk to their brothers and sisters about such topics. In contrast, respondents were much more likely to speak frankly on these topics with casual acquaintances (57 percent) or co-workers (54 percent). More of us than ever before have family members who accept and welcome us, but this year, we need more than just acceptance.
Third, I want to remind you what a flip-flopper George W. Bush is on the question of our rights. Less than two years ago one of the nation’s largest-circulation gay magazines, Out, featured a cover story on “Straight Allies and the Hall of Shame.” Heading up the hall of list of shame was President George W. Bush:
Back in December of 2002, we thought Bush was against us because he wouldn’t sign a gay pride month proclamation (something that no president besides Bill Clinton had ever done). Now, he’s declared that he thinks the nation’s founding document should be altered so as to exclude us permanently from one of society’s major institutions, and most of the states either are voting on their own state constitutional amendments or they’re in the works. This represents a major flip-flop—because during the 2000 campaign, when George W. Bush was asked about same-sex marriage, he said that it was “going to be up for cities and states to make those decisions,” a position he stated on more than one occasion.
Fourth, Bush tries to hide his extremism and call himself a plain-old traditionalist, but here’s the real story. Bush has actually flip-flopped on sodomy laws, too, in the other direction. As Governor of Texas, he solemnly promised to veto any attempt to repeal an unusually harsh law, which was actually called the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law. Since the Supreme Court has now struck down that law, Bush has tried to soften his marriage flip-flop by declaring, as he did in July 2004, “What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do. This is America. It’s a free society, but it doesn’t mean we have to redefine traditional marriage.” In other words, he’s defended his second flip-flop with his first, now that we’ve finally won the decades-long struggle to get those laws repealed. Meanwhile, he’s permitted Christian conservatives had been permitted to dictate a more extremist anti-gay section in the Republican party platform than ever before.
In short, George W. Bush is not like most straight Americans, who aren’t totally comfortable with homosexuality but don’t think the gay people in their lives should be discriminated against. Bush is much, much more dangerous than that.
If you’re not registered, go do it.
Sincerely,
Timothy ***
(Please feel free to forward freely)
DEAR ALL THE GLBT PEOPLE I KNOW,
I’m writing to remind you about three things.
First, please note that in ten states, tomorrow is the last day you can register to vote before this November’s election. In fourteen additional states, you’ve got to do it within the next four days. Find out how to register in your state by visiting http://www.michaelmoore.com/takeaction/vote/register.php.
Second, remember the political power you have as a GLBT person. A December 2003 HRC poll found that while 77 percent of respondents consider themselves “out” as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, only 32 percent talk to their parents about public policy issues, and only 46 percent talk to their brothers and sisters about such topics. In contrast, respondents were much more likely to speak frankly on these topics with casual acquaintances (57 percent) or co-workers (54 percent). More of us than ever before have family members who accept and welcome us, but this year, we need more than just acceptance.
Third, I want to remind you what a flip-flopper George W. Bush is on the question of our rights. Less than two years ago one of the nation’s largest-circulation gay magazines, Out, featured a cover story on “Straight Allies and the Hall of Shame.” Heading up the hall of list of shame was President George W. Bush:
For a second year, Bush refused to sign a proclamation declaring June Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, leaving the ‘compassionate’ conservative in the dust. What’s the big deal? It’s not like we’re asking him to issue Rainbow Pride money or proclaim that Abe Lincoln was gay just because he slept in the same bed with a cute guy for four years, which he did.
Back in December of 2002, we thought Bush was against us because he wouldn’t sign a gay pride month proclamation (something that no president besides Bill Clinton had ever done). Now, he’s declared that he thinks the nation’s founding document should be altered so as to exclude us permanently from one of society’s major institutions, and most of the states either are voting on their own state constitutional amendments or they’re in the works. This represents a major flip-flop—because during the 2000 campaign, when George W. Bush was asked about same-sex marriage, he said that it was “going to be up for cities and states to make those decisions,” a position he stated on more than one occasion.
Fourth, Bush tries to hide his extremism and call himself a plain-old traditionalist, but here’s the real story. Bush has actually flip-flopped on sodomy laws, too, in the other direction. As Governor of Texas, he solemnly promised to veto any attempt to repeal an unusually harsh law, which was actually called the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law. Since the Supreme Court has now struck down that law, Bush has tried to soften his marriage flip-flop by declaring, as he did in July 2004, “What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do. This is America. It’s a free society, but it doesn’t mean we have to redefine traditional marriage.” In other words, he’s defended his second flip-flop with his first, now that we’ve finally won the decades-long struggle to get those laws repealed. Meanwhile, he’s permitted Christian conservatives had been permitted to dictate a more extremist anti-gay section in the Republican party platform than ever before.
In short, George W. Bush is not like most straight Americans, who aren’t totally comfortable with homosexuality but don’t think the gay people in their lives should be discriminated against. Bush is much, much more dangerous than that.
If you’re not registered, go do it.
Sincerely,
Timothy ***
(Please feel free to forward freely)
Top ten lines from last night's debate
My top ten lines from last night's debate:
10. With respect to Darfur, yes, it is a genocide. And months ago, many of us were pressing for action. I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops in at this point is severalfold. Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support. Right now all the president is providing is humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing. And that's going to require more than is on the table today. I also believe that it is -- one of the reasons we can't do it is we're overextended. Ask the people in the armed forces today. We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today: people with stop-loss programs where they're told you can't get out of the military; nine out of our 10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either going, coming or preparing. So this is the way the president has overextended the United States."
9. KERRY: "I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it. As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them."
8. KERRY: "When we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better."
LEHRER: "Thirty seconds, Mr. President."
BUSH: "Well, actually, he forgot Poland."
7. KERRY: "You know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse? I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory."
6. KERRY: "The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time."
5. KERRY: "You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said -- he wrote in his book -- because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities. We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders. Almost every step of the way, our troops have been left on these extraordinarily difficult missions. I know what it's like to go out on one of those missions when you don't know what's around the corner."
4. KERRY: "Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you fix it."
3. KERRY: "I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong."
2. KERRY: The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. That's what we have here.
1. BUSH: "We're facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere, with any means. And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances, and we do. That's why it's essential that we make sure that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people like Al Qaida, which we are. But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror. Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean, bin Laden."
10. With respect to Darfur, yes, it is a genocide. And months ago, many of us were pressing for action. I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops in at this point is severalfold. Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support. Right now all the president is providing is humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing. And that's going to require more than is on the table today. I also believe that it is -- one of the reasons we can't do it is we're overextended. Ask the people in the armed forces today. We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today: people with stop-loss programs where they're told you can't get out of the military; nine out of our 10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either going, coming or preparing. So this is the way the president has overextended the United States."
9. KERRY: "I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it. As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them."
8. KERRY: "When we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better."
LEHRER: "Thirty seconds, Mr. President."
BUSH: "Well, actually, he forgot Poland."
7. KERRY: "You know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse? I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory."
6. KERRY: "The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time."
5. KERRY: "You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said -- he wrote in his book -- because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities. We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders. Almost every step of the way, our troops have been left on these extraordinarily difficult missions. I know what it's like to go out on one of those missions when you don't know what's around the corner."
4. KERRY: "Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you fix it."
3. KERRY: "I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong."
2. KERRY: The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. That's what we have here.
1. BUSH: "We're facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere, with any means. And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances, and we do. That's why it's essential that we make sure that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people like Al Qaida, which we are. But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror. Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean, bin Laden."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)