The Gay Republican #12 - John McCain - I Don't Love Them Hoes 0 comments

As an eternal optimist (as good conservatives are), I’m resolved not to wallow in despair over John McCain’s looming nomination as the Republican presidential candidate. The fact that he secured the nomination, in large part, by wooing independents and liberals to cross over in the primaries and vote for him; it’s in the past, I’m over it.

There is no conservative in the race. John McCain is not one, and I say that based on pure common sense. Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials were challenged based on a few of the positions that he espoused during his stint as governor of Massachusetts, but the keen political observer ought to understand that the leadership he exhibited there – over a very liberal constituency – exemplifies the left-most sympathies of which he is capable. In other words, as governor of Massachusetts, we’ve seen Romney at his worst.

Inversely, John McCain is the senior senator of Arizona, a reliably red state. So for as long as we’ve been observing McCain’s US Senate career, we’ve seen him at his BEST… which still includes almost switching parties in 2004 to run as John Kerry’s VP.

So, John McCain is out. And since Barack Obama’s strongest demonstrated conviction to date is his loyalty to an angry black nationalist minister, I am left with the distasteful option of voting for Hillary Clinton in November. Hey: better to have ruinous Democrat policies implemented by a president with a (D) after her name than by a pandering media-whore “moderate” who didn’t earn his (R).

I’m not positive I’ll be able to stomach it; I may wimp out and write in Romney’s name on the ballot. But I’ve evaluated the situation and I have my plan. So, with that accomplished, it’s time to get back to the business of optimism.

If you’ve been watching the presidential campaign recently, dear reader, you know why I’m in such a good mood. There’s been almost no media focus recently on the sad state of Republican presidential candidate affairs. Rather, the lion’s share of the coverage has been dedicated to the bitter, bloody infighting among Democrats….

And it’s delicious!

Barack Obama’s preacher, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, made headlines for about a week. Obama’s refusal to disown his pulpit-mounted purveyor of anti-American racial victimology gospel put a nice big crack in his “post-racial” image, and by extension, tarnished the shiny promise of racial-guilt absolution that a vote for Obama subliminally offered to his self-loathing white supporters.

And Hillary Clinton, who seems to have fallen out of favor with the press (Is it any surprise to find out that American journalists suffer from a raging epidemic of white guilt?) is finding herself subjected to the kind of anal exam usually reserved for Republicans. Imagine what a shock it was for her to have the press actually fact-check her story on Bosnia! She’s only one set of fake memos away from finding out what it’s like to sit on the other side of the aisle.

Obviously, I’d like to see this ugliness continue for as long as possible. The longer the Democrat nomination contest stays neck-and-neck, the better.

This is hardly a unique sentiment. With the Republican nomination essentially decided, right-wing talk radio has been broadly encouraging its listeners to cross over and vote in the Democrat primaries. Usually for Hillary, since Obama is leading in pledged delegates.

And they’ve been doing it. States with recent and upcoming primaries, like Ohio and Indiana and Pennsylvania, have experienced record levels of new Democrat registrations. Callers to the Rush Limbaugh program gleefully announce their readiness and intent to cast their primary ballots for Clinton.

It must sting Democrats to know that people with no interest in their party’s well-being are playing an active role in picking their presidential nominee. Worse, in a close contest among actual Democrats, the conservative carpetbaggers are elevated to the powerful position of tie-breakers.

To quote Dave Chappelle’s Samuel Jackson character, “HOW’S IT TASTE, MOTHERFUCKER???????”

Needless to say, Democrat power men are scrambling to thwart the right’s giddy turnabout subversion of their primary process. The Democrat party of Ohio actually went so far as require that new Democrat registrants SIGN SOVIET-STYLE LOYALTY OATHS to the principles of the Democrat party before registering.

Hilariously absurd, both in terms of its ineffectiveness (Hillary won Ohio) and in its presupposition that the Democratic party actually has any principles to start with.

Even more amusing, Indiana Democrat Party Chairman Dan Parker announced a plan last week to combat crossover voters “with malicious intent.”

According to the Northwest Indiana Times, the plan works like this: Voters declare party affiliation in the spring primaries. Party officials stationed at the polling places can then check those voters against lists of past party declarations. Party officials can then CHALLENGE the voter’s party affiliation, at which point the voter can choose either to abstain from voting in the party’s primary, or the voter can sign an affidavit swearing that, in the last election, he voted mostly for the party’s regular nominated candidates.

This is so beautiful. Stalin, anyone?

PARTY OFFICIALS will be at the polling places to sniff out mischievous Republicans.
PROFILING! God, I wonder what they’ll be looking for. A clear-headed, sober expression? Good hygiene, perhaps? Evidence of employment?

Mischievous Indiana Republicans, take note: Go to your polling place on May 6th wearing a “Fuck Bush” T-shirt and some patchouli oil. Don’t wash your hair. Arrive between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. Scowl incessantly. Screw up your ballot and request as many replacements as state law allows.

That oughta fool ‘em!

Let’s take a little trip down memory lane.

On October 20th, 2006, the Orange County offices and home of Tan Nguyen, Republican Candidate for California’s 47th Congressional District, were raided by the California Department of Justice. CalDOJ seized computers and documents as evidence to build a case that Nguyen had participated in a scheme to intimidate voters.

The case centered around a letter that had been mailed to recently-registered voters. Mailed primarily to houses with Latino surnames, it stated, in Spanish:

You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting. You are advised that, for those in this country illegally or those with green cards, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in imprisonment, and you will be deported for voting without having the right to do so.

(Several months later, CalDOJ found that there was no evidence to indicate
that Nguyen’s campaign intended to intimidate those legally entitled to vote.
The controversy at the time of the letter’s publication stemmed from the
English-to-Spanish translation of “those with green cards” to the word
“emigrado”, which idiomatically means “immigrants with work permits”, but was
simply translated back into the word “immigrant” in the copy of the letter cited
in press reports.)

SO… judging by history, the left feels that
“disenfranchisement” is such a touchy issue that warning illegal immigrants not
to vote constitutes intimidation so severe as to require a Justice
investigation. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrat brownshirts
in Indiana will be on hand at the polls to challenge your “allegiance to the
party” and keep you from voting.

Just something to consider.

The Gay Republican #5 - Government? No! Lawyers? Yes! 0 comments

As a gay republican, the most common retort I receive from those who dismiss me as a backward, self-hating closet case is “what about gay marriage? How can you vote for a party that wants to deny you the right to marry your partner?”

It is true that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was passed by overwhelming majorities in a Republican House and a Republican Senate.

The US DOMA stated simply:
No state need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.
The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

What you don’t usually hear about DOMA from the left is that it passed by an 85-14 margin in the Senate and a 342-67 margin in the House, meaning that it was supported by clear majorities of both parties. AND that it was signed into law… by President Bill Clinton, on September 21st, 1996.

In 2004, Karl Rove & Company were accused of gay-baiting by introducing state-level statute propositions and constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage in order to get out the narrow-minded bigot (read: Republican) vote. But what those accusers forget is that in the year 2000, California’s own Proposition 22, which simply stated “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” passed with a 61% majority.

That’s right; even reliably blue-state California couldn’t muster enough “social progressives” to defeat a new law that plainly and explicitly denied gays the right to marry.


Perhaps 2000 is too far back. Perhaps eight long years have taught the errant Democrat majority of yesteryear to reach down in their hearts, ignore their personal intestinal objection to homosexuality, and vote to grant their gay brothers and sisters the right to wed. Indeed, the current Democrat party platform states that they “support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.” Sounds like a gay marriage endorsement, doesn’t it?

Wrong.

The next sentence in the platform states: “In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there.” Now, technically, that’s a de facto endorsement, since before the platform had been written in 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court had already ruled that gays must be allowed to marry there. Plus, the several states are required to recognize each other’s legal proceedings, so if you get married in Massachusetts, then you are married everywhere.

But you’ll notice that the Democrat platform stopped short of actually taking up the sword for the “civil rights” that its constituents claim to hold so dear. Rather, it pays lip service to “inclusion” and “equality” for gay and lesbian families, but then it kicks the actual issue down to the states for somebody else to deal with.

Now, in the interest of equal time, the 2004 Republican platform reads: “We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.”

OK.

“The social science confirms?” Bullshit. I’m open to any number of studies that suggest that certain family configurations are more likely than others to produce progeny that end up at Harvard (or in the state pen), but let’s be honest about the frequency of the “best” conditions for “the well-being of children”, by any definition: they’re few and far between. Is it also “optimal” for one of the parents to stay at home? If so, should we ban two wage-earner households from procreating? Wait: wouldn’t it be better still for both parents to stay at home; would that be “optimal”? Should American wage-earners without children then be taxed to subsidize all families with children so neither parent has to work?

That’s ridiculous, of course; just as it’s also ridiculous for a government body to determine – let alone enforce – an optimal child-rearing family configuration. Some scenarios may be better than others of course, but there’s plenty more to it than the gender of the parents.
Anecdotally speaking, you can’t tell me that Steve and David’s adopted children would better off living in neglect with their crack-addict mother in Compton than they are living with two caring fathers in Valencia.

I think my party is wrong on this issue. But there’s a difference, more important than the one of gay marriage, between the Republican platform and the Democrat platform; between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party….

It’s the difference between “princpled” and “fickle”.

Watching the gay marriage debate unfold reveals a corollary that you begin to notice as you observe politics: Conservatives are people who make decisions based on principle, while liberals are those who make decisions based on emotion.

The right may be as wrong as it’s ever been on gay marriage…
But the left is as spineless on gay marriage as it is on every issue.

The eternal PR problem of having principles is that it means you have say “no” sometimes, and saying “no” to people hurts their feelings. It’s easy to tar-and-feather a politician who says, “No, I don’t think the federal government should fund a new program to pay for children’s health care.” HE MUST WANT CHILDREN TO BE SICK!!
But it’s tough to make somebody look bad when they hug a crippled fourth-grader and say “I want to help the children” (even if that actually means “I will use the force of the state to rob productive members of society for the purposes of involuntary charity”).

The big-think Republicans who set the party platform may have their principles out of order (“social conservatism” and “tradition” before “individual liberty” and “equal protection”), but at least they have some. The Democrat party’s only principle is “say ‘yes’ to enough people to get 51% of the vote.” Politicians may all be whores, but the Democrat Party itself is an institutional brothel in a way that the Republican Party is not. In 1996 and 2000, I guess Democrats felt they didn’t need the gay vote; at least not enough to proselytize and offend a majority base that still objected to gay marriage. Perhaps today the Democrat Party opinion leaders feel differently, but I still wouldn’t stake my well-being on the loyalty of such a fickle crew.

George W. Bush’s Federal Marriage Amendment is a bad idea all around. It bans gay marriage by setting in stone (the Constitution) the final gasps of a dying social morality. It revokes the doctrine that states must recognize each other’s legal proceedings; an awful, litigious Pandora’s Box that ought not be opened. But the largest problem with it is not pragmatic but principled: it sells out the philosophy of limited government and federalism. (This, by the way, has been the true conservative objection to George W. Bush’s presidency all along: He uses big-government methods to implement social conservatism, a stunning about-face for a man from a party that complained for decades about “social engineering.”)

When you come down to it, marriage isn’t a federal institution, nor should it be. Nor, further though, should it be a state institution either.

Marriage existed long before any state in the US issued a marriage license. The statutory codification of marriage by the States was therefore, in essence, a legal consideration by the States to accommodate the circumstances of life. Two people own property together. They share a mutual right of survivorship on that property. Two people share their finances. Two people each have the power to act on the other’s behalf. Etc.

In religious terms, marriage carries a connotation of love and commitment and any number of other characteristics, but in legal terms marriage is nothing but a contract. So, my gay brethren, if you want a gay marriage… write the contract yourselves.

Have a lawyer draw up a contract that states, “The undersigned parties commit to each other a permanent mutual duty of care. They award to each other the rights and privileges of marriage as described in California statute and case law, and assume for each other the duties and responsibilities of marriage as described in California statute and case law.”

For concerns like hospital visitation rights, have your lawyer draw up small, mutual “power of attorney” cards. Draw up wills.

Sign the contract, file the wills, keep the cards in your wallets, and call Alanis Morissette to preside over your ceremony. You’ve both agreed to subject yourselves to the law that governs marriage. Sounds like a legal marriage to me.

There are, of course, a few lingering concerns such as the right to adopt children as a couple. Quantitatively though, such concerns seem to be balanced out by the tax benefits of filing as two single individuals rather than as a couple that shares one household. But I certainly don’t mean to say that those lingering concerns should be ignored. Adoption rights for gay couples, specifically, sounds like an excellent subject for an equal protection class-action lawsuit. And if the day comes when that happens, I’ll sign the petition. I’ll march with the ACLU.

But I’ll be standing on principle. So don’t ask me to switch parties.

Gay Republican #4 - Attack of the Beavermuppets 0 comments

Well, John McCain looks to be the inevitable Republican nominee, and I don’t really want to talk about it…. Much.

Here’s a strategic quandary; which is worse: A Democrat president who implements ruinous left-wing policy, or a Republican president who does pretty much the same and destroys his party in the process?

Clearly, both Hillary and Obama want to raise taxes. Yes, on “the rich”, but newsflash, dear reader: those are the worst taxes to raise. Howl all you want, but when you change tax rates on people earning about $50 grand a year, pretty much the only thing you change is the number of dollars they pay. When you change tax rates on people earning $250,000 per year, you’re fucking with people who actually make decisions based on the tax rates. “Should I invest?” “Should I start a small business?” “Should I expand my business?”
The phrase “the rich” is class-warfare code-speak for “the leaders who take the initiative and drive our economy.”

By and large, that’s why they’re rich; they earned it. If our economy is like a building, then screwing with tax rates on the non-rich is like kicking the bricks. Raising taxes on “the rich”, though, is like knocking the keystone out of the archway.
But John McCain opposed Bush’s tax cuts, and he’s indicated that he’d raise taxes on “the rich” again. (Maybe he’s said something different more recently; I can’t keep track.)

Where’s the difference?

Clearly, both Hillary and Obama would appoint left-wing federal judges, who prefer to create case law on the fly rather than adhere to the limitations imposed on the US Government by that dusty old relic, the US Constitution. But John McCain just last week called Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito “too conservative.”

Does anybody believe that McCain, in his shameless self-prostitution to fawning media coverage, wouldn’t appoint a “moderate”?

Last time a “moderate” Republican president appointed a “moderate” SCOTUS Justice, we got Souter….

Where’s the difference?

I don’t even want to think about what McCain would do to “solve the healthcare crisis.” Clearly, both Hillary and Obama would like to implement a single-payer system, which, as anybody who’s worked on the financial side of health care (as I have) can tell you (as I am), will plainly and directly lead to fewer health care providers and less availability of care. Which in turn leads to nationalization of the providers, which ultimately results in the decay of the entire system as well as dire financial straits for the payer (the US Government), to whom all the bills are sent. Now, while I haven’t yet heard him introduce a plan for socialized medicine, is there any real doubt that John McCain’s simple-minded, short-sighted pragmatism would compel him to sign into law whatever hair-brained, entitlement-creating legislation the Democrat congress sent him?
Where’s the difference?

About the only solid distinguishing factor between McCain and either of the Beavermuppets he might face in the general election is McCain’s commitment to successful ongoing prosecution of the war against terror. But if the nation is decaying from the inside out, then the goings-on in the terror-friendly world overseas are the least of our concern.

But I don’t really want to talk about it.

I finally broke down and bought “The Departed” soundtrack today, and I can’t get past track 1, the Roger Waters / Van Morrison / The Band remake of “Comfortably Numb.”

Which reminds me: Roger Waters is going to be at Coachella this year! And with any luck, I’ll be backstage.

Don’t be jealous.

In other news, Valentine’s Day is Thursday, and I truly wish you and yours a happy, romantic, and pleasurably copulatory day. Whether “yours” is animal, vegetable, or mineral.
At present, mine happens to be “mineral”; this year I am single for the sacred holiday yet again. I’m not completely sure how this always happens, but I think it relates to my tendency to find love in the hot days of summer, and then pitch it to the curb when the relationship starts to show stress cracks as the winter holiday season approaches.

Don’t cry for me, Argentina.
All things considered, it’s just another gift that I don’t have to buy. Which is good news, since I have the worst memory for dates. Even the ones that Hallmark all but calls you to remind you about.

I would go to the Abbey and get hammered with the rest of the sad fags who consider a February 14th hookup “a date for Valentine’s Day”, but I gave up drinking for 60 days as part of my New Year’s resolution, so that’s out.

I would go to Lucha VaVoom with the downtown crew… but I gave up drinking for 60 days as part of my New Year’s resolution, so that’s out. (If you’ve ever been to Lucha, you know that inebriation is not optional.)

I would open a bottle of Stags Leap Cabernet and relax at home while watching Elizabethtown, but…

You get the idea.

I’ll probably spend it like most other Thursday evenings since December 31st: getting home, doing gym laundry, checking my mypartner.com inbox, wondering why the men on mypartner.com aren’t hotter, browsing through profiles of shirtless men on myspace, wondering why the men on myspace are all such sluts, reassuring myself that the answer lies in a maddeningly frustrating tradeoff, brushing my teeth, washing my face, and going to bed around 10h00.


Thank God Monday is President’s Day.
I’ll have time in my busy schedule to write a better article next week.

Whirled News - Whirled News Ticker Tape 0 comments

An exhausted and visibly discouraged Mitt Romney withdrew from the Republican presidential race yesterday, announcing that, “We simply ran out of issues on which I could change positions.”

Supporters of Romney made a last-ditch effort to persuade him to remain in the race, pointing out that he could go back over the list and start changing his positions again, but in the end Romney demurred, saying that that would only call into question the principles which his square jaw exemplifies.

“We ran a good campaign,” he told his supporters. “My ever-shifting positions clearly showed that I was the candidate of change. But in the end the Republican voters chose to reject expediently heartless conservatism for rock-hard heartless conservatism, and we must respect their verdict.”

Romney announced that he would take some time off to attend to pressing family issues. “Early in the campaign, in response to a question about why my fighting age sons didn’t enlist to fight in Iraq , I said that they were serving their country by helping me campaign for President,” he said. “Now that I’ve withdrawn from the race, I have to help them find some duffle bags and start packing.”……

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today ended her surprise visit to Afghanistan , returning home with two tons of crushed rubble. Confronting her critics who accused her of looting the country of its most valuable resources in order to build a new road outside her estate, Rice insisted that this was part of the long-promised United States rebuilding effort of the country.

“We have spent the last seven-and-a-half years since we promised to rebuild Afghanistan carefully considering how to best do it,” she said, “And these two tons of crushed rubble represent the beginning of a bold new initiative. We did not want to go about this the way we did in Iraq, by merely shipping two pallets of large denomination bills and passing the money directly out to corrupt officials [this is true]. Instead, under a contract with Halliburton, they will haul out tons of rubble in the next few years, sell it here and do something with some of the money to help rebuild some things over there.”….

Senator John McCain spoke yesterday to a national convention of conservatives, re-establishing his conservative credentials.

“Frankly, it’s a mystery to me how I could have ever been branded a liberal,” he said. “All I ever did remotely liberal was to propose some campaign financing reforms that turned out to be useless, and to propose some really high bars before allowing immigrants to attain legal status instead of arming our border patrol with conventional nuclear weapons. Oh, and I argued ineffectually against some tax cuts for the rich, but I’ve changed my mind on that one. I still believe that abortion should be illegal, that government should get out of the business of helping any poor and disabled who aren’t vets, that we should stay in Iraq for at least a few decades while fighting other wars under the cover of spreading democracy, and that business, not morality, is the engine that drives our country. Calling me a liberal is like calling Rudy Guiliani a liberal or like calling an elephant a flying machine.”

Whirled News Tonight - Illinois Presidential Primary Yields Surprises 0 comments

February 5, 2008 (CHICAGO) —Results from the Illinois presidential primary have surprised pollsters and political pundits alike. On the Republican side, a runaway upset victory for Generalissimo Francisco Franco left observers scrambling for explanations. “It looks as if the majority of Republican voters have had enough of all this talk about change and have decided to cast their votes for the only candidate who promised no change at all,” said one observer. “In passing over John McCain and Mitt Romney, voters have clearly signaled that they want to stay with a candidate who combines the sentience of Ronald Reagan and the policies of George W. Bush.”

In the days leading up the election, the Generalissimo outflanked his opponents on two key issues. Hammering home his views on immigration by pointing out that the Spanish Civil War insurgency was largely composed of illegal immigrants, the Generalissimo thundered, “Never again must we let the democracy our party overthrew fall back into the hands of counterrevolutionaries who do not even speak our language.” The Generalissimo also took the steam out of his opponents’ proposals to jumpstart the troubled economy. “Our economy is muy bueno,” insisted the Generalissimo, who adapted a phrase recalling the heyday of the United States economy. “What is good for General Franco is good for the country,” he said.

Leading Republican contenders promptly accused Franco of dirty campaigning. “In the days before the election, thousands of Illinois voters received a mailing referring to me as the Mormon Jabber-wacko Liar,” complained Romney. John McCain also complained about a mass anonymous mailing pointing out that he would be the oldest elected President in the history of the country. “Generalissimo Franco himself ran his country quite competently while in a coma on his deathbed for almost a year,” said McCain, “and I intend to do the same.”

The Illinois Democrat primary also yielded a surprise. With 98 percent of the votes tallied, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were in an exact tie, not just in percentages but in raw numbers. “Apparently voters could not make up their minds whether to vote for the candidate of grand pronouncements and half-way measures or the candidate of bland pronouncements and half-way measures,” said an observer.