devil's advocacy

Fin

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:33:57 PDT

This blog is not currently updated, but you're welcome to browse around.

And now, reality.

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:44:44 PST

In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer pens an interesting article in which he reiterates his decade-old prediction that polygamy will be the next big civil rights battle.

Forgetting the fact that he's seemingly declared a premature victory for the proponents of same-sex marriage, Krauthammer's article is academic. It's hard to argue with his well-stated piece, although Andrew Sullivan did take a moment to respond. However, what he (and Sullivan) nearly leave out is anything but a minor mitigating factor: reality.

Krauthammer briefly bumps up against reality by noting:

"What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful."

It's easy to argue - because it's true - that being gay was once as unacceptable as polygamy is today; to argue that we'll soon see polygamists join the battle for equality in any meaningful way, however, seems to strike a discordant melody. Why?

The civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s didn't foster further animosity toward gays; those dots were far from connected - at least at the time. Arguably, it did start a steady - if somber - march toward a day when gay rights could be discussed as openly and productively as race-based civil rights.

Is that why there's a gay recoil to this subject? Perhaps not.

Like it or not, Krauthammer might be right - but not because he's a logical academic, or because he has his pulse on the nation. He might be right simply because disaffected groups will use the openings they're presented with, and it's very possible that polygamists will use gay marriage to move forward with their own agenda.

It's also conceivable that gay rights activists are now viewing the polygamists on their coattails in much the same way that many African Americans view gays on theirs: they just don't think it's the same.

It's still a safe bet that HRC shouldn't worry yet that its upper-floor views might be blocked when the polygamists set up shop next door.

Security risks

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:07:27 PST

Historically, being gay was considered a security risk because of an individual's fear of being "found out." Ostensibly, they might do anything - including give away state secrets - in order to keep mum the truth about their sexual orientation.

That was then, this is now. Until recently, sexual orientation wasn't an obstacle to obtaining national security clearance; in today's society, fear of being outed doesn't mean what it might have in the past. The Bush Administration, continuing its efforts to drag our society back in time, has reinstated "being gay" as a possible factor in the denial of a national security clearance.

Perhaps it's appropriate; this Administration is one of the few places left in America where the fear of being outed might be growing, rather than subsiding.

But where are we gonna put the memorial?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:14:31 PST

With the recent announcement that the African American Museum of History will be appropriately sited on the National Mall, it raises the question: where will we find space for the Rumsfeld Memorial?

Premature? Maybe not if you were in the Pentagon's press briefing yesterday. In response to questions about a questionable political cartoon, Rumsfeld indicated that lots of great men have been lampooned by editorial cartoonists: Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt topped his list.

You see, the media hates great men. Like Don. (It's a burden.)

The price of equality, finally quantified

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:45:58 PST

In the first half of 2004, the Congressional Budget Office provided an estimate to a curious Congressman: how much would federal recognition of same-sex marriages cost? Their answer surprised us - it would actually net the feds right around $1 billion.

By all accounts, that's a very rough estimate; it's never easy to quantify how much equality will cost. Until today.

Meet Mark Jeason and Martin Murdick of Warren, Michigan, partners of nearly 18 years. Recently, they tried to join their local community center as a family and were denied. Apparently, the Warren Community Center only recognizes families who are recognized by the State of Michigan. Sounds like a valid basis for a mini-civil rights battle, eh?

Let's look a little closer though, and keep in mind that Mark and Martin don't have kids. Annual membership for a single adult in the center runs $230 a year, while family memberships run $500 a year. Certainly, a good deal for a family of three or more, but not necessarily for Mark & Martin - they're actually fighting for the right to pay an additional $40 annually.

I'll give them this: the fight for equality shouldn't hinge on a good deal, but seriously, guys: shouldn't you pick a battle that makes a little more sense?

Related Posts:
Congratulations, it's a... net gain?

My [first?] 2006 Republican Rant

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:31:47 PST

Republicans, as a group, aren't a homogeneous population, nor are they controlled via mind control by the RNC. Basically, their message is bound to vary, depending on who is delivering it.

That said, they're seemingly back on message when it comes to same-sex unions, after a minor slip-up last year in the Golden State.

The Washington Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a challenge that could result in one of three possible outcomes, according to the Advocate.

The options: first, the court could uphold the law, and nothing would change; second, the court could delcare the law unconstitutional and grant same-sex marriages on the spot (we'll call that the "Massachusetts Plan"); third, they could declare the law unconstitutional and demand the legisltuare find a way to grant same-sex couples marriage-type rights (we'll call that the "Vermont Plan.")

What, you may ask, do Washington state Republicans have to say about this? They're harping on the courts again, saying that marriage should be defined by the legislature, not those pesky activist judges.

That's been the party line, but most recently, it required a little retooling by some folks down the coast. Which brings us back in time; while DA has been undeniably on hiatus for nearly a year, the one story that nearly brought it back to life was, not surprisingly, this one.

Anti-gay marriage Republicans, perhaps thinking short-sightedly, have always worked under the assumption that no legislature would ever have the chutzpah to legalize same-sex marriage. Under that assumption, their tirade on the court system always sounded good: the people (via the legislative branch) should decide this issue, not the courts. Then, along came California, and everything changed.

As everyone knows, this past September - facing the prospect of being the first Governor to sign a bill legalizing gay marriage - moderate Governor Arnold Swarzenegger balked.

If he had said that he just doesn't believe in it, fine. That's his prerogative.

If he had said that constituent calls into his office were overwhelmingly unsupportive of the bill, fine. It's blatant followership, not leadership, but fine. There are plenty of leaders who value polls over their gut.

The Governator used neither of these justifications for his veto. Instead, he went where no Republican had gone before: he said that gay marriage in California was an issue that should be decided by the courts. Was the Governor grasping at straws to find a reason to oppose this bill? Was he following the GOP party line of "say no to happy gays?" I'm not sure.

Last night, however, the Governor went out on a political limb by making what is probably one of the most self-effacing State of the State speeches in California's 155-year history. The Governor indicated he heard the voters' message to "cut the warfare, cool the rhetoric," and "find common ground."

Maybe he'll put down the RNC talking points and rediscover himself. Wait for it.

Where's the beef?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Mon, 09 May 2005 08:31:25 PDT

Right-wing advocacy group One Million Moms has a reputation for alerting its members to corporate sponsorship of what it sees as questionable content on television, among other things. Today, however, they've chosen to jump on Kraft's sponsorship of the Gay Games, but it's not clear that they know why - other than simply, "it's gay, it must be bad."

The membership alert they issued today simply encourages members to contact the food manufacturer and tell them to stop sponsoring the games, noting:

"The gay games are supported and endorsed by dozens of homosexual activist groups and organizations, including homosexual magazines and television outlets."

Most of their alerts, while no less anti-gay, are usually better defined. Why is Kraft's sponsorship of an event that is attended by gays on private property, not televised on public airwaves or even paid attention to by national media is unclear.

As much as they argue the contrary, this isn't pro-family, it's simply anti-gay for anti-gay's sake.

Leave the jokes to Will & Grace

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:30:58 PST

In response to Governor Mitt Romney's anti-same-sex-anything speech, Arline Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus released the following statement, according to the Boston Herald:

"The governor's kind of bi about this issue. In one venue he swings for civil unions and in another venue he says he has always been against them.''

The Governor's flip-flop on this issue certainly provided more than adequate reason for a response from the Massachusetts GLPC, but the one they gave was childish and demeaning to the community they purport to defend. Ms. Isaacson may have thought her quips about the Governor being "bi" or "swinging" this way or that are cute, but if they were uttered by someone on the other side, she (and the folks over at GLAAD would likely find it offensive.

There's enough mockery and offense directed toward the GLBT community from outside sources, it seems hardly necessary to propagate it from the inside on such a serious political issue.

Governor Romney, President Romney

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Sun, 27 Feb 2005 06:00:46 PST

It could be the sign of the longest Presidential campaign season in recent history. Just barely a month hence the Second Inaugural of George W., Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is making a few strategic stops as well as a few strategic speeches.

In South Carolina this past Monday, Romney gave a speech outlining his hard line stance against not only gay marriage but against all psuedoforms of it as well, including civil unions. Now, this wouldn't be too odd, considering President Bush recently held the same position - at least until his announced support for state-based civil unions a week prior to the election. However, the position of Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney doesn't seem to jibe with Governor Mitt Romney.

The Boston Herald reported this week on the Presidential hopeful's speech to South Carolina conservatives and noted that while in his home state of much-more-liberal Massachusetts, the Governor has actually supported civil unions. So which one of them is running for President?

The Governor's office is quick to note that the Governor's support for civil unions was only a last-ditch effort to stop May 17th's same-sex marriage fiesta from happening, and under less than Defcon 1 circumstances, he's still opposed.

So, I guess it's only when he's against the fence that his staunch values can be subject to compromise. Very Presidential.

It's a different world...

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:42:33 PST

Just shy of five years ago, a new era of equality for gay Americans was ushered in as Vermonters trekked to their town clerk to get civilly unioned. The court-forced action was heralded as a triumph for gay rights; men and women flew in from all across the nation to marry... well, men and women (respectively).

Just last year, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts handed down and edict to the Legislature: legalize gay marriage. The legislature did, but not before considering a constitutional amendment to ban it. The measure still requires further legislative action before it can move forward, but gay marriages have moved forward for nearly a year.

Flash forward to the present and once again to gay-friendly New England. In the legislature of the State of Connecticut, two bills were being considered. One would grant same-sex couples the right to marry; the other would grant them the right to a civil union. Only this time, no one said they had to. Voluntary legislative action, it's a wonderful thing.

Or is it? Gay activists should be hailing this as a milestone. The argument (though I consider it to be disingenuous) from gay marriage opponents has been rooted in the fact that these "activist judges" must be stopped and that gay marriage should not be decided by unelected leaders. (If Connecticut's leaders decide to allow it, that tune will change.) But for now, voila, here we go.

Of course, it wouldn't be progress if there weren't a few hurdles in the way. Hurdle number one to marriage and/or civil unions? Gay activists.

The Connecticut rights group Love Makes a Family decided that they would support marriage, as opposed to civil unions. Fine. That should be the ultimate goal of any gay rights group, right? They've taken their preference to the next level, however - and as the Connecticut Legislature's Judiciary Committee voted out a civil unions bill on an impressive 25-13 vote, Love Makes a Family decried their actions as a "step backward for Connecticut," according to LMAF President Anne Stanback. Huh?

I certainly see where they're going - civil unions are separate but equal. But this is a state-level legislative body voting without a mandate to grant marriage rights to gay citizens - and the top gay rights group in the state responds as if it's an insult.

What a difference five years makes.

RNC's New Glass Headquarters

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:24:38 PST

It's old news by now, but the Republican National Committee sent an early Valentine's Day present to Senator Reid earlier this month in the form of a research paper titled "Who is Harry Reid?" The collection of quotes is valid, but some of the attacks hit a little too close to home for the Grand Old Party.

One section accuses the venerable Nevadan of being "out of touch with mainstream America" because he lives in a $750,000 condo in the Ritz Carlton in Foggy Bottom. Problem is, they're not looking in the mirror too closely: Reid's counterpart on the right owns a multi-million dollar home in Washington and commutes to work on a private family jet.

There's nothing wrong with Frist's wealth, or with Reid's $.75 million condo. But if the RNC is going to make arguments, at least make ones that hold water. Errr, Evian.

Tragedy in Journalism

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:41:22 PST

Although I'm giving his column more attention that it deserves, Guy Adams writes a guest column for RenewAmerica.com that completely misstates the law for what can only be described as deplorable scare tactics.

Now, I have no problem with sensible arguments against anything. Although I might disagree with them, there are certainly sensible arguments to make against non-discrimination laws - they were made in the 60's and they're still rational (albeit wrong) today. Mr. Adams uses none of these.

He writes about the "Tragedy in Illinois," the passage of a non-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. He blames the Democrats for the law (rightly so, although I think the other side calls it "thanks") and suggests that if you've ever voted for one, you've likely been kept up at night by the cries of murdered babies.

Insomnia aside, he gets back on track (I use the term loosely) by noting:

"If company has fifteen or more employees, they will now be compelled by law to hire a representative percentage of gays, just like they must hire a representative percentage of minorities. This includes CHURCH employees. Wicked, truly wicked."

I can only say that this is completely invalid. Yes, the law applies only to businesses with 15 employees or more. But no where in Illinois law are you required to hire minorities. Granted, you can't NOT hire someone simply because they are black, handicapped or gay, but you're not required to seek them out to fill out your stable.

Mr. Adams suggests that the law would include church employees. Another completely invalid claim; the Illinois law exempts churches, although those of the Christian variety should already practice non-discrimination, it's an important facet of the faith.

Overall, it's the same law that's been passed by fourteen other states, and protects gay Illinoians from being fired for a personal trait over which they have no control.

In truth, the only Illinois protected class that exists based on a choice is the only one Mr. Adams would likely fight for: religion.

"Let he who is without sin..."

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 10:17:20 PST

The Los Angeles Times reports this week that parents at an Orange County Catholic School are threatening to remove their kids from the school if the two sons of a gay couple aren't kicked out. The school stands behind its decision to enroll the kids, and the parents of the controversial enrollees haven't issued any statements to the press. That fact, however, didn't stop parent Monica Sii from suggesting that the "boys are being used as pawns by these men to further their agenda."

None of this is surprising. Not in the least. Nor is the parents' desire to require not only that all students, but all parents follow the strict guidelines of the church. The problem, as with every "the Bible says so" argument, comes in the details. Enacting such a pledge would require the removal of any students whose parents have ever divorced, used contraception, engaged in oral sex... the list goes on.

Now, aside from the divorce issue, the others can't be as readily proven as the simple fact that a kid has two dads. So basically we end up with a pledge that kicks out a few kids and requires a whole herd of parents to swear they don't engage in un-Catholic behavior in the bedroom - because what parent really wants to tell their kids that they have to switch schools because daddy wears a rubber?

Greetings from the Heartland

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:06:33 PST

After a long sabbatical from writing, my warm wishes to everyone for the holiday season. See you all in the New Year, thanks for reading. -DA

Doesn't this sound familiar?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:40:44 PST

It's too much of a stretch to compare circa 1960 attitudes about blacks to circa 2004 attitudes about gays and lesbians, right? It is.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that during campaign 2004, Republicans targeted their campaign advertising where it impacted most - makes sense, right? Right. Republicans are smart about stuff like that. The report goes on to list the top shows among Republicans. Near the top of the list and especially popular with Republican women - is the NBC sitcom "Will & Grace."

It's far too overboard to say something like "they're good enough to entertain us, just don't ask for rights," or "they're funny to laugh at, just don't love each other PLEASE." Far too overboard, right?

Forget I said anything.

Mainstream media: Cheryl who?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:53:03 PST

As a sidebar to the resignation/firing of HRC Executive Director Cheryl Jacques, it is certainly worth noting that while her counterpart over at the NAACP also stepped down this week under far less dramatic circumstances, the media paid little attention to the ouster of the woman at the helm of the nation's largest gay rights organization.

With so much of the attention of the media and the candidates on gay rights in 2004, doesn't it make sense to cover post-election axings?

Related Posts:
Turn out the rights, the party's over

Turn out the rights, the party's over

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:44:45 PST

The dawn of a second term for President Bush comes as another executive term sunsets this week.

On Tuesday, the Human Rights Campaign acknowledged that the beltway rumors were true: Executive Director Cheryl Jacques had been fired at an emergency board meeting Monday night. Critics have cited Jacques' decidedly partisan "George W. Bush: You're Fired!" campaign as part of the reason for her dismissal, rightly noting that the strategy didn't leave the HRC anywhere to go when the President was re-elected.

Jacques' ouster won't immediately bring back the moderate gravitas the origination has built up over the past years, but it will likely send a message to friendly Republicans on the Hill that they have seen the light.

The HRC has been an effective lobbying organization for many years - and especially so over the past half decade because of their acknowledgement of the importance of moderate Republicans to their cause. While HRC supporters characterize their shift to the left in the past years as a natural shift in strategy, the numbers tell a different story. In the 107th Congress, the HRC asked Members of Congress to sign a pledge that they wouldn't discriminate in their offices on the basis of sexual orientation; 68 out of 100 Senators signed.

In the 108th, however, the HRC broadened their pledge to include gender identity. While transgendered individuals are certainly worthy of protection - and no less worthy than gays and lesbians - the concept of a protected class for transgendered folks isn't as bipartisanly supported; this year, the HRC lost 46 of its previous pledges.

Many say this is progress, but in a town where politics is perception, the perception of progress is slipping.

Unfazed by irony, the right seeks help from activist judges

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:41:50 PST

The United States Supreme Court today announced they will not hear a challenge to the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. With right-wing groups on record deriding the Supremes as "activist" for striking sodomy laws from the books in 2003, the challenge was nonetheless filed by religious conservative group Liberty Counsel on behalf of the Vice President of Catholic Action League.

The decision by the SCOTUS not to interfere was far from a surprise, and neither is the religious right's decision to cross their own picket lines to seek help from "activist judges." While their communal rant against judges who they feel cross the line between judiciary and legislative continues, the Liberty Counsel is trying their opponent's tactics on for size; the boys and girls at the Supreme Court aren't biting, however.

This will certainly add fuel to the claim that "liberal activist judges" are to blame for the nation's ills. With the outlook for a legislative ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts looking worse in the aftermath of election 2004, however, the religious right might need to start preparing some "liberal activist legislators" spin.

When we said "big tent," we didn't mean you.

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:56:54 PST

It seems that for some Republicans, the 2004 sweep of victories has meant that the formerly much-revered "big tent" just doesn't quite need to be that big.

Moderate Arlen Specter felt the singe of the right's fire and brimstone after his ill-advised shot across the conservative bow earlier this month asking the President to be mindful not to appoint judges who would "change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade."

Religious rights groups like the American Family Association fired back with grassroots alerts urging conservative-minded Senators to vote against Specter for the Judiciary Chair slot. Whether these campaigns are successful or not will be determined in the coming days as Congress returns to work this week to stop-gap fund the government through January.

If Specter is ousted as Chair, the religious right's grip on the GOP gets stronger, and the GOP campaign message gets altered: It's a big tent, but if you don't agree with the President on hot button Bible issues, it's not big enough for you.

Activist judges should stop actively judging

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:56:04 PST

Outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft railed against "activist judges" last week during his first post-resignation public appearance. The conservative stalwart warned judges who, in his opinion, are "second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war."

The term "activist judges" has become synonymous in right-wing circles with all things liberal and wrong with the world. Add in the fact that questioning the President and/or the war was considered "un-American" by rabid Bushies even before George W received his mandate from the masses, and Ashcroft's got a double shot of conservative rally juice.

Thankfully, Ashcroft is no longer the sitting Attorney General, so it's a moot point to say that his call for a blanket judicial "pass" on all war-related decisions made by the Bush Administration is not only reckless but also flies in the face of the balance of powers.

I'm guessing those "activist" judges wouldn't have listened to him, anyway; giving the right-wing "activist" activists yet another reason to assert they should be stripped of their power to judge.

What do [insert disaffected group here] do now?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:00:35 PST

With the Presidential election behind us, those folks who found themselves less than 100% behind the President are asking the same question: "What do we do now?" A few thoughts:

[party social moderates]
While most pollsters and pundits were focused on the so-called "daddy issues" of terrorism, defense and homeland security, prior to the election, the postmortem of the nation's decision tells a different story. Namely, that the actual force behind the Bush victory was "moral values." While spinners on the right will say that means "God and family values," in the real world, it's about abortions and gays.

These moderates have some soul searching to do, and they're likely wondering if their souls are as blessed as those of their more socially conservative partymates. They're rightly concerned about their place in the party and if the religiously motivated right-wing of the party is right in claiming a mandate to lead the party down the path of light to Holy victory.

Social moderates have hope for the future of the party, as two top-tier moderates' names have already been floated for 2008: Giuliani and McCain. If they've got some free money and time, they'd be well advised to take a page from the left-wing handbook: early money is like yeast.

[gay republicans]
Although they might hold the same political views as their social moderate counterparts, gay Republicans are perennially seen as self-haters for aligning themselves with a party who consistently uses their lives as a wedge issue to win campaigns. This year was no exception - beyond the President's marriage amendment proposal and 11 state-level bans on gay marriage, the Republican Party approved a platform that not only opposes gay marriage, but opposes any recognition of any type of same-sex relationships.

Like their straight counterparts, these boys and girls will likely cringe at the thought of a death or retirement on the Supreme Court, and will be cheering on efforts by moderate Senators like Judiciary Chairman-to-be Arlen Specter to ask the President to send middle-of-the-road judges to the Upper House for confirmation. Gay Republicans have the same hope for 2008 as the moderates - that their party will be saved by the venerable former-NYC mayor or the rogue Arizona Senator.

[democrats in general]
Arguably the most disaffected group of all, the Democrats are scrambling to find their place in this new world. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tried to do so this week by sending a plea for new money, noting that "Republicans unleashed every weapon in their arsenal to deliver a knockout blow to Congressional Democrats. They failed!"

Clearly, someone should have mentioned that they need to find their place in the real world. In less fundraising-centric circles, however, the Democratic House Leader has been seen mentioning God and church quite a bit more often in the course of television interviews, which may only further justify the moral right wing's superiority complex in Republican ranks. Pelosi seems to be enacting Roll Call Executive Editor Morton Kondracke's Tuesday missive on the Dems and God.

The Dems are also looking four years ahead, but the only two names that keep popping up are Edwards and Clinton. While those names will certainly get their own fired up, this year has proven that their own just isn't enough. The Republican names on the hotplate for '08 are inherently party-line crossers and will suck the energy out of either Edwards or Clinton.

But it's a long four years. Who knows what might happen by then. President Obama, anyone?

What Would Jesus Vote?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:18:05 PST

As the nation goes to the polls, every politically-motivated group in America wants to go with them. Over the past weekend and spilling over into yesterday, both parties and the interest groups that support them were working overtime to remind you who is the right man to vote for today.

So it is with the folks at WorldviewWeekend.com, a partner ministry of American Family Online, an Internet service provider dedicated to serving Christian households with heretic-free web surfing. Worldview Weekend, which sponsors Christian seminars and boasts actor Kirk Cameron as one of its featured speakers, sent an e-mail missive to its members yesterday giving them a "no bones about it" view of today's democratic (small d) activities.

Brannon Howse, the group's President and Founder, penned the letter, in which he states rather unequivocally that his belief that "anyone that does not vote on Tuesday is sinning and anyone that votes for Kerry is committing an even greater sin!"

As if that didn't do enough to seemingly run counter to the Christian ideal of love and understanding - not to mention the Internal Revenue Service's code of conduct for religious entities - Mr. Howse goes further in his tirade:

This is no time to waste votes on third party candidates..A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Kerry. If you disagree that is fine....don't waste your time sending me an e-mail about it because I will not waste my time reading it.

Is this how Christians should approach this election? Hardly. Support for Bush by the majority of Christians is expected and understood, but this kind of nasty electioneering smacks of something that is decidedly un-Christian - and perhaps more directly important today - un-American.

Who gets your vote on Nov. 4? Uh, 2008.

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:16:57 PST

This weekend, I had an unexpected political conversation that started with a simple yet telling question from a gay Republican: "What are you thinking about 2008?" Like most of the country, I admit I've had November 2nd blinders on. I'm not sure I've even made dinner plans past the politically-charged date. But here was a moderate Republican getting ready for 2008, even before we know the outcome of 2004. Why?

Simple. For moderate Republicans who don't find themselves too keen on Bush, it's time to look ahead to brighter days. The current foci of these hopes are the two top [Presidentially eligible] Republicans in the field today: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. This hope isn't misplaced, either; aside from being moderates, these guys are as close as the GOP comes to Clintonesque rock star status.

With many moderate GOPers ready to wince at either outcome this Tuesday, perhaps hope for next contender will be the glue that holds them together until November 4. 2008. Of course, the first thing on the agenda for any White House hopeful is money. Naturally, part of my conversation revolved around fundraising efforts, starting in January. Yes, January '05.

In deference to the Office of the President, however, let's hope the fundraisers don't kick-off before the inauguration.

The age of the no-fault voter

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:55:09 PDT

Yesterday, a Polk County, Iowa District Judge threw out a lawsuit challenging Iowa's provisional balloting rules. The contested rule would allow any Iowa voter (or non-voter, really) to cast a provisional vote in any precinct in the state. Similar to my wireless plan, it essentially amounts to statewide roaming for voters.

Provisional ballots - as required under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 - have the potential to be a strong safety net to ensure that every registered voter gets the chance to vote. Under the law, voters can cast a ballot on Election Day, and voter registrars can sort out the validity of the vote - and whether or not it should be counted - after the fact.

Most states are handling the requirement well. Ohio requires provisional ballots be cast in a voter's precinct, the regional headquarters for their home precinct, or the voter registrar's office in their county. A clear line of authority. Iowans, conversely, don't even need to bother to go to their own polling place in order to cast a provisional ballot.

Plenty of tools exist to make voting as easy as possible for voters while still protecting the process: early voting, absentee voting and now provisional voting. In order to protect the continued validity of these tools, however, it is imperative we set guidelines in order to protect the continued validity of the process as a whole.

The New York Times opined this week that Congress "should make clear that provisional ballots must be counted even if they are filed in the wrong polling places." Such action would essentially remove what little voter responsibility is left in the process.

If a voter cannot take it upon themselves to glean their polling place from the voter information mailed to them, or at the most "inconvenient," enter any polling place and ask to be directed to their own, then the fault for their non-participation should lie flatly at their own feet, not at the feet of the county, state or the Congress.

Finally, some compassionate conservatism

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan) — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:31:52 PDT

President Bush declared his support for state-based civil unions on this morning's Good Morning America, the New York Times reports. Additionally, the President indicated that he was open to the "possibility that nature could be the defining component when it comes to a person's sexual preference," softening his original response to the same question in the third Presidential Debate.

Not to scare the fundies, however, the President made sure to reiterate his feeling that the Marriage Protection Amendment is the only way to protect marriage between a man and a woman, and once again threw his full support behind the proposal. Still, this marks a softening of the President's rhetoric on this touchy issue, perhaps in an effort to assuage moderates' fears that the Chief Executive is too deep in the pocket of the religious right-wing of the party.

We'll find out in a week if these concessions will do anything for the President in the polls, but in the last seven days, every faction counts - as long as it can be done quietly enough so as not to eviscerate the hopes of the religious zealots he needs to win.

Related Posts:
The W stands alone?