Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Gay buying power" is set to hit $1 trillion


Gay buying power" is set to hit $1 trillion by the year 2012, according to a release issued by the group Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.


The release, as obtained by RAW STORY, follows:


#


Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) will make history on June 30 as the first organization for families and allies of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) people to ring the Closing Bell (SM) at the New York Stock Exchange.


PFLAG's trip to Wall Street - to "ring the closing bell on homophobia" - will be an opportunity for the group to discuss the exponentially growing reach of the buying power of GLBT Americans when coupled with the purchasing force of their families and friends.


"The purchasing power of the GLBT community is estimated today to be a massive $641 billion, with projections reaching $1 trillion by 2012. Add in the buying power of the millions of family members and friends who show fierce allegiance to fair- minded corporations, and you get a message that no company can afford to ignore: equality is good for business," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of the more than 200,000-member organization.


"This economic clout and product loyalty is only going to grow. We are here to give the business world this wake-up call and to help companies compete."


PFLAG leaders will be visiting the New York Stock Exchange to drive this point home to corporations around the globe. They come with new research to back their arguments that reveals that more than three-fourths of Americans personally know someone who is GLBT and those consumers are more likely than others to support companies that market to the gay and lesbian community.


"Equality in corporate America is more than just a trend. It is a reality that companies both large and small need to support in order to remain competitive. This is about much more than just GLBT people themselves. This is about the families, friends, coworkers, and other supporters who will be loyal to companies who invest in fairness for their GLBT loved ones - and that translates into employee loyalty, consumer base expansion and big economic gains today and in the years to come," Huckaby added.


The organization pointed to the expanding number of companies - including nearly half of Fortune 500 corporations - that embrace GLBT-friendly practices including domestic partner benefits, nondiscrimination policies, and financial support for organizations working to promote equality.


"There are thousands of parents just like me who will shop and spend with companies who support equality for my lesbian daughter," said Samuel Thoron, president of PFLAG who will be ringing the Closing Bell. "This is our opportunity to make sure that these corporations know that we're here, that we're paying attention, and that we influence their bottom line."


Corporations supporting PFLAG's appearance at the New York Stock Exchange on June 30 include American Airlines, Chubb, the Citigroup Foundation, Dow, IBM, Logo, the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Pfizer, and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts.



Ads by AdGenta.com


Powered by Qumana


Monday, June 26, 2006

Bush Is Not Incompetent












Bush Is Not Incompetent




  • Send this page to somebody

  • Printable version



by The Rockridge Institute

Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush’s plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush’s “failures” and label him and his administration as incompetent. Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault.


by George Lakoff, Marc Ettlinger and Sam Ferguson
(c)The Rockridge Institute, 2006 (We invite the free distribution of this piece)






Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush’s plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi said “The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader." Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault. Bush will not be running again, but other conservatives will. His governing philosophy is theirs as well. We should be putting the onus where it belongs, on all conservative office holders and candidates who would lead us off the same cliff.


To Bush’s base, his bumbling folksiness is part of his charm — it fosters conservative populism. Bush plays up this image by proudly stating his lack of interest in reading and current events, his fondness for naps and vacations and his self-deprecating jokes. This image causes the opposition to underestimate his capacities — disregarding him as a complete idiot — and deflects criticism of his conservative allies. If incompetence is the problem, it’s all about Bush. But, if conservatism is the problem, it is about a set of ideas, a movement and its many adherents.


The idea that Bush is incompetent is a curious one. Consider the following (incomplete) list of major initiatives the Bush administration, with a loyal conservative Congress, has accomplished:



  • Centralizing power within the executive branch to an unprecedented degree

  • Starting two major wars, one started with questionable intelligence and in a manner with which the military disagreed

  • Placing on the Supreme Court two far-right justices, and stacking the lower federal courts with many more

  • Cutting taxes during wartime, an unprecedented event

  • Passing a number of controversial bills such as the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Drug bill, the Bankruptcy bill and a number of massive tax cuts

  • Rolling back and refusing to enforce a host of basic regulatory protections

  • Appointing industry officials to oversee regulatory agencies

  • Establishing a greater role for religion through faith-based initiatives

  • Passing Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment — “The Healthy Forests Act” and the “Clear Skies Initiative” — to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies

  • Winning re-election and solidifying his party’s grip on Congress


These aren’t signs of incompetence. As should be painfully clear, the Bush administration has been overwhelmingly competent in advancing its conservative vision. It has been all too effective in achieving its goals by determinedly pursuing a conservative philosophy.


It’s not Bush the man who has been so harmful, it’s the conservative agenda.


The Conservative Agenda


Conservative philosophy has three fundamental tenets: individual initiative, that is, government’s positive role in people’s lives outside of the military and police should be minimized; the President is the moral authority; and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity.


The conservative vision for government is to shrink it – to “starve the beast” in Conservative Grover Norquist’s words. The conservative tagline for this rationale is that “you can spend your money better than the government can.” Social programs are considered unnecessary or “discretionary” since the primary role of government is to defend the country’s border and police its interior. Stewardship of the commons, such as allocation of healthcare or energy policy, is left to people’s own initiative within the free market. Where profits cannot be made — conservation, healthcare for the poor — charity is meant to replace justice and the government should not be involved.


Given this philosophy, then, is it any wonder that the government wasn’t there for the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Conservative philosophy places emphasis on the individual acting alone, independent of anything the government could provide. Some conservative Sunday morning talk show guests suggested that those who chose to live in New Orleans accepted the risk of a devastating hurricane, the implication being that they thus forfeited any entitlement to government assistance. If the people of New Orleans suffered, it was because of their own actions, their own choices and their own lack of preparedness. Bush couldn’t have failed if he bore no responsibility.


The response to Hurricane Katrina — rather, the lack of response — was what one should expect from a philosophy that espouses that the government can have no positive role in its citizen’s lives. This response was not about Bush’s incompetence, it was a conservative, shrink-government response to a natural disaster.


Another failure of this administration during the Katrina fiasco was its wholesale disregard of the numerous and serious hurricane warnings. But this failure was a natural outgrowth of the conservative insistence on denying the validity of global warming, not ineptitude. Conservatives continue to deny the validity of global warming, because it runs contrary to their moral system. Recognizing global warming would call for environmental regulation and governmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Regulation is a perceived interference with the free-market, Conservatives’ golden calf. So, the predictions of imminent hurricanes — based on recognizing global warming — were not heeded. Conservative free market convictions trumped the hurricane warnings.


Our budget deficit is not the result of incompetent fiscal management. It too is an outgrowth of conservative philosophy. What better way than massive deficits to rid social programs of their funding?


In Iraq, we also see the impact of philosophy as much as a failure of execution.


The idea for the war itself was born out of deep conservative convictions about the nature and capacity of US military force. Among the Project for a New American Century’s statement of principles (signed in 1997 by a who’s who of the architects of the Iraq war — Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby among others) are four critical points:



  • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future

  • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values

  • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad

  • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.


Implicit in these ideas is that the United States military can spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. Our military might and power can be a force for good.


It also indicates that the real motive behind the Iraq war wasn’t to stop Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, but was a test of neoconservative theory that the US military could reshape Middle East geo-politics. The manipulation and disregard of intelligence to sell the war was not incompetence, it was the product of a conservative agenda.


Unfortunately, this theory exalts a hubristic vision over the lessons of history. It neglects the realization that there is a limit to a foreign army’s ability to shape foreign politics for the good. Our military involvement in Vietnam, Lebanon, the Philippines, Cuba (prior to Castro) and Panama, or European imperialist endeavors around the globe should have taught us this lesson. Democracy needs to be an organic, homegrown movement, as it was in this country. If we believe so deeply in our ideals, they will speak for themselves and inspire others.


During the debate over Iraq, the conservative belief in the unquestioned authority and moral leadership of the President helped shape public support. We see this deference to the President constantly: when Conservatives call those questioning the President’s military decisions “unpatriotic”; when Conservatives defend the executive branch’s use of domestic spying in the war on terror; when Bush simply refers to himself as the “decider.” “I support our President” was a common justification of assent to the Iraq policy.


Additionally, as the implementer of the neoconservative vision and an unquestioned moral authority, our President felt he had no burden to forge international consensus or listen to the critiques of our allies. “You’re with us, or you’re against us,” he proclaimed after 9/11.


Much criticism continues to be launched against this administration for ineptitude in its reconstruction efforts. Tragically, it is here too that the administration’s actions have been shaped less by ineptitude than by deeply held conservative convictions about the role of government.


As noted above, Conservatives believe that government’s role is limited to security and maintaining a free market. Given this conviction, it’s no accident that administration policies have focused almost exclusively on the training of Iraqi police, and US access to the newly free Iraqi market — the invisible hand of the market will take care of the rest. Indeed, George Packer has recently reported that the reconstruction effort in Iraq is nearing its end (“The Lessons of Tal Affar,” The New Yorker, April 10th, 2006). Iraqis must find ways to rebuild themselves, and the free market we have constructed for them is supposed to do this. This is not ineptitude. This is the result of deep convictions over the nature of freedom and the responsibilities of governments to their people.


Finally, many of the miscalculations are the result of a conservative analytic focus on narrow causes and effects, rather than mere incompetence. Evidence for this focus can be seen in conservative domestic policies: Crime policy is based on punishing the criminals, independent of any effort to remedy the larger social issues that cause crime; immigration policy focuses on border issues and the immigrants, and ignores the effects of international and domestic economic policy on population migration; environmental policy is based on what profits there are to be gained or lost today, without attention paid to what the immeasurable long-term costs will be to the shared resource of our environment; education policy, in the form of vouchers, ignores the devastating effects that dismantling the public school system will have on our whole society.


Is it any surprise that the systemic impacts of the Iraq invasion were not part of the conservative moral or strategic calculus used in pursuing the war?


The conservative war rhetoric focused narrowly on ousting Saddam — he was an evil dictator, and evil cannot be tolerated, period. The moral implications of unleashing social chaos and collateral damage in addition to the lessons of history were not relevant concerns.


As a consequence, we expected to be greeted as liberators. The conservative plan failed to appreciate the complexities of the situation that would have called for broader contingency planning. It lacked an analysis of what else would happen in Iraq and the Middle East as a result of ousting the Hussein Government, such as an Iranian push to obtain nuclear weapons.


Joe Biden recently said, “if I had known the president was going to be this incompetent in his administration, I would not have given him the authority [to go to war].” Had Bush actually been incompetent, he would have never been able to lead us to war in Iraq. Had Bush been incompetent, he would not have been able to ram through hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Had Bush been incompetent, he would have been blocked from stacking the courts with right-wing judges. Incompetence, on reflection, might have actually been better for the country.


Hidden Successes


Perhaps the biggest irony of the Bush-is-incompetent frame is that these “failures” — Iraq, Katrina and the budget deficit — have been successes in terms of advancing the conservative agenda.


One of the goals of Conservatives is to keep people from relying on the federal government. Under Bush, FEMA was reorganized to no longer be a first responder in major natural disasters, but to provide support for local agencies. This led to the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. Now citizens, as well as local and state governments, have become distrustful of the federal government’s capacity to help ordinary citizens. Though Bush’s popularity may have suffered, enhancing the perception of federal government as inept turned out to be a conservative victory.


Conservatives also strive to get rid of protective agencies and social programs. The deficit Bush created through irresponsible tax cuts and a costly war in Iraq will require drastic budget cuts to remedy. Those cuts, conservatives know, won’t come from military spending, particularly when they raise the constant specter of war. Instead, the cuts will be from what Conservatives have begun to call “non-military, discretionary spending;” that is, the programs that contribute to the common good like the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEMA, OSHA and the NLRB. Yet another success for the conservative agenda.


Both Iraq and Katrina have enriched the coffers of the conservative corporate elite, thus further advancing the conservative agenda. Halliburton, Lockhead Martin and US oil companies have enjoyed huge profit margins in the last six years. Taking Iraq’s oil production off-line in the face of rising international demand meant prices would rise, making the oil inventories of Exxon and other firms that much more valuable, leading to record profits. The destruction wrought by Katrina and Iraq meant billions in reconstruction contracts. The war in Iraq (and the war in Afghanistan) meant billions in military equipment contracts. Was there any doubt where those contracts would go? Chalk up another success for Bush’s conservative agenda.


Bush also used Katrina as an opportunity to suspend the environmental and labor protection laws that Conservatives despise so much. In the wake of Katrina, environmental standards for oil refineries were temporarily suspended to increase production. Labor laws are being thwarted to drive down the cost of reconstruction efforts. So, amidst these “disasters,” Conservatives win again.


Where most Americans see failure in Iraq – George Miller recently called Iraq a “blunder of historic proportions” – conservative militarists are seeing many successes. Conservatives stress the importance of our military — our national pride and worth is expressed through its power and influence. Permanent bases are being constructed as planned in Iraq, and America has shown the rest of the world that we can and will preemptively strike with little provocation. They succeeded in a mobilization of our military forces based on ideological pretenses to impact foreign policy. The war has struck fear in other nations with a hostile show of American power. The conservatives have succeeded in strengthening what they perceive to be the locus of the national interest —military power.


It’s NOT Incompetence


When Progressives shout “Incompetence!” it obscures the many conservative successes. The incompetence frame drastically misses the point, that the conservative vision is doing great harm to this country and the world. An understanding of this and an articulate progressive response is needed. Progressives know that government can and should have a positive role in our lives beyond simple, physical security. It had a positive impact during the progressive era, busting trusts, and establishing basic labor standards. It had a positive impact during the new deal, softening the blow of the depression by creating jobs and stimulating the economy. It had a positive role in advancing the civil rights movement, extending rights to previously disenfranchised groups. And the United States can have a positive role in world affairs without the use of its military and expressions of raw power. Progressives acknowledge that we are all in this together, with “we” meaning all people, across all spectrums of race, class, religion, sex, sexual preference and age. “We” also means across party lines, state lines and international borders.


The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush’s management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.


Incompetence obscures the real issue. Bush’s conservative philosophy is what has damaged this country and it is his philosophy of conservatism that must be rejected, whoever endorses it.


Conservatism itself is the villain that is harming our people, destroying our environment, and weakening our nation. Conservatives are undermining American values through legislation almost every day. This message applies to every conservative bill proposed to Congress. The issue that arises every day is which philosophy of governing should shape our country. It is the issue of our times. Unless conservative philosophy itself is discredited, Conservatives will continue their domination of public discourse, and with it, will continue their domination of politics.










Powered by Qumana


premiere issue of The Democratic Strategist












Message from William Galston, Stan Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira

Welcome to the premiere issue of The Democratic Strategist. For this first issue we asked a small group of the most thoughtful individuals in the Democratic community to look beyond 2006 and to think about strategies for the Democratic Party for the next decade. Our contributors include:





















Jerome Armstrong   Elaine Kamarck
Kenneth Baer and Andrei Cherny    Will Marshall
Robert L. Borosage   Harold Meyerson
Donna Brazile   John W. Wilhelm


Ads by AdGenta.com

Following their commentaries the three of us offer our own perspectives.













William Galston   Ruy Teixeira
Stan Greenberg   



Ads by AdGenta.com

We reached out to individuals who represent the Democratic Party's liberal and centrist wings, its grassroots/netroots activists and its political professionals, its academics and leaders of mass organizations.


The results surpassed our expectations. Although the participants each clearly expressed their distinct perspectives, the conclusions they reached were far more often complementary and reinforcing than conflicting and contradictory.


In this issue we begin an extended dialog with the contributors to this unique forum using our weblog The Daily Strategist as well as our unique Roundtable conference system. As our editorial philosophy states, The Democratic Strategist will be "proudly partisan, insistently rooted in facts and data, and emphatically open to all points of view within the Democratic community". We invite you to join us in this vitally important intellectual project and political initiative.



Powered by Qumana


Thursday, June 22, 2006

House Delays Renewal of Voting Rights Act

By CARL HULSE


WASHINGTON, June 20 — House Republican leaders today abruptly canceled a planned vote to renew the Voting Rights Act after a rank-and-file rebellion by lawmakers who say the civil rights measure unfairly singles out Southern states and promotes multi-lingual ballots.
The reversal represented a significant embarrassment for the party leadership, which has promised a vote on the landmark anti-discrimination law and hailed its imminent approval in a rare bipartisan press event on the steps of the Capitol last month.
But lawmakers critical of the bill mutinied in a closed meeting of House Republicans this morning just hours before the vote was expected to occur and several said it was uncertain whether a majority of Republicans would back the legislation at this point.



"A lot of it looks as if these are some old boys from the South who are trying to do away with it," said Representative Lynn A. Westmoreland of Georgia, who said it would be unfair to keep Georgia under the confines of the law when his state has cleaned up its voting rights record. "But these old boys are trying to make it Constitutional enough that it will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court."
Despite what appears to be mounting Republican resistance, the leadership issued a statement declaring that once the concerns of lawmakers are addressed, it will move ahead with a vote on what the leaders described as one of the nation's most important civil rights laws.
"While the bill will not be considered today, the House G.O.P. leadership is committed to passing the Voting Rights Act legislation as soon as possible," the statement said.
Democrats and civil rights groups expressed severe disappointment in the change of plans.
"The fact of the matter is that you have a small group of members who have hijacked this bill and many of these individuals represent states that have been in violation for along time," said Nancy M. Zirkin, deputy director of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Questions For Ann Coulter

Questions relating to plagiarism
Can you explain the similarity of this passage from your most recent book to work previously published by others you did not cite or quote? (From a post on the weblog The Rude Pundit):
Here's Coulter from Chapter 1 of Godless: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.
Here's the Portland Press Herald, from the year 2000, in its list of the "Maine Stories of the Century": The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.
Can you explain prior instances of passages you have written that are also remarkably similar to works previously published by others you did not cite or quote? (From an August 4, 2005, article by Tucson Weekly columnist Walt Nett, citing examples highlighted by The Rude Pundit and The Raw Story):
The Coulter chase began July 1 when a blogger called The Rude Pundit (rudepundit.blogspot.com) compared four unattributed comments in Coulter's column to text from the December 1993 edition of a now-defunct Web magazine, The Flummery Digest. (If the publication is deceased, is it plagiarism or grave-robbing?) Here's one example Rude Pundit provided:
"From Ann Coulter, talking about what taxpayers have funded: 'A photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open titled to suggest the infant was available for oral sex.'
"From The Flummery Digest: 'The title of a photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open suggested that the infant was available for oral sex.' "
The Raw Story (www.rawstory.com), an online "alternative news nexus," dug around further. In a July 20 story titled "Coulter Caught Cribbing From Conservative Magazines," Raw Story presented another half-dozen questionable paragraphs -- two from a Jan. 24, 1995 column in the Boston Globe and four from various issues of an MIT-based magazine, Counterpoint.
Should we be surprised? Not really. The conservative group CoulterWatch (www.coulterwatch.com) offers strong evidence that portions of Coulter's book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, were lifted from articles and research by a former Coulter colleague -- who she since has denied ever knowing -- at Human Events magazine.
Are you able to refute other possible examples of plagiarism in your work, as documented by The Raw Story?
Questions relating to possible illegal voting
Why did you try to vote in a precinct in which you are not registered? Why did you then leave when you were told that you had to file a change-of-address form?
On February 15, The Palm Beach Post reported that when voting in local town council elections in Florida, Coulter "cast her ballot in a precinct 4 miles north of the precinct where she owns a home." Two days later, the Post reported that Coulter had attempted to vote in the wrong precinct, quoting the Palm Beach poll worker who confronted Coulter on her mistake:
A Palm Beach poll worker says he tried to help GOP-loving pundit Ann Coulter vote in the right precinct last week. But, Jim Whited says, Coulter dashed out of the polling place when he told her she needed to file a change of address.
On the June 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes noted that the Palm Beach election supervisor had accused Coulter of "voting in the wrong district and not answering a registered letter that they sent" to her. Colmes then asked Coulter: "So could you address those charges and tell us what happened?" Coulter quickly denied the allegations, but refused to provide any substantive details, instead declaring that "I think the syphilis has gone to their [the Palm Beach election officials'] brains," and adding that the reporters writing about the incident are "all retarded":
COLMES: Did you knowingly vote in the wrong district?
COULTER: No.
COLMES: What happened?
COULTER: Do you need my Social Security number? Should we get my stalkers on the line with my address and apartment number?
COLMES: No. I don't need your address. I just want to know what happened.
COULTER: No, I live in New York. I'm not going to tell you anymore about where I live, Alan. Oddly enough.
COLMES: I didn't ask you where you live. You're accused of voting in the wrong district so --
COULTER: Yes. That's not true. That's not true.
COLMES: You didn't knowingly walk into the wrong district?
COULTER: Correct.
COLMES: And did you -- is there a reason you didn't respond to the authorities when they sent you a registered letter?
COULTER: This is all false, I'm telling you. You've got -- I mean, the trees [sic] and Times may hate America, but they're at least accurate. When you go to the bush-league newspapers, you get all the venom of The New York Times, but they're all retarded.
After you left that precinct, why did you cast a ballot in another precinct that was not your own?
According to the same Palm Beach Post article, "[l]ater, elections records show, Coulter cast her ballot 2 miles up the road -- in the wrong precinct."
The Post also reported that Coulter's voter registration in Florida did not contain her correct address, noting that "Florida statutes make it a third-degree felony to vote knowingly in the wrong precinct. Lying on a voter's registration can cost up to $5,000 and five years behind bars."
Can you confirm that you have hired a lawyer to defend you against allegations of illegal voting?
On June 2, Palm Beach Post columnist Jose Lambiet noted that Coulter "hired a white-glove, White House-connected law firm to fight allegations she voted illegally in February's Town of Palm Beach election." He added that her lawyer is "one of the lead attorneys who fought for George W. Bush's side in the 2000 presidential election" in Florida.
Why are you registered to vote in both Florida and Connecticut, which is illegal according to a Connecticut registrar, even though you told Fox News that you live in New York and not Florida or Connecticut?
In a June 7 article on the Palm Beach County investigation into Coulter's voting, the New York Daily News reported that "Coulter is also registered to vote in New Canaan, Conn. -- though the local registrar told the Daily News yesterday it's illegal to be registered in two places at once." The article noted that Coulter told Fox News "she actually lives in New York" and owns a condominium in New York, but "has never registered to vote there."
Question relating to church attendance
Why does the spokesman for the church you have said you attend say that you are not a member of the church and are not known by the congregation?
In a June 8 Raw Story article, Media Matters staff member Max Blumenthal noted that, while Coulter's book "denounces liberalism as 'the opposition party to God,' " a spokesman for the church she professes to attend says that her congregation "do[esn't] really know her." Blumenthal quoted an April 17, 2005, Time magazine article, in which writer John Cloud "suggested that she has been a regular attendee of New York City's Redeemer Presbyterian Church, to which 'she brings a lot of people.' " Blumenthal then detailed his inquiry with the Manhattan church regarding Coulter's purported attendance there:
When contacted by Raw Story, however, Redeemer Presbyterian's Communications and Media Director Cregan Cooke could not confirm that Coulter had ever attended services at the church.
"The only thing I have heard is hearsay that she is an attender" of Redeemer, Cregan told Raw Story. "Our database shows that she is not a member. ... And I don't know anybody that would have seen Ann Coulter. We don't really know her."
Do you dispute the spokesperson's assertion that you are not a member? Can you name anyone who has been to the church and seen you there?
Contact:
Ann Coulter
tom@anncoulter.org


Political Talk For And By Political Junkies
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this page without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Wayne Besen compared to Adolph Hitler

Posted
at PageOneQ



A website by a right-wing preacher and self-professed
'ex-gay' DL Foster has posted a picture of the executive
director of Truth Wins Out, Wayne Besen, that has been modified to
make Besen appear like Adolph Hitler.


Foster's blog Perspectives In Motion, has a post dated June 10th in which
Foster refers to Besen's new organization as "Wayne
Besen's Final Solution." Later in the post, Foster
points out that Besen is Jewish: In the press conference, Besen (of Jewish descent)
claimed that 'ex-gay' ministries could not be trusted
or tolerated in our tolerant society. To back up those
claims he presented evidence that 'ex-gay' leaders
invariably go back to being gay. Richard Cohen, John
Paulk, Michael Johnston and uhhhh those two guys who
"fell in love" left their wives, got AIDS
and lived happily ever after. Proof positive, he
asserted that 'ex-gay' ministries were shameless snake
oil salesmen.


This personifies the extremism that is characteristic of
the 'ex-gay' movement, Mr. Besen told PageOneQ
today. "They claim they are about love, yet
regularly engage in character assassination and
misinformation campaigns," he added. Besen
responded to the image on the site, as well as it's
title, "I am disturbed by the blatant anti-semitism
of Rev. Foster. His writing and the use of a graphic
image which is so painful to so many speaks loudly not
only of Foster, but reflects poorly on the entire
so-called 'ex-gay' community," said Besen.

Monday, June 12, 2006

Mary Cheney's book sells fewer than 6,000 copies since release




Despite saturation media coverage when it was published a month ago, Mary Cheney's book Now It's My Turn has tanked at bookstores. Published by a conservative imprint of Simon & Schuster, the memoir has sold fewer than 6,000 copies to date, according to Nielsen Bookscan.The book's sales have declined in each of the four weeks since its release, to only 574 copies sold for the week ending June 3. That's 77% fewer than its first-week sales of 2,445.At this rate, it will be virtually impossible for Simon & Schuster to recoup the reported $1 million advance it paid Cheney for the book, which describes her life as the gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney. (The Advocate)

Sunday, June 11, 2006

How Hispanics Became the New Gays


From NY
Times


By Frank Rich

rich 184b

He never promised them the Rose Garden. But that’s where America’s
self-appointed defenders of family values had expected President Bush to take
his latest stand against same-sex marriage last week. In the end, without
explanation, the event was shunted off to a nondescript auditorium in the
Executive Office Building, where the president spoke for a scant 10 minutes at
the non-prime-time hour of 1:45 p.m. The subtext was clear: he was embarrassed
to be there, a constitutional amendment “protecting” marriage was a loser,
and he feared being branded a bigot. “As this debate goes forward, every
American deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect and dignity,” Mr.
Bush said.


That debate died on the floor of the Senate less than 48 hours later, when
the amendment went down to an even worse defeat than expected. Washington
instantly codified the moral: a desperate president at rock bottom in the
polls went through the motions of a cynical and transparent charade to rally
his base in an election year. Nothing was gained — even the president of the
Family Policy Network branded Mr. Bush’s pandering a ruse — and no harm
was done.


Except to gay people. That’s why the president went out of his way to
talk about “tolerance” at this rally, bizarrely held on the widely marked
25th anniversary of the first mention of an AIDS
diagnosis in a federal report. Mr. Bush knew very well that his participation
in this tired political stunt, while certain to have no effect on the
Constitution, could harm innocent Americans.



When young people hear repeatedly that gay couples aspiring to marital
commitment are “undermining the moral fabric of the country, that stuff
doesn’t wash off,” says Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force. Most concretely, the Washington ruckus trickles down into sweeping
assaults on gay partners’ employee benefits and parental rights at the state
level, as exemplified by a broadly worded referendum on the Virginia ballot
this fall outlawing any kind of civil union. Had Mr. Bush really believed that
his words had no consequences, he would have spoken in broad daylight at the
White House and without any defensive touchy-feely bromides about
“tolerance.”


Mr. Bush prides himself on being tolerant — and has hundreds of photos of
himself posing with black schoolkids to prove it. But his latest marriage
maneuver is yet another example of how his presidency has been an enabler of
bigots, and not just those of the “pro-family” breed.


The stars are in alignment for a new national orgy of rancor because
Americans are angry. The government has failed to alleviate gas prices, the
economic anxieties of globalization or turmoil in Iraq. Two-thirds of
Americans believe their country is on the wrong track. The historical response
to that plight is a witch hunt for scapegoats on whom we can project our rage
and impotence. Gay people, though traditionally handy for that role, aren’t
the surefire scapegoats they once were; support for a constitutional marriage
amendment, ABC News found, fell to 42 percent just
before the Senate vote. Hence the rise of a juicier target: Hispanics. They
are the new gays, the foremost political piñata in the election year of 2006.


As has not been the case with gay civil rights, Mr. Bush has taken a humane
view of immigration reform throughout his political career. Some of this is
self-interest; he wants to cater to his business backers’ hunger for cheap
labor and Karl Rove’s hunger for Hispanic voters. But Mr. Bush has always
celebrated and promoted immigrants and never demonized them — at least in
Texas. In the White House, he sidelined immigration after 9/11, then backed
away from a “guest worker” proposal when his party balked in 2004. After
bragging about his political capital upon re-election, he squandered it on
Iraq and a quixotic campaign to privatize Social Security. Now Congress has
acted without him, turning immigration reform into a deadlocked culture war
not unlike the marriage amendment. A draconian federal law is unlikely, but
the damage has been done: the ugly debate has in itself generated a backlash
against a vulnerable minority.


Most Americans who are in favor of stricter border enforcement are not
bigots. Far from it. But some politicians and other public figures see an
opportunity to foment hate and hysteria for their own profit. They are
embracing a nativism and xenophobia that recall the 1920’s, when a State
Department warning about an influx of “filthy” and “unassimilable”
Jews from Eastern Europe led to the first immigration quotas, or the 1950’s
heyday of Operation Wetback, when illegal Mexican workers were hunted down and
deported.


“What a repellent spectacle,” the Fox News anchor Brit Hume said when
surveying masses of immigrant demonstrators, some of them waving Mexican
flags, in April. Hearing of a Spanish version of “The Star-Spangled
Banner,” Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, introduced a Senate
resolution calling for the national anthem to be sung only in English. There
was no more point to that gratuitous bit of grandstanding than there was to
the D.O.A. marriage amendment. Or more accurately, both had the same point:
stirring up animosity against a group that can be branded an enemy of
civilization as we know it.


The most pernicious demagogues on immigration often invoke national
security as their rationale, but no terrorist has been known to enter the
United States from Mexico. Even the arguments about immigrants’ economic
impact are sometimes a smokescreen for a baser animus. As John B. Judis of The
New Republic documented in his account of Arizona’s combustible immigration
politics, the dominant fear in that border state has less to do with
immigrants stealing jobs (which are going begging in construction and
agriculture) than with their contaminating the culture through “Mexicanization.”
It’s the same complaint that’s been leveled against every immigrant group
when the country’s in this foul a mood.


That mood was ratcheted up last week by the success of Brian Bilbray’s
strategy in winning the suburban San Diego House seat vacated by the jailed
Duke Cunningham. Mr. Bilbray, a card-carrying lobbyist, was thought to be
potentially vulnerable even in a normally safe Republican district. But by his
own account, his campaign took off once he started hitting the single issue of
immigration, taking a hard line far to the right of the president who endorsed
him. Mr. Bilbray goes so far as to call for the refusal of automatic
citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants — a repudiation of the
14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War to ensure citizenship to everyone
born in the United States.


His victorious campaign set a tone likely to be embraced by other
Republicans fearful of a rout in 2006. The election year is still young, and
we haven’t seen the half of this vitriol yet. Some politicians, like Senator
James Inhofe of Oklahoma, are equal-opportunity bigots: when he isn’t
calling for the Senate to declare English the national language and demanding
that immigrants be quizzed on the Federalist Papers (could he pass?), he is
defending marriage by proclaiming that in his family’s “recorded
history” there has never been “any kind of homosexual relationship.”
(Any bets on how long before someone unearths the Inhofes’ unrecorded
history?) Vernon Robinson, a Republican Congressional candidate challenging
the Democratic incumbent Brad Miller in North Carolina, has run an ad warning
that “if Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for
illegal aliens and homosexuals.”


The practitioners of such scare politics know what they’re up to.
That’s why they so often share the strange psychological tic of framing
their arguments in civil-rights speak. The Minuteman Project, the vigilante
brigade stoking fears of an immigration Armageddon, quotes Gandhi on its Web
site; its founder, Jim Gilchrist, has referred to his group as
“predominantly white Martin Luther Kings.” On a Focus on the Family radio
show, James Dobson and the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, positioned
the campaign to deny gay civil rights as the moral equivalent of L.B.J.’s
campaign to extend civil rights. James Sensenbrenner, the leading House
Republican voice on immigration policy, likened those who employ illegal
immigrants to “the 19th-century slave masters” that “we had to fight a
civil war to get rid of.” For that historical analogy to add up, you’d
have to believe that Africans voluntarily sought to immigrate to America to be
slaves. Whether Mr. Sensenbrenner is out to insult African-Americans or is
merely a fool is a distinction without a difference in this volatile political
climate.


Mr. Bush is a lame duck, but he still has a bully pulpit. Here is a cause
he has professed to believe in since he first ran for office in Texas, and
it’s threatening to boil over in an election year. Imagine if he exercised
leadership and called out those who trash immigrants rather than merely
mouthing homilies about tolerance and dignity.


Tolerance and dignity are already on life-support in this debate. If the
president doesn’t lead, he will have helped relegate Hispanics to the same
second-class status he has encouraged for gay Americans. Compassionate
conservatism, R.I.P.


Saturday, June 10, 2006

Who's Satisfied and Who's Not?

Gallup Analysis: Who's Satisfied and Who's Not?
Republicans, conservatives most satisfied; Democrats, liberals least satisfied


by Joseph Carroll

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Every month, Gallup asks Americans the following question: "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?"

Since March 2006, Americans' overall level of satisfaction with the state of the nation has been at or below 30%. Earlier in the year, this sentiment was higher -- between 35% and 36%. To get a better understanding of how different groups of Americans answer this question, Gallup combined the results of the four polls conducted from March 2006 through June 2006, when satisfaction was at or below 30%.

Here is a look at how different groups of Americans rank in their overall level of satisfaction with the way things are going right now:

Satisfaction with State of the Nation
March-June 2006 Aggregate

Satisfied

%

Republicans
55

Conservatives
41

Men, aged 18 to 49
35

College graduates
33

Income of $75,0000 or more per year
33

30- to 49-year-olds
32

Men
32

Attend church weekly/almost weekly
32

Southerners
31

Midwesterners
30

Post-graduate education
30

Whites
30

Westerners
29

Some college education
29

18- to 29-year-olds
29

Income between $30,000-$74,999 per year
29

Protestant
29

National average
28

Men, aged 50 and older
28

Women, aged 18 to 49
28

Catholic
28

High school education or less
25

50- to 64-year-olds
25

Women
25

Attend church monthly
25

Seldom/never attend church
25

Moderates
24

65 years and older
23

Independents
22

Income of less than $30,000 per year
22

Easterners
21

Women, aged 50 and older
21

No religious affiliation
21

Blacks
15

Democrats
11

Liberals
11


As the table illustrates, partisanship and political ideology play a significant role in Americans' overall level of satisfaction. Republicans' and conservatives' level of satisfaction is much higher than the national average -- which stands at 28% across the four surveys -- while satisfaction is much lower than the national average among Democrats and liberals.

Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 4,009 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted across four surveys from March 2006 through June 2006. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points for each individual survey. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

That Gay Marriage Thing

With George Bush, Bill Frist and Rick Santorum

spending this week pushing for a Constitutional Amendment banning Same Sex Marriage

Let's consider THIS

Same Sex Marriage has a Disapproval rating of around 51 Percent

George Bush Has a Disapproval rating of over 60 percent

More voters disapprove of Bush Than Same Sex Marriage.


Just maybe the Same Sex Marriage Ban amendment will become Bush's
Terri Schiavo Bill 2006.

Monday, June 05, 2006

50-State Ranking of State & Local Tax Burden

The Public Policy Institute of New York has mined new U.S. Census Bureau data made available to produce a 50-state ranking of 2004 per capita state and local tax burden.

Here are the dozen states with the highest per capita state and local tax burden:



Here are the dozen states with the lowest per capita state and local tax burden:

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Senator Sellout

By William Greider


If left-liberal bloggers have any influence on the Democratic party, they should use their muscle right now to block a grotesque sellout--handing Republicans an odious victory on the inheritance tax.


Giving the GOP its way would hand a fabulous reward to the country's wealthiest families but, worse than that, create a $1 trillion hole in future federal revenue. If this happens, forget about universal health care or other major social reforms and public investment that Democrats are promising to pursue.
Yet leading the rush to appeasement is Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee and the party's number-one Quisling. Baucus tips over easily to outrageous deals with Republican tax-cutters. Back in 2001, he sold out on Bush's reactionary tax reduction package. Now he is working to organize a rump group of Democratic senators for "compromise" on the estate tax. That is, give the Republican sponsors most of what they seek and, in the process, cripple possibilities for the future.
Democrats do not need do anything about the estate tax at this point since the Bush version expires automatically in 2011. Let the next president decide what to recommend. For now, Dems merely need to hold the 40 votes to sustain a filibuster. The caucus overwhelmingly supports that position. The problem is the handful of potential deserters.
The first chore for activists is to bang on Baucus--quickly and mercilessly--because a Senate vote is expected next week. More to the point, grassroots Democrats need to bang on the handful of wobbly Democratic senators disposed to go along with Senator Sellout or flirting with the idea. These include the two Nelsons (Bill of Florida, Ben of Nebraska), Salazar of Colorado, Lincoln and Pryor of Arkansas and--most shocking--Washington's two usually progressive senators, Cantwell and Murray. Their state includes a bunch of techie billionaires and the family-owned Seattle Times that hammers them on the supposed injustice of the estate tax. They need to know a price will be paid for defection.
The second great task for grassroots Dems is to confront the party leaders on their own cowardly acquiescence. Why do they allow this one disloyal rogue to undercut the party's position and yet escape any punitive consequences? If Democrats should win back Senate control this year, Baucus will become Finance Committee Chairman again--free do more outrageous tax favors for his wealthy pals.
The Democratic caucus and minority leader Harry Reid ought to inform Baucus--right now--that, if he proceeds with this sellout, he can forget about ever being chairman again. The legislative fight may sound like inside baseball and it is, but this is a central test of character for the party. If incumbent Democrats are unwilling to upset their "club" by punishing this wayward jerk on such a decisive matter, then maybe the "club" deserves to retain its minority status.

posted at the Nation.com

Friday, June 02, 2006

Truth Wins Out







Truth Wins Out -- to Take on Key Issue In Anti-Gay Campaigns



Washington, DC -- As President Bush and Congress prepare to
debate gay marriage, a new organization will launch next Wednesday, June 7th to
combat so-called "Ex-Gay" ministries and organizations.



"Truth Wins Out will confront a dangerous lie that has buttressed anti-gay
campaigns from coast to coast," said founder and noted activist Wayne Besen.
"From school boards to city councils to Congress, a lie is being advanced
that sexual orientation is something that can be directed or 'cured. It's false,
and Truth Wins Out will strike this pillar out from under anti-gay
efforts."



Truth Wins Out will launch at the National Press Club with dramatic personal
stories of victims of "ex-gay" programs, and insights into how ex-gay
theories are woven into nearly all efforts opposed to equality for gay and
lesbian Americans. The press conference will also expose the new Right-wing
strategy to force "ex-gay" theories into classrooms.



WHO: Truth Wins Out, presenting victims of "ex-gay"
efforts.

Wayne Besen, Author, "Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and
Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth"



WHAT: A new national organization to combat so-called
"ex-gay" efforts and larger Right-wing misinformation campaigns.



WHEN: Wednesday, June 7th, 2006 at 10:00am



WHERE: National Press Club, Zenger Room

529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC

10AM



**NOTE** Truth Wins Out will launch in the same week that Focus
on the Family convenes in Washington, DC to support President Bush̢۪s
effort to ban gay marriage.

posted at : waynebesen.com

Thursday, June 01, 2006

EXXON REFUSES BUDGE ON LGBT RIGHTS, GLOBAL WARMING

Exxon Mobil shareholders met yesterday in Dallas and refused to update the company's misguided and discriminatory policies. For the seventh year, shareholders "rejected a resolution seeking the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees in the company's anti-discrimination policies." 34.6 percent of the attendees voted in favor of the resolution, up from 29.4 percent in 2005. Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese notes that Exxon is the only Fortune 50 company that refuses to accept the anti-discrimination policy. Exxon also refused to budge from its anti-global warming position, with CEO Rex Tillerson asserting that the climate change "scientific consensus" was an "oxymoron." Tillerson tried to argue that Exxon was simply taking part in the "debate" over global warming by funding right-wing skeptics. But Exxon's skeptics aren't part of the mainstream debate. Fellows, such as Sterling Burnett, at the Exxon-backed National Center for Policy Analysis, have resorted to comparing Al Gore to Adolf Hitler: "Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews." While Exxon continues to insist that there's no consensus on global warming, the scientific community is moving forward. Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth's temperature is rising due to human activity

big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals

"If Miller had his way," says the announcer, "America would
be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals."



Congressman Brad Miller (D-NC) is facing one of the nastiest campaigns in the
nation, as supporters of challenger Vernon Robinson race-bait in black
neighborhoods and question the Representative's sexual orientation in radio ads
set to mariachi music, according to the News & Observer.


"Brad Miller supports gay marriage and sponsored a bill to let American
homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this country on a marriage
visa," an announcer says in a Robinson-endorsed ad.


"If Miller had his way America would be nothing but one big fiesta for
illegal aliens and homosexuals," the ad continues. "But if you elect
Vernon Robinson, that party's over."


The ad can be heard at Robinson's Website at this link.


Excerpts from the lengthy News & Observer piece follow:


"My wife was interviewed on three television stations last week about
why we had not had children and what was my sexual orientation," Miller
recently told delegates to the 13th District Democratic convention at Alamance
Community College.


...


Robinson has already run a radio ad that features mariachi band music playing
in the background. "If Miller had his way," says the announcer,
"America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and
homosexuals."


...


Besides trying to attract white conservatives, Robinson hopes to siphon off
15 percent of the black vote. His campaign has sent separate mailings and left
recorded telephone messages in the homes of black voters. The telephone message
criticizes Miller for, among other things, living in an all-white neighborhood
in the Five Points section of Raleigh.


...


Robinson's biting campaign style has long been controversial. In the
Republican primary in 2004 in the 5th District, he ran a TV ad showing the face
of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton morphing into that of [rival Virginia] Foxx,
accusing Foxx of supporting "racial quotas, gay rights and the abortion
bills." Since winning the House seat, Foxx has had the most conservative
voting record in the North Carolina delegation, according to the nonpartisan
National Journal.


***


Read the full story here.


VIDEO NEWS WIRE

Politico 44 President's Calendar

AlterNet.org: Video




Days Since Michael Steele Said He Won't Resign

23 Days, 23 Hours, 32 Minutes, 38 Seconds.

"The Playa" said he wouldn't resign as head of the RNC ("Not me Baby! Nuh-uh. Not happening. No way, no how.")

Followers

ShareThis

http://feeds.salon.com/salon/greenwald_podcast_rss

The Real News Network

  

Learn more about the Neighborhood Volunteer Program

John McCain

The 50 State Strategy

Buy a Democracy Bond

My site was nominated for Best Pop Culture Blog!

Politics on HuffingtonPost.com

MSNBC.com: Countdown With Olbermann

RawStory.com Headlines

The Nation: Top Stories

Evri Skyscraper Widget

YouTube :: Videos by politicstv

Contributors

Blog Archive