Politics Daily

Florida GOP to Filmmakers: No Family Values, No Tax Credit

David Gibson — 2010-03-10T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Religion, Gay Rights, Disputations, Governors, 2010 Elections

They say everyone's a critic, but it'll be interesting to see how Florida's Republicans figure out which films will be "family friendly" enough to qualify for a tax credit proposal the state GOP is pushing.

One thing seems certain -- no movies or TV shows with gay characters will be eligible for the "family friendly" tax credit provision that was inserted into a $75 million incentive package that House Republican leaders hope will attract film and entertainment jobs to the state. That's because it explicitly bars productions with "nontraditional family values" from receiving a tax credit.

That would seem to target gay characters and plots -- though State Rep. Stephen Precourt, a Republican from Orlando, told The Palm Beach Post that he was not singling out gays by including the term "nontraditional family values" in his bill. But when the Post asked Precourt if shows with gay characters should get the tax credit, he said, "That would not be the kind of thing I'd say that we want to invest public dollars in."

Not that sun-baked Florida would have worked as a set for "Brokeback Mountain." But does "nontraditional family values" mean anything beyond excluding beyond gay characters?

The bill defines a family friendly movie as one suitable for a 5-year-old, that has "cross-generational appeal," and includes "a responsible resolution of issues," according to the Post. No smoking, no cursing, no drunkenness, no sex, no nudity and no gay people, even if fully clothed.

"Think of it as like Mayberry," Precourt said, referring to "The Andy Griffith Show" of his youth. "That's when I grew up -- the '60s. That's what life was like. I want Florida to be known for making those kinds of movies: Disney movies for kids and all that stuff. Like it used to be, you know?"

Of course, Precourt's district includes Disney World. On the other hand, Disney has repeatedly come under fire from social conservatives for the annual "Gay Days" at its theme parks and for providing domestic partnership benefits to employees. Boycotts in those cases eventually succumbed to the appeal of the Magic Kingdom and its films.

Given the hothouse that is Florida politics these days, especially with a fierce battle for an open Senate seat and the governor's office, it's no surprise this bill is becoming a big issue.

Gov. Charlie Crist, who is in a battle for his political life against Tea Party favorite and GOP primary rival Marco Rubio, was not going to pass up a chance to outflank Rubio on the right.

"Let me define it in the positive," Crist said of the family-friendly tax credit provision. "A traditional family is a marriage between a man and a woman. That's traditional."

But not everyone thinks this is a winning issue. Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican candidate to replace Crist, told the Post he didn't want to get into a "word game" about what the language means.

"You'll have to ask the bill sponsors," McCollum said. "They've got something in mind, I'm sure."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge of Anti-Gay Protest at Marine's Funeral

Tom Diemer — 2010-03-09T10:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Gay Rights, Supreme Court, Culture, Law

The Supreme Court has decided to consider whether the First Amendment gives anti-gay protesters the unrestricted right to picket funerals for fallen servicemen and women with signs saying "God Hates You," among other harsh statements.

The court on Monday agreed to hear the appeal of a lower court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment against such demonstrators. The money had been awarded to Albert Snyder, the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, whose 2006 funeral in Westminster, Md., was picketed by a handful of placard-carrying members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan.

"For the rest of my life, I will remember what they did to me and it has tarnished the memory of my son's last hour on earth," Albert Snyder said. His central claim is that the protesters intentionally did him harm emotionally, according to the New York Times.

The church members, headed by Pastor Fred Phelps, say that they are protesting, in a non-violent way, an American lifestyle and a U.S. military that condones homosexuality. One of the signs at Snyder's funeral read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Catholic Preschool Boots Child Because Parents Are Lesbians

David Gibson — 2010-03-08T13:10:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Gay Rights, Disputations

A Catholic school in Boulder, Colo., has refused to re-enroll a child in its preschool program because the student's parent are lesbians.

Officials at Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School, acting at the direction of the Archdiocese of Denver, last week told faculty members that the child would not be readmitted to the church school because of the sexual orientation of the child's parents. Neither the child nor the parents have been identified.

Anger spread as word of the child's rejection became public. According to KUSA-TV, which first reported the story, school staff members said they were "disgusted" by the decision. One employee told the TV station that she could not believe a student would have to suffer because of his or her parents' sexual orientation.

At Mass on Sunday, several demonstrators gathered outside the church to protest the decision. "God and Jesus would not allow discrimination in that way," Joellen Raderstorf, one of about two dozen protesters, told reporters. One woman leaving Mass said she disagreed with the decision as well. "I just feel the Catholic Church is a church that should be teaching acceptance and tolerance," Juli Aderman-Hagerty said. "I just don't think this is an example of that."

Church officials have not responded to requests for comment, but the pastor of Sacred Heart of Jesus parish, Father Bill Breslin, offered a feisty defense of the decision in his online column:

If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don't want to put any child in that tough position -- nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why would good parents want their children to learn something they don't believe in? It doesn't make sense. There are so many schools in Boulder that see the meaning of sexuality in an entirely different way than the Catholic Church does. Why not send their child there?

The Archdiocese of Denver also released a statement clarifying its rationale for rejecting the child:

To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching. Our admission policy states clearly, "No person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school's philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese."

Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment. To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.

Still, critics wondered why any child should be singled out for rejection because of his or her parents, but also why a gay couple was being singled out given that many parents of students at Catholic schools are divorced or remarried or unmarried, or using birth control or living lifestyles that church teaching would also consider sinful.

Moreover, many Catholic schools across the country gladly enroll non-Catholic students, and in some urban areas the percentage of non-Catholic students reaches upward of 90 percent. How such families would fit into the rigorous definition offered by the Denver archdiocese was unclear.

Apart from public protests, there is little legal recourse should the two mothers try that route. As a private religious institution, a Catholic school can decide whom it wants to admit and whom it wants to reject.

How this kind of thing will strike Catholics themselves -- and the Americans the church says it wants to evangelize -- is another question.

Surveys show that for Americans, and especially young adults, equality for gays is increasingly a non-issue. Americans support civil unions by a wide margin, according to the latest research from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, and among 18- to 29-year-olds, support for gay marriage outpolls opposition by 58 percent to 37 percent.

More ominous for the churches is that the attitudes of young people, even churchgoers, is increasingly coloring their view toward Christianity, in part because many leading denominations -- notably Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians -- are becoming increasingly outspoken against equal treatment for homosexuals.

A Barna survey of 16- to 29-year-olds found that "the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is 'anti-homosexual.' " The survey found that 91 percent of young non-Christians and 80 percent of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. Both groups said that "Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians," and the respondents frequently said the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than other issues.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pope Silent on Uganda's 'Kill-the-Gays' Bill

David Gibson — 2010-03-08T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Gay Rights, Disputations

Pope Benedict XVI met with the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Uganda at the Vatican last Friday and delivered a speech summing up what he saw as the main tasks of the church in the East African nation -- but made no mention of the draconian anti-homosexuality bill that has prompted an international outcry.

The legislation pending in the Ugandan parliament provides for life imprisonment for homosexuals and even execution in some cases -- hence its nickname, the "kill the gays" bill -- and for jail terms for those who do not out those they believe to be homosexuals.
The bill has not only sparked international protests, but also finger-pointing at conservative American Christians who have been seen as giving aid and comfort to Ugandan Christians and politicians who want to toughen Uganda's law criminalizing homosexuality.

As we wrote here, the protests and media coverage have prompted a number of American Christians, mainly evangelicals and a few Catholics with longstanding ties to Uganda, to renounce any support for the legislation. There have also been mounting calls for the pope and the archbishop of Canterbury -- head of the Anglican Communion, which has a high profile in Uganda -- to throw their weight against the bill.

But in his address to the bishops of Uganda last Friday, Benedict XVI made no reference to the anti-gay bill or the international outcry surrounding it.

Instead he called on the bishops to "encourage the Catholics of Uganda to appreciate fully the sacrament of marriage in its unity and indissolubility, and the sacred right to life" -- the latter a reference to abortion. He also urged them "to resist the seduction of a materialistic culture of individualism which has taken root in so many countries" -- a reference to concerns about an encroaching cultural influence from Europe and North America.

The closest he came to mentioning homosexuals seemed to be in his call for the church in Uganda to support those who "care for people afflicted by poverty, AIDS and other diseases, teaching them to see in those whom they serve the suffering face of Jesus." AIDS is a plague in Uganda and afflicts straights and gays, men and women and children alike.

The papal address was wide-ranging and covered a number of topics of concern to the church's internal development; such is typically the case when the pope meets the entire hierarchy of a country in Rome, as he does for each nation every five years. But the pope will typically touch on hot-button social and political issues as well. In speaking to bishops from the United States, for example, the pope would always comment on abortion and immigration.

There are several reasons why Benedict may not have mentioned the anti-gay bill -- or rather the broader issue of human rights and protections for homosexuals and love of the sinner, since for diplomatic reasons the pope would not target a specific piece of legislation. One is that he may not be aware of the legislation or the controversy. Another is that his aides know that if he raised the issue it would become the lead of every story. There is also concern that having religious leaders outside Uganda speak out against the popular bill would backfire and ensure its passage.

Moreover, the bishops themselves may have asked the Vatican to refrain from addressing the issue (though that has not always stopped the pope from speaking his mind) since they are in the tricky position of trying to maintain the church's position in Uganda in the face of serious challenges from conservative evangelicals and Pentecostals, as well as Muslims, who are far more severe in their approach to homosexuals than the Catholic Church is.

Just before Christmas, Archbishop Cyprian Lwanga of Kampala, the Ugandan capital, released a statement reiterating church teaching that homosexuality is immoral but saying the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, as it is known, "does not pass a test of a Christian caring approach to this issue."

"The targeting of the sinner, not the sin, is the core flaw of the proposed Bill," he wrote. "The introduction of the death penalty and imprisonment for homosexual acts targets people rather than seeking to counsel and to reach out in compassion to those who need conversion, repentance, support and hope."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

America the Peevish: When Debate Descends to Name-Calling

Mary C. Curtis — 2010-03-07T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, Religion, Nancy Pelosi, Gaffes, Humor, Media, Gay Rights, Taxes, Race, Immigration, Terror, Sarah Palin, Obama Administration, Woman Up, Culture, 2010 Elections, Conservatives, Harry Reid, News Media, Campaigns, Ethics, al Qaeda, Tea Party

Demonize your opponent. Technically, it's nothing new. But Republicans are finding that it is possible to go too far, especially if you get caught. Party leaders are backing away from a fund-raising document that suggests using "fear" to motivate donors and paints Democrats as cartoon caricatures: President Obama is the Joker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Cruella DeVille and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Scooby-Doo.

Ruh-ro!

It's pretty hard to get worked up over such excess, as Democratic outrage resembles Claude Rains' sly Captain Renault in "Casablanca," shocked that such dirty dealings are going on.

But it is depressing that attacks that start by parsing complex issues -- from health-care reform to national security concerns -- quickly descend into school-yard taunts. The GOP PowerPoint, first reported by Politico, was catchy and occasionally funny, but it offended because it's ultimately so silly. If you are comfortable in your beliefs, isn't that enough?

Disagreement has become a battle to the death, with the other guy not just wrong but inhuman, dangerous even. It's easy to put horns on his head and to exact retribution whenever possible.

Though I have no doubt the intentions are based on Church doctrine on one side and civil rights on the other, it was troubling that the Catholic Archdiocese and Washington, D.C., could not reach a more conciliatory solution in the matter of medical insurance at Catholic Charities in the district. The archdiocese decided to cut health coverage for spouses of all future Catholic Charities employees rather than provide benefits to same-sex partners; the city would not adjust its decision or provide a waiver for the Church. When the city and the Catholic Church had a similar spat in San Francisco, they reached a compromise allowing insured employees to add anyone legally in their home -- parent, child or partner -- to their health-care package. Compromise, however, has come to mean capitulation. The result in Washington will be fewer people with health insurance.

Standing on principle looks nothing like strength. Instead, it has taken on a tone of defensiveness. And it happens on both sides.

As I prepared to leave for the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville last month, excited to talk with some of the 600 delegates who traveled to this first-ever event and - let's face it - wondering what Sarah Palin was like up close, I was surprised at the reaction from people who I thought were more open-minded.

One told me she didn't know how I could go because she wouldn't be able to even be near them, political disagreement being a contagious disease, I suppose. Others feared for my safety, as though a journalist with a notepad and tape recorder would be the prime target for a beat-down in the middle of the Opryland resort.

I didn't get this much hand-wringing solicitude from friends when I reported a story on Confederate heritage groups, and traveled to meetings where folks refused to salute the American flag "because you can't serve two masters" and punctuated solemn renditions of "Dixie" with a rebel yell.

Some tea party activists had indeed earned bad reputations, with crude signs, some disruptive behavior and the occasional firearm at rallies. But no group wants to be judged by its most extreme rhetoric. I figured the best way to get to know what someone believes was to just ask.

My first night in Nashville, sitting with three delegates from Florida, we all managed to get through dinner with no raised voices or food fights. Different roads had led them to friendship and their pro-small government, anti-health-care bill stance. We even had an interesting discussion of states' rights vs. federal rule after I said that Supreme Court intervention overturning laws forbidding marriage between blacks and whites made it possible for me to marry my husband years later.

But on the larger stage, nuances disappeared, with countless references to the president as a socialist, communist and fascist. "I have nothing against him personally," folks would say before unloading a barrage of insults, one comparing him unfavorably to Mussolini.

While delegates expressed some resentment at being defined by Tom Tancredo's speech advocating civics literacy tests as a voting prerequisite, they greeted the former Colorado congressman with loud applause and stood in a long line to chat and take pictures. A convention organizer said: "Congressman Tancredo had a gift for understatement."

Also popular in Nashville was former Judge Roy Moore, famous for his refusal to obey a federal judge's order to move a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building. His appeal was religious and muscular, as he excoriated President Obama for "denying we are a Christian nation" and called for "300 million people armed in the cause of liberty."

The terms revolt and revolution were tossed about throughout the convention weekend, with those claiming to be true patriots warning, often with a disingenuous wink, that the prospect of armed conflict against the duly elected U.S. government was at hand.

Media were placed firmly placed in the unpatriotic, villainous category. Amy Kremer of Tea Party Express led a wave of jeers toward the back of the room where media representatives camped on a platform. "We do not need the media -- at all," she said. I was in the audience at the time, sharing a pleasant breakfast with a nice older couple from California, who looked a little embarrassed. "She's going too far," they said, not daring to stand and join the crowd in shouts of "go home" since we had just been talking about family and other normal stuff. (We've been in touch since. They approved of my stories and invited me to their home.)

When conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart took over, he continued the"liberal media" bashing, saying he was going to organize a tea party at "Sixth Avenue in Manhattan," so the patriots could stand in the way of the rich elite and their beach getaways at the Hamptons. I was relieved to know he wasn't talking about me, living as I do far away on the North Carolina-South Carolina border in a lifestyle so modest that thieves recently turned their noses up at my non-flat-screen behemoth of a barely working TV.

On the one side, accusations of "racist" and "scary," on the other, "Whole Foods" and "al-Qaeda" sympathizers. Partisan politics is defined by catch phrases and characterizations that barely make sense.

The insults flying left and right remind me of a five-page handwritten letter I received when I wrote about the Confederate flag then atop the South Carolina statehouse. It was so filled with hate that by the end, the author had stopped communicating in complete sentences, content to just scrawl random insults until she ran out of steam.

Is there any hope that the 50-state "civility tour" of former Iowa Rep. Jim Leach, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, is taking grass root? The Coffee Party, with more than 87,000 fans and counting, hopes its March 13 National Coffee Party Day will draw believers in its mission to give "voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government." So now you have to join a group to calmly chat? Some how, I don't know if anything not powered by outrage has a chance.

That simplistic sniping is not a new phenomenon brings little comfort. You'd think we'd know better by now.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Virginia Attorney General Tells Colleges to Back Off on Gay Rights Policies

Tom Diemer — 2010-03-06T13:01:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Education, Gay Rights, Culture, Governors, Conservatives, Ethics, Law

Virginia's conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, wants the state's public colleges and universities to pull back on policies banning discrimination against gay students because he says the schools don't have the legal authority to make those kinds of rules.

In a letter to the schools on Thursday, Cuccinelli argued that only Virginia's General Assembly can establish legal protections based on sexual orientation -- not the universities' governing boards of visitors, the Washington Post reported.

Cuccinelli, a Republican elected in November, seemed to be signaling to the academic community that he intends to take a harder line on social issues such as gay rights, the Post said.

"It is my advice that the law and policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including 'sexual orientation' 'gender expression,' or like classificaiton as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy, absent specific authorization from the General Assembly," he wrote.

The attorney general's letter came as the neighboring District of Columia began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Officials at several leading universities in the commonwealth reacted cautiously, declining comment on Cuccinelli's action.

But Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, a former state deputy attorney general and counsel to Equality Virginia, said the college boards should get a second opinion. "They call. it advice for a reason," she said.

Former Virginia Attorney General Jerrry Kilgore, a Republican, said it would be hard for Cuccinnelli to enforce his opinion without going to court. But Kilgore said board members at colleges and universities "are required to follow the law... and he's telling them what the law is."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Lieberman Forges Ahead on Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Tom Diemer — 2010-03-04T10:58:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Gay Rights, Obama Administration, Culture

Two keys senators are moving forward on a bill throwing out the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans gays from serving openly in the military, despite pleas from the Pentagon for more time study the impact on the Armed Forces.

Pentagon spokesmen told reporters on Wednesday that the military needs to know more about the potential effect of lifting the prohibition so "that we could work with Congress to help inform the process that they undertake, if they undertake it," the Washington Post said.

But Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is not waiting on the 10-month review ordered up by the Defense Department. He introduced legislation Wednesday to immediately repeal the ban and forbid discrimination against gay men or women in the military. And Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said his panel will likely consider the bill in May as part of broader legislation authorizing Defense Department spending in 2011.

"If Americans want to serve they ought to have the right to be considered for that service regardless of characteristics such as race, religion, gender or sexual orientation," Lieberman said.

"Don't ask, don't tell," enacted with President Clinton's support in 1994, requires military commanders to refrain from digging into the sexual preferences of service members as long as individuals, while serving, keep their sexual orientation private. President Obama and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen have endorsed the repeal effort.

Passage this year, however, is far from assured. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and a number of other senators think the current policy is working and want to keep it.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Pentagon xxxPolitico said.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Which Senator Has a Secret 'Hold' on Gay Nominee Chai Feldblum?

David Gibson — 2010-03-04T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Republicans, Gay Rights, Disputations, Congress, Conservatives

One of the many problems of the secret "hold" that any senator can place on a nomination is that no one knows whether the senator in question objects to the nominee's views or the nominee as a person.

So what are we to make of news that a senator, so far unidentified, has put a hold on the nomination of Chai Feldblum, an openly gay law professor at Georgetown, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? Is it a problem with Feldblum's positions or the fact that she is a lesbian? Or perhaps another reason altogether?

Lisa Keen of Keen News Service reported the hold on Feldblum and four other EEOC nominees on Monday, quoting a spokesperson for Sen. Harry Reid saying the majority leader is "working to get an agreement" with Republicans to consider the nomination of Feldblum and the others.

Since it doesn't take much these days to provoke Republicans to thwart President Obama's initiatives by any means necessary, it is no surprise that Feldblum's nomination is being held up.

When Obama nominated Feldblum in October last year, the eyes of social and religious conservatives lit up like pinball machines because of Feldblum's record. Not only was she a drafter of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill -- still pending in Congress -- that would prohibit employment discrimination based on someone's real or perceived sexual orientation, but in 2006 she signed a mission statement sponsored by BeyondMarriage.org that critics say endorsed polygamy.

The offending reference in the statement is support for "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner."

Feldblum has also advocated for government and social support of "nonsexual domestic partnerships," or NSDPs. She herself was in such an arrangement at one time with three other women; one of them was a single mother and the other three had committed to helping her raise the children, without a sexual involvement among them.

(Interestingly, as we noted in our story on the new Washington gay marriage law and the conflict with Catholic Charities, some Catholic leaders have made similar arguments to allow any person residing in a domicile to share in the health benefits of another, whether married or not. In addition, Feldblum has represented Catholic Charities on many issues.)

In any event, Feldblum was quick to repent of her signature on the BeyondMarriage.org statement, saying she had not read the document closely.

"I do not support polygamy,'' Feldblum told Sen. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, during her November confirmation hearing. ''I am sorry I signed that document and I have asked that my name be removed.''

Feldblum said she agreed with the ''general thrust'' of the statement's "support for the range of caregiving relationships,'' but said the full statement ''goes beyond what I would have said and it was mistake to sign it.''

No Republicans objected to Feldblum or questioned her, and as Keen reported at the time, the hearing went off without the expected fireworks.

But apparently someone was keeping the powder dry for a later fight and has now put a hold on her nomination and that of the others. The motivation remains as much a mystery as the senator's identity.

Under Senate rules concerning holds, at some point Reid will have to decide whether to challenge or identify the "holding" senator -- unless of course the senator decides to "out" himself or herself.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

First Day for Same Sex Marriage Licenses Under New D.C. Law

Tom Diemer — 2010-03-03T14:44:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Gay Rights, Culture, Ethics

More than 100 same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in the nation's capital on Wednesday as the District of Columbia officially joined five states in allowing gay mariage.

Many of the couples lined up outside on a cold, rainy day waiting for the marriage bureau at the D.C. Superior Court to open on the first day of eligibility for same-sex applications under a new law. No marriages can be performed until Tuesday at the earliest as it takes three days to process the paperwork, the Washington Post reported.

Couples exchanged hugs and cupcakes and many headed off to work after filling out forms and paying $45 in fees. Most of the applicants were from Washington, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia.

"We're whole now. We will actually be a true family like everyone else," Angelisa Young said, with her partner, Sinjoyla Townsend, standing next to her.

A handful of protesters and supporters also showed up, but no serious disturbances were reported.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Harold Ford 'Stonewalled' Into Withdrawing?

James Daubs — 2010-03-03T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Gay Rights, Obama Administration, 2010 Elections, Harry Reid, Campaigns, Liberals, Tea Party

On the New York Times op-ed page and on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Tuesday, Harold Ford Jr., did what many New Yorkers feared he would do if elected to Kirsten Gillibrand's U.S. Senate seat: he made the weaker appear the stronger cause. He prevaricated. He dissembled. He put the best face on an embarrassing situation -- an important skill for a politician, but this particular politician was seeking to explain not why he was running, but why he was not running a race he nevertheless insists he could have won.

It's pretty well known by now that Ford, erstwhile U.S. representative from Tennessee, seriously considered challenging Gillibrand in New York's Democratic primary for the Senate seat she currently occupies, the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton when she became secretary of state. (The ever-bumbling Gov. David Paterson named Gillibrand to the seat after a protracted and awkward vetting period during which -- bizarrely -- Caroline Kennedy seemed to be the front-runner.) And by Tuesday morning, everyone who cared knew that Ford had taken himself out of the running; Ford wrote an op-ed piece in Tuesday's Times under the headline "Why I'm Not Running for the Senate."

In it, and on Scarborough's show, Ford gave his official reason for withdrawing, which was predictable in the extreme: his challenge to Gillibrand could only make for an ugly primary, leaving the New York Democratic Party -- in the wake of Ford's certain victory, of course -- weakened and vulnerable to defeat by a Republican challenger. The Democratic Party can't afford to lose yet another Senate seat, and so forth and so on.

Scratch Ford's magnanimous surface, however, and you find a thick coating of paranoia -- which doesn't, of course, mean that they're not out to get him. "Democratic Party insiders started their own campaign to bully me out of the race," says Ford in his editorial. "[T]he party bosses who tried to intimidate me...are the same people responsible for putting Democratic control of the Senate at risk." He has a point, of course: Harry Reid and Charles Schumer, both of whom openly opposed Ford's candidacy, don't exactly inspire confidence as we approach the 2010 elections. Less convincing, however, is Ford's insistence to Scarborough that "this talk that the liberals didn't accept me is just wrong." Guess what? The liberals didn't accept him.

New York One reports that Ford met last Saturday with African-American leaders and that they were "lukewarm at best." In his Tuesday utterances, Ford tried to position himself as a populist whose heart is with the working-class voter, but the Times implies that the independents didn't exactly accept him, either: Ford "told the Times that he had visited Staten Island via helicopter, apparently unaware that residents of the borough are preoccupied with the dearth of public transportation there."

To be sure, New Yorkers are hard to fool, whether they're from Staten Island, Brooklyn, the Bronx or the Upper East Side of Manhattan. But it seems to me that the inhabitants of Chelsea had more to do with Ford's leaving the race than he's letting on.

Both New York One and DNAinfo report that Ford was raked over the Q-and-A coals during a visit to the Stonewall Democratic Club last week. Members of the primarily gay and unquestionably liberal organization hissed, booed and heckled Ford, reminding him that he had, while a Tennessee congressman, twice supported an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage; and while Ford denies it, Stonewall Democrats further accused Ford of telling Tennessee gay activists that he would oppose the amendment, only to support it when push came to shove.

In video footage of the meeting, Ford -- often referred to as "photogenic," "telegenic," even "Obamaesque"-- faces down the hecklers with a smile that is more than half grimace. But what was he expecting? Polite applause and genteel dissent? We're living in an age when senior senators are shouted down by Tea Party activists and when the President of the United States is heckled by a member of Congress.

Ford can only have been shaken by the encounter, and must have been further shaken by his less than enthusiastic reception by African-American politicos. He almost certainly feels ill-used, but he should know better than to take gay and lesbian support for granted. Ford can be as sanctimonious as he likes about maintaining party unity and keeping control of a safe Senate seat, but it seems to me he's trying to save face. What he encountered in Chelsea last week was nothing less than an exercise in rough-and-ready participatory democracy, and he must have come away from it thinking that New York politics was not the cakewalk -- or the tea dance -- he expected it to be.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

D.C. Catholic Charity Drops Spouse Coverage Over Gay Law

David Gibson — 2010-03-03T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Health Care, Gay Rights, Disputations

Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, facing a new District of Columbia law mandating health coverage for partners of gay employees in agencies that take taxpayer dollars, has decided to drop coverage for all spouses of Catholic Charities employees rather than be forced to insure same-sex couples.

The announcement follows last month's decision by Catholic Charities to end its longstanding foster care and adoption program because the new statute would have compelled the agency to place children with qualified gay applicants.

Catholic Charities is the church's main social welfare agency and it receives $22 million a year from the District to help run a range of programs for the needy in the capital.

The church policy dropping spousal coverage for future hires at Catholic Charities was crafted in response to the District's new gay marriage law, set to go into effect this week. (Currently just 10 percent of Catholic Charities' 850 employees have a spouse on their policy, and they will be grandfathered in.)Catholic Charities did not want to drop or reduce services beyond the adoption and foster care program, so the archdiocese decided that it would drop all spousal coverage for employees so that it could still take government funds for other programs and not risk that it would wind up insuring a gay couple.

"This was a very tough decision," said archdiocesan spokesperson Susan Gibbs. "The preference would have been no change, but without religious exemption protections in the same-sex marriage law, Catholic Charities was put into a tough situation. A lot of options were considered, but this one seemed to be the most straightforward and the best fit."

Still, the decision has prompted an outcry from many quarters since it smacks of cutting off someone else's nose to save one's own face.

By dropping all spousal coverage, the archdiocese maintains a clear conscience as far as church doctrine goes because it would not have to provide benefits to gay couples whose lifestyles the church considers sinful. And its action reinforces its displeasure that the D.C. City Council passed the law without an exemption for religious organizations -- not that the council members are likely to take a guilt trip given that they easily passed the law despite strenuous objections from many church and religious freedom advocates.

But the move comes at the expense not only of gay couples but also the church's credibility on health care reform at a time when the Catholic hierarchy has made affordable, universal health care a top legislative priority.

"For decades, the church has been at the forefront of worker benefits, so this move cuts against their understanding of social justice and health benefits to all possible," Robert W. Tuttle, a church-state expert at Georgetown's law school, told the Washington Post. "But obviously, you can see they felt there was a real conflict between those values. They feel they weren't left with much of a choice."

Still, two questions puzzle critics of the move.

One is why the Washington archdiocese did not push for a more creative -- some would say humane -- alternative that was engineered a few years ago in San Francisco by Archbishop William Levada, a solidly orthodox churchman who went on to become the Vatican's chief doctrinal officer and a top lieutenant to Pope Benedict XVI.

In 1996 the city of San Francisco said it would not fund social service agencies -- like the local Catholic Charities -- that did not provide health benefits to domestic partners. Levada instead successfully pushed Mayor Willie Brown to allow insured employees to designate anyone legally domiciled in their residence as their health care co-beneficiary -- be they a child, a parent, an aunt, a close friend or, yes, a gay or lesbian partner.

Levada took plenty of heat from the right. It clearly didn't hurt his career, given his subsequent promotion to Rome. And he was straightforward in firing back at critics. In a letter to the conservative Catholic magazine "Crisis," Levada wrote:

"Is it really a matter for an employer to exclude a person from benefits on the basis of activities that are sinful? Even prostitutes, alcoholics, embezzlers -- I won't rehearse the whole catalogue -- need health insurance. The problem arises when we are asked to single out and recognize a category based on such activity as part of our employee benefits. This is what our agreement with the city of San Francisco has changed, and in a way that broadens the scope of health benefits for uninsured children, elderly persons, and so many others whose lack of health insurance is genuinely a national scandal."

(In defense of the Washington archdiocese, the District of Columbia City Council was intransigent in negotiations, and could have rendered the whole argument moot by including a religious exemption, as often happens.)

The second main objection to the new health policy of the Washington archdiocese is that it does not explain why divorced and remarried employees can put their wife or husband on their insurance when their relationship is also considered illicit in the eyes of the church.

The Daily Dish's Andrew Sullivan -- a gay Catholic and blogger extraordinaire -- put the question with characteristic clarity:

"Catholic doctrine is very clear: a remarried person is not remarried in the eyes of the Church, and for the Church to employ such a person would be to recognize a civil marriage that violates one of its core principles. There are infinitely more of these individuals than there are gay Catholics or gay non-Catholics who might want to help the homeless or serve the poor or provide foster care for an abandoned child. Catholic Charities might -- Heaven forfend -- have to provide spousal benefits to a member of a heterosexual couple violating Church doctrine about matrimony in exactly the same way. And almost certainly, they already do all the time."

"Have Catholic Charities ever considered shutting down their entire city contracts for the needy because of the chance that this might happen or might have already happened? Of course not. So why this glaring inconsistency on the question of homosexuals -- unless it is driven by animus against them?"

On the other hand, the Archdiocese of Washington is being consistent, at least with Catholic Charities, since its new health care policy won't cover any spouses, whether second or third, gay or lesbian.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Supreme Court Refuses to Overturn Washington D.C.'s Gay Marriage Law

Christopher Weber — 2010-03-02T20:47:00+00:00

Filed under: Gay Rights, Supreme Court

Washington, D.C., can begin to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples Wednesday, now that the Supreme Court has refused to block the city's gay marriage law.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court Tuesday, supported the decisions of lower courts that upheld a City Council vote legalizing gay marriage, the Associated Press reported. Opponents had argued that D.C. residents should have been allowed to vote on the issue.

"It has been the practice of the court to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclusively local concern," Roberts wrote.

Roberts pointed out that D.C. is under limited home rule, which means Congress could have undone the council's vote, but didn't.

The city has said gay couples can begin to apply for marriage licenses Wednesday. Couples still will have to wait three full business days for their licenses before exchanging vows, according to the AP.

Washington, D.C., joins Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont as places where same-sex couples can legally marry.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Tony Perkins of Family Research Council Bumped From Prayer Lunch

David Gibson — 2010-02-25T19:40:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Religion, Gay Rights, Obama Administration, National Security, Disputations, Congress

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and a fierce critic of the Obama administration, says he was uninvited from participation in the National Prayer Luncheon scheduled for Thursday at Andrews Air Force Base.

The reason? Perkins says the diss was due to his full-throated opposition to Obama's support for ending the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy on gays serving in the military.
Invoking the witch hunts of the McCarthy era in the 1950s, Perkins said that like Communists of that era, he has been "blacklisted" for his views and renewed his argument that Obama would "force the military to embrace homosexuality":

"I am very concerned," Perkins said in a statement, "that this merely foreshadows the serious threat to religious liberty that would result from repeal of the current military eligibility law. Such legislation would not merely open the military to homosexuals. It would result in a zero-tolerance policy toward those who disapprove of homosexual conduct."

"Military chaplains would bear the heaviest burden. Would their sermons be censored to prevent them from preaching on biblical passages which describe homosexual conduct as a sin? Would they remain free to counsel soldiers troubled by same-sex attractions about the spiritual and psychological resources available to overcome those attractions? Any chaplain who holds to the millennia-old tradition of Judeo-Christian sexual morality could be denied promotion, or even be forced out of the military altogether."

It sounds as though Perkins and the Family Research Council (FRC) got a bigger megaphone by getting uninvited that he would have had by attending.

His Catholic counterpart, Bill Donohue at the Catholic League, called for an official investigation of the episode because of the "damage" done to Perkins and the threat to religious freedom. "There are legitimate reasons to accept and reject the current policy regarding gays in the military. No one, therefore, should be censored from speaking at any private or public forum -- much less a military installation -- because of his or her views on this subject."

But it is still unclear what Perkins, a former Marine, was going to talk about at the luncheon. He said his message was going to be "non-political."

The Jan. 29 letter from the chaplain's office at Andrews Air Force Base to Perkins indicated a concern over exactly what "non-political" might mean. According to Perkins, the letter said he was uninvited due to FRC statements "which are incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our Commander in Chief."

The letter was sent to Perkins two days after Obama delivered the State of the Union address in which he pushed Congress to repeal " Don't ask, Don't tell." The president's address prompted Perkins to open an ongoing campaign to retain the law despite the desire of military leaders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to end it.

Repealing the law, Perkins said in announcing a petition drive the day after Obama's address, would "force soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects [and] would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, and even sexual assault."

A request for comment left with the chaplain's office Thursday afternoon was not returned by late Thursday.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Maryland to Recognize Same Sex Marriages From Other States

Tom Diemer — 2010-02-25T10:22:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Gay Rights, Governors, 2010 Elections

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler says the state will recognize same sex marriages performed in other states and he has advised agencies to immediately begin offering such couples with the same benefits as those available to married heterosexuals.

The attorney general's legal opinion means Maryland will join the District of Columbia and a handful of other states in recognizing gay marriages in four New England states and Iowa. But it also provoked an emotional reaction on both sides of the issue that could carry over to the November elections in Maryland, The Washington Post said. A court challenge is also likely, as even Gansler acknowledged.

The Catholic archbishops of Baltimore and Washington said they took "strong exception" to the opinion. Some Republicans and socially conservative Democrats also protested. But gay rights advocates hailed it as another step toward legalized same-sex marriage in the state.

Gansler, a Democrat who supports gay marriage, acted under his authority as legal adviser to state agencies and in response to a request from a state legislator for a legal opinion. The attorney general's declaration has implications for health benefits, inheritance and child support.

"I am confident that the attorney general and his office will provide all necessary advice to state agencies on how to comply with the law," said Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland.

In a 50-page opinion, nine months in the making, Gansler said a starting principle of state law indicates a marriage that is valid in the place where it's performed remains valid in Maryland -- this, even though Maryland law defines marriages performed inside the state as being between a man and a woman.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Generals Wary of Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal; Navy to Let Women Serve on Subs

Tom Diemer — 2010-02-24T08:58:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Senate, Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Iraq, Education, Gay Rights, Bill Clinton, Foreign Policy, National Security, Culture, Ethics

Two top Army and Air Force generals remain deeply concerned about the prospect of gays serving openly in the Armed Forces and the abandonment of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

With their public comments, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, his counterpart in the Air Force, may be giving political cover to balky lawmakers who oppose President Obama's call for repeal of the existing policy, which requires gays in the military to keep their sexual orientation private, The New York Times reported.

"I do have serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that's fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years," Casey said before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. "We just don't know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness."

Schwartz, in a separate appearance before the committee, said little research existed to show how the policy shift might affect deployed personnel, surveillance and support missions.

Both military men, however, pledged that they would fully carry out whatever decision Congress makes on the question of gay men and lesbians serving in the military. President Obama and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have called for doing away with "don't ask, don't tell" and permitting gays to serve openly. The policy was put in place in the early 1990s under former President Bill Clinton.

In a separate development at the Pentagon, the Defense Department notified Congress that the Navy had decided to lift its ban on women sailors serving aboard submarines, the Associated Press reported. Congress has 30 days to respond to the change. Young women graduating from the Naval Academy this year could be among the first to serve.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Joe Lieberman Takes Lead on Repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Christopher Weber — 2010-02-22T18:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Gay Rights

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will introduce a bill next week to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits gays from serving in the military.

Lieberman told New York's Daily News he sees the legislation to repeal the 1993 law as "the next step of the civil rights movement."

The former Democrat caucuses with his old party but has frustrated liberals with his support of the war in Iraq and his 2008 endorsement of Republican John McCain. His leadership on repealing DADT puts him firmly back in the camp with social progressives.

"My own experience as a member of the Armed Services Committee, visiting our troops on bases here in this country and abroad, particularly in war zones, the most remarkable quality you'll find is unit cohesion," he told the Daily News. "What matters is not the gender of the other person in your unit or the color or the religion or in this case the sexual orientation. It's whether that person is a good soldier you can depend on. And that's why I think it's going to work."

Since its implementation, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy has led to the discharge of thousands of service members. Polls find a solid majority of Americans support its repeal.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Doritos Ad Tops Abortion Spot (And Is That a Bad Thing?)

David Gibson — 2010-02-15T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Media, Abortion, Health Care, Gay Rights, Culture, Disputations, News Media, Ethics

The final numbers from the Super Bowl are in and yes, the Saints still won. But Tim Tebow's ballyhooed pro-life ad came in dead last.

According to the Nielsen Company, the oracle of television ratings, the 30-second spot featuring Tebow's mother talking about how much she loves her strapping, Heisman-winning QB of a son finished last out of 74 separate ads that aired during the game -- even behind that really odd U.S. Census promo.

So what gives? The conventional wisdom has it that the pro-life ad, sponsored by the conservative Christian lobby Focus on the Family, suffered from bad placement -- it ran during the first commercial break, when the game had barely started, viewership is lower, and everyone feels they can run to the, well, kitchen or some place, without missing much.

Another problem is that for all the pre-game controversy and build-up, the spot started so slowly -- just Pam Tebow, Tim's mom, talking into the camera -- and never really said what it was about. So a lot of folks ignored it or couldn't figure it out.

Still, Focus on the Family and other anti-abortion activists shouldn't be too unhappy. As our post-game report noted, pro-lifers were justifiably high-fiving each other over their public relations coup -- getting everyone talking about abortion and the Tebows' story, inducing an overreaction by panicky pro-choicers, and then pulling a fast on by airing an ad that was so inoffensive many people didn't understand it.

Besides, this is what coming in last among Super Bowl ads means: 92,576,680 viewers.

Yep, that's more than 92 million people watching your message. Moreover, Nielsen bean counters said the Tebow ad generated ten times as much pre-game "buzz" as most every other of the Super Bowl sponsors, as this graph shows. In fact, the ad for the gay dating site ManCrunch, which was rejected by CBS even after the network accepted the anti-abortion spot, outpaced most other sponsors in buzz-o-metrics even though the commercial wasn't aired.

"The early buzz data makes one thing clear -- controversy drives conversation," said Pete Blackshaw, executive vice president of digital strategy at The Nielsen Company. "Both the anti-abortion ad and the gay-themed ad have triggered significant levels of conversation. Other advertisers looking to drive buzz on top of their ads may need to work a bit harder to navigate around the controversial content."

Doritos managed to do just that, as its spot featuring two men being attacked in a gym for stealing someone else's Doritos turned out to be the Super Bowl's most-watched ad, according to the Nielsen ratings list. And both men and women seemed to like the Doritos spot, whereas the Tebow ad scored well on Nielsen's "likeability" index with women and not so much with men, making it one of the most polarizing ads of the game. (Abortion is polarizing? Tell us something new . . .)

In any case, rankings aside, Focus on the Family and Tim Tebow seemed to come out winners on Super Bowl Sunday.

Unfortunately for those trying the follow in Tebow's footsteps, the path may get a bit steeper. Tebow, playing for the University of Florida Gators, made his evangelical Christian faith famous by stenciling Bible verses in his eye black tape, which became a focus of viewers and commentators. But as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, the NCAA is proposing to ban even those "face tweets," as they've been called.

College players are already barred from displaying numbers or symbols or any other promotion on their uniforms, but the eye-black smudges under each eye hadn't been policed as vigorously. Last season, for example, Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor used his eye-black to show support for quarterback Michael Vick, who was serving time in a federal prison on dog-fighting charges.

Tebow's notoriety apparently pushed the NCAA to put a stop to it all before it went overboard.

As ESPN's Rick Reilly wrote, "What if the next quarterback wants his eye-black to say, 'Love Satan' or 'God Is Dead'? . . . Is the NCAA going to allow it? No chance."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Cheney Rips Obama Policies; Biden Says Cheney Is 'Rewriting History'

Bruce Drake — 2010-02-14T12:18:00+00:00

Filed under: Iraq, Joe Biden, Gay Rights, Terror, Obama Administration, Dick Cheney

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and Vice President Joseph Biden dueled across the airwaves Sunday, with Cheney renewing his assault on the Obama administration's "mindset" towards fighting terrorism and Biden firing back: "It's almost like Dick is trying to rewrite history."

Cheney, in particular, zeroed in on President Obama's initial statements after the failed bombing attempt of a U.S. airliner on Christmas day and the administration's decision not to charge Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as an "enemy combatant," given his training and direction by an al-Qaeda offshoot. He said that reflected a failure to grasp how events had changed since the attacks of Sept. 11.

"It's the mindset that concerns me ... it's very important to go back and keep in mind the distinction between handling these events as criminal acts, which was the way we did before 9/11, and then looking at 9/11 and saying, 'This is not a criminal act,' not when you destroy 16 acres of Manhattan, kill 3,000 Americans, blow a big hole in the Pentagon. That's an act of war," Cheney said on ABC's This Week. "And what the administration was slow to do was to come to that -- that recognition that we are at war, not dealing with criminal acts."

He said his charge that Obama "was trying to avoid treating this (terrorism) as a war" was prompted by Obama's initial description of Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist" in his first public comments on the bombing.

Cheney took sharp issue with a statement by Biden that the Obama administration's handling of Iraq, and the U.S. efforts to disengage from that country, "could be one of the great achievements of this administration."

Noting that Obama and Biden had vigorously campaigned against the Bush administration's Iraq policy, Cheney said, "If they had had their way, if we'd followed the policies they'd pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today. So if they're going to take credit for it, fair enough ...but it ought to go with a healthy dose of 'Thank you, George Bush.' "

Read the full transcripts of former Vice President Dick Cheney's interview on ABC's "This Week" and Vice President Joseph Biden on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Asked about Cheney's past and present criticism of the administration, Biden said on NBC's Meet the Press, "Let me choose my words carefully here. Dick Cheney is a fine fellow. He's entitled to his own opinion. He's not entitled to rewrite history. He's not entitled to his own facts. The Christmas Day bomber was treated the exact way that he suggested the shoe bomber was treated."

Biden was referring to Richard Reid who pleaded guilty in federal court for trying to bring down a U.S.-bound plane in December 2001 by igniting explosives in his shoe. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Cheney said on NBC the federal courts handled the case because, so shortly after Sept. 11, "We were not yet operational with the military commissions."

"I don't think the former Vice President Dick Cheney listens," Biden said. "The president of the United States said in the State of the Union that we're at war with al-Qaeda and ... we are pursuing that war with a vigor like it's never been seen before. We have eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. We have taken out a hundred of their associates we ...have sent them underground. they are in fact not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. They are on the run. I don't know where Dick Cheney has been."

Biden said, "It's one thing to be outspoken. It's another thing to be outspoken in a way that misrepresents the facts. It's almost like Dick is trying to rewrite history. I can understand why that would be an impulse and maybe he isn't, literally -- I'm not being facetious -- maybe he has not been informed of what's going on. It's simply not true that the president of the United States is not prosecuting the war against al-Qaeda with a vigor that's never been seen before."

Cheney and Biden also clashed over Biden's statement in a recent interview with Larry King in which he said "The idea of there being a massive attack in the United States like 9/11 is unlikely" and that groups like al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula were moving more "direction of much more small-bore but devastatingly frightening attacks" like the attempted Christmas Day bombing.

Cheney called Biden "dead wrong," saying, " I think the biggest strategic threat the United States faces today is the possibility of another 9/11 with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind, and I think Al Qaida is out there even as we meet trying to figure out how to do that."

Asked on CBS' Face the Nation if he was underestimating the al-Qaeda threat as Cheney charged, Biden said, "No. But I always underestimate the way Dick Cheney approaches things. The reason it's unlikely is because we have been relentless, absolutely relentless in isolating al Qaeda."

On ABC, Cheney also criticized the administration for doing away with the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that had been used on suspected terrorism during the Bush years.

"I think you ought to have all of those capabilities on the table," Cheney said. "Now, President Obama has taken them off the table. He announced when he came in last year that they would never use anything other than the U.S. Army manual, which doesn't include those techniques. I think that's a mistake."

"I was a big supporter of waterboarding," Cheney said

Asked whether he thought waterboarding should have been an option with Abdulmutallab, Cheney said "I think the the professionals need to make that judgment...They are the ones that you ought to turn somebody like Abdulmutallab over to, let them be the judge of whether or not he's prepared to cooperate and how they can best achieve his cooperation."

During the interview, Cheney revealed divisions that had occurred in the Bush administration such as release of detainees, some of whom returned to terrorist organizations, which he said he had opposed but that "the State Department was under enormous pressure to do so" by other countries. He also said he had clashed with the Justice Department over the issue of criminal trials, which the Justice Department favored, versus military trials for terror suspects.

"I can remember a meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House where we had a major shootout over how this was going to be handled between the Justice Department, that advocated that approach, and many of the rest of us, who wanted to treat it as an intelligence matter, as an act of war with military commissions," Cheney said.

Asked about the move by the Obama administration and top military brass to end the don't-ask-don't-tell policy, Cheney said, "I think the society has moved on. I think it's partly a generational question. I say, I'm reluctant to second-guess the military in this regard...When the chiefs come forward and say, ;We think we can do it,' then it strikes me that it's -- it's time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral (Mike) Mullen said that."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Anti-Incumbent Fever Runs High Amid Trouble Signs for Democrats

Bruce Drake — 2010-02-12T14:19:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Republicans, Economy, Health Care, Gay Rights, Polls, Obama Administration, Poll Watch, Independents, 2010 Elections, Congress, Tea Party

Anti-incumbent sentiment heading into this year's midterm elections resembles the voter ferment of 1994 and 2006, the last two times the House changed hands, with that fever running particularly high among Republicans and independents, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Feb. 3-9.

Forty-nine percent of those surveyed want to see their current representative re-elected while 31 percent don't.
In November 2006, that ratio was 55 percent to 25 percent and in 1994, it was 58 percent to 25 percent. Compare that to the 1998 and 1990 midterms when more than 60 percent said they wanted to return their representative to office.

Along partisan lines, 60 percent of Democrats want to re-elect their representative compared to 45 percent of
Republicans and 43 percent of independents.

When asked the question more generically -- do Americans want to see most of the current representatives
re-elected -- 53 percent said no and 32 percent answered yes.

On a generic congressional ballot, Democrats lead 45 percent to 42 percent. The margin of error is 3.5 points.

The survey showed a narrowing of the Democratic advantage when it comes to which party is viewed more favorably. The Democrats now hold a statistically insignificant 48 percent to 46 percent edge over the Republicans compared to a 49 percent to 40 percent margin in August. Independents tilt to the Republicans 42 percent to 40 percent. That result conjures up a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll in which the Democrats' lead over Republicans dwindled as far as who Americans trusted more to deal with the nation's problems.

However, Republicans get lower marks than Democrats when respondents were asked to rate how good a job each has done in offering solutions to the country's problems. Fifty-two percent said the Democrats were doing a poor job compared to 40 percent who said they were doing a good job. Sixty percent graded Republicans efforts as poor while 29 percent rated them good. Independents panned the efforts of both parties by about the same margins as the overall results.

Every pollster seems to be asking about the Tea Party since it shook up some elections and has held its first national convention and the Pew results are not much different than that of others. Thirty-three percent see the movement favorably, 25 percent do not and 42 percent either never heard of it or had no opinion.

Some other findings:

- Forty-five percent say President Obama's economic policies have had no effect so far while 27 percent say they have made things word and 24 percent say better. Fifty percent say he could be doing more on the economy while 43 percent say he is doing as much as he can.

- Most Americans still oppose the health care reform measures in their current form, by a 50 percent to 38 percent margin. But 23 percent of those who oppose the legislation now on Capitol Hill want lawmakers to keep working on a bill, and that includes 34 percent of Republicans. Twenty-six percent of those who oppose the legislation would like to see Congress pass nothing at all.

- Sixty-one percent favor allowing gays to openly serve in the military.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Is Obama Appointee Harry Knox an 'Anti-Catholic Bigot'?

Jeffrey Weiss — 2010-02-12T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Abortion, Gay Rights, Obama Administration, Culture, Ethics

Even if you've never heard of Harry Knox, you might want to pay attention: He's the latest nexus in the ongoing politicization of religion. Or maybe it's the religious-ization of politics?

Knox is the director of the Religion and Faith Program of the Human Rights Campaign. He's a former licensed Methodist pastor. He's gay. He's a member of the Obama administration's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

And depending on whom you ask, he's an anti-Catholic bigot.

I learned that last part from a news release sent out by a group called the Media Research Center. The release has a link to a petition demanding that "Obama Fire Anti-Catholic Bigot Harry Knox" signed by U.S. Rep. John Boehner, the House minority leader. And there was also a helpful link to a list of Knox statements headlined "Instances of Harry Knox's Bigotry."

You can read the whole thing, but the two statements that seem to have twisted the most knickers are: "The pope's statement that condoms don't help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus." And "The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case [Proposition 8], they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression."

Which is pretty pungent rhetoric. But is it either anti-Catholic or bigotry?

The question is not mere hair-splitting. Leaving aside issues of biology or psychology, Knox is disagreeing with Catholic doctrine -- it's an argument about applied theology. He apparently believes that the pope (and therefore the Catholic Church) has misread the will of God regarding birth control and homosexuality. That's certainly anti-Catholicism.

But that's also the kind of disagreement that any exclusivist faiths will have. Southern Baptist doctrine teaches that Jews, Muslims and Hindus are all headed for Hell if they don't accept Jesus. Muslims believe that the Quran has corrected errors in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Jews believe that Christianity has fundamentally misunderstood the lessons of the Torah and the Talmud.

And I daresay that there are Catholic leaders who believe that the decision of the Episcopal Church to approve the blessing of same-sex relationships is "hurting people in the name of Jesus." In fact, there are more than a few ex-Episcopalians who would likely sign onto that. With the same feeling in the other direction, no doubt, from current Episcopal Church leaders.

So all of them are anti- the theology of all the others. That's unavoidable. Necessary, maybe, in the American religious salad bowl.

On the other hand, there are positions that can't simply be excused because of theology. Consider the racist positions held for too many years by the Southern Baptists in the U.S. and by some churches in apartheid-era South Africa. In both cases, the churches used religious language as lipstick on the pig of their bigotry.

Why do Knox's opponents claim that he is not merely wrong, but a bigot? How do you draw that line? The head of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell III, was kind enough to engage me in a conversation on the topic.

"When somebody says to me that my church is guilty of behavior that is immoral and is insulting to Jesus, my response is 'How dare you say that to me?' " he said.

Well, yes. I can see that you'd be offended. But what makes it bigoted? Knox apparently understands Jesus in a different way than you do.

"His point is ungrounded in 2,000 years of tradition and 2,000 years of faith and the Catholic Church established by Peter. That's what I'm grounded in. If that church is labeled immoral, I take that as a personal attack."

And I get that. But why accuse Knox of being a "bigot"? Doesn't that ratchet up the rhetoric needlessly? Why not simply say that he's wrong and insensitive?

"You are asking a very important general question. To what degree should a Catholic or Christian or anybody of faith be willing to withstand criticism without calling it bigotry?" he said. "It is a question I do pose to myself."

But other than as a sort of paraphrase of Justice Potter Stewart's famous definition of obscenity -- "I know it when I see it" -- Bozell wasn't able to explain how he set the line.

Then he asked a good question about the Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships: "Is the purpose to have people on there who will be divisive? What craziness is that?"

I looked up the membership of the council. It includes the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. The president of Catholic Charities. The director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. The head of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. In short, a broad spectrum of theologies that don't often come together at the same table.

What should the standard be for civility in this context? Did Knox go over that line?

I decided I needed to talk to someone who was hip to both politics and religion -- but who had no dog in the theology fight about what Jesus would think about condoms or gay marriage.

Rabbi Irwin Kula is president of the National Jewish Center For Learning and Leadership, which bills itself as a leadership-training institute, think tank and resource center in New York City. He suggested that both sides need to look in a mirror.

"They are just doing politics in religious drag," he said.

Meaning that both sides have existing political positions and they're using religion to "prove" that God is literally on their side. And that's not all. Both sides pull out language guaranteed to heat up the argument: "Foot soldiers of oppression"; "Anti-Catholic bigot."

"These are not helpful. These are just name-calling," Kula said. "All that this assures is that the other side will be offended. And people who are trying to figure out how to what to do with their lives in a moment of transition are turned away."

And yet, the rabbi found something hopeful in the broad range of religions represented on the advisory panel. People who look each other in the eyes and really listen are less inclined to pull out the insults, he said.

And how likely is it that the people on all those sides will really listen to each other?

"Are we going to be hopeful or not? It is important for us to be hopeful about that," Kula said. "If not, the country is going to devolve in ways that will be very dangerous."

But how do you get across the divide of religion if two sides really believe they know what God wants -- and fundamentally disagree?

After reporting about religion for a few years I came up with what I called Weiss's Law of Religious Relativism: Every religion is crazy, by definition, to a nonbeliever.

In this argument I find an inverse corollary: To a fervent believer, a nonbeliever appears irrational. To the extent that the tenets of your faith shape your worldview, someone who disagrees will seem as nuts as if they were claiming that the sky is chartreuse. How can any mere discussion bridge that divide?

"Either you figure out how to have a conversation with a 'crazy person' or the person with more power wins," Kula said. "Generally one side does win, but you can never vanquish the other side. The other side husbands its power and bides its time and comes back with a vengeance."

This is hopeful? The specter of an eternity of nasty religio-political battles?

While the current arguments are plenty bitter, history shows that people of divergent faiths really are moving in a positive direction, Kula said. Even this argument between Bozell and Knox offers grounds for hope, he said.

"Protestants and Catholics are not killing each other in the streets now," he said. "They are calling each other names."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments