Our Nation’s oldest living President turns 93 years of age later this week.
Gerald Ford is the only President in the history of our Nation to assume the office of President, and not be elected by the people. Following the resignation of Vice-President Spiro Agnew, President Richard Nixon nominated Ford for the Office of Vice-President, and was confirmed by the Senate. Following the resignation of President Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford became our Nation’s President. He took the oath of Office on August 9, 1974. Ford was the first Vice-President to chosen under the terms of the 25th Amendment.
A number of problems faced the Nation in 1974. The Watergate scandal, inflation, a depressed economy, and chronic energy shortages were all on the front burner for the new President.
Gerald Ford selected Nelson Rockefeller as his new Vice-President. Ford was the last of the “Rockefeller Republicans,” a group of moderate liberals within the Republican Party.
In the Senate Ford enjoyed a reputation of fairness and openness, which made him popular during his 25 years in Congress.
Ford was born in 1913 in Omaha, Nebraska, but he grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was very athletic, and starred on the University of Michigan football team. He later went to Yale and served as Assistant Coach while earning his law degree.
After college, Ford joined the Navy and served in World War II. He achieved the rank of Lt. Commander of the Navy. After the war, Ford returned to Grand Rapids and began his political career in the GOP. He married Elizabeth Bloomer, who would later found the Betty Ford Clinic.
It was during Ford’s presidency that two notable figures in today’s GOP entered politics. And it was mostly likely the single greatest reason for him losing the 1976 Presidential Election to Jimmy Carter.
Both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney started their careers in the Ford White House. And they were directly responsible for encouraging Ford to dump Vice President Nelson Rockefeller off the ticket in 1976. Rumsfeld and Rove encouraged Ford to move more to the right and to distance himself from the liberals in the GOP.
That most likely cost him the election. Had Nelson Rockefeller remained on the ticket, Ford might have won Rockefeller’s home state of New York. On Inauguration Day, President Carter began his speech: "For myself and for our Nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land."
The Ford Administration oversaw the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam and the Helsinki Accord. With the heavily Democratic Congress in power, Ford was unable to pass much in the way of legislation. His vetoes were often overridden. Ford was also criticized for his pardon of Richard Nixon.
Ford is credited for introducing a conditional amnesty plan for Vietnam War draft dodgers in Canada. Jimmy Carter modified that plan to an unconditional amnesty program when he was elected President.
Ford faced two assassination attempts while president. The second assassination attempt was in San Francisco when gay man Oliver Sipple deflected a shot from Sara Jane Moore meant for the President.
Ford appointed John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court in 1975. To his credit, Ford has always maintained the highest level of respect for Stevens, who turned out to be one of the more liberal members of the Supreme Court.
Ford had to deflect an endless number of media attacks. But the “kiss of death” probably came when NBC launched a new variety show entitled “Saturday Night Live.” Chevy Chase portrayed Ford, and often mimicked his famous stumble off of a plane. This was ironic because Ford is probably the most athletic President in recent memory.
President Ford was awarded the Presidential Medal of Courage by President Bill Clinton in 2001 in 1999. Ford suffered two minor strokes at the 2000 GOP Convention. He is one of only two US Presidents to live to at least 92 years of age – President Ronald Reagon being the other.
Ford remains close friends with President Carter and his wife Rosalyn.
Ford is also the last surviving member of the famous Warren Commission.
Gerald Ford remains, to me at least, one of the most intriguing political figures of our era. And on this occasion of his birthday I would like to wish our oldest surviving President a very Happy Birthday!
Monday, July 10, 2006
Remembering Eunice Shriver
Eunice Shriver turns 85 years of age, today, making her the oldest surviving child of Rose and Joseph Kennedy. Her famous husband is Sargent Shriver, who was the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate in 1972, and the Ambassador to France from 1968 to 1970. The Shrivers have 5 children, including Maria Shriver – wife of California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Eunice actively campaigned for her older brother, John F. Kennedy, during his presidential bid. She also supported Arnold Schwartzenegger’s successful bid for Governor in 2003. Eunice is the only living woman whose face appears on a US coin, the 1995 commemorative Special Olympics silver dollar.
Eunice has been an advocate for those people with special needs and for those people who are handicapped or disabled. She is the Honorary Chairperson of Special Olympics. She is a social worker by trade, and in 1950 she worked as a social worker at Alderson Prison in West Virginia – the same prison Martha Stewart was sentenced to. In 1957 she took over the lead role of the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation.
Under her leadership of the Joseph P Kennedy Foundation, Eunice was directly responsible for the establishment of Special Olympics in 1968.
Eunice is widely recognized for her work for special needs people, and has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Ronald Reagon in 1984, The Legion of Honor, and the NCAA Theodore Roosevelt Award. She is also the recipient of the International Olympic Committee Award.
Shriver was directly responsible for the change in thought at the Joseph P Kennedy Foundation. At her bidding, the Foundation moved from looking for ways to prevent mental retardation, to the current philosophy of teaching others to accept those people with intellectual disabilities as contributing members of society. Shriver’s sister Rosemary was mentally retarded.
###
The Washington Post published the following on Friday ...
By Colman McCarthySaturday, July 8, 2006; Page A15
"Hello, my name is Eunice."
"Hello, my name is Eunice."
"Hello, my name is Eunice."
Some of the women looked up from their bowls of oatmeal; some didn't. But the self-introductions went on as Eunice Kennedy Shriver worked her way around the table one Sunday morning at a soup kitchen at Fifth and M Streets NW. It was a January day in the late 1970s, the temperature well below freezing. It was only a little less wintry inside: The furnace in the low-rent building had gone out during the night.
The women with whom Shriver was to share a meal were an assortment of the lost and lonely, the broke and broken. But it wasn't long before the Shriver table throbbed with conversation, much of it spirited. For all any of the homeless women knew or cared, their new table mate, appearing from nowhere and just a tad manic about shaking hands with everyone, was one of them.
Of the dozens of times -- perhaps hundreds going back 40 years -- that I've been in the company of Eunice Shriver, I remember that morning the best. She had called a few days before, asking to come along to the Catholic Worker soup kitchen where I was a volunteer dishwasher. Eunice was intellectually curious about homelessness, then surfacing as a public policy issue. She wanted also to gather information to give to her five children when pushing them to answer the call -- her call, the country's call, God's call -- to service.
Today Eunice Shriver will mark her 85th birthday -- at a dinner at home with her family and friends, after a priest celebrates a Mass of thanksgiving in the living room. Reaching 85 is an odds-defying event considering that twice in the past decade Eunice lay in hospitals critically ill and beyond the ministries of doctors. My friendship with her began in the mid-'60s through her husband, Sargent, for whom I worked and for whom the word ebullient was invented.
Reviewing 40 years, I can't think of any other woman whose commitments to works of mercy and rescue have touched more lives in more parts of the world. Her work with Special Olympics -- the athletic program for people with intellectual disabilities that she began in 1968 and that is now in more than 150 countries with 2.25 million athletes and their families, aided by 500,000 volunteers and coaches -- is the world's largest sports program. A poll taken by the Chronicle of Philanthropy in 1994 reported that Special Olympics ranked first as the nation's most credible nonprofit, well ahead of the Girl Scouts, the Salvation Army and the American Red Cross.
What her energetic and good husband was doing with the Peace Corps in the early 1960s -- inspiring people to give of themselves personally -- Eunice Shriver set out to do for people with mental retardation. After persuading her president brother -- John F. Kennedy -- to involve his administration in the cause, she traveled the world to defeat ignorance and indifference about the disability. Among medical specialists, divisions existed: Problem-describers saw retardation as a genetic or prenatal defect; solution-finders pushed for early intervention and education.
With a sociology degree from Stanford University, Eunice Shriver set out to be a social worker.
Her Roman Catholicism, nourished by the sacraments and the Beatitudes, eased her out of the life of privilege and plenitude into which she was born. It's only speculation, but I believe that Eunice's public life -- the frenzy of endless traveling, fundraising, organizing and cajoling for both the Special Olympics and her lesser-known but equally valuable program, the Community of Caring -- would have burned out long ago had she lacked a grounded spiritual life.
Her public successes were matched by success at home. Given the current cultural drifts, I think the most revolutionary deed anyone can perform is to raise honest, gentle and loving children. The morally driven mothering that Eunice Shriver gave to each of her children has resulted in five adults whose lives, like hers, are marked with public service and free of self-indulgence.
###
Happy Birthday Eunice Shriver!
Eunice actively campaigned for her older brother, John F. Kennedy, during his presidential bid. She also supported Arnold Schwartzenegger’s successful bid for Governor in 2003. Eunice is the only living woman whose face appears on a US coin, the 1995 commemorative Special Olympics silver dollar.
Eunice has been an advocate for those people with special needs and for those people who are handicapped or disabled. She is the Honorary Chairperson of Special Olympics. She is a social worker by trade, and in 1950 she worked as a social worker at Alderson Prison in West Virginia – the same prison Martha Stewart was sentenced to. In 1957 she took over the lead role of the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation.
Under her leadership of the Joseph P Kennedy Foundation, Eunice was directly responsible for the establishment of Special Olympics in 1968.
Eunice is widely recognized for her work for special needs people, and has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Ronald Reagon in 1984, The Legion of Honor, and the NCAA Theodore Roosevelt Award. She is also the recipient of the International Olympic Committee Award.
Shriver was directly responsible for the change in thought at the Joseph P Kennedy Foundation. At her bidding, the Foundation moved from looking for ways to prevent mental retardation, to the current philosophy of teaching others to accept those people with intellectual disabilities as contributing members of society. Shriver’s sister Rosemary was mentally retarded.
###
The Washington Post published the following on Friday ...
By Colman McCarthySaturday, July 8, 2006; Page A15
"Hello, my name is Eunice."
"Hello, my name is Eunice."
"Hello, my name is Eunice."
Some of the women looked up from their bowls of oatmeal; some didn't. But the self-introductions went on as Eunice Kennedy Shriver worked her way around the table one Sunday morning at a soup kitchen at Fifth and M Streets NW. It was a January day in the late 1970s, the temperature well below freezing. It was only a little less wintry inside: The furnace in the low-rent building had gone out during the night.
The women with whom Shriver was to share a meal were an assortment of the lost and lonely, the broke and broken. But it wasn't long before the Shriver table throbbed with conversation, much of it spirited. For all any of the homeless women knew or cared, their new table mate, appearing from nowhere and just a tad manic about shaking hands with everyone, was one of them.
Of the dozens of times -- perhaps hundreds going back 40 years -- that I've been in the company of Eunice Shriver, I remember that morning the best. She had called a few days before, asking to come along to the Catholic Worker soup kitchen where I was a volunteer dishwasher. Eunice was intellectually curious about homelessness, then surfacing as a public policy issue. She wanted also to gather information to give to her five children when pushing them to answer the call -- her call, the country's call, God's call -- to service.
Today Eunice Shriver will mark her 85th birthday -- at a dinner at home with her family and friends, after a priest celebrates a Mass of thanksgiving in the living room. Reaching 85 is an odds-defying event considering that twice in the past decade Eunice lay in hospitals critically ill and beyond the ministries of doctors. My friendship with her began in the mid-'60s through her husband, Sargent, for whom I worked and for whom the word ebullient was invented.
Reviewing 40 years, I can't think of any other woman whose commitments to works of mercy and rescue have touched more lives in more parts of the world. Her work with Special Olympics -- the athletic program for people with intellectual disabilities that she began in 1968 and that is now in more than 150 countries with 2.25 million athletes and their families, aided by 500,000 volunteers and coaches -- is the world's largest sports program. A poll taken by the Chronicle of Philanthropy in 1994 reported that Special Olympics ranked first as the nation's most credible nonprofit, well ahead of the Girl Scouts, the Salvation Army and the American Red Cross.
What her energetic and good husband was doing with the Peace Corps in the early 1960s -- inspiring people to give of themselves personally -- Eunice Shriver set out to do for people with mental retardation. After persuading her president brother -- John F. Kennedy -- to involve his administration in the cause, she traveled the world to defeat ignorance and indifference about the disability. Among medical specialists, divisions existed: Problem-describers saw retardation as a genetic or prenatal defect; solution-finders pushed for early intervention and education.
With a sociology degree from Stanford University, Eunice Shriver set out to be a social worker.
Her Roman Catholicism, nourished by the sacraments and the Beatitudes, eased her out of the life of privilege and plenitude into which she was born. It's only speculation, but I believe that Eunice's public life -- the frenzy of endless traveling, fundraising, organizing and cajoling for both the Special Olympics and her lesser-known but equally valuable program, the Community of Caring -- would have burned out long ago had she lacked a grounded spiritual life.
Her public successes were matched by success at home. Given the current cultural drifts, I think the most revolutionary deed anyone can perform is to raise honest, gentle and loving children. The morally driven mothering that Eunice Shriver gave to each of her children has resulted in five adults whose lives, like hers, are marked with public service and free of self-indulgence.
###
Happy Birthday Eunice Shriver!
Monday, June 12, 2006
The Rise of Poverty in Suburban America
Very often when the topic of poverty is raised our minds wander to images of rural America, Appalachia, for instance, where poverty has been a way of life for so many people for such a long time. We don’t very often stop to consider that the faces of poverty might include our neighbor down the street that works two jobs, or the grocery clerk that always double bags our groceries for us who is a domestic violence survivor, or the family that sits in the pew beside us at church that lost their health insurance. But the face of poverty in our country is changing. More and more people find themselves with very little resources in which they can buy the groceries needed to feed themselves and their families.
And as a Nation we’ve been slow to catch on to the newest faces of poverty. Perhaps we just haven’t stopped to consider that when home heating fuel prices skyrocketed last winter that some people had to sacrifice eating in order to stay warm. Maybe we just assume that our neighbor down the street has health insurance, and we haven’t stopped to consider that he just paid $200 for a standard office visit to the doctor when he had the flu, and then paid close to $100 for the medicine. That might be the reason he only has $20 left in which to feed a family of three for the week.
Why is it that everyone is there to offer help and assistance whenever a neighbor’s house burns down, but doesn’t even stop to consider that that same neighbor may not have had any food on the shelf for the past week? Are we, as Americans, so busy that we just don’t have the time to notice when someone needs our help? And what happens if we one day look in the mirror and see the face of poverty looking back at us? Who is going to notice and will anyone be there to help us?
Navigating the channels of various social services can be challenging to someone who has never had to do that. Very often you are forced to jump though hoop after hoop in order to get any assistance – if any assistance is available for you at all. Could anyone tell me why a family of three that earns $20,000 a year, who has had large medical bills, but no children under the age of 18 living in the home, is not even eligible for emergency food stamps in many states? How come if I quit my job I can receive food stamps, and yet if I’m working and still not making enough money to pay the bills and buy food for the family I’m not eligible for any assistance at all? Why is that? And what kind of message does it send to people who are working to improve their situation, but still need a little bit of help during the tough times?
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has an interesting article on the subject of suburban poverty. Everyone should read it and consider what is being said.
And as a Nation we’ve been slow to catch on to the newest faces of poverty. Perhaps we just haven’t stopped to consider that when home heating fuel prices skyrocketed last winter that some people had to sacrifice eating in order to stay warm. Maybe we just assume that our neighbor down the street has health insurance, and we haven’t stopped to consider that he just paid $200 for a standard office visit to the doctor when he had the flu, and then paid close to $100 for the medicine. That might be the reason he only has $20 left in which to feed a family of three for the week.
Why is it that everyone is there to offer help and assistance whenever a neighbor’s house burns down, but doesn’t even stop to consider that that same neighbor may not have had any food on the shelf for the past week? Are we, as Americans, so busy that we just don’t have the time to notice when someone needs our help? And what happens if we one day look in the mirror and see the face of poverty looking back at us? Who is going to notice and will anyone be there to help us?
Navigating the channels of various social services can be challenging to someone who has never had to do that. Very often you are forced to jump though hoop after hoop in order to get any assistance – if any assistance is available for you at all. Could anyone tell me why a family of three that earns $20,000 a year, who has had large medical bills, but no children under the age of 18 living in the home, is not even eligible for emergency food stamps in many states? How come if I quit my job I can receive food stamps, and yet if I’m working and still not making enough money to pay the bills and buy food for the family I’m not eligible for any assistance at all? Why is that? And what kind of message does it send to people who are working to improve their situation, but still need a little bit of help during the tough times?
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has an interesting article on the subject of suburban poverty. Everyone should read it and consider what is being said.
#####
Food shelves in Twin Cities suburbs -- even affluent ones -- are suddenly busier than they've ever been, according to a report to be released this morning.
A state study that is undertaken only twice each decade will reveal a huge jump in visits in places such as Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Golden Valley, according to Hunger Solutions Minnesota, the organization that coordinates the work of the shelves.
In Eden Prairie, it says, the number of visits for free food soared from slightly more than 1,500 in 2000 to nearly 10,000 last year.
"Hunger is not an issue that just affects homeless people on downtown streets," said Colleen Moriarty, executive director of Hunger Solutions. "They also live next door."
Beneath the numbers, experts say, lie a number of intriguing messages, including a rise in affordable apartments in many suburbs long considered bastions of wealth, and a widening gap between wages, on the one hand, and rents and mortgage payments on the other.
The report comes weeks after one from suburban Dakota County, whose board of commissioners learned last month of a sudden increase in poverty after decades of low and stable rates.
The most notable increases in the food shelf study, however, occurred in Eden Prairie and other cities in neighboring Hennepin County, suggesting a wider suburban phenomenon. By comparison, use of food shelves in Minneapolis, in the same stretch, barely budged...
"What struck us is how few food shelf users are on MFIP," said Laura Schauben, of Wilder Research, co-author of the survey, referring to the public assistance program formerly known as AFDC. "Most are working. But it's turning out that employment doesn't solve everything."
Suburban middle-class families also need help from time to time.
"Lost jobs, divorce, domestic violence -- things happen," Holden said. "It's hard to come here the first time and ask for help. We have people say they used to donate, and can't believe 'I'm sitting here asking for food.' "
The message that all these needs exist, officials say, is especially important in the summer, when suburbanites' donations fade but the need intensifies: Kids, for instance, aren't getting free or reduced lunches at school, so costs rise.
"We've been working hard to increase inventory in a very generous community," Holden said. "But I'm not sure what will be happening by about August."
#####
I think that most people just haven’t stopped to consider these things. Perhaps the family down the street can’t move into a cheaper home because of a damaged credit from defaulting on a hospital bill. Many people are in effect trapped in a dwelling they can no longer afford because no one else will rent to them because of damaged credit. And how much affordable housing do you see developers building in your city?
It’s worth a second thought if any of this is news to you.
Monday, May 29, 2006
My Memorial Day Observance
Memorial Day is more than just a three-day weekend and the unofficial start of summer for many people. It’s a day set aside to remember our combat veterans who have died in service of their country. Memorial Day was originally called Decoration Day when it was first observed on May 30, 1868. The day was set aside to remember the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers by proclamation of General John A. Logan.
Memorial Day became a federal holiday in 1966 under the direction of President Lyndon Johnson. But the “official” Memorial Day ceremony occurs at Arlington National Cemetery. American flags are placed on each grave. The President or Vice President speaks on the contribution the fallen soldiers gave to their country, and places a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
And on this Memorial Day I also want to pay tribute to those brave gay and lesbian soldiers who serve their country in silence under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”
The Service Members Legal Defense Network estimates that about 10,000 gay and lesbian soldiers have been discharged under the law. At least one soldier, Private First Class Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, was murdered because he was gay.
Just last year, the discharge of Sgt. Robert Stout of Utica, Ohio, a Purple Heart recipient who happened to be gay, became the topic of news stories. Stout is believed to be the first gay soldier injured in Iraq. Stout wanted to remain in the Army, but was discharged when the Army found out that he was gay.
Statistics on the effect of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell can be difficult to calculate. Gary Gates, a statistician at the University of California at Los Angeles, estimates there are about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military, accounting for about 2.8 percent of all personnel. He estimates that at least 25 gay soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Of course that would be nearly impossible to prove.
And for yet another year the GOP has done nothing in regard to repealing this legislation, and the Democrats have done very little as well.
There are 116 members of Congress who support the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA) introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act in March 2005. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi supports the bill, as do several retired Generals and Admirals:
Major General Vance Coleman, U.S. Army, Retired
Rear Admiral John Hutson, U.S. Navy, Retired
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, U.S. Army, Retired
Brigadier General Keith Kerr, CSMR, Retired
Brigadier General Evelyn Foote, U.S. Army, Retired
Brigadier General Virgil Richard, U.S. Army, Retired
Major General Charles Staff, U.S. Army Reserve, Retired
Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
A complete list of co-sponsors of the bill can be found HERE. The cosponsors include 109 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent. The bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel on March 17, 2005. No action has been made on the bill.
Will we see yet another year of inaction on behalf of our legislators to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Many polls indicate that allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military has the support of 60% of the country. Will the mid-term elections change the complexion of Congress in such a way that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is possible? Maybe, but Democrats haven’t been all that vocal on the issue either. In fact, the Democratic Leadership has sent mixed messages to the GLBT community in recent months.
But there is one thing that we can do. On this Memorial Day we can also remember the gay and lesbian soldiers that have died, in silence, in service to their country. And we can honor and celebrate those brave gay and lesbian soldiers who served their country so well, only to be tossed aside on account of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
And on this Memorial Day I also want to honor those brave gay and lesbian soldiers who continue to serve in silence of who they are. These men and women serve their country despite the bigotry and homophobia centered squarely in Washington, DC.
Memorial Day became a federal holiday in 1966 under the direction of President Lyndon Johnson. But the “official” Memorial Day ceremony occurs at Arlington National Cemetery. American flags are placed on each grave. The President or Vice President speaks on the contribution the fallen soldiers gave to their country, and places a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
And on this Memorial Day I also want to pay tribute to those brave gay and lesbian soldiers who serve their country in silence under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”
The Service Members Legal Defense Network estimates that about 10,000 gay and lesbian soldiers have been discharged under the law. At least one soldier, Private First Class Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, was murdered because he was gay.
Just last year, the discharge of Sgt. Robert Stout of Utica, Ohio, a Purple Heart recipient who happened to be gay, became the topic of news stories. Stout is believed to be the first gay soldier injured in Iraq. Stout wanted to remain in the Army, but was discharged when the Army found out that he was gay.
Statistics on the effect of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell can be difficult to calculate. Gary Gates, a statistician at the University of California at Los Angeles, estimates there are about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military, accounting for about 2.8 percent of all personnel. He estimates that at least 25 gay soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Of course that would be nearly impossible to prove.
And for yet another year the GOP has done nothing in regard to repealing this legislation, and the Democrats have done very little as well.
There are 116 members of Congress who support the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA) introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act in March 2005. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi supports the bill, as do several retired Generals and Admirals:
Major General Vance Coleman, U.S. Army, Retired
Rear Admiral John Hutson, U.S. Navy, Retired
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, U.S. Army, Retired
Brigadier General Keith Kerr, CSMR, Retired
Brigadier General Evelyn Foote, U.S. Army, Retired
Brigadier General Virgil Richard, U.S. Army, Retired
Major General Charles Staff, U.S. Army Reserve, Retired
Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
A complete list of co-sponsors of the bill can be found HERE. The cosponsors include 109 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent. The bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel on March 17, 2005. No action has been made on the bill.
Will we see yet another year of inaction on behalf of our legislators to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Many polls indicate that allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military has the support of 60% of the country. Will the mid-term elections change the complexion of Congress in such a way that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is possible? Maybe, but Democrats haven’t been all that vocal on the issue either. In fact, the Democratic Leadership has sent mixed messages to the GLBT community in recent months.
But there is one thing that we can do. On this Memorial Day we can also remember the gay and lesbian soldiers that have died, in silence, in service to their country. And we can honor and celebrate those brave gay and lesbian soldiers who served their country so well, only to be tossed aside on account of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
And on this Memorial Day I also want to honor those brave gay and lesbian soldiers who continue to serve in silence of who they are. These men and women serve their country despite the bigotry and homophobia centered squarely in Washington, DC.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Bush Abuses Signing Statements
President Bush has now used the tactic of “signing statements” 750 times. (Source: Boston Globe) A relatively rare tactic called the signing statement provides the President with the ability to offer nuance or pushbacks on legislation he signs into law. This rare tactic had only been used just over a dozen times in the history of the country until the 1980’s. Ronald Reagon used the signing statement to challenge 71 legislative provisions. Clinton used the tactic 105 times. So far, George Bush has used the tactic around 750 times!
It’s no accident that this practice became more widespread in the 1980’s. And just who came up with using this obscure method of challenging legislation in the 1980’s. Why, none other than Samuel Alito.
In a February 1986 draft memo, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel Samuel Alito laid out a case for the President to routinely issue “statements” about the meaning of statutes which he signs into law. (Source: WaPo)
###
From WaPo:
Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to "legislative intent."
"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."
###
No case illustrated just how pervasive the Bush administration has become with the usage of signing statements than the recent McCain Anti-Torture Bill signed into law. In signing the McCain Anti-Torture legislation into law, the President in effect said never mind or this doesn’t apply to me. Although the legislation was crystal clear in its meaning and intent, the president’s signing statement went on to read “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.” Translation – If the President feels torture is warranted to protect the country he will violate the law and use torture. If the courts try to stop him he’ll ignore them too.
By using the tactic of a signing statement, Bush disallows Congress the opportunity to overturn a veto. In fact the last President to stay in office this long without issuing a veto was Thomas Jefferson. In fact, Bush is using the tactic of signing statements as if they were a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. (Source: FindLaw)
###
The Boston Globe gives us some examples of Bush’s signing statements and just how they changed the intended legislation.
March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.
Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."
Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
###
Hasn’t President Bush declared himself the sole judge of his own powers? Doesn’t this eliminate the checks and balances that keep our country a democracy? Isn’t this moving the country toward unlimited executive power?
It’s no accident that this practice became more widespread in the 1980’s. And just who came up with using this obscure method of challenging legislation in the 1980’s. Why, none other than Samuel Alito.
In a February 1986 draft memo, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel Samuel Alito laid out a case for the President to routinely issue “statements” about the meaning of statutes which he signs into law. (Source: WaPo)
###
From WaPo:
Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to "legislative intent."
"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."
###
No case illustrated just how pervasive the Bush administration has become with the usage of signing statements than the recent McCain Anti-Torture Bill signed into law. In signing the McCain Anti-Torture legislation into law, the President in effect said never mind or this doesn’t apply to me. Although the legislation was crystal clear in its meaning and intent, the president’s signing statement went on to read “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.” Translation – If the President feels torture is warranted to protect the country he will violate the law and use torture. If the courts try to stop him he’ll ignore them too.
By using the tactic of a signing statement, Bush disallows Congress the opportunity to overturn a veto. In fact the last President to stay in office this long without issuing a veto was Thomas Jefferson. In fact, Bush is using the tactic of signing statements as if they were a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. (Source: FindLaw)
###
The Boston Globe gives us some examples of Bush’s signing statements and just how they changed the intended legislation.
March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.
Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."
Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
###
Hasn’t President Bush declared himself the sole judge of his own powers? Doesn’t this eliminate the checks and balances that keep our country a democracy? Isn’t this moving the country toward unlimited executive power?
Friday, April 07, 2006
Conservative Democrats
Conservative Democrats
Perhaps one of the most overlooked aspects of politics is the existence of the conservative Democrat. The GOP has successfully portrayed the Democratic Party through the thoughts and actions of the more liberal members of the party. And in some instances the Democratic Party did little to challenge that notion. My purpose is to draw attention to moderate and conservative wing of the Party.
The election of 2006 will find the Democratic Party being sampled by more recent GOP and independent voters than in other recent election cycles. Those disenfranchised right-leaning voters must find some reason to vote democratic, other than the standard “throw the bums out” line that is tossed out so often.
*****
Right Democrat is “…the voice of Democrats who believe in social conservatism and economic populism. This site is dedicated to revitalizing the moderate-conservative wing of our party.”
Immigration is a “hot topic” on the site, and the current article quotes the late, great Barbara Jordan of Texas who chaired the Commission on Immigration Reform: “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave." Their mantra on the subject is “the right is right on immigration reform.” The site goes on to say: "When George Bush and Howard Dean are on the same page, you know that someone powerful is running the political printing press. And that is: corporations.”
Another essay on the site focuses on Former South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings’ thoughts on fair trade. Hollings retired from the Senate after a 38 year service record (see Parting Shots from Fritz Hollings.)
Right Democrat:
Hollings writes: "First, we need to stop financing the elimination of jobs. Tax benefits for offshore production must end. Royalty deductions allowed for offshore activities must be eliminated, and offshore tax havens must be closed down.
Next, we need an assistant attorney general to enforce our trade laws and agreements. Currently, enforcement is left to the injured party. It takes corporate America years to jump the legal hurdles. At the end, the president, under his authority for the nation’s security, cancels the court order against the trade violation.
Rather than waste time and money, corporate America moves offshore. Trade policy is set by a dozen departments and agencies. Policy should be reconstituted in a Department of Trade and Commerce with the secretary acting as a czar. Then trade treaties can be negotiated for the good of the U.S. economy, instead of for the good of the transnational. The department’s International Trade Administration, finding a dumping violation, should also determine the penalty.
The International Trade Commission should be eliminated. Custom agents charged with drug enforcement and homeland security are hard-pressed to stop trade transshipments. We need 1,000 more Customs agents.
We need more funding for research in physical and mathematical sciences and engineering; more funding for the Manufactures Extension Partnership Act and the Advanced Technology Program. The list of materials critical to our national defense should be enforced. H1-B Visas should be repealed, and the United States should give notice of withdrawal from the World Trade Organization."
Hollings goes on to blast the closed markets of Japan, South Korea and China. The Right Democrat is a “must-read” for any conservative – republican or democrat.
If we go back in history, many people point to 1964 as the time in which the conservative wing of the GOP became the dominant voice of that party, and the liberal wing becoming the dominant voice of the Democratic Party. I’m not sure that I agree totally, and in fact I believe it was a more gradual shift until 1980. Unlike some people, I find that Nixon was more of a progressive with his domestic policy than some people credit him for. And I believe Reagon became the galvanizing factor for this shift. We all have our opinions.
Another interesting subject for conservatives is the “Blue Dog Coalition,” a group of 35 moderate to conservative Democrats, including: Rep. Joe Baca (CA), Rep. John Barrow (GA), Rep. Marion Berry (AR), Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA), Rep. Dan Boren (OK), Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA), Rep. Allen Boyd (FL), Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA), Rep. Ed Case (HI), Rep. Ben Chandler (KY), Rep. Jim Cooper (TN), Rep. Jim Costa (CA), Rep. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer (AL), Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN), Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (TN), Rep. Jane Harman (CA), Rep. Stephanie Herseth (SD), Rep. Tim Holden (PA), Rep. Steve Israel (NY), Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC), Rep. Jim Matheson (UT), Rep. Charles Melancon (LA), Rep. Mike Michaud (ME), Rep. Dennis Moore (KS), Rep. Collin Peterson (MN), Rep. Earl Pomeroy (ND), Rep. Mike Ross (AR), Rep. John Salazar (CO), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA), Rep. Adam Schiff (CA), Rep. David Scott (GA), Rep. John Tanner (TN), Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA), Rep. Gene Taylor (MS), Rep Mike Thompson (CA).
Most Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, many have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups, which cannot be said for most members of the DLC. On economic issues, Blue Dogs span the spectrum from fiscal conservatives to supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade.
Following the brief rise and fall of Lyndon LaRouche inside the Democratic Party in the 1980’s, more conservative democrats entered the playing field, including Joe Lieberman, CO Governor Richard Lamm, and MN Senator Eugene McCarthy. Former California Governor Jerry Brown would embrace the “flat tax” as the core of his unsuccessful 1992 presidential compaign. Bill Clinton distanced himself from the liberal wing of the party in his 1992 presidential campaign.
Democrats for Life is a national organization for pro-life members of the Democratic party. Their mission, “to foster respect for life, from the beginning of life to natural death. This includes, but is not limited to, opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Democrats for Life of America is one of over 200 member organizations of Consistent Life: an international network for peace, justice and life.”
The Democratic Freedom Caucus is a “progressive, pro-freedom caucus, which promotes the values which the Democratic Party was founded upon: individual liberty, constitutional democracy, and social responsibility.” They “support the Bill of Rights, which describes what is meant by individual liberty and constitutional limits on government.” It is a caucus within the Democratic Party which seeks to return the party to it’s Jerffersonian roots of individual liberty, constitutional democracy, civil liberties, and opposition to corporate welfare and special interests. The DFC has been especially vocal in supporting Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold.
The Pew Research Center estimates that 15% of the electorate are conservative democrats. The left-wing of the Democratic Party liberally applies the term “Democrats in Name Only” to the Blue Dogs, the DFC and DFL. But I would argie that the conservative democrats are actually the true heirs to FDR’s New Deal Coalition.
In closing I would like to point out another group within the Democratic Party that conservatives might feel comfortable, the Amendment 2 Democrats. From their site: “Today, Amendment II Democrats pledges itself to helping take back America from the Republican Party and giving it back to the people. We will settle for nothing less than a Democratic House and Senate in 2006. And, at the same time, there is a golden opportunity for pro-RKBA Democrats to dramatically change firearms policy within the Democratic Party itself from the ground up. All we have to do is join together, stand up on our hind legs, and exercise our First Amendment rights if we want any hope of affecting real change within the party of Jefferson, Kennedy, and F.D. Roosevelt.”
The Democratic Party is actually more of a Big Tent than many conservatives within the GOP have given it credit for. It was the GOP that painted the Democratic Party as liberal. It will be up to YOU to determine if that was accurate.
Perhaps one of the most overlooked aspects of politics is the existence of the conservative Democrat. The GOP has successfully portrayed the Democratic Party through the thoughts and actions of the more liberal members of the party. And in some instances the Democratic Party did little to challenge that notion. My purpose is to draw attention to moderate and conservative wing of the Party.
The election of 2006 will find the Democratic Party being sampled by more recent GOP and independent voters than in other recent election cycles. Those disenfranchised right-leaning voters must find some reason to vote democratic, other than the standard “throw the bums out” line that is tossed out so often.
*****
Right Democrat is “…the voice of Democrats who believe in social conservatism and economic populism. This site is dedicated to revitalizing the moderate-conservative wing of our party.”
Immigration is a “hot topic” on the site, and the current article quotes the late, great Barbara Jordan of Texas who chaired the Commission on Immigration Reform: “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave." Their mantra on the subject is “the right is right on immigration reform.” The site goes on to say: "When George Bush and Howard Dean are on the same page, you know that someone powerful is running the political printing press. And that is: corporations.”
Another essay on the site focuses on Former South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings’ thoughts on fair trade. Hollings retired from the Senate after a 38 year service record (see Parting Shots from Fritz Hollings.)
Right Democrat:
Hollings writes: "First, we need to stop financing the elimination of jobs. Tax benefits for offshore production must end. Royalty deductions allowed for offshore activities must be eliminated, and offshore tax havens must be closed down.
Next, we need an assistant attorney general to enforce our trade laws and agreements. Currently, enforcement is left to the injured party. It takes corporate America years to jump the legal hurdles. At the end, the president, under his authority for the nation’s security, cancels the court order against the trade violation.
Rather than waste time and money, corporate America moves offshore. Trade policy is set by a dozen departments and agencies. Policy should be reconstituted in a Department of Trade and Commerce with the secretary acting as a czar. Then trade treaties can be negotiated for the good of the U.S. economy, instead of for the good of the transnational. The department’s International Trade Administration, finding a dumping violation, should also determine the penalty.
The International Trade Commission should be eliminated. Custom agents charged with drug enforcement and homeland security are hard-pressed to stop trade transshipments. We need 1,000 more Customs agents.
We need more funding for research in physical and mathematical sciences and engineering; more funding for the Manufactures Extension Partnership Act and the Advanced Technology Program. The list of materials critical to our national defense should be enforced. H1-B Visas should be repealed, and the United States should give notice of withdrawal from the World Trade Organization."
Hollings goes on to blast the closed markets of Japan, South Korea and China. The Right Democrat is a “must-read” for any conservative – republican or democrat.
If we go back in history, many people point to 1964 as the time in which the conservative wing of the GOP became the dominant voice of that party, and the liberal wing becoming the dominant voice of the Democratic Party. I’m not sure that I agree totally, and in fact I believe it was a more gradual shift until 1980. Unlike some people, I find that Nixon was more of a progressive with his domestic policy than some people credit him for. And I believe Reagon became the galvanizing factor for this shift. We all have our opinions.
Another interesting subject for conservatives is the “Blue Dog Coalition,” a group of 35 moderate to conservative Democrats, including: Rep. Joe Baca (CA), Rep. John Barrow (GA), Rep. Marion Berry (AR), Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA), Rep. Dan Boren (OK), Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA), Rep. Allen Boyd (FL), Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA), Rep. Ed Case (HI), Rep. Ben Chandler (KY), Rep. Jim Cooper (TN), Rep. Jim Costa (CA), Rep. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer (AL), Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN), Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (TN), Rep. Jane Harman (CA), Rep. Stephanie Herseth (SD), Rep. Tim Holden (PA), Rep. Steve Israel (NY), Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC), Rep. Jim Matheson (UT), Rep. Charles Melancon (LA), Rep. Mike Michaud (ME), Rep. Dennis Moore (KS), Rep. Collin Peterson (MN), Rep. Earl Pomeroy (ND), Rep. Mike Ross (AR), Rep. John Salazar (CO), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA), Rep. Adam Schiff (CA), Rep. David Scott (GA), Rep. John Tanner (TN), Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA), Rep. Gene Taylor (MS), Rep Mike Thompson (CA).
Most Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, many have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups, which cannot be said for most members of the DLC. On economic issues, Blue Dogs span the spectrum from fiscal conservatives to supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade.
Following the brief rise and fall of Lyndon LaRouche inside the Democratic Party in the 1980’s, more conservative democrats entered the playing field, including Joe Lieberman, CO Governor Richard Lamm, and MN Senator Eugene McCarthy. Former California Governor Jerry Brown would embrace the “flat tax” as the core of his unsuccessful 1992 presidential compaign. Bill Clinton distanced himself from the liberal wing of the party in his 1992 presidential campaign.
Democrats for Life is a national organization for pro-life members of the Democratic party. Their mission, “to foster respect for life, from the beginning of life to natural death. This includes, but is not limited to, opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Democrats for Life of America is one of over 200 member organizations of Consistent Life: an international network for peace, justice and life.”
The Democratic Freedom Caucus is a “progressive, pro-freedom caucus, which promotes the values which the Democratic Party was founded upon: individual liberty, constitutional democracy, and social responsibility.” They “support the Bill of Rights, which describes what is meant by individual liberty and constitutional limits on government.” It is a caucus within the Democratic Party which seeks to return the party to it’s Jerffersonian roots of individual liberty, constitutional democracy, civil liberties, and opposition to corporate welfare and special interests. The DFC has been especially vocal in supporting Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold.
The Pew Research Center estimates that 15% of the electorate are conservative democrats. The left-wing of the Democratic Party liberally applies the term “Democrats in Name Only” to the Blue Dogs, the DFC and DFL. But I would argie that the conservative democrats are actually the true heirs to FDR’s New Deal Coalition.
In closing I would like to point out another group within the Democratic Party that conservatives might feel comfortable, the Amendment 2 Democrats. From their site: “Today, Amendment II Democrats pledges itself to helping take back America from the Republican Party and giving it back to the people. We will settle for nothing less than a Democratic House and Senate in 2006. And, at the same time, there is a golden opportunity for pro-RKBA Democrats to dramatically change firearms policy within the Democratic Party itself from the ground up. All we have to do is join together, stand up on our hind legs, and exercise our First Amendment rights if we want any hope of affecting real change within the party of Jefferson, Kennedy, and F.D. Roosevelt.”
The Democratic Party is actually more of a Big Tent than many conservatives within the GOP have given it credit for. It was the GOP that painted the Democratic Party as liberal. It will be up to YOU to determine if that was accurate.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Early Morning Blog Watch
Nyceve has Blue Cross of California terminates enrollees who file claims over on DailyKos.
Subsidized housing on the wane in New York City, reports Gotham Gazette.
It appears the evil witch from Ohio's 2nd district has lied again! Ohio Elections Commission Finds Probable Cause Against Jean Schmidt.
The Times Online reports a RyanAir jet lands at a deserted army airfield by mistake!
Have you heard about the fire that broke out on the set of CNN's Headline News? Check out the video HERE!
Subsidized housing on the wane in New York City, reports Gotham Gazette.
It appears the evil witch from Ohio's 2nd district has lied again! Ohio Elections Commission Finds Probable Cause Against Jean Schmidt.
The Times Online reports a RyanAir jet lands at a deserted army airfield by mistake!
Have you heard about the fire that broke out on the set of CNN's Headline News? Check out the video HERE!
American Idol's Mandisa Loves Anti-Gay Author
Hat tip to Popsurfing.com ...
Could a certain American Idol finalist actually be a homophobe? According to The Advocate, Mandisa is a huge fan of Anti-Gay Author Beth Moore, who provides links to "ex-gay" groups such as Exodus International on her web-site.
In the lead-up to her performance of the Mary Mary gospel song "Wanna' Praise You" on Tuesday night, Mandisa said "This song goes out to everybody that wants to be free. Your addiction, lifestyle, or situation may be big, but God is bigger!"
If Mandisa's personal idol is a homophobic author who thinks men and women are tricked into the gay lifestyle, then she can kiss my vote goodbye for good.
She's a very talented singer, but then again so was Anita Bryant back in the 1970's.
Could a certain American Idol finalist actually be a homophobe? According to The Advocate, Mandisa is a huge fan of Anti-Gay Author Beth Moore, who provides links to "ex-gay" groups such as Exodus International on her web-site.
In the lead-up to her performance of the Mary Mary gospel song "Wanna' Praise You" on Tuesday night, Mandisa said "This song goes out to everybody that wants to be free. Your addiction, lifestyle, or situation may be big, but God is bigger!"
If Mandisa's personal idol is a homophobic author who thinks men and women are tricked into the gay lifestyle, then she can kiss my vote goodbye for good.
She's a very talented singer, but then again so was Anita Bryant back in the 1970's.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Michigan Approves Minimum Wage Hike
Finally, some help for the working poor of our Nation! I can only wonder when the right will chime in on how this will force businesses to close, forcing more people on entitlement programs which they will then have to further gut?
From the State News ...
Interestingly, another Democratic Governor is also in favor of raising the minimum wage in her state.
From Arizona Central ...
This is a dialogue that is long overdue! Here's hoping the electorate has a clear understanding of which party is in the pocket of big business and which party truly cares about it's constituents.
From the State News ...
Minimum wage workers in Michigan will get a raise of
$1.80 beginning in October, after Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill Tuesday
guaranteeing the increase for low-wage workers.
Following the initial increase in October to $6.95
per hour, the minimum wage will be raised to $7.15 beginning July 1, 2007, and
then to $7.40 on July 1, 2008.
"This is a simple matter of fairness — anyone who
puts in a fair day's work should receive a fair day's pay," Granholm said in a
press release. "Increasing the minimum wage for the first time in nine years is
a critical step to ensuring that every worker receives a fair day's
pay."
Interestingly, another Democratic Governor is also in favor of raising the minimum wage in her state.
From Arizona Central ...
Count Gov. Janet Napolitano as a "yes" vote if a
proposal to create a state minimum wage gets on the ballot.
The Democratic governor, who's generally reluctant to
endorse ballot issues, didn't hesitate when asked Wednesday how she felt about
the proposal to create a minimum wage of $6.75 an hour."
We haven't had a minimum wage hike in a long time,"
Napolitano said during her weekly press briefing. "It's very interesting how
popular it is. People recognize that when you work, you have to make enough to
live on. I hope it gets on the ballot."
This is a dialogue that is long overdue! Here's hoping the electorate has a clear understanding of which party is in the pocket of big business and which party truly cares about it's constituents.
Mid-Day Blog Watch
Hotline has the memo warning the GOPers not to distance themselves from Bush.
Hurricane Season is not far away; meteorologists warn the North East is more vulnerable.
FarLeft has the story of the old lady who makes pies being shut down by the state of Georgia. It's nice to know that the GOP is saving us from old ladies making pies to buy heart medication!
Hurricane Season is not far away; meteorologists warn the North East is more vulnerable.
FarLeft has the story of the old lady who makes pies being shut down by the state of Georgia. It's nice to know that the GOP is saving us from old ladies making pies to buy heart medication!
Should Medicare be extended to all Americans?
Newsday has "With no health insurance, growing numbers lead precarious lives"
STAMFORD, Conn. -- Amanda Parsons, one of more than 400,000 Connecticut
residents without health insurance, has a hole in her tooth but won't see a
dentist. She also is delaying gallbladder surgery as she still owes nearly
$7,000 for earlier gallstone surgery.
Is Bush Above the Law? A Look at Presidential Signing Statements
Andrew Sullivan raises fair questions about Bush breaking the law – repeatedly – in the current issue of TIME. As even the most remedial of students of any high school civics class must surely remember, only the Congress has the power to legislate. The President – no President – can personally legislate nor interpret the law counter to the intent of Congress. The President holds the power of veto to strike down proposed legislation, but he does not have the power to interpret said legislation. Or does he?
A relatively rare tactic called the signing statement provides the President with the ability to offer nuance or pushbacks on legislation he signs into law. This rare tactic had only been used just over a dozen times in the history of the country until the 1980’s. Ronald Reagon used the signing statement to challenge 71 legislative provisions. Clinton used the tactic 105 times. So far, George Bush has used the tactic around 500 times!
It’s no accident that this practice became more widespread in the 1980’s. And just who came up with using this obscure method of challenging legislation in the 1980’s. Why, none other than Samuel Alito.
From WaPo …
In signing the McCain Anti-Torture legislation into law, the President in effect said never mind or this doesn’t apply to me. Although the legislation was crystal clear in its meaning and intent, the president’s signing statement went on to read “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.”
Translation – If the President feels torture is warranted to protect the country he will violate the law and use torture. If the courts try to stop him he’ll ignore them too.
Now, if I put two and two together, it seems that Alito supports the notion of Presidential power not too dissimilar than that of Britain’s King George.
Another fine point was raised on Balkanization …
John Dean writes the following over at FindLaw …
Political scientist Andy Rudalevige discusses all of this over at NPR.
Now I’m going to let you in on a little secret. The “Talking Point” of “Spin” from the right is that Clinton used this signing statement power more than Ronald Reagon. And that’s totally true. But it ignores and deflects the point that Bush has used it nearly 500 times without vetoing legislation. That’s more than twice the number of times of Reagon and Clinton combined! The right will seek to avoid that point, as seen on confirmhim.com.
The US Department of Justice has a lot to say about signing statements HERE, if you care to grab a comfy chair. It’s a long read.
Here are some other links to media stories on this subject. NYTimes, Billings Gazette compliments of Knight-Ridder. And of course the National Review flatly rejects the argument put forth by Sullivan. Ramesh Ponnuru writes …
Perhaps one of my conservative friends could translate that for me. I am totally missing Ponnuru’s point. Although the National Review may attempt to explain away the issue, I think they fail in doing so. But I do give them credit for attempting to do so. What they offered was more than a talking point and more than the traditional spin. However wrong their reasoning may be, they did not evade the issue at hand – and nor should we.
A relatively rare tactic called the signing statement provides the President with the ability to offer nuance or pushbacks on legislation he signs into law. This rare tactic had only been used just over a dozen times in the history of the country until the 1980’s. Ronald Reagon used the signing statement to challenge 71 legislative provisions. Clinton used the tactic 105 times. So far, George Bush has used the tactic around 500 times!
It’s no accident that this practice became more widespread in the 1980’s. And just who came up with using this obscure method of challenging legislation in the 1980’s. Why, none other than Samuel Alito.
From WaPo …
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses
before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress's reach on the meaning of
laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. Judges may
turn to the trail of statements lawmakers left behind in the Congressional
Record when trying to glean the intent behind a law. The White House left no
comparable record.
In a Feb. 5, 1986, draft memo, Alito, then deputy
assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, outlined a strategy
for changing that. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue
statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law.
Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure
from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more
than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns
and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to
"legislative intent."
"Since the president's approval is just as
important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the
president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of
Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking by
courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent
abuses of legislative history."
The Reagan administration popularized
the use of such statements and subsequent administrations continued the
practice. (The courts have yet to give them much weight, though.)
In signing the McCain Anti-Torture legislation into law, the President in effect said never mind or this doesn’t apply to me. Although the legislation was crystal clear in its meaning and intent, the president’s signing statement went on to read “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.”
Translation – If the President feels torture is warranted to protect the country he will violate the law and use torture. If the courts try to stop him he’ll ignore them too.
Now, if I put two and two together, it seems that Alito supports the notion of Presidential power not too dissimilar than that of Britain’s King George.
Another fine point was raised on Balkanization …
“Several days ago, I posted a comment suggesting that the
Alito nomination was part of a plot designed to reinforce Executive power and
that the issue in particular of abortion was designed to serve as a distraction.
An article in today's Washington Post that focuses on Alito's views of executive
power offers some support for this view of connecting the dots and explaining,
for example, why the relatively obscure Judge Alito was selected instead of the
substantially more distinguished Judge McConnell:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100788.html.
The most important paragraph is the following:"Since the president's
approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow
that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as
that of Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking
by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent
abuses of legislative history."Important to whom, one might ask? The first
answer is "internal": I.e., one might well view this as supporting the view that
Department of Justice lawyers, including lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel,
which is at least as important as any given Federal Court of Appeals, should
look to presidential undersanding when interpreting statutes. Only, presumably,
in the absence of a signing statement, should any attention be paid to
legislative history. Of course, if one is a strong Scalian, then it is not clear
why a presidential signing statement should have any more authority than a
committee report. Neither, according to Scalia, should be paid the slightest
attention. This may suggest that Alito is less of a Scalia clone than has been
suggested and that he is in fact more dangerous, at least if one fears Executive
supremacy.”
John Dean writes the following over at FindLaw …
Pumping Up the Bush Presidency With Signing Statements
Generally, Bush's signing statements tend to be brief and very broad,
and they seldom cite the authority on which the president is relying for his
reading of the law. None has yet been tested in court. But they do appear to be
bulking up the powers of the presidency. Here are a few examples:
Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner -
for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's
signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe
the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to
withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the
national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the
performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."
The upshot? It is
as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.
Or suppose a new law
suggests even the slightest intrusion into the President's undefined
"prerogative powers" under Article II of the Constitution, relating to national
security, intelligence gathering, or law enforcement. Bush's signing statement
will claim that notwithstanding the clear intent of Congress, which has used
mandatory language, the provision will be considered as "advisory."
The
upshot? It is as if Congress had acted as a mere advisor, with no more formal
power than, say, Karl Rove - not as a coordinate and coequal branch of
government, which in fact it is.
As Phillip Cooper observes, the President's
signing statements are, in some instances, effectively rewriting the laws by
reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Notably, Cooper finds some of
Bush's signing statements - and he has the benefit of judging them against his
extensive knowledge of other President's signing statements -- "excessive,
unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational."
The Constitutional and
Practical Problems With Bush's Use of Signing Statements
Given the
incredible number of constitutional challenges Bush is issuing to new laws,
without vetoing them, his use of signing statements is going to sooner or later
put him in an untenable position. And there is a strong argument that it has
already put him in a position contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and the
Constitution, vis-Ã -vis the veto power.
Bush is using signing statements
like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are
unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton
v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even
Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions
he might not like.
The Court held the Line Item Veto Act
unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That
Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it become[s] a
Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves
it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.
Political scientist Andy Rudalevige discusses all of this over at NPR.
Now I’m going to let you in on a little secret. The “Talking Point” of “Spin” from the right is that Clinton used this signing statement power more than Ronald Reagon. And that’s totally true. But it ignores and deflects the point that Bush has used it nearly 500 times without vetoing legislation. That’s more than twice the number of times of Reagon and Clinton combined! The right will seek to avoid that point, as seen on confirmhim.com.
The US Department of Justice has a lot to say about signing statements HERE, if you care to grab a comfy chair. It’s a long read.
Here are some other links to media stories on this subject. NYTimes, Billings Gazette compliments of Knight-Ridder. And of course the National Review flatly rejects the argument put forth by Sullivan. Ramesh Ponnuru writes …
There are two dangers here. One is that the president will, acting on a false
understanding of that authority and those limitations, twist the law or even
effectively disregard it. If that happens, however, how much will the signing
statement be to blame for it? Would the critics be happier if the president
twisted or disregarded the law without making a statement? The second danger is
that the courts will give too much deference to the president's views and
thereby twist the law themselves. Signing statements, however, have no magical
power to compel judges to reach this result; and the president could just as
easily make his case to the courts in legal briefs filed by the Justice
Department.
Perhaps one of my conservative friends could translate that for me. I am totally missing Ponnuru’s point. Although the National Review may attempt to explain away the issue, I think they fail in doing so. But I do give them credit for attempting to do so. What they offered was more than a talking point and more than the traditional spin. However wrong their reasoning may be, they did not evade the issue at hand – and nor should we.
Looking Back at the 1960's Civil Rights Struggle: The Lunch Counter Sit-ins
For us to proceed forward in winning the war for gay rights we need to peer back to the last successful civil rights movement. Lessons learned in the past can be practical solutions for today. The topic of gay rights, including gay marriage, continues to be a conundrum for most of the current crop of republicans and a great many democrats as well. This was one of John Kerry’s Achilles Heels in the 2004 Campaign. Kerry did not endorse gay marriage; rather, he endorsed civil unions. Even that was political suicide against with the current crop of republicans in power. So, let’s look back in time to see how the last civil rights struggle came to fruition.
On February 1, 1960 four black students from North Carolina A&T University went into a Woolworth Department Store in Greensboro, North Carolina, bought a few items, and then sat down at the all-white lunch counter. (Now raise your hand if you remember those old Woolworth lunch counters!)
They weren’t served. The lunch counter was just for white people. But they weren’t forced out, either. They sat at the all-white lunch counter for the next hour – until the store closed – and then they left.
The next day 30 students sat down, and the following day all 66 seats were taken by the students. From Greensboro the protests quickly spread to Raleigh. And from Raleigh the protests quickly spread to Nashville, Baltimore, and across the South. Within a few weeks more than 50,000 people had participated in lunch counter sit-ins. Next came standing at movie theaters, and kneeling at church. There were even “wade-ins” at white-only beaches!
Many restaurants in the South ended their policy of segregation within a few months, and the Civil Rights Movement was born. There was a sense of empowerment within the black community, many of whom felt that the power for change lay within their hands and not with the federal government.
The Democratic Party had a solid lock on the South, and it was an election year. The last thing these so-called “Dixiecrats” wanted to hear was a presidential candidate embrace civil rights. And it just happened that the Democratic nominee for President was a Catholic Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy.
Now this wouldn’t be a Snapcat thread without some sort of surprise or plot twist, and here is where some people may find that surprise. As a presidential candidate, JFK avoided being associated with the Lunch Counter Sit-Ins. Northern Democrats, such as himself embraced the notion of civil rights, but such policy was political suicide for Southern Democrats – and JFK needed the South for him to win the election. The Kennedy Campaign used “code words and phrases” to alert the black community that he was with them. And that policy worked when Kennedy narrowly beat Nixon in November, largely due to the overwhelming support JFK received from the black community in northern states. But the black community soon wondered if they had indeed put a “friend” in the White House. And, indeed, President Kennedy would never sign any significant civil rights legislation during his presidency. As a Senator he had, in fact, refused to sign Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act.
Although President Eisenhower was not a vocal supporter of Civil Rights, he did have to respond when the State of Arkansas “declared war” against the Eisenhower Administration. It was a media circus. Eisenhower had shown that he had little faith in measures to support the African American community in the South simply because he believed that a change of heart was required and that enforcement would not work - if anything, enforcement would make matters worse.
The 1957 Civil Rights Bill was already considered “mild” and “not enough” to many people. And Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (Surprise!) would water it down even further so that it could win passage. 72 Senators voted for its passage, 14 Senators, including Senator John F. Kennedy, opposed it. The Bill barely changed anything, but it was the first civil rights legislation to be passed by Congress since Reconstruction.
The Lunch Counter Sit-Ins gave way to the Freedom Rides, in which civil rights activists tried to integrate interstate buses. Southern mobs attacked those buses. Attorney General Robert Kennedy met with student protesters and was quoted as saying "Why don’t you guys cut all that shit, freedom riding and sitting-in shit, and concentrate on voter registration. If you do that, I’ll get you tax-free status."
It took the Kennedy Administration too long to embrace the notion of a civil rights movement. And in all fairness JFK did have a lot on his hands internationally with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Still, the movement became too large and too great to ignore. The national media often reported on Freedom Riders being attacked and murdered by Southern mobs.
Still, our Nation would have to wait until President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 for the first nails in the coffin of segregation to be hammered. And it is President Johnson, and not President Kennedy, who should deserve the credit for openly embracing the last successful civil rights movement in our country.
So, what have we learned from history? Not enough, in my opinion. If we, the gay community, expect any real change we must be willing to act. We must be willing to sit down at our equivalent of the Woolworth Lunch Counter and ask for service. We must be willing to make the sacrifices that other groups have made in the past in order to achieve equality. I don’t think we’re there yet.
Cites:
Social List Worker
African American Odyssey
The Learning Site & The Learning Site & The Learning Site
Stanford University
The Jackson Sun
On February 1, 1960 four black students from North Carolina A&T University went into a Woolworth Department Store in Greensboro, North Carolina, bought a few items, and then sat down at the all-white lunch counter. (Now raise your hand if you remember those old Woolworth lunch counters!)
They weren’t served. The lunch counter was just for white people. But they weren’t forced out, either. They sat at the all-white lunch counter for the next hour – until the store closed – and then they left.
The next day 30 students sat down, and the following day all 66 seats were taken by the students. From Greensboro the protests quickly spread to Raleigh. And from Raleigh the protests quickly spread to Nashville, Baltimore, and across the South. Within a few weeks more than 50,000 people had participated in lunch counter sit-ins. Next came standing at movie theaters, and kneeling at church. There were even “wade-ins” at white-only beaches!
Many restaurants in the South ended their policy of segregation within a few months, and the Civil Rights Movement was born. There was a sense of empowerment within the black community, many of whom felt that the power for change lay within their hands and not with the federal government.
The Democratic Party had a solid lock on the South, and it was an election year. The last thing these so-called “Dixiecrats” wanted to hear was a presidential candidate embrace civil rights. And it just happened that the Democratic nominee for President was a Catholic Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy.
Now this wouldn’t be a Snapcat thread without some sort of surprise or plot twist, and here is where some people may find that surprise. As a presidential candidate, JFK avoided being associated with the Lunch Counter Sit-Ins. Northern Democrats, such as himself embraced the notion of civil rights, but such policy was political suicide for Southern Democrats – and JFK needed the South for him to win the election. The Kennedy Campaign used “code words and phrases” to alert the black community that he was with them. And that policy worked when Kennedy narrowly beat Nixon in November, largely due to the overwhelming support JFK received from the black community in northern states. But the black community soon wondered if they had indeed put a “friend” in the White House. And, indeed, President Kennedy would never sign any significant civil rights legislation during his presidency. As a Senator he had, in fact, refused to sign Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act.
Although President Eisenhower was not a vocal supporter of Civil Rights, he did have to respond when the State of Arkansas “declared war” against the Eisenhower Administration. It was a media circus. Eisenhower had shown that he had little faith in measures to support the African American community in the South simply because he believed that a change of heart was required and that enforcement would not work - if anything, enforcement would make matters worse.
The 1957 Civil Rights Bill was already considered “mild” and “not enough” to many people. And Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (Surprise!) would water it down even further so that it could win passage. 72 Senators voted for its passage, 14 Senators, including Senator John F. Kennedy, opposed it. The Bill barely changed anything, but it was the first civil rights legislation to be passed by Congress since Reconstruction.
The Lunch Counter Sit-Ins gave way to the Freedom Rides, in which civil rights activists tried to integrate interstate buses. Southern mobs attacked those buses. Attorney General Robert Kennedy met with student protesters and was quoted as saying "Why don’t you guys cut all that shit, freedom riding and sitting-in shit, and concentrate on voter registration. If you do that, I’ll get you tax-free status."
It took the Kennedy Administration too long to embrace the notion of a civil rights movement. And in all fairness JFK did have a lot on his hands internationally with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Still, the movement became too large and too great to ignore. The national media often reported on Freedom Riders being attacked and murdered by Southern mobs.
Still, our Nation would have to wait until President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 for the first nails in the coffin of segregation to be hammered. And it is President Johnson, and not President Kennedy, who should deserve the credit for openly embracing the last successful civil rights movement in our country.
So, what have we learned from history? Not enough, in my opinion. If we, the gay community, expect any real change we must be willing to act. We must be willing to sit down at our equivalent of the Woolworth Lunch Counter and ask for service. We must be willing to make the sacrifices that other groups have made in the past in order to achieve equality. I don’t think we’re there yet.
Cites:
Social List Worker
African American Odyssey
The Learning Site & The Learning Site & The Learning Site
Stanford University
The Jackson Sun
The Gay Man That Saved The President’s Life: A Story That Needs To Be Told
Gay men and women have made significant contributions to our Nation. Most of them have a happy ending. This one does not.
By all accounts, Bill Sipple enjoyed a quiet and closeted life in San Francisco. He was 33 years old and an ex-marine. That would change on September 22, 1975 when he left his home to go to Fisherman’s Wharf. As he walked in front of the St. Francis hotel he encountered two of three people that would change his life forever – President Gerald Ford and Sara Jane Moore.
Seeing the crowd of people outside the St. Francis, Bill Sipple asked one of the people why so many people were there. He was told that the President was inside the hotel.
If Bill Sipple had continued walking to Fisherman’s Wharf his life would probably never have changed. His name may never have been spoken in the media or the Halls of Congress. But the human curiosity that exists within all of us insisted that he remain in front of the St. Francis Hotel in order to get a glimpse of the President of the United States. This ex-marine wanted to catch a glimpse of the President, and really, who among us wouldn’t have been similarly curious?
After waiting outside the St. Francis for nearly 3 hours, Bill Sipple had worked his way to the front of the crowd in order to have a better view of the President. Next to him was a simply dressed middle-aged woman who had also been waiting for hours. Her name was Sara Jane Moore.
When President Ford and his entourage exited the St. Francis, Sara Jane Moore reached into her pocket and got her .38 caliber revolver that she had just bought that very day. She aimed the revolver at President Ford.
But when Bill Sipple noticed that she had pulled out the gun his instincts went to work. His military training paid off. He quickly shouted “Gun!” as loud as he could and grabbed Moore’s arm – just as the gun went off.
The bullet missed the President, ricocheted off of a wall, and hit a cab driver. President Ford’s security detail went into motion. The President’s Chief of Staff and two Secret Service Agents pushed President Ford into his car and headed to the airport. The San Francisco Police and other Secret Service Agents grabbed both Sara Jane Moore and Bill Sipple.
This was the 2nd assassination attempt on President Ford in 17 days. President Ford’s Press Secretary Ron Nessen was overheard saying “God damn California” as he lunged into his waiting car.
What many people still, to this day, don’t know, is that the Chief of Staff that heard Bill Sipple yell “Gun!” and in turn pushed President Ford to safety was none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, that Donald Rumsfeld.
The Secret Service interrogated Sipple and “roughed him up a bit” according to his own reports, but quickly stopped once his true accomplishment had emerged. Bill Sipple had just saved the life of President Ford.
The next day Bill Sipple told the Associated Press “I am not a hero.” After all, defending freedom was what this ex-marine had trained all of his life to do. And Bill Sipple knew a thing or two about that – he had been wounded in Vietnam and subsequently suffered from psychological difficulties. The war and the response of our Nation upon his return from war had screwed Bill Sipple up mentally. In fact, he was on full disability when he saved the President.
Even if the story ended here there might have been a happy ending to this story. But, remember, I said that there were three people that would change his life forever. Sara Jane Moore and President Ford he had met that day. The third person to change his life was Harvey Milk.
Harvey Milk knew Bill Sipple and knew that he was gay. Harvey Milk leaked his information to the San Francisco Chronicle’s Bill Caen who in turn “outed” Sipple in his newspaper two days after the assassination attempt. Milk was even quoted as saying he was “proud – maybe this will help break the stereotype.” Newspapers across the country quickly picked up the story, which was slugged as “The Homosexual Hero.”
Bill Sipple’s family in Detroit did not know that he was gay. He had just been outed.
“My sexuality is a part of my private life and has no bearing on my response to the act of a person seeking to take the life of another. I am first and foremost a human being who enjoys life and respects life.” Sipple told the press.
Bill Sipple’s strict Baptist parents stopped talking to their newly outed homosexual son. The last words he ever heard from his mother were something to the effect that she could not step out of her house in Detroit because of the throngs of reporters asking her questions about her son being gay.
Over the course of the next few days the “story” changed from Sipple being gay. The press was now interested in the response of the White House in learning that a gay man had saved the life of President Ford. There had been no public “thank-you” from the White House, at least none made public to the press. Harvey Milk was not going to stand for that. Harvey Milk alleged publicly that President Ford was delaying his thanks because, in fact, that Sipple was gay. Ron Nessen, who now works at the Brookings Institution, disputes that.
“One of the things about those times were that they were far more civilized. People’s private lives were private lives.” Referring to President Ford, Nessen went on to say that Ford was not the type of person to discriminate against gays, “knowing him fairly well, it would not have been in his character to think about that.” And that was true.
In 2001, President Ford told the Detroit News that he never even heard about Sipple being gay until after he had written him a thank-you letter. “I don’t know where everyone got the crazy idea I was prejudiced and wanted to exclude gays.” Still, President Ford suffered in the polls because many people perceived that he should have invited Sipple to the White House for some public ceremony. But President Ford wasn’t the ‘flashy” sort of person. Ford thanked everyone that protected him – police, Secret Service, and Sipple – by writing a personal letter. And, in fact, President Ford had indeed written Bill Sipple a personal letter of thanks just three days after the attempted assassination attempt.
“Dear Mr. Sipple:
I want you to know how much I appreciated your selfless actions last Monday. The events were a shock to us all, but you acted quickly and without fear for your own safety. By doing so you helped to avert danger to me and to others in the crowd. You have my heartfelt appreciation.
Sincerely,
Jerry Ford”
Bill Sipple treasured this letter. He hung it on the wall of his small apartment. He even gave a copy of it, later on, to the person who had “outed” him, his longtime friend Harvey Milk.
But Bill Sipple’s life was never to be happy ever again. He sued the newspapers that had “outed” him and lost. Those cases would drag on to 1984. The Los Angeles Times is quoted from one of those cases as saying “reporting his connections to the gay community presented information contrary to the stereotype of homosexuals as lacking vigor.”
Bill Sipple resorted to alcohol to deal with the stress. His strict Baptist parents no longer spoke with him. And he turned to alcohol far too much.
In 1977 Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected official in California. The next year he and Mayor Moscone were shot dead. Randy Shilts wrote in “The Mayor of Castro Street” That it had indeed been Milk who tipped off the San Francisco Chronicle on Sipple’s homosexuality.
Bill Sipple found work in various gay bars in San Francisco by mopping floors. His drinking had escalated and his weight quickly increased to around 300 pounds. Sipple sometimes spent his entire disability check on booze.
Every year on the anniversary of the assassination attempt some reporter would track him down for “his story.” He always turned them down.
In 1989 the local bartenders noticed that Sipple hadn’t been to the bars in several weeks. One of those bartenders called a friend of Sipple’s, Wayne Friday. Friday was a local District Attorney and did a “wellness check” on Sipple. He found Bill Sipple’s body, dead, in his apartment. He had been dead for several days. Bill Sipple was only 47 years old. Very few people showed up at his funeral. Everyone had seemingly forgotten Bill Sipple. Everyone except Gerald Ford.
When Former President Ford learned of Bill Sipple’s death, he did what was always his custom – write a personal letter. Ford sent a letter expressing his condolences to Sipple’s friends.
“I strongly regretted the problems that developed for him following this incident. It saddened me to learn the circumstances of his death.” The note was accompanied with flowers from the Ford Family and was sent on Valentine’s Day
Bill Sipple’s mother died in 1979, having never reconciled with her son being gay. Sipple’s brother and sister did attend his funeral.
Former President Ford is still alive, and is our oldest living President. During the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, Ford appeared sluggish during a tribute to him. It was later learned that he had had a stroke. In December 2003 CNN’s Larry King interviewed Betty Ford who said that the Former President still swam and played golf.
Ford later appointed Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld brought a “rising star” of the GOP onboard as his assistant – Dick Cheney. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld urged President Ford to dump Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice Presidential candidate because he was “too liberal”, and Ford complied. As a result, Jimmy Carter was elected President, largely because the South solidly backed Carter. If, however, President Ford had kept Rockefeller as his Vice Presidential running mate he could very well have won Rockefeller’s home state of New York, which narrowly went for Carter. And Jimmy Carter would never have been President of the United States.
Outing is a horrible experience for people today. It remains controversial and a polarizing issue. Many gay people not living in the closet feel that it is a necessary tool to achieve some sort of equality.
Bill Sipple’s life might have been much different had Harvey Milk not “outed” Sipple all those years ago.
+++++
H.RES.950 SPONSOR: Rep Goldwater (introduced 12/19/75 & 2/3/76) Resolution expressing the gratitude of the House of Representatives to Oliver Sipple for his selfless heroism in preventing the assassination of Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States of America.
Reference Cites:
Random House
94th Congress Bill Summary
Out Magazine
By all accounts, Bill Sipple enjoyed a quiet and closeted life in San Francisco. He was 33 years old and an ex-marine. That would change on September 22, 1975 when he left his home to go to Fisherman’s Wharf. As he walked in front of the St. Francis hotel he encountered two of three people that would change his life forever – President Gerald Ford and Sara Jane Moore.
Seeing the crowd of people outside the St. Francis, Bill Sipple asked one of the people why so many people were there. He was told that the President was inside the hotel.
If Bill Sipple had continued walking to Fisherman’s Wharf his life would probably never have changed. His name may never have been spoken in the media or the Halls of Congress. But the human curiosity that exists within all of us insisted that he remain in front of the St. Francis Hotel in order to get a glimpse of the President of the United States. This ex-marine wanted to catch a glimpse of the President, and really, who among us wouldn’t have been similarly curious?
After waiting outside the St. Francis for nearly 3 hours, Bill Sipple had worked his way to the front of the crowd in order to have a better view of the President. Next to him was a simply dressed middle-aged woman who had also been waiting for hours. Her name was Sara Jane Moore.
When President Ford and his entourage exited the St. Francis, Sara Jane Moore reached into her pocket and got her .38 caliber revolver that she had just bought that very day. She aimed the revolver at President Ford.
But when Bill Sipple noticed that she had pulled out the gun his instincts went to work. His military training paid off. He quickly shouted “Gun!” as loud as he could and grabbed Moore’s arm – just as the gun went off.
The bullet missed the President, ricocheted off of a wall, and hit a cab driver. President Ford’s security detail went into motion. The President’s Chief of Staff and two Secret Service Agents pushed President Ford into his car and headed to the airport. The San Francisco Police and other Secret Service Agents grabbed both Sara Jane Moore and Bill Sipple.
This was the 2nd assassination attempt on President Ford in 17 days. President Ford’s Press Secretary Ron Nessen was overheard saying “God damn California” as he lunged into his waiting car.
What many people still, to this day, don’t know, is that the Chief of Staff that heard Bill Sipple yell “Gun!” and in turn pushed President Ford to safety was none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, that Donald Rumsfeld.
The Secret Service interrogated Sipple and “roughed him up a bit” according to his own reports, but quickly stopped once his true accomplishment had emerged. Bill Sipple had just saved the life of President Ford.
The next day Bill Sipple told the Associated Press “I am not a hero.” After all, defending freedom was what this ex-marine had trained all of his life to do. And Bill Sipple knew a thing or two about that – he had been wounded in Vietnam and subsequently suffered from psychological difficulties. The war and the response of our Nation upon his return from war had screwed Bill Sipple up mentally. In fact, he was on full disability when he saved the President.
Even if the story ended here there might have been a happy ending to this story. But, remember, I said that there were three people that would change his life forever. Sara Jane Moore and President Ford he had met that day. The third person to change his life was Harvey Milk.
Harvey Milk knew Bill Sipple and knew that he was gay. Harvey Milk leaked his information to the San Francisco Chronicle’s Bill Caen who in turn “outed” Sipple in his newspaper two days after the assassination attempt. Milk was even quoted as saying he was “proud – maybe this will help break the stereotype.” Newspapers across the country quickly picked up the story, which was slugged as “The Homosexual Hero.”
Bill Sipple’s family in Detroit did not know that he was gay. He had just been outed.
“My sexuality is a part of my private life and has no bearing on my response to the act of a person seeking to take the life of another. I am first and foremost a human being who enjoys life and respects life.” Sipple told the press.
Bill Sipple’s strict Baptist parents stopped talking to their newly outed homosexual son. The last words he ever heard from his mother were something to the effect that she could not step out of her house in Detroit because of the throngs of reporters asking her questions about her son being gay.
Over the course of the next few days the “story” changed from Sipple being gay. The press was now interested in the response of the White House in learning that a gay man had saved the life of President Ford. There had been no public “thank-you” from the White House, at least none made public to the press. Harvey Milk was not going to stand for that. Harvey Milk alleged publicly that President Ford was delaying his thanks because, in fact, that Sipple was gay. Ron Nessen, who now works at the Brookings Institution, disputes that.
“One of the things about those times were that they were far more civilized. People’s private lives were private lives.” Referring to President Ford, Nessen went on to say that Ford was not the type of person to discriminate against gays, “knowing him fairly well, it would not have been in his character to think about that.” And that was true.
In 2001, President Ford told the Detroit News that he never even heard about Sipple being gay until after he had written him a thank-you letter. “I don’t know where everyone got the crazy idea I was prejudiced and wanted to exclude gays.” Still, President Ford suffered in the polls because many people perceived that he should have invited Sipple to the White House for some public ceremony. But President Ford wasn’t the ‘flashy” sort of person. Ford thanked everyone that protected him – police, Secret Service, and Sipple – by writing a personal letter. And, in fact, President Ford had indeed written Bill Sipple a personal letter of thanks just three days after the attempted assassination attempt.
“Dear Mr. Sipple:
I want you to know how much I appreciated your selfless actions last Monday. The events were a shock to us all, but you acted quickly and without fear for your own safety. By doing so you helped to avert danger to me and to others in the crowd. You have my heartfelt appreciation.
Sincerely,
Jerry Ford”
Bill Sipple treasured this letter. He hung it on the wall of his small apartment. He even gave a copy of it, later on, to the person who had “outed” him, his longtime friend Harvey Milk.
But Bill Sipple’s life was never to be happy ever again. He sued the newspapers that had “outed” him and lost. Those cases would drag on to 1984. The Los Angeles Times is quoted from one of those cases as saying “reporting his connections to the gay community presented information contrary to the stereotype of homosexuals as lacking vigor.”
Bill Sipple resorted to alcohol to deal with the stress. His strict Baptist parents no longer spoke with him. And he turned to alcohol far too much.
In 1977 Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected official in California. The next year he and Mayor Moscone were shot dead. Randy Shilts wrote in “The Mayor of Castro Street” That it had indeed been Milk who tipped off the San Francisco Chronicle on Sipple’s homosexuality.
Bill Sipple found work in various gay bars in San Francisco by mopping floors. His drinking had escalated and his weight quickly increased to around 300 pounds. Sipple sometimes spent his entire disability check on booze.
Every year on the anniversary of the assassination attempt some reporter would track him down for “his story.” He always turned them down.
In 1989 the local bartenders noticed that Sipple hadn’t been to the bars in several weeks. One of those bartenders called a friend of Sipple’s, Wayne Friday. Friday was a local District Attorney and did a “wellness check” on Sipple. He found Bill Sipple’s body, dead, in his apartment. He had been dead for several days. Bill Sipple was only 47 years old. Very few people showed up at his funeral. Everyone had seemingly forgotten Bill Sipple. Everyone except Gerald Ford.
When Former President Ford learned of Bill Sipple’s death, he did what was always his custom – write a personal letter. Ford sent a letter expressing his condolences to Sipple’s friends.
“I strongly regretted the problems that developed for him following this incident. It saddened me to learn the circumstances of his death.” The note was accompanied with flowers from the Ford Family and was sent on Valentine’s Day
Bill Sipple’s mother died in 1979, having never reconciled with her son being gay. Sipple’s brother and sister did attend his funeral.
Former President Ford is still alive, and is our oldest living President. During the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, Ford appeared sluggish during a tribute to him. It was later learned that he had had a stroke. In December 2003 CNN’s Larry King interviewed Betty Ford who said that the Former President still swam and played golf.
Ford later appointed Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld brought a “rising star” of the GOP onboard as his assistant – Dick Cheney. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld urged President Ford to dump Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice Presidential candidate because he was “too liberal”, and Ford complied. As a result, Jimmy Carter was elected President, largely because the South solidly backed Carter. If, however, President Ford had kept Rockefeller as his Vice Presidential running mate he could very well have won Rockefeller’s home state of New York, which narrowly went for Carter. And Jimmy Carter would never have been President of the United States.
Outing is a horrible experience for people today. It remains controversial and a polarizing issue. Many gay people not living in the closet feel that it is a necessary tool to achieve some sort of equality.
Bill Sipple’s life might have been much different had Harvey Milk not “outed” Sipple all those years ago.
+++++
H.RES.950 SPONSOR: Rep Goldwater (introduced 12/19/75 & 2/3/76) Resolution expressing the gratitude of the House of Representatives to Oliver Sipple for his selfless heroism in preventing the assassination of Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States of America.
Reference Cites:
Random House
94th Congress Bill Summary
Out Magazine
The Barry Goldwater You Probably Didn’t Know
Barry Goldwater was known for his conservatism. He was a former Air Force General and fighter pilot. He defended the John Birch Society, which advocates for the United States to pull out of the United Nations. He defended making social security voluntary, and he even suggested using nuclear weapons on Vietnam. And you won’t find me defending those policies. But what I do hope to convey to those of you willing to read on is that those principles I’ve described above are not the whole story. This is the story of Barry Goldwater after he retired from the Senate in 1987. This is the story of Barry Goldwater’s advocacy for gay rights.
After Mr. Conservative retired from the Senate, Barry Goldwater championed for the rights of gays and lesbians to serve in our nation’s military and worked in Phoenix to stop businesses from hiring based on someone’s sexual orientation. In 1994 Barry Goldwater signed on as Co-Chair of a drive to prevent job discrimination against homosexuals. The Human Rights Commission spearheaded that drive, Americans Against Discrimination.
Surprised? I was. According to Goldwater, “The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."
And just who was his Co-Chair? It was a democrat, Oregon Governor Barbara Roberts who strongly opposed Goldwater’s bid for the White House in 1964.
In 1992 he backed a Democrat for Congress over a Christian Conservative Republican, and the Democrat won. Later he rallied to support President Bill Clinton by calling a press conference and saying, "get off his back and let him be president."
All of a sudden Mr. Conservative didn’t seem so conservative. But had he changed or had the conservative movement changed? And what led to his advocacy of gay rights?
In a Washington Post interview from 1994 Goldwater said, "The first time this came up was with the question, should there be gays in the military?" Goldwater says. "Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else. ... So I came out for it."
Goldwater has a gay grandson, Ty Ross. Ross is HIV positive and in a committed relationship. He and his boyfriend often visited Goldwater. Goldwater’s first wife founded Planned Parenthood of Arizona. One of his longtime friends was gay rights activist Charlie Harrison. Harrison recalled Goldwater’s speech at a recent gay rights fundraising dinner in which he received a standing ovation from the gay audience, "He was treated like God," Harrison marvels. "Like the Grand Canyon come to Phoenix." Goldwater’s wife Susan was a registered nurse and Director of a cancer and AIDS hospice.
As for that question on if Goldwater’s conservatism changed or did the conservative movement change, Barry Goldwater would claim the latter. "What I was talking about was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater recalls, saying he was smeared by the people around President Johnson – "the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
Barry Goldwater was always quick to offer you his opinion. He once remarked that JFK would have made a good president if he had lived. He considered him a friend who just happened to look at politics from a different perspective. Goldwater never forgave President Nixon for Watergate and refused to even attend Nixon’s funeral. Goldwater often remarked on Senator Bob Dole’s temper, "I said one day that Dole had a temper, and he got madder than hell. He has one. He has a mean one."
But it may be the connection between Barry Goldwater and Hillary Rodham Clinton that amazes most people. Yes, Hillary was a vocal Goldwater supporter in 1964. And Goldwater often mused that Hillary would make for a better President than Bill Clinton, "If he'd let his wife run business, I think he'd be better off. ... I just like the way she acts. I've never met her, but I sent her a bag of chili, and she invited me to come to the White House some night and said she'd cook chili for me. Someday, maybe." Goldwater did not, however, support Hillary’s health care initiative in the early 90’s.
Barry Goldwater suffered a stroke in 1996 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease in 1997. Barry Goldwater died on May 29, 1998 and he was a “true conservative.” Before he died he was able to achieve a lifelong dream – hearing a Democrat, President Bill Clinton, say in his State of the Union Address that the ‘era of big government was over.’ He never took a position on abortion, aside from saying "Well, I didn't have one. It wasn't an issue." Goldwater was anti-communism and pro-small government.
And he was pro-gay rights.
Presidential historian Haynes Johnson said, “I mean, the idea that Barry Goldwater came out for pro-choice so strongly, for gay and lesbian rights, and the difference between the social conservatives of today and the Goldwater conservatives of 1964 are just light years apart.”
From Badpuppy …
The Human Rights Campaign mourned the death today of former U.S. senator and Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, a staunch defender of individual liberty and equality for gay Americans.
"Barry Goldwater envisioned an America where equal rights and liberty extend to all people. He exemplified honorable conservative principles such as respecting individual rights. Many of today's right-wing politicians, who mistakenly call themselves conservatives, can learn a lot about true conservatism by studying Barry Goldwater," said HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch
In remembering Barry Goldwater, I choose to recall his statement from an op-ed piece following his retirement from the Senate. "It's time America realized that there was no gay exemption in the right to `life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness' in the Declaration of Independence. Job discrimination against gays -- or anybody else – is contrary to each of these founding principles,"
You can read a transcript of Barry Goldwater’s commentary entitled “Ban on Gays is Senseless: Attempt to Stall the Inevitable” at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html, in which he says “The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.”
Cites:
The Washington Post and The Washington Post
RS Levinson
PBS.org
Badpuppy
WaPo & LATimes
American Politics.com
After Mr. Conservative retired from the Senate, Barry Goldwater championed for the rights of gays and lesbians to serve in our nation’s military and worked in Phoenix to stop businesses from hiring based on someone’s sexual orientation. In 1994 Barry Goldwater signed on as Co-Chair of a drive to prevent job discrimination against homosexuals. The Human Rights Commission spearheaded that drive, Americans Against Discrimination.
Surprised? I was. According to Goldwater, “The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."
And just who was his Co-Chair? It was a democrat, Oregon Governor Barbara Roberts who strongly opposed Goldwater’s bid for the White House in 1964.
In 1992 he backed a Democrat for Congress over a Christian Conservative Republican, and the Democrat won. Later he rallied to support President Bill Clinton by calling a press conference and saying, "get off his back and let him be president."
All of a sudden Mr. Conservative didn’t seem so conservative. But had he changed or had the conservative movement changed? And what led to his advocacy of gay rights?
In a Washington Post interview from 1994 Goldwater said, "The first time this came up was with the question, should there be gays in the military?" Goldwater says. "Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else. ... So I came out for it."
Goldwater has a gay grandson, Ty Ross. Ross is HIV positive and in a committed relationship. He and his boyfriend often visited Goldwater. Goldwater’s first wife founded Planned Parenthood of Arizona. One of his longtime friends was gay rights activist Charlie Harrison. Harrison recalled Goldwater’s speech at a recent gay rights fundraising dinner in which he received a standing ovation from the gay audience, "He was treated like God," Harrison marvels. "Like the Grand Canyon come to Phoenix." Goldwater’s wife Susan was a registered nurse and Director of a cancer and AIDS hospice.
As for that question on if Goldwater’s conservatism changed or did the conservative movement change, Barry Goldwater would claim the latter. "What I was talking about was more or less 'conservative,' " Goldwater recalls, saying he was smeared by the people around President Johnson – "the most dishonest man we ever had in the presidency." Goldwater continues: "The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. ... When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
Barry Goldwater was always quick to offer you his opinion. He once remarked that JFK would have made a good president if he had lived. He considered him a friend who just happened to look at politics from a different perspective. Goldwater never forgave President Nixon for Watergate and refused to even attend Nixon’s funeral. Goldwater often remarked on Senator Bob Dole’s temper, "I said one day that Dole had a temper, and he got madder than hell. He has one. He has a mean one."
But it may be the connection between Barry Goldwater and Hillary Rodham Clinton that amazes most people. Yes, Hillary was a vocal Goldwater supporter in 1964. And Goldwater often mused that Hillary would make for a better President than Bill Clinton, "If he'd let his wife run business, I think he'd be better off. ... I just like the way she acts. I've never met her, but I sent her a bag of chili, and she invited me to come to the White House some night and said she'd cook chili for me. Someday, maybe." Goldwater did not, however, support Hillary’s health care initiative in the early 90’s.
Barry Goldwater suffered a stroke in 1996 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease in 1997. Barry Goldwater died on May 29, 1998 and he was a “true conservative.” Before he died he was able to achieve a lifelong dream – hearing a Democrat, President Bill Clinton, say in his State of the Union Address that the ‘era of big government was over.’ He never took a position on abortion, aside from saying "Well, I didn't have one. It wasn't an issue." Goldwater was anti-communism and pro-small government.
And he was pro-gay rights.
Presidential historian Haynes Johnson said, “I mean, the idea that Barry Goldwater came out for pro-choice so strongly, for gay and lesbian rights, and the difference between the social conservatives of today and the Goldwater conservatives of 1964 are just light years apart.”
From Badpuppy …
The Human Rights Campaign mourned the death today of former U.S. senator and Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, a staunch defender of individual liberty and equality for gay Americans.
"Barry Goldwater envisioned an America where equal rights and liberty extend to all people. He exemplified honorable conservative principles such as respecting individual rights. Many of today's right-wing politicians, who mistakenly call themselves conservatives, can learn a lot about true conservatism by studying Barry Goldwater," said HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch
In remembering Barry Goldwater, I choose to recall his statement from an op-ed piece following his retirement from the Senate. "It's time America realized that there was no gay exemption in the right to `life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness' in the Declaration of Independence. Job discrimination against gays -- or anybody else – is contrary to each of these founding principles,"
You can read a transcript of Barry Goldwater’s commentary entitled “Ban on Gays is Senseless: Attempt to Stall the Inevitable” at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html, in which he says “The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.”
Cites:
The Washington Post and The Washington Post
RS Levinson
PBS.org
Badpuppy
WaPo & LATimes
American Politics.com
Nixon’s Progressive Legacy
Richard Nixon is not one of our most well respected presidents. He earned his badge of dishonor. But when recognizing the low points of the Nixon Presidency one must also concede the high points as well – and there were high points.
But first a more personal account. When Hurricane Camille devastated the Mississippi coast, Nixon wasted no time in getting his butt to our state. I don’t recall exact words or statements, just that when he left, my fellow Mississippians felt hope. He provided hope for a region of the country that had long lagged behind the other states.
Richard Nixon would not be labeled as a conservative using today’s standards. Rather, his policy was almost “progressive.” Some examples are in order.
Nixon tackled five areas of domestic policy in his first term: welfare, civil rights (including desegregation, voting rights, additional rights for women), and reorganization of the federal bureaucracy.
The following occurred during the Nixon reign:
· an end to the Vietnam War;
· beginning of the Food Stamp program;
· creation of the Environmental Protection Agency;
· passage of the Freedom of Information Act;
· decriminalization of abortion;
· creation of Earned Income Tax Credits;
· a formal ban on biological weapons; and,
· passage of the Clean Water Act.
It’s fair to say that Liberals did not give Nixon a fair shot with his policy, because his policy threatened to co-opt their own policy. In truth, Nixon originated in the progressive wing of the Republican Party.
Nixon did give us William H Rehnquist, but he also have us Harry Blackmun. Nixon declared war on Cancer, Illegal Drugs and Hunger, and ensured that his programs were funded – not like Bush’s “No Child Left Behind.”
Nixon supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which remains the most controversial and far-reaching effort to control air pollution.
Nixon effectively ended the policy of forced termination of tribal status and turned over more decisions about Indian policies to the elected tribal governments, and appeared to have lived up to earlier praise from the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), which said in the fall of 1970 that Nixon was "the first U.S. President since George Washington to pledge that the government will honor obligations to the Indian tribes."
Congress approved Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in 1972. Nixon signed the bill into law.
From the first to the last budget for which the Nixon administration was responsible; that is, from 1970 through 1975, spending on all human resource programs exceeded spending for defense for the first time since the Second World War. Think about that for a moment.
President Lyndon Johnson is often cited for his considerable contribution to domestic programs, but Nixon also deserves to sit at that table. Funding for social welfare services under Nixon grew from $55 billion in 1970 to almost $132 billion in 1975.
When the nutrition programs under the Older Americans Act were created in 1972, authorizing special food programs for the elderly, it was Richard Nixon who pushed for more funding. It was Ronald Reagan who cut that funding.
Watergate has understandably dimmed many of our memories of the Nixon Presidency, and I’ll not minimize the impact that Watergate had on our country. But I would like the facts to speak for themselves. When we speak of Presidents that reached out their hand to the poor and under-served, Richard Nixon’s name should be on that short list.
Even less remembered than the accomplishments of the Nixon Presidency are the accomplishments of the Nixon Vice-Presidency. In the 1950’s, Nixon was a strong advocate of civil rights; perhaps an even stronger advocate than Eisenhower, Kennedy or Johnson. When he presided over the Senate his rulings consistently favored those who opposed the use of filibusters to block civil rights legislation and he chaired a committee on government contracts that oversaw enforcement of nondiscrimination provisions of government contracts, recommending in his final report the establishment of "a positive policy of nondiscrimination" by employers, which he later supported as president. I would consider that impressive. How about you? And would you be surprised to find out that Governor Ronald Reagan of California opposed almost everything Nixon supported?
Nixon remains the only modern president whose personality, rhetoric, and image can be used with impunity to dismiss or ignore his concrete achievements, especially in the area of expanding civil rights enforcement in particular, and domestic reform in general. Every president that followed … Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. have all been more conservative on domestic reform than Richard Nixon.
This will no doubt confound many of you and, in turn, ensure many heads are scratched. And that’s all right. Life is all about re-examining issues and educating ourselves on the facts.
I’m interested in your thoughts and look forward to reading them
But first a more personal account. When Hurricane Camille devastated the Mississippi coast, Nixon wasted no time in getting his butt to our state. I don’t recall exact words or statements, just that when he left, my fellow Mississippians felt hope. He provided hope for a region of the country that had long lagged behind the other states.
Richard Nixon would not be labeled as a conservative using today’s standards. Rather, his policy was almost “progressive.” Some examples are in order.
Nixon tackled five areas of domestic policy in his first term: welfare, civil rights (including desegregation, voting rights, additional rights for women), and reorganization of the federal bureaucracy.
The following occurred during the Nixon reign:
· an end to the Vietnam War;
· beginning of the Food Stamp program;
· creation of the Environmental Protection Agency;
· passage of the Freedom of Information Act;
· decriminalization of abortion;
· creation of Earned Income Tax Credits;
· a formal ban on biological weapons; and,
· passage of the Clean Water Act.
It’s fair to say that Liberals did not give Nixon a fair shot with his policy, because his policy threatened to co-opt their own policy. In truth, Nixon originated in the progressive wing of the Republican Party.
Nixon did give us William H Rehnquist, but he also have us Harry Blackmun. Nixon declared war on Cancer, Illegal Drugs and Hunger, and ensured that his programs were funded – not like Bush’s “No Child Left Behind.”
Nixon supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which remains the most controversial and far-reaching effort to control air pollution.
Nixon effectively ended the policy of forced termination of tribal status and turned over more decisions about Indian policies to the elected tribal governments, and appeared to have lived up to earlier praise from the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), which said in the fall of 1970 that Nixon was "the first U.S. President since George Washington to pledge that the government will honor obligations to the Indian tribes."
Congress approved Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in 1972. Nixon signed the bill into law.
From the first to the last budget for which the Nixon administration was responsible; that is, from 1970 through 1975, spending on all human resource programs exceeded spending for defense for the first time since the Second World War. Think about that for a moment.
President Lyndon Johnson is often cited for his considerable contribution to domestic programs, but Nixon also deserves to sit at that table. Funding for social welfare services under Nixon grew from $55 billion in 1970 to almost $132 billion in 1975.
When the nutrition programs under the Older Americans Act were created in 1972, authorizing special food programs for the elderly, it was Richard Nixon who pushed for more funding. It was Ronald Reagan who cut that funding.
Watergate has understandably dimmed many of our memories of the Nixon Presidency, and I’ll not minimize the impact that Watergate had on our country. But I would like the facts to speak for themselves. When we speak of Presidents that reached out their hand to the poor and under-served, Richard Nixon’s name should be on that short list.
Even less remembered than the accomplishments of the Nixon Presidency are the accomplishments of the Nixon Vice-Presidency. In the 1950’s, Nixon was a strong advocate of civil rights; perhaps an even stronger advocate than Eisenhower, Kennedy or Johnson. When he presided over the Senate his rulings consistently favored those who opposed the use of filibusters to block civil rights legislation and he chaired a committee on government contracts that oversaw enforcement of nondiscrimination provisions of government contracts, recommending in his final report the establishment of "a positive policy of nondiscrimination" by employers, which he later supported as president. I would consider that impressive. How about you? And would you be surprised to find out that Governor Ronald Reagan of California opposed almost everything Nixon supported?
Nixon remains the only modern president whose personality, rhetoric, and image can be used with impunity to dismiss or ignore his concrete achievements, especially in the area of expanding civil rights enforcement in particular, and domestic reform in general. Every president that followed … Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. have all been more conservative on domestic reform than Richard Nixon.
This will no doubt confound many of you and, in turn, ensure many heads are scratched. And that’s all right. Life is all about re-examining issues and educating ourselves on the facts.
I’m interested in your thoughts and look forward to reading them
The G.O.P. Needs to Wake Up and Address Health Care!
The GOP's lack of leadership on Health Care is one of the major reasons I am not a registered republican. It's that simple. If we can build billion dollar bridges to no where and award multi-million dollar no bid Katrina contracts to companies that in turn hire illegal aliens then we can afford to address the health care crisis in our country. And just to be fair, this health care crisis effects everyone. Take a stroll though a VA Hospital waiting room and ask some questions of the long lines of patients sitting there.
A while back the GOP was talking about eliminating the Dept. of Education. Put that back on the table if you have to. This is not about socialized medicine. This is about finding a solution to the health care crisis in our country. I've listed a number of initiatives by faith based groups and local communities that are attacking this crisis head on. Why shouldn't the govenrnment award grants to those bodies to purchase medicine and pay for overhead costs? I'm not in favor of mixing religion and politics but religion and health care is a totally different matter entirely.
If Lexington, Kentucky wanted to open a clinic to treat people with no insurance, you better believe the federal government should have money available to award them a grant. No question.
It has been my experience locally that the people so against better access to health care are the "HAVES." And the "HAVE NOTS" are for it. I'll say it again, one's personal accumulated wealth should have no bearing on one's access to health care in this country. Illegal aliens receive free health care and our own citizenry does not get so much as a bottle of Tylenol? Any reasonable minded person should be outraged.
There is pork in that there barrel that can pay for whatever we need. We may have to tighten the bootstraps on some other things, but we can do this folks!
A while back the GOP was talking about eliminating the Dept. of Education. Put that back on the table if you have to. This is not about socialized medicine. This is about finding a solution to the health care crisis in our country. I've listed a number of initiatives by faith based groups and local communities that are attacking this crisis head on. Why shouldn't the govenrnment award grants to those bodies to purchase medicine and pay for overhead costs? I'm not in favor of mixing religion and politics but religion and health care is a totally different matter entirely.
If Lexington, Kentucky wanted to open a clinic to treat people with no insurance, you better believe the federal government should have money available to award them a grant. No question.
It has been my experience locally that the people so against better access to health care are the "HAVES." And the "HAVE NOTS" are for it. I'll say it again, one's personal accumulated wealth should have no bearing on one's access to health care in this country. Illegal aliens receive free health care and our own citizenry does not get so much as a bottle of Tylenol? Any reasonable minded person should be outraged.
There is pork in that there barrel that can pay for whatever we need. We may have to tighten the bootstraps on some other things, but we can do this folks!
Another Example of How Local Communities Can Provide Access to Health Care for the Uninsured and Poor
Another community deserves a pat on the back: Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Community Health Free Clinic operates with volunteers and donations and provides both medical and dental care for those people with no health insurance.
MORE HERE
This is another example of how a local government and it's volunteers can assist those at risk people in the community. It's the right thing to do, folks.
MORE HERE
This is another example of how a local government and it's volunteers can assist those at risk people in the community. It's the right thing to do, folks.
How the Faith-Based Community Can Assist With Health Care
HERE is an excellent example of the Faith-Based Community stepping up to the plate, in a non-political way, to help their community with respect to access to health care.
Again, this is a wonderful model for communities to copy. Much more could be done to assist those people who do not have access to health insurance. And more importantly, much more SHOULD be done. As a society we have a moral obligation to not sweep this issue under the rug. And as individuals we have an obligation to ensure that our society is successful in meeting these needs.
Again, this is a wonderful model for communities to copy. Much more could be done to assist those people who do not have access to health insurance. And more importantly, much more SHOULD be done. As a society we have a moral obligation to not sweep this issue under the rug. And as individuals we have an obligation to ensure that our society is successful in meeting these needs.
Here's What I Would Like to See the Dems Talking About
Since many of the democrats feel the need to stand by and observe as the GOP implodes and fractures, there are some topics that I would like to see the Dems embrace and start talking about.
In no particular order ...
1) Affordable Healthcare: I'm not talking about the kind they have in Canada necessarily, although I wouldn't be against that necessarily. It's morally wrong for wealth to be the determining factor for some people seeing a doctor. Here's an example of how I think the system is wrong: if I had a minor child living with me I would qualify for a state health card. The fact that I am not financially solvent enough to raise a child properly is irrelevant according to the state. That leads me to believe that people who aren't in a position to raise a child are having one just to qualify for state medical benefits. That's not right.
2) Incentives for US Companies to Employ US Workers: Outsourcing our nation's jobs is unamerican, although it is profitable for the companies. That's wrong. There should be some incentives for them to stay in the US and employ US workers. No offense to the fine people of India, but I am tired of talking to them on the phone anytime I call the customer service line of a major US company.
3) Fiscal Responsibility: We need to spend our tax dollars far more wisely than we currently do. This million dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska is a prime example. Being fiscally responsible is not an issue the GOP should have a monopoly on.
4) FEMA Should Once Again Be A Cabinet Level Post: Take FEMA out of Homeland Security and allow that agency to spend it's time on battling terrorism.
5) Dems Should Embrace Some Faith Initiatives: Although there are plenty of bad models in which churches are mixing politics and religion, there are also many examples of Churches reaching out and serving a real and needed purpose in many communities. Some hospitals and medical clinics run by churches are the only health care some of our nation's poor receive. We should embrace good models of churches helping in our communities.
6) Dems Should Ease Up on Abortion: There are quite a few pro-life Dems. The democratic party does not need to be the whipping boy for Roe-V-Wade. The Dems don't need to be seen as pro-abortion. I'm not against abortion in some cases, but there are many instances in which it is used as a form of birth control - and it is not birth control.
7) Security on our Borders and Illegel Immigration: Legal immigration is the lifeblood of our country. But Illegal immigration is wrong and should not be rewarded. Hospitals along the border with Mexico are shutting down because they do not receive any money for the many illegals they treat. That's wrong. We need to stand strong on our borders and infuse more money to protecting our citizens that live there. There should be no need for Freedom Fighters. Our government should be doing that work.
8) Regional Transportation Models: The trains don't make it to Kentucky. Greyhound is cutting back on service to many smaller cities. Many cities have inadequate public transportation. I'd like to see some research and action being taken on improving transportation in our country. Our country needs a better railroad system. If not Amtrack then something else. We need to provide alternatives to more cars on the highway. Public transportation in major cities should be of a level that the average person could use it to go to work and back home again.
9) Civil Rights: No, I do not believe gay marriage is a state's right's issue no more than the Civil Right's Laws of the 1960's should have been state's right's issues. Equality for all citizens should be a foundation for the federal government. And yes, I do expect the Dems to take a hit on this if they come out in support of it. However, it's important to also impart that the federal government also may not interfere in an religious faith that does not want to recognize same sex marriage. The government cannot force churches to worship or believe in any special way, but churches also may not exert control over how the government governs.
10) Spend More Federal Money on Our Poor Rather Than the World's Poor: Poverty is a real and growing problem in our country. We saw that in New Orleans when a hurricane hit before the social security checks came. Everyone that works an honest job should be able to afford some sort of home. Everyone that works an honest job should be able to afford food for the dinner table. This is an ideal place for churches to play a larger role; they already play a large role of course. The working poor of the lower 9th ward in New Orleans were blocked from higher education at such fine local universities as Tulane and Xavier because of lack of wealth. That's wrong. Academic achievement should not be tied into wealth. We need a real war on poverty right here at home.
OK, that's 10 topics I'll throw out that I'd like dems to talk about.
Any others???
In no particular order ...
1) Affordable Healthcare: I'm not talking about the kind they have in Canada necessarily, although I wouldn't be against that necessarily. It's morally wrong for wealth to be the determining factor for some people seeing a doctor. Here's an example of how I think the system is wrong: if I had a minor child living with me I would qualify for a state health card. The fact that I am not financially solvent enough to raise a child properly is irrelevant according to the state. That leads me to believe that people who aren't in a position to raise a child are having one just to qualify for state medical benefits. That's not right.
2) Incentives for US Companies to Employ US Workers: Outsourcing our nation's jobs is unamerican, although it is profitable for the companies. That's wrong. There should be some incentives for them to stay in the US and employ US workers. No offense to the fine people of India, but I am tired of talking to them on the phone anytime I call the customer service line of a major US company.
3) Fiscal Responsibility: We need to spend our tax dollars far more wisely than we currently do. This million dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska is a prime example. Being fiscally responsible is not an issue the GOP should have a monopoly on.
4) FEMA Should Once Again Be A Cabinet Level Post: Take FEMA out of Homeland Security and allow that agency to spend it's time on battling terrorism.
5) Dems Should Embrace Some Faith Initiatives: Although there are plenty of bad models in which churches are mixing politics and religion, there are also many examples of Churches reaching out and serving a real and needed purpose in many communities. Some hospitals and medical clinics run by churches are the only health care some of our nation's poor receive. We should embrace good models of churches helping in our communities.
6) Dems Should Ease Up on Abortion: There are quite a few pro-life Dems. The democratic party does not need to be the whipping boy for Roe-V-Wade. The Dems don't need to be seen as pro-abortion. I'm not against abortion in some cases, but there are many instances in which it is used as a form of birth control - and it is not birth control.
7) Security on our Borders and Illegel Immigration: Legal immigration is the lifeblood of our country. But Illegal immigration is wrong and should not be rewarded. Hospitals along the border with Mexico are shutting down because they do not receive any money for the many illegals they treat. That's wrong. We need to stand strong on our borders and infuse more money to protecting our citizens that live there. There should be no need for Freedom Fighters. Our government should be doing that work.
8) Regional Transportation Models: The trains don't make it to Kentucky. Greyhound is cutting back on service to many smaller cities. Many cities have inadequate public transportation. I'd like to see some research and action being taken on improving transportation in our country. Our country needs a better railroad system. If not Amtrack then something else. We need to provide alternatives to more cars on the highway. Public transportation in major cities should be of a level that the average person could use it to go to work and back home again.
9) Civil Rights: No, I do not believe gay marriage is a state's right's issue no more than the Civil Right's Laws of the 1960's should have been state's right's issues. Equality for all citizens should be a foundation for the federal government. And yes, I do expect the Dems to take a hit on this if they come out in support of it. However, it's important to also impart that the federal government also may not interfere in an religious faith that does not want to recognize same sex marriage. The government cannot force churches to worship or believe in any special way, but churches also may not exert control over how the government governs.
10) Spend More Federal Money on Our Poor Rather Than the World's Poor: Poverty is a real and growing problem in our country. We saw that in New Orleans when a hurricane hit before the social security checks came. Everyone that works an honest job should be able to afford some sort of home. Everyone that works an honest job should be able to afford food for the dinner table. This is an ideal place for churches to play a larger role; they already play a large role of course. The working poor of the lower 9th ward in New Orleans were blocked from higher education at such fine local universities as Tulane and Xavier because of lack of wealth. That's wrong. Academic achievement should not be tied into wealth. We need a real war on poverty right here at home.
OK, that's 10 topics I'll throw out that I'd like dems to talk about.
Any others???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)