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!
Thursday, March 30, 2006
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-à-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)