Thiss is a test post.
Jammy
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Stance on war splits Democrats
By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff July 26, 2004
The Democratic Party yesterday prepared to begin its convention under an unusually broad, shining umbrella of unity, but with some strains and cracks showing over the most volatile issue of the election year, the war in Iraq.
Unlike at past Democratic gatherings, even the most vociferous factions arriving in Boston seemed determined to concentrate their energies on defeating President Bush, whose policies have deeply alienated most party loyalists, from moderate ''New Democrats" to the leftist fringe.
But the issue responsible for much of Bush's vulnerability, the Iraq war, also pushes some Democrats in conflicting directions.
A Globe poll of delegates -- mostly party activists who tend to be more liberal than mainstream Democrats -- indicated that 95 percent now believe the United States should never have gone to war in Iraq, a position somewhat at odds with the man preparing to claim the presidential nomination, John F. Kerry, who has said only that he would not have gone to war ''the way Bush did."
Most party leaders hope Kerry's convention speech can satisfy those who opposed the war from the start and avoid reopening divisions from the primaries, when former Vermont governor Howard Dean decried many of his rivals as ''Bush lite."
But they do not want Kerry to go as far as Dean in denouncing Bush's decision to go to war, but rather concentrate on issues like casualties and the cost of rebuilding Iraq without international support.
Their feelings are predicated on a fear, reflected in polls, that culturally conservative ''Reagan Democrats," who are a vital constituency for Kerry in the swing states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan, would be alienated by the kind of antiwar rhetoric offered in the past by Dean, former vice president Al Gore, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Democratic leaders in swing states worry that even if Kerry sticks to his moderate path on the war, fiery convention speeches by others in the party could exact a cost in November.
''If we see an Al Gore shouting like at that recent performance, repeating that mantra of 'So-and-so must resign, and so-and-so must resign,' that's not a temperature that appeals to undecided voters," said former congressman Dennis Eckart of Ohio, who contends that white working-class voters in Cleveland hold the key to Kerry's ability to win the state.
''We must have a rational discourse with voters up in Boston, and I think tone and tenor are vitally important," Eckart said.
And yet many delegates arriving in Boston expressed the opposite fear, that a too cautious approach by Kerry would allow Bush to evade responsibility for serious exaggerations of the threat in Iraq -- a failure documented in recent reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Sept. 11 Commission.
Disagreements about what tone to strike on Iraq came out during the party's deliberations over its platform, according to someone who was present. Party leaders came to agreement fairly quickly on other points, but labored over how to characterize the decision to go to war.
Ultimately, the platform committee settled on language designed to embrace all viewpoints in the party: ''People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq, but this much is clear: The administration badly exaggerated its case, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction and the connection between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda."
Kerry, in numerous interviews, has been pressed to answer whether he would or would not have gone to war -- and he has answered that he would have gone only under certain conditions. He has defended his vote to authorize war as a means of putting pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to cooperate with arms inspections.
''What I voted for was an authority for the president to go to war as a last resort if Saddam Hussein did not disarm and we needed to go to war," Kerry told CBS's Lesley Stahl two weeks ago. ''I think the way he went to war was a mistake."
Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the designated vice presidential nominee, quickly added: ''I know you want to make this black and white, but the difference is: If John Kerry were president of the United States, we would never be in this place. He would never have done what George Bush did. He would have done the hard work to build the alliances and the support system."
But many Democrats object to the Kerry-Edwards position on the grounds that it implicitly cedes to Bush his assertion that Iraq was a threat to the United States. In polls, about half of all Democrats disagreed that Iraq was a threat even when Bush was contending to ''know" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Some Democrats argued before the war that even a well-armed Iraq was less dangerous than Iran or Syria, both of which were more likely to aid Al Qaeda.
The Globe poll of delegates suggested that 80 percent claim that they had opposed the war at its inception. Many, in interviews, said they feel vindicated by events and outraged that Bush persuaded Americans to support a war that should never have been fought.
Kerry, too, has accused Bush of misleading the public, but Gore, Kennedy, Dean, and others go further, suggesting that the war was not justified under any circumstances. Even some who may privately agree do not want those views trumpeted to the nation during the convention.
''I think Bush probably did mislead the country in that the reasons he gave turned out not to be right," said Al From, head of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council. ''But we're in there, and it's a mess."
''Kerry's argument is that he has a better plan to deal with it than Bush, and that's the argument he has to make," added From. ''There has always been a substantial antiwar part of the party, but even people who opposed the war voted for Kerry and Edwards. In the end, it's not going to be a damaging division for the party."
The only possible damage, From and others contend, comes if the Democrats' attacks on the Iraq war convey the idea that the party is not vigilant on security.
In many of the industrial battleground states, working-class voters have teetered between the two parties in recent elections, lining up with the Democrats on economic issues and Republicans on national security.
This year, Democrats in those states say they sense an opening on the Iraq war, with many blue-collar voters getting fed up with what has become an exercise in nation-building. But those voters remain deeply respectful of the military and skeptical of antiwar rhetoric.
Kenny Perdue, the secretary-treasurer of the West Virginia AFL-CIO and a convention delegate, said that he is detecting more dissatisfaction with the war among his home-state voters than he expected but that he thinks Kerry should concentrate on other issues and let Bush self-destruct. ''Every time the president turns around, something he said in his State of the Union address turns out not to be true," said Perdue.
Kevin M. Leyden, a political scientist at the University of West Virginia, said the Democrats still lack the vocabulary to criticize military policy without appearing to criticize military values.
''The war cuts both ways here," he said. ''West Virginians are quite patriotic and have a long record of serving the nation through military service. There is, for a lot of West Virginians, positive, patriotic feelings toward the military. But at the same time, a lot of West Virginians are disillusioned with the way the decision to go to war was made."
If anger over the Iraq war gives the Democrats a better chance in West Virginia, which they lost in 2000, patriotism and national security issues may help Bush peel off some blue-collar Democrats in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
For Democrats to win in Ohio, they must run up huge margins in Cuyahoga County, the party's Cleveland-area stronghold; likewise, Democrats in Pennsylvania must win Philadelphia overwhelmingly.
In 2000, Gore ran up a whopping 80.02 percent in Philadelphia, where he campaigned hard, and won a narrow victory in Pennsylvania. Gore won Ohio's Cuyahoga County with 62.6 percent, but it was not enough to offset Bush's margins downstate.
Thus, most observers believe, Kerry has to replicate Gore's romp in Philadelphia and exceed his margin in the Cleveland area. Higher black turnout would help, but most analysts say Kerry has to trounce Bush among white working-class voters as well.
In Cleveland and Philadelphia, political machines led by Democratic mayors and union organizers should help Kerry considerably, but he still must overcome some Democrats' support for the troops in Iraq and respect for Bush as commander-in-chief.
Driving through South Philadelphia, one still sees a lot of American flags and ''Support Our Troops" bumper stickers. Most are old, and some residents say they have lost patience with the war, but the bumper stickers bespeak an allegiance that Kerry would disregard at his peril.
''I think Bush is good for [fighting] the terrorists and militarily," declared Henry Drury, 46, a lifelong Democrat.
Almost everyone in insular South Philly, which gave Gore 70.6 percent of its votes, supported the Iraq war initially, but many have changed their minds, residents say. But it has been the long duration and high cost that has rankled, they say.
''The only thing I hold against Bush is he sent all that money to Iraq," contended Nicholas Dominick, as he looked ahead to Kerry's acceptance speech. ''We need all that money here."
Globe correspondent Alan Wirzbicki contributed to this report.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company
By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff July 26, 2004
The Democratic Party yesterday prepared to begin its convention under an unusually broad, shining umbrella of unity, but with some strains and cracks showing over the most volatile issue of the election year, the war in Iraq.
Unlike at past Democratic gatherings, even the most vociferous factions arriving in Boston seemed determined to concentrate their energies on defeating President Bush, whose policies have deeply alienated most party loyalists, from moderate ''New Democrats" to the leftist fringe.
But the issue responsible for much of Bush's vulnerability, the Iraq war, also pushes some Democrats in conflicting directions.
A Globe poll of delegates -- mostly party activists who tend to be more liberal than mainstream Democrats -- indicated that 95 percent now believe the United States should never have gone to war in Iraq, a position somewhat at odds with the man preparing to claim the presidential nomination, John F. Kerry, who has said only that he would not have gone to war ''the way Bush did."
Most party leaders hope Kerry's convention speech can satisfy those who opposed the war from the start and avoid reopening divisions from the primaries, when former Vermont governor Howard Dean decried many of his rivals as ''Bush lite."
But they do not want Kerry to go as far as Dean in denouncing Bush's decision to go to war, but rather concentrate on issues like casualties and the cost of rebuilding Iraq without international support.
Their feelings are predicated on a fear, reflected in polls, that culturally conservative ''Reagan Democrats," who are a vital constituency for Kerry in the swing states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan, would be alienated by the kind of antiwar rhetoric offered in the past by Dean, former vice president Al Gore, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Democratic leaders in swing states worry that even if Kerry sticks to his moderate path on the war, fiery convention speeches by others in the party could exact a cost in November.
''If we see an Al Gore shouting like at that recent performance, repeating that mantra of 'So-and-so must resign, and so-and-so must resign,' that's not a temperature that appeals to undecided voters," said former congressman Dennis Eckart of Ohio, who contends that white working-class voters in Cleveland hold the key to Kerry's ability to win the state.
''We must have a rational discourse with voters up in Boston, and I think tone and tenor are vitally important," Eckart said.
And yet many delegates arriving in Boston expressed the opposite fear, that a too cautious approach by Kerry would allow Bush to evade responsibility for serious exaggerations of the threat in Iraq -- a failure documented in recent reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Sept. 11 Commission.
Disagreements about what tone to strike on Iraq came out during the party's deliberations over its platform, according to someone who was present. Party leaders came to agreement fairly quickly on other points, but labored over how to characterize the decision to go to war.
Ultimately, the platform committee settled on language designed to embrace all viewpoints in the party: ''People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq, but this much is clear: The administration badly exaggerated its case, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction and the connection between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda."
Kerry, in numerous interviews, has been pressed to answer whether he would or would not have gone to war -- and he has answered that he would have gone only under certain conditions. He has defended his vote to authorize war as a means of putting pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to cooperate with arms inspections.
''What I voted for was an authority for the president to go to war as a last resort if Saddam Hussein did not disarm and we needed to go to war," Kerry told CBS's Lesley Stahl two weeks ago. ''I think the way he went to war was a mistake."
Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the designated vice presidential nominee, quickly added: ''I know you want to make this black and white, but the difference is: If John Kerry were president of the United States, we would never be in this place. He would never have done what George Bush did. He would have done the hard work to build the alliances and the support system."
But many Democrats object to the Kerry-Edwards position on the grounds that it implicitly cedes to Bush his assertion that Iraq was a threat to the United States. In polls, about half of all Democrats disagreed that Iraq was a threat even when Bush was contending to ''know" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Some Democrats argued before the war that even a well-armed Iraq was less dangerous than Iran or Syria, both of which were more likely to aid Al Qaeda.
The Globe poll of delegates suggested that 80 percent claim that they had opposed the war at its inception. Many, in interviews, said they feel vindicated by events and outraged that Bush persuaded Americans to support a war that should never have been fought.
Kerry, too, has accused Bush of misleading the public, but Gore, Kennedy, Dean, and others go further, suggesting that the war was not justified under any circumstances. Even some who may privately agree do not want those views trumpeted to the nation during the convention.
''I think Bush probably did mislead the country in that the reasons he gave turned out not to be right," said Al From, head of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council. ''But we're in there, and it's a mess."
''Kerry's argument is that he has a better plan to deal with it than Bush, and that's the argument he has to make," added From. ''There has always been a substantial antiwar part of the party, but even people who opposed the war voted for Kerry and Edwards. In the end, it's not going to be a damaging division for the party."
The only possible damage, From and others contend, comes if the Democrats' attacks on the Iraq war convey the idea that the party is not vigilant on security.
In many of the industrial battleground states, working-class voters have teetered between the two parties in recent elections, lining up with the Democrats on economic issues and Republicans on national security.
This year, Democrats in those states say they sense an opening on the Iraq war, with many blue-collar voters getting fed up with what has become an exercise in nation-building. But those voters remain deeply respectful of the military and skeptical of antiwar rhetoric.
Kenny Perdue, the secretary-treasurer of the West Virginia AFL-CIO and a convention delegate, said that he is detecting more dissatisfaction with the war among his home-state voters than he expected but that he thinks Kerry should concentrate on other issues and let Bush self-destruct. ''Every time the president turns around, something he said in his State of the Union address turns out not to be true," said Perdue.
Kevin M. Leyden, a political scientist at the University of West Virginia, said the Democrats still lack the vocabulary to criticize military policy without appearing to criticize military values.
''The war cuts both ways here," he said. ''West Virginians are quite patriotic and have a long record of serving the nation through military service. There is, for a lot of West Virginians, positive, patriotic feelings toward the military. But at the same time, a lot of West Virginians are disillusioned with the way the decision to go to war was made."
If anger over the Iraq war gives the Democrats a better chance in West Virginia, which they lost in 2000, patriotism and national security issues may help Bush peel off some blue-collar Democrats in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
For Democrats to win in Ohio, they must run up huge margins in Cuyahoga County, the party's Cleveland-area stronghold; likewise, Democrats in Pennsylvania must win Philadelphia overwhelmingly.
In 2000, Gore ran up a whopping 80.02 percent in Philadelphia, where he campaigned hard, and won a narrow victory in Pennsylvania. Gore won Ohio's Cuyahoga County with 62.6 percent, but it was not enough to offset Bush's margins downstate.
Thus, most observers believe, Kerry has to replicate Gore's romp in Philadelphia and exceed his margin in the Cleveland area. Higher black turnout would help, but most analysts say Kerry has to trounce Bush among white working-class voters as well.
In Cleveland and Philadelphia, political machines led by Democratic mayors and union organizers should help Kerry considerably, but he still must overcome some Democrats' support for the troops in Iraq and respect for Bush as commander-in-chief.
Driving through South Philadelphia, one still sees a lot of American flags and ''Support Our Troops" bumper stickers. Most are old, and some residents say they have lost patience with the war, but the bumper stickers bespeak an allegiance that Kerry would disregard at his peril.
''I think Bush is good for [fighting] the terrorists and militarily," declared Henry Drury, 46, a lifelong Democrat.
Almost everyone in insular South Philly, which gave Gore 70.6 percent of its votes, supported the Iraq war initially, but many have changed their minds, residents say. But it has been the long duration and high cost that has rankled, they say.
''The only thing I hold against Bush is he sent all that money to Iraq," contended Nicholas Dominick, as he looked ahead to Kerry's acceptance speech. ''We need all that money here."
Globe correspondent Alan Wirzbicki contributed to this report.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Anti-gay Senate candidate has two gay advisers Martinez advisor led Florida’s Christian Coalition; finance director is gay
By MUBARAK DAHIR Friday, July 16, 2004
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — On a humid day in Tampa last month, John Dowless could be seen passing out cards at Landry’s Seafood House to a group of about 40 of Florida’s most conservative religious leaders, including members of Family First of Tampa and the Pinellas Crisis Pregnancy Center, an anti-abortion group.
Dowless arranged the lunch on behalf of Mel Martinez, the former housing secretary who is now one of eight Republican candidates trying to get his party’s nomination for the U.S. Senate race this fall.
As Martinez railed against the threat of same-sex marriages to the traditional family, Dowless handed out cards to the religious leaders imploring them to “pray for Mel Martinez” and to get involved in his campaign.
Dowless was just doing his job. Formerly the executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, Dowless is now a private political consultant in Orlando.
Because of Dowless’ strong connections to the state’s conservative religious groups, Martinez hired him several months ago to help the campaign reach out to conservative Christians.
“My role is organizing grassroots stuff for them,” particularly among conservative Christians, Dowless said.
In a crowded primary field, many Republican candidates in Florida, including Martinez, are angling to get voter attention by running as far as possible to the right.
Martinez in particular has sought to distinguish himself as the candidate perhaps most vocal against gay rights, including running a statewide radio ad encouraging the Senate to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, and attacking one of his opponents for supporting hate crimes laws that would include protections based on sexual orientation.
Ironically, at least two powerful men working for the Martinez campaign are gay.
One of them is John Dowless, the political consultant. The other is Kirk Fordham, who is employed as Martinez’s finance director.
‘A ticking time bomb’
It was about 10 p.m. on the evening of April 2 when a man called “Sam” entered the Lava Lounge, a gay bar in Orlando.
Sam, a gay resident of Washington, D.C., was in Orlando on business, and went out to meet a friend for drinks. After ordering a beer, Sam bumped into a former colleague from Washington, someone he describes as “a well-placed political operative.”
When Sam asked the man how he liked working in Florida, the man replied that politics in the state was “weird.”
How so?” Sam wanted to know.
“He began telling me about this guy who used to be the head of the Christian Coalition,” Sam said. “He said the guy is gay and out, and goes to the gay bars all the time, but is involved in all this anti-gay political campaigning. That struck me as incredibly hypocritical.”
Twenty minutes later, John Dowless walked into the Lava Lounge.
“The guy I used to know from D.C. pointed Dowless out to me, and I made it a point to go over and meet him,” Sam said. “I was just so intrigued that someone could play both sides of the fence this way.”
Dowless identified himself as gay and conflicted about how to reconcile his sexual orientation with his religion and his political beliefs, according to Sam, whose account of Dowless’ statements that evening was witnessed by a Washington Blade editor, who was also present.
Sam describes Dowless as handsome and affable, a person who was easy to meet and talk to.
“We talked about his work, but we talked a lot more about religion,” Sam said.
“I am a fairly devout Christian myself, and I was interested in why he felt being Christian and gay were so completely incompatible,” Sam said. “He was very adamant that it just wasn’t possible to be both, in his understanding.”
After a few drinks at the Lava Lounge, Sam jumped into his rental car and followed Dowless’ silver SUV to Southern Nights, another gay bar in Orlando, where the two men continued their conversation. All together, they spent approximately two hours speaking about religion and homosexuality that night, Sam said.
“When he admitted that he uses homosexuality as a weapon to win campaigns, I got the feeling this guy was not just struggling with the issue of being gay and Christian,” Sam said. “I felt maybe he’s a ticking time bomb.”
Handwritten cell phone number
But Dowless didn’t let their difference of opinions stop him from making a pass, Sam said.
“John [Dowless] made it very clear he was interested in me, that he found me attractive,” Sam said. “I just told him I was out with friends and couldn’t get away to spend the evening with him. Then he said he wanted to see me again.”
Dowless took out a business card and, with a pen, wrote his cell phone number on it.
“He told me to call him the next time I was in Orlando,” Sam said.
But if he happens to go back to Orlando, Sam won’t be calling Dowless.
“I could never abide by someone being gay and using homosexuality to be so destructive in a political way,” Sam said. “I found John both sad and deplorable.”
‘ Why are you asking that?’Reached at his office at Millennium Consulting Inc. in Orlando, Dowless confirmed that he had been working for the Martinez campaign “for two or three months.” But he declined to talk about his sexual orientation.
“Oh come on, I’m not going to talk about that,” he said. “I’m just not going to address that with you or anyone else. That’s about me, not about the Martinez campaign.
“I’m helping Mel Martinez, who I believe in, and who is a good candidate,” he said. “My personal life has no regards to his campaign and it’s no business of yours or anyone else’s.”
However, after being confronted with the fact that several sources identified him as a patron of the Lava Lounge in April, Dowless conceded, “Yeah, I go there.”
He would not say what he was doing at the bar, and he continued to refuse to answer questions about his sexual orientation or how he reconciles being a gay man working for the political campaign of an anti-gay politician.
“I told you I am not going to answer that. I don’t know why you are doing this, why it matters,” Dowless said.
Christian Coalition surprised
Some activists — both gay and Christian — believe it matters a lot.
John Aravosis, a D.C.-based gay political consultant and activist is one of the men behind the current move to out staffers of politicians considered to be anti-gay.
He said he got the idea in March, when he ran into two men in gay bars in Washington, D.C. One of the men was working for Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, who introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate, and the other was working for Ralph Reed, the former national head of the Christian Coalition. Reed is a political strategist for the Bush re-election campaign.
“Why do we protect these people?” Aravosis asked himself of those gay men. He came to the conclusion, “We tolerate them too much.”
Aravosis was not familiar with John Dowless’ name or his work. But he was plenty aware of what he called the gay-baiting campaign of Mel Martinez.
“Martinez is an anti-gay bigot,” he said, pointing particularly to the recent radio ad that likened life in a country with same-sex marriage to life under Castro, “a totalitarian dictator who had no respect for the traditional values of family and faith,” as Martinez, who is originally Cuban, said in the radio spot.
“It’s atrocious that any gay person would work for Martinez,” said Aravosis.
A Christian activist was similarly surprised that the former head of the Christian Coalition of Florida could be a gay man and be working for the Martinez campaign.
Bill Stephens, the current executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, confirmed that John Dowless had been the organization’s head for about five years in the mid to late 90s.
“Wow, that’s shocking and that’s news to me,” said Stephens when asked if he knew Dowless was gay. “I didn’t know anything about that.”
When asked if it might affect Dowless’ work among Christian conservatives, Stephens replied, “Of course it would, of course. But I don’t think I want to say anything else about that right now.”
Stephens made a point to say that Dowless was no longer affiliated in any way with the Christian Coalition. “He does not do any work for us anymore, and hasn’t for some time.”
Failed political aspirations
In 1999, Dowless quit the Christian Coalition to work as the Florida director for the presidential campaign of millionaire Steve Forbes. Dowless promoted Forbes as a conservative alternative to Bush.
He told the St. Petersburg Times that social conservatives were upset that Bush was not outspoken enough on abortion. Forbes had pledged to appoint only judges who opposed abortion.
At the time, Dowless also said one reason he resigned from the Christian Coalition was because of his frustration at the group’s inability to push its agenda through the Florida Legislature as much as he would have liked.
In 2000, Dowless ran an unsuccessful bid for a Republican House seat in District 40, an area around Orlando. He lost to Rep. Andy Gardiner in a 54 to 46 percent tally.
Throughout his career, both at the Christian Coalition and after, Dowless has had a long history of pushing an anti-gay agenda.
As far back as 1994, Dowless, then the director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, was quoted in the New York Times opposing the popular Gay Days event at Disney World in Orlando because it allegedly was a threat to kids.
“This whole day is focusing on sex,” Dowless was quoted as saying, “and when you put these elements together, there is the greater possibility of illegal activities on children or some harassment.”
In 1997, Dowless, still in his role as director of the state’s Christian Coalition, cheered when the University of Florida rescinded a student spouse ID card that had been given to the partner of a lesbian student. The card gave spouses of students special advantages, such as use of the university’s libraries and recreational facilities.
“Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman,” Dowless told the Alligator, the student publication.
In 1998, Dowless successfully blocked a move by the state legislature to write the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into the state Constitution. The move would have prohibited discrimination based on a variety of attributes, including gender.
But, according to the St. Petersburg Times, Dowless opposed the gender provision, saying it would be a possible loophole for allowing same-sex marriages.
And in 2002, Dowless created a misleading phone message for Gov. Jeb Bush. The message, sent to 50,000 social conservatives in the state, claimed that voters should cast their lot with Bush over Democratic rival Bill McBride because Bush was “the only candidate who supports traditional marriage.”
But the statement was false. McBride did oppose same-sex marriage, and after a public controversy, the phone message campaign was pulled.
Just last year, Dowless was scheduled as one of 25 guest speakers at a “Reclaiming America for Christ” conference held Oct. 24-25 in Fort Lauderdale. Promotional materials indicate he spoke about grassroots organizing among conservative Christians.
Other speakers included such conservative religious icons as Roy Moore, the ousted chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Interestingly, of the 25 speakers listed, only the Dowless entry did not include a photo with his bio.
Kirk Fordham, the finance director for Mel Martinez’s campaign, is also a gay man.
But unlike Dowless, Fordham does not have a history of anti-gay political activity, and some gay activists consider him already out.
In the past, Fordham has told the Blade that he is “out in the community but not in the press.” The Blade reported last week that Fordham is gay.
Before moving to the Martinez campaign earlier this year, Fordham was the campaign manager and then the chief of staff for Florida Congressman Mark Foley, a Republican.
It has been widely reported that Foley is gay, but the congressman continues to refuse to discuss his sexual orientation. When reports about it surfaced during his aborted Senate campaign last year, Foley held a news conference denouncing the “rumors” and calling the talk about his sexual orientation “revolting and unforgivable.”
Jason Kello, a spokesperson for Foley, declined to say if Fordham was out while he worked as Foley’s chief of staff.
“We’re not going to get into a discussion on Kirk’s personal life,” Kello said. “Kirk was a terrific chief of staff and Congressman Foley was sorry to see him go. Kirk did tremendous work here, and I can say there was a very comfortable office environment.”
Kello said it would not matter one way or the other to Foley if Fordham were gay. Foley has a nondiscrimination policy for his employees that includes protection based on sexual orientation, Kello said.
An August 2003 article in the Advocate, the national gay magazine, matter-of-factly identified Fordham as Foley’s gay chief of staff.
Repeated phone calls to both Fordham’s office number and cell phone remained unreturned by press time.
Jennifer Coxe, a spokesperson for Mel Martinez, refused to comment on whether or not Martinez knows Fordham and Dowless are gay. She also declined to comment on how Martinez squares having close personal gay advisers while running anti-gay ads.
She was uncertain if there was an official nondiscrimination policy for employees that included protection based on sexual orientation, but she said that an employee would not be fired because he is gay.
Chris Crain contributed to this story.
By MUBARAK DAHIR Friday, July 16, 2004
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — On a humid day in Tampa last month, John Dowless could be seen passing out cards at Landry’s Seafood House to a group of about 40 of Florida’s most conservative religious leaders, including members of Family First of Tampa and the Pinellas Crisis Pregnancy Center, an anti-abortion group.
Dowless arranged the lunch on behalf of Mel Martinez, the former housing secretary who is now one of eight Republican candidates trying to get his party’s nomination for the U.S. Senate race this fall.
As Martinez railed against the threat of same-sex marriages to the traditional family, Dowless handed out cards to the religious leaders imploring them to “pray for Mel Martinez” and to get involved in his campaign.
Dowless was just doing his job. Formerly the executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, Dowless is now a private political consultant in Orlando.
Because of Dowless’ strong connections to the state’s conservative religious groups, Martinez hired him several months ago to help the campaign reach out to conservative Christians.
“My role is organizing grassroots stuff for them,” particularly among conservative Christians, Dowless said.
In a crowded primary field, many Republican candidates in Florida, including Martinez, are angling to get voter attention by running as far as possible to the right.
Martinez in particular has sought to distinguish himself as the candidate perhaps most vocal against gay rights, including running a statewide radio ad encouraging the Senate to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, and attacking one of his opponents for supporting hate crimes laws that would include protections based on sexual orientation.
Ironically, at least two powerful men working for the Martinez campaign are gay.
One of them is John Dowless, the political consultant. The other is Kirk Fordham, who is employed as Martinez’s finance director.
‘A ticking time bomb’
It was about 10 p.m. on the evening of April 2 when a man called “Sam” entered the Lava Lounge, a gay bar in Orlando.
Sam, a gay resident of Washington, D.C., was in Orlando on business, and went out to meet a friend for drinks. After ordering a beer, Sam bumped into a former colleague from Washington, someone he describes as “a well-placed political operative.”
When Sam asked the man how he liked working in Florida, the man replied that politics in the state was “weird.”
How so?” Sam wanted to know.
“He began telling me about this guy who used to be the head of the Christian Coalition,” Sam said. “He said the guy is gay and out, and goes to the gay bars all the time, but is involved in all this anti-gay political campaigning. That struck me as incredibly hypocritical.”
Twenty minutes later, John Dowless walked into the Lava Lounge.
“The guy I used to know from D.C. pointed Dowless out to me, and I made it a point to go over and meet him,” Sam said. “I was just so intrigued that someone could play both sides of the fence this way.”
Dowless identified himself as gay and conflicted about how to reconcile his sexual orientation with his religion and his political beliefs, according to Sam, whose account of Dowless’ statements that evening was witnessed by a Washington Blade editor, who was also present.
Sam describes Dowless as handsome and affable, a person who was easy to meet and talk to.
“We talked about his work, but we talked a lot more about religion,” Sam said.
“I am a fairly devout Christian myself, and I was interested in why he felt being Christian and gay were so completely incompatible,” Sam said. “He was very adamant that it just wasn’t possible to be both, in his understanding.”
After a few drinks at the Lava Lounge, Sam jumped into his rental car and followed Dowless’ silver SUV to Southern Nights, another gay bar in Orlando, where the two men continued their conversation. All together, they spent approximately two hours speaking about religion and homosexuality that night, Sam said.
“When he admitted that he uses homosexuality as a weapon to win campaigns, I got the feeling this guy was not just struggling with the issue of being gay and Christian,” Sam said. “I felt maybe he’s a ticking time bomb.”
Handwritten cell phone number
But Dowless didn’t let their difference of opinions stop him from making a pass, Sam said.
“John [Dowless] made it very clear he was interested in me, that he found me attractive,” Sam said. “I just told him I was out with friends and couldn’t get away to spend the evening with him. Then he said he wanted to see me again.”
Dowless took out a business card and, with a pen, wrote his cell phone number on it.
“He told me to call him the next time I was in Orlando,” Sam said.
But if he happens to go back to Orlando, Sam won’t be calling Dowless.
“I could never abide by someone being gay and using homosexuality to be so destructive in a political way,” Sam said. “I found John both sad and deplorable.”
‘ Why are you asking that?’Reached at his office at Millennium Consulting Inc. in Orlando, Dowless confirmed that he had been working for the Martinez campaign “for two or three months.” But he declined to talk about his sexual orientation.
“Oh come on, I’m not going to talk about that,” he said. “I’m just not going to address that with you or anyone else. That’s about me, not about the Martinez campaign.
“I’m helping Mel Martinez, who I believe in, and who is a good candidate,” he said. “My personal life has no regards to his campaign and it’s no business of yours or anyone else’s.”
However, after being confronted with the fact that several sources identified him as a patron of the Lava Lounge in April, Dowless conceded, “Yeah, I go there.”
He would not say what he was doing at the bar, and he continued to refuse to answer questions about his sexual orientation or how he reconciles being a gay man working for the political campaign of an anti-gay politician.
“I told you I am not going to answer that. I don’t know why you are doing this, why it matters,” Dowless said.
Christian Coalition surprised
Some activists — both gay and Christian — believe it matters a lot.
John Aravosis, a D.C.-based gay political consultant and activist is one of the men behind the current move to out staffers of politicians considered to be anti-gay.
He said he got the idea in March, when he ran into two men in gay bars in Washington, D.C. One of the men was working for Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, who introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate, and the other was working for Ralph Reed, the former national head of the Christian Coalition. Reed is a political strategist for the Bush re-election campaign.
“Why do we protect these people?” Aravosis asked himself of those gay men. He came to the conclusion, “We tolerate them too much.”
Aravosis was not familiar with John Dowless’ name or his work. But he was plenty aware of what he called the gay-baiting campaign of Mel Martinez.
“Martinez is an anti-gay bigot,” he said, pointing particularly to the recent radio ad that likened life in a country with same-sex marriage to life under Castro, “a totalitarian dictator who had no respect for the traditional values of family and faith,” as Martinez, who is originally Cuban, said in the radio spot.
“It’s atrocious that any gay person would work for Martinez,” said Aravosis.
A Christian activist was similarly surprised that the former head of the Christian Coalition of Florida could be a gay man and be working for the Martinez campaign.
Bill Stephens, the current executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, confirmed that John Dowless had been the organization’s head for about five years in the mid to late 90s.
“Wow, that’s shocking and that’s news to me,” said Stephens when asked if he knew Dowless was gay. “I didn’t know anything about that.”
When asked if it might affect Dowless’ work among Christian conservatives, Stephens replied, “Of course it would, of course. But I don’t think I want to say anything else about that right now.”
Stephens made a point to say that Dowless was no longer affiliated in any way with the Christian Coalition. “He does not do any work for us anymore, and hasn’t for some time.”
Failed political aspirations
In 1999, Dowless quit the Christian Coalition to work as the Florida director for the presidential campaign of millionaire Steve Forbes. Dowless promoted Forbes as a conservative alternative to Bush.
He told the St. Petersburg Times that social conservatives were upset that Bush was not outspoken enough on abortion. Forbes had pledged to appoint only judges who opposed abortion.
At the time, Dowless also said one reason he resigned from the Christian Coalition was because of his frustration at the group’s inability to push its agenda through the Florida Legislature as much as he would have liked.
In 2000, Dowless ran an unsuccessful bid for a Republican House seat in District 40, an area around Orlando. He lost to Rep. Andy Gardiner in a 54 to 46 percent tally.
Throughout his career, both at the Christian Coalition and after, Dowless has had a long history of pushing an anti-gay agenda.
As far back as 1994, Dowless, then the director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, was quoted in the New York Times opposing the popular Gay Days event at Disney World in Orlando because it allegedly was a threat to kids.
“This whole day is focusing on sex,” Dowless was quoted as saying, “and when you put these elements together, there is the greater possibility of illegal activities on children or some harassment.”
In 1997, Dowless, still in his role as director of the state’s Christian Coalition, cheered when the University of Florida rescinded a student spouse ID card that had been given to the partner of a lesbian student. The card gave spouses of students special advantages, such as use of the university’s libraries and recreational facilities.
“Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman,” Dowless told the Alligator, the student publication.
In 1998, Dowless successfully blocked a move by the state legislature to write the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into the state Constitution. The move would have prohibited discrimination based on a variety of attributes, including gender.
But, according to the St. Petersburg Times, Dowless opposed the gender provision, saying it would be a possible loophole for allowing same-sex marriages.
And in 2002, Dowless created a misleading phone message for Gov. Jeb Bush. The message, sent to 50,000 social conservatives in the state, claimed that voters should cast their lot with Bush over Democratic rival Bill McBride because Bush was “the only candidate who supports traditional marriage.”
But the statement was false. McBride did oppose same-sex marriage, and after a public controversy, the phone message campaign was pulled.
Just last year, Dowless was scheduled as one of 25 guest speakers at a “Reclaiming America for Christ” conference held Oct. 24-25 in Fort Lauderdale. Promotional materials indicate he spoke about grassroots organizing among conservative Christians.
Other speakers included such conservative religious icons as Roy Moore, the ousted chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Interestingly, of the 25 speakers listed, only the Dowless entry did not include a photo with his bio.
Kirk Fordham, the finance director for Mel Martinez’s campaign, is also a gay man.
But unlike Dowless, Fordham does not have a history of anti-gay political activity, and some gay activists consider him already out.
In the past, Fordham has told the Blade that he is “out in the community but not in the press.” The Blade reported last week that Fordham is gay.
Before moving to the Martinez campaign earlier this year, Fordham was the campaign manager and then the chief of staff for Florida Congressman Mark Foley, a Republican.
It has been widely reported that Foley is gay, but the congressman continues to refuse to discuss his sexual orientation. When reports about it surfaced during his aborted Senate campaign last year, Foley held a news conference denouncing the “rumors” and calling the talk about his sexual orientation “revolting and unforgivable.”
Jason Kello, a spokesperson for Foley, declined to say if Fordham was out while he worked as Foley’s chief of staff.
“We’re not going to get into a discussion on Kirk’s personal life,” Kello said. “Kirk was a terrific chief of staff and Congressman Foley was sorry to see him go. Kirk did tremendous work here, and I can say there was a very comfortable office environment.”
Kello said it would not matter one way or the other to Foley if Fordham were gay. Foley has a nondiscrimination policy for his employees that includes protection based on sexual orientation, Kello said.
An August 2003 article in the Advocate, the national gay magazine, matter-of-factly identified Fordham as Foley’s gay chief of staff.
Repeated phone calls to both Fordham’s office number and cell phone remained unreturned by press time.
Jennifer Coxe, a spokesperson for Mel Martinez, refused to comment on whether or not Martinez knows Fordham and Dowless are gay. She also declined to comment on how Martinez squares having close personal gay advisers while running anti-gay ads.
She was uncertain if there was an official nondiscrimination policy for employees that included protection based on sexual orientation, but she said that an employee would not be fired because he is gay.
Chris Crain contributed to this story.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
9/11 Panel Suggests Intelligence Overhaul
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Sept. 11 commission's final report recommended the creation of a new intelligence center and high-level intelligence director to improve the nation's ability to disrupt future terrorist attacks.
Overseeing the center would be a new Senate-confirmed national intelligence director, reporting directly to the president at just below full Cabinet rank, who "would be able to influence the budget and leadership" of the CIA (news - web sites), FBI (news - web sites), Homeland Security Department and Defense Department.
Commission Chairman Tom Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, said the 9/11 attacks "were a shock, but should not have come as a surprise."
"By September 2001, the executive branch of the U.S. government, the Congress, the news media, and the American public had received clear warning that Islamist terrorists meant to kill Americans in high numbers,"
Commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton said after the Sept. 11 attacks the government's efforts "rightly included military action to topple the Taliban and pursue al-Qaida."
"But long-term success demands the use of all elements of national power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy and homeland defense," said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "If we favor one tool while neglecting others, we leave ourselves vulnerable."
The report, which is the culmination of a 20-month investigation into the plot that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, describes the meticulous planning and determination of hijackers who sought to exploit weaknesses in airline and border procedures by taking test flights.
A surveillance video that surfaced Wednesday shows four of the hijackers passing through security gates at Washington Dulles International Airport shortly before boarding the plane they would crash into the Pentagon (news - web sites). In the video, the hijackers can be seen undergoing additional scrutiny after setting off metal detectors, then being permitted to continue to their gate.
While faulting institutional shortcomings, the report does not blame President Bush (news - web sites) or former President Clinton (news - web sites) for mistakes contributing to the 2001 attack.
Kean and Hamilton presented Bush with a copy of the report Thursday morning. Bush thanked them for a "really good job" and said the panel makes "very solid, sound recommendations about how to move forward."
"I assured them that where the government needs to act we will," Bush said.
The commission did not recommend creation of a new domestic intelligence agency similar to Britain's MI5, as proposed by some in Congress. Instead, the report endorsed steps already being taken by FBI Director Robert Mueller to create a specialized intelligence service within the FBI.
Beyond government reorganization, the report also says that the United States and its allies must embark on a global strategy of diplomacy and public relations to dismantle the terror network led by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and defeat the militant Islamic ideology that feeds such terror groups.
"To Muslim parents, terrorists like bin Laden have nothing to offer their children but visions of violence and death. America and its friends have the advantage — our vision can offer a better future," the report said.
The commission also says the U.S. government must do more at home to guard against future terror attacks, including such things as setting national standards for issuance of drivers' licenses and other identification, improving "no-fly" and other terrorist watch lists and using more biometric identifiers to screen travelers at ports and borders.
Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush administrations and now an ABC consultant, said on the network's "Good Morning America" the commission avoided controversy. "To get unanimity they didn't talk about a number of things, like what effect is the war in Iraq (news - web sites) having on our battle against terrorism. Did the president pay any attention to terrorism during the first nine months of his administration? The controversial things, the controversial criticisms of the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration just aren't there."
"What they didn't do is say that the country is actually not safer now than it was then because of the rise in terrorism after our invasion in Iraq."
Less than four months before the presidential election, the commission's work already has ignited partisan debate over whether Bush took sufficient steps to deal with terrorism in the first year of his administration. Republicans have argued that Bush had just eight months to deal with the terror threat while Clinton's administration had eight years.
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Sept. 11 commission's final report recommended the creation of a new intelligence center and high-level intelligence director to improve the nation's ability to disrupt future terrorist attacks.
Overseeing the center would be a new Senate-confirmed national intelligence director, reporting directly to the president at just below full Cabinet rank, who "would be able to influence the budget and leadership" of the CIA (news - web sites), FBI (news - web sites), Homeland Security Department and Defense Department.
Commission Chairman Tom Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, said the 9/11 attacks "were a shock, but should not have come as a surprise."
"By September 2001, the executive branch of the U.S. government, the Congress, the news media, and the American public had received clear warning that Islamist terrorists meant to kill Americans in high numbers,"
Commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton said after the Sept. 11 attacks the government's efforts "rightly included military action to topple the Taliban and pursue al-Qaida."
"But long-term success demands the use of all elements of national power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy and homeland defense," said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "If we favor one tool while neglecting others, we leave ourselves vulnerable."
The report, which is the culmination of a 20-month investigation into the plot that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, describes the meticulous planning and determination of hijackers who sought to exploit weaknesses in airline and border procedures by taking test flights.
A surveillance video that surfaced Wednesday shows four of the hijackers passing through security gates at Washington Dulles International Airport shortly before boarding the plane they would crash into the Pentagon (news - web sites). In the video, the hijackers can be seen undergoing additional scrutiny after setting off metal detectors, then being permitted to continue to their gate.
While faulting institutional shortcomings, the report does not blame President Bush (news - web sites) or former President Clinton (news - web sites) for mistakes contributing to the 2001 attack.
Kean and Hamilton presented Bush with a copy of the report Thursday morning. Bush thanked them for a "really good job" and said the panel makes "very solid, sound recommendations about how to move forward."
"I assured them that where the government needs to act we will," Bush said.
The commission did not recommend creation of a new domestic intelligence agency similar to Britain's MI5, as proposed by some in Congress. Instead, the report endorsed steps already being taken by FBI Director Robert Mueller to create a specialized intelligence service within the FBI.
Beyond government reorganization, the report also says that the United States and its allies must embark on a global strategy of diplomacy and public relations to dismantle the terror network led by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and defeat the militant Islamic ideology that feeds such terror groups.
"To Muslim parents, terrorists like bin Laden have nothing to offer their children but visions of violence and death. America and its friends have the advantage — our vision can offer a better future," the report said.
The commission also says the U.S. government must do more at home to guard against future terror attacks, including such things as setting national standards for issuance of drivers' licenses and other identification, improving "no-fly" and other terrorist watch lists and using more biometric identifiers to screen travelers at ports and borders.
Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush administrations and now an ABC consultant, said on the network's "Good Morning America" the commission avoided controversy. "To get unanimity they didn't talk about a number of things, like what effect is the war in Iraq (news - web sites) having on our battle against terrorism. Did the president pay any attention to terrorism during the first nine months of his administration? The controversial things, the controversial criticisms of the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration just aren't there."
"What they didn't do is say that the country is actually not safer now than it was then because of the rise in terrorism after our invasion in Iraq."
Less than four months before the presidential election, the commission's work already has ignited partisan debate over whether Bush took sufficient steps to deal with terrorism in the first year of his administration. Republicans have argued that Bush had just eight months to deal with the terror threat while Clinton's administration had eight years.
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Making GOP Nervous
Thu Jul 22, 7:01 AM ET
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa - Republicans initially dismissed "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a cinematic screed that would play mostly to inveterate Bush bashers. Four weeks and $94 million later, the film is still pulling in moviegoers at 2,000 theaters around the country, making Republicans nervous as it settles into the American mainstream.
"I'm not sure if it moves voters," GOP consultant Scott Reed said, "but if it moves 3 or 4 percent it's been a success."
Two senior Republicans closely tied to the White House said the movie from director Michael Moore is seen as a political headache because it has reached beyond the Democratic base. Independents and GOP-leaning voters are likely to be found sitting beside those set to revel in its depiction of a clueless president with questionable ties to the oil industry.
"If you are a naive, uncommitted voter and wander into a theater, you aren't going to come away with a good impression of the president," Republican operative Joe Gaylord said. "It's a problem only if a lot of people see it."
Based on a record-breaking gross of $94 million through last weekend, theaters already have sold an estimated 12 million tickets to "Fahrenheit 9/11." A Gallup survey conducted July 8-11 said 8 percent of American adults had seen the film at that time, but that 18 percent still planned to see it at a theater and another 30 percent plan to see it on video.
More than a third of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of independents told Gallup they had seen or expected to see the film at theaters or on video.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" opened in June mainly in locally owned arts theaters that specialize in obscure films and tiny audiences. Drawn in part by the buzz surrounding the film, people packed the theaters and formed long lines for tickets. Within a week, it was appearing in chain-owned theaters along with "Spider-Man 2," "The Notebook" and other big summer attractions.
When he sat down to watch the film at the Varsity Theater in Des Moines last weekend, Rob Sheesley didn't harbor anti-Bush feelings. Two hours later, he left with conflicted emotions.
"You want to respect the president," Sheesley said. "It raised a lot of questions."
Bush's leadership in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had impressed retired teacher Lavone Mann, another Des Moines moviegoer. After watching the film, Mann wanted to know more about its claims.
"I guess that I think it makes me want to pursue how much of it is accurate and not just get carried away with one film," she said. "I don't hear Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney saying that this is incorrect."
Retired college professor Dennis O'Brien, a Bush voter in 2000 and a movie buff who has seen other Moore films, said "Fahrenheit 9/11" hasn't changed his view of Bush but may well serve a larger purpose by sparking debate.
"Moore forces you to think about the role of oil in the politics of American life," O'Brien said. "This goes back a long way."
In GOP-strong Columbia, S.C., watching the movie last week at the Columbiana Grande tipped 26-year-old David Wood's support more to the left.
"I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. I just vote for whoever is right for the job," the University of South Carolina student said. "I think most people don't bother to really research, and all they need is something popular to sway them."
Others at the screening in Columbia were put off by what they saw as the film's biased approach to examining Bush and the reasons he took the country to war. For Scott Campbell, 19, the movie reinforced his apathy toward politics.
"We didn't even stay to see the whole thing," Campbell said. "It was one-sided."
Former Iowa Republican Chairman Michael Mahaffey said the movie's impact could be dulled over time. "It's July," he said. "Conventional wisdom will change completely every four or five weeks."
Still, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is likely to gain an even wider audience when it's released on home video in the weeks before Election Day. The Gallup survey found that nearly half of the Republicans and independents who expect to see the film said they were likely to view it on video.
"In all honesty, in a very close election, who knows what will sway the public?" Mahaffey said.
___
Associated Press writer Jennifer Holland in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report
Thu Jul 22, 7:01 AM ET
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa - Republicans initially dismissed "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a cinematic screed that would play mostly to inveterate Bush bashers. Four weeks and $94 million later, the film is still pulling in moviegoers at 2,000 theaters around the country, making Republicans nervous as it settles into the American mainstream.
"I'm not sure if it moves voters," GOP consultant Scott Reed said, "but if it moves 3 or 4 percent it's been a success."
Two senior Republicans closely tied to the White House said the movie from director Michael Moore is seen as a political headache because it has reached beyond the Democratic base. Independents and GOP-leaning voters are likely to be found sitting beside those set to revel in its depiction of a clueless president with questionable ties to the oil industry.
"If you are a naive, uncommitted voter and wander into a theater, you aren't going to come away with a good impression of the president," Republican operative Joe Gaylord said. "It's a problem only if a lot of people see it."
Based on a record-breaking gross of $94 million through last weekend, theaters already have sold an estimated 12 million tickets to "Fahrenheit 9/11." A Gallup survey conducted July 8-11 said 8 percent of American adults had seen the film at that time, but that 18 percent still planned to see it at a theater and another 30 percent plan to see it on video.
More than a third of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of independents told Gallup they had seen or expected to see the film at theaters or on video.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" opened in June mainly in locally owned arts theaters that specialize in obscure films and tiny audiences. Drawn in part by the buzz surrounding the film, people packed the theaters and formed long lines for tickets. Within a week, it was appearing in chain-owned theaters along with "Spider-Man 2," "The Notebook" and other big summer attractions.
When he sat down to watch the film at the Varsity Theater in Des Moines last weekend, Rob Sheesley didn't harbor anti-Bush feelings. Two hours later, he left with conflicted emotions.
"You want to respect the president," Sheesley said. "It raised a lot of questions."
Bush's leadership in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had impressed retired teacher Lavone Mann, another Des Moines moviegoer. After watching the film, Mann wanted to know more about its claims.
"I guess that I think it makes me want to pursue how much of it is accurate and not just get carried away with one film," she said. "I don't hear Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney saying that this is incorrect."
Retired college professor Dennis O'Brien, a Bush voter in 2000 and a movie buff who has seen other Moore films, said "Fahrenheit 9/11" hasn't changed his view of Bush but may well serve a larger purpose by sparking debate.
"Moore forces you to think about the role of oil in the politics of American life," O'Brien said. "This goes back a long way."
In GOP-strong Columbia, S.C., watching the movie last week at the Columbiana Grande tipped 26-year-old David Wood's support more to the left.
"I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. I just vote for whoever is right for the job," the University of South Carolina student said. "I think most people don't bother to really research, and all they need is something popular to sway them."
Others at the screening in Columbia were put off by what they saw as the film's biased approach to examining Bush and the reasons he took the country to war. For Scott Campbell, 19, the movie reinforced his apathy toward politics.
"We didn't even stay to see the whole thing," Campbell said. "It was one-sided."
Former Iowa Republican Chairman Michael Mahaffey said the movie's impact could be dulled over time. "It's July," he said. "Conventional wisdom will change completely every four or five weeks."
Still, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is likely to gain an even wider audience when it's released on home video in the weeks before Election Day. The Gallup survey found that nearly half of the Republicans and independents who expect to see the film said they were likely to view it on video.
"In all honesty, in a very close election, who knows what will sway the public?" Mahaffey said.
___
Associated Press writer Jennifer Holland in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report
Friday, July 09, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/campaign/09records.html
Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it added in notices dated June 25.
The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973 when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.
The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con, by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr. Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it came as news to him.
The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.
There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said that the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.
The disclosure that the payroll records had been destroyed came in a letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Office, who forwarded a CD-Rom of hundreds of records that Mr. Bush has previously released, along with images of punch-card records. Sixty pages of Mr. Bush's medical file and some other records were excluded on privacy grounds, Mr. Talbott wrote.
He said in the letter that he could not provide complete payroll records, explaining, "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has advised of the inadvertent destruction of microfilm containing certain National Guard payroll records."
He went on: "In 1996 and 1997, DFAS engaged with limited success in a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. During this process the microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged, including from the first quarter of 1969 (Jan. 1 to March 31) and the third quarter of 1972 (July 1 to Sept. 30). President Bush's payroll records for these two quarters were among the records destroyed. Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful."
Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that further information could be provided only through another Freedom of Information application.
But Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for Defense finance agency in Denver, said the destruction occurred as the office was trying to unspool 2,000-foot rolls of fragile microfilm. Mr. Hubbard said he did not know how many records were lost or why the loss had not been announced before.
For Mr. Bush, the 1969 period when he was training to be a pilot, is not in dispute. But in May 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on a political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they had no recollection of ever seeing him there. The most evidence the White House has been able to find are records showing Mr. Bush was paid for six days in October and November 1972, without saying where, and the record of a dental exam at a Montgomery, Ala., air base on Jan. 6, 1973.
On June 22, The Associated Press filed suit in federal court in New York against the Pentagon and the Air Force to gain access to all the president's military records.
The lost payroll records stored in Denver might have answered some questions about whether he fulfilled his legal commitment, critics who have written about the subject said in interviews.
"Those are records we've all been interested in," said James Moore, author of a recent book, "Bush's War for Re-election," which takes a critical view of Mr. Bush's service record. "I think it's curious that the microfiche could resolve what days Mr. Bush worked and what days he was paid, and suddenly that is gone."
But Mr. Moore said the president could still authorize the release of other withheld records that would shed light on his service record.
Among the issues still disputed is why, according to released records, Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on Aug. 1, 1972. The reason cited in the records is "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
Mr. Bartlett, the White House spokesman, said in February that Mr. Bush felt he did not need to take the physical as he was no longer flying planes in Alabama. Mr. Lloyd, the retired colonel who studied the records, gave a similar explanation in an interview.
But Mr. Lloyd said he was surprised to be told of the destruction of the pay records that might have resolved some questions.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Illegitimus non carborundum.
"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience ... Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.": The Nuremberg Tribunal 1945-1946.
Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it added in notices dated June 25.
The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973 when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.
The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con, by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr. Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it came as news to him.
The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.
There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said that the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.
The disclosure that the payroll records had been destroyed came in a letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Office, who forwarded a CD-Rom of hundreds of records that Mr. Bush has previously released, along with images of punch-card records. Sixty pages of Mr. Bush's medical file and some other records were excluded on privacy grounds, Mr. Talbott wrote.
He said in the letter that he could not provide complete payroll records, explaining, "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has advised of the inadvertent destruction of microfilm containing certain National Guard payroll records."
He went on: "In 1996 and 1997, DFAS engaged with limited success in a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. During this process the microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged, including from the first quarter of 1969 (Jan. 1 to March 31) and the third quarter of 1972 (July 1 to Sept. 30). President Bush's payroll records for these two quarters were among the records destroyed. Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful."
Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that further information could be provided only through another Freedom of Information application.
But Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for Defense finance agency in Denver, said the destruction occurred as the office was trying to unspool 2,000-foot rolls of fragile microfilm. Mr. Hubbard said he did not know how many records were lost or why the loss had not been announced before.
For Mr. Bush, the 1969 period when he was training to be a pilot, is not in dispute. But in May 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on a political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they had no recollection of ever seeing him there. The most evidence the White House has been able to find are records showing Mr. Bush was paid for six days in October and November 1972, without saying where, and the record of a dental exam at a Montgomery, Ala., air base on Jan. 6, 1973.
On June 22, The Associated Press filed suit in federal court in New York against the Pentagon and the Air Force to gain access to all the president's military records.
The lost payroll records stored in Denver might have answered some questions about whether he fulfilled his legal commitment, critics who have written about the subject said in interviews.
"Those are records we've all been interested in," said James Moore, author of a recent book, "Bush's War for Re-election," which takes a critical view of Mr. Bush's service record. "I think it's curious that the microfiche could resolve what days Mr. Bush worked and what days he was paid, and suddenly that is gone."
But Mr. Moore said the president could still authorize the release of other withheld records that would shed light on his service record.
Among the issues still disputed is why, according to released records, Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on Aug. 1, 1972. The reason cited in the records is "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
Mr. Bartlett, the White House spokesman, said in February that Mr. Bush felt he did not need to take the physical as he was no longer flying planes in Alabama. Mr. Lloyd, the retired colonel who studied the records, gave a similar explanation in an interview.
But Mr. Lloyd said he was surprised to be told of the destruction of the pay records that might have resolved some questions.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Illegitimus non carborundum.
"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience ... Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.": The Nuremberg Tribunal 1945-1946.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Bring it on
Violent movies - and war movies - give us the thrill of victory. But what happens when war becomes a reality? David Mamet takes aim.
Friday July 2, 2004
The Guardian
We humans love to kill. We enjoy, both as fantasies and as histories, stories of murder.
We are particularly enamoured of that fictive or non-fictive exploration of a "just war." What is a just war?
If one's home were invaded, would we call resistance to the aggressor "justified violence", or, simply, "defence"?
"Just" is not a description of a war, but of our enjoyment of its contemplation.
If the violence can be construed as "just," our perverse entertainment is less despicable. Our enshrinement of "the Greatest Generation" is an attempt to co-opt what we, their descendants, perceive as their licence to kill.
Any actual contact with violence creates an abhorrence of violence.
Ex-fighters, policemen and soldiers are, indeed, identifiable by their absolute lack of belligerence; to the contrary, those displaying arrogance or combativeness have, generally, never experienced or seen actual violence - their belligerence masks their fear, and displays their ignorant belief that battles are somehow won by intimidation.
Violent encounters are won only by those putting themselves at risk of violence.
Though the film hero does so, in his fictional setting, the audience does not. They, thus, experience what they perceive as a real thrill of victory, without risk.
This is the thrill of the war movie, and its pervasive influence has infected and perverted American foreign policy: eg, a non-combatant president sends young women into combat by quoting a cinematic taunt: "Bring it on."
The illusion of impunity has pervaded the US's national conflicts since Korea - as if it were possible to prevail against a foreign country without killing and being killed. The misconceived false antisepsis of the Vietnam air war, of Grenada, of Iraq One and Two, reveal a view of impunity like that of the moviegoer.
The viewer is presented with this paradigm: the hero (ie you, the viewer) is good. The hero will undergo various struggles in which you, the viewer, will be able to vicariously enjoy his stoicism while, of course, undergoing no pain. Your desire to do violence will be pandered to by an incontrovertible presentation of the justice of the Hero's cause, and by a (ritual) period of restraint on his part.
This false glow of triumph, of untried, and false (in the case of the moviegoer), of proxy triumph is the drug of the bully. It seduces the weak-minded, and emboldens the arrogant.
Murder has always been the theme of the dramatist, and its mythologic explanation is cathartic, eg: The Scottish Play, The Iliad, Crime and Punishment, and, in fact, Paths of Glory, The Ox-bow Incident, A Place in the Sun. These are not advertisements for, but warnings against, violence. As such they are cleansing. They exhibit artistically, they reveal and acknowledge the human capacity for evil. By so doing they strip from the viewer the burden of repression.
The fiction - I am good, I am incapable of violence, and, if I were, I know for a fact that my cause would be just, and, further, that as it is just, my crime would have no psychological (let alone criminal) consequences - is the drug of the violent film. It represses human feelings of rage, and our shame at them. As such it is a drug, of which increasingly larger doses must be taken for increasingly smaller effect. Its effect is anaesthetic. Art, bypassing the conscious mind, and, so, both its protections and pretensions, bypasses the protective mechanism, and speaks direct to the truth of the soul: that we need not fear, but we must be conscious.
The OJ Simpson show-trial was a corruptive entertainment. The probity, the care and decent aversion of interest necessary in a civil society were replaced with lurid insatiability for retelling what the viewing audience quickly forgot was an actual human tragedy.
Reaction to the verdict split, in the US, largely along racial lines: the whites appalled, the blacks content.
This was a political reaction: white juries had, for centuries, dismissed open-and-shut cases of white assaults on blacks. Police, defence and prosecutors historically colluded to enforce apartheid in the criminal courts. So blacks content with an absurd verdict, in which the colours of the major players were switched, was and is understandable. White rage and depression was, to a large extent, compounded not by incredulity, but, in fact, by an understanding (conscious or unconscious) of the black point of view: white society had just been mugged by the same vicious, transparent mechanism it had used against blacks.
Whites had been asked: "How do you like it?" And they were forced to answer: "Not at all."
Similarly, Americans, white and black, got all puffed out and happy at war films, the recruitment posters of the 1940s: Back to Bataan, the rather Stalinist patriotism of the cold war, Retreat, Hell!, Strategic Air Command; and wondered at the discrepancy between our enjoyment of this merchandising of violence, and our lack of glee at the body bags of Vietnam, and, now, of Iraq.
The unfortunate, and inevitable, concomitant of "Bring it on" is: "How do you like it, now?"
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Violent movies - and war movies - give us the thrill of victory. But what happens when war becomes a reality? David Mamet takes aim.
Friday July 2, 2004
The Guardian
We humans love to kill. We enjoy, both as fantasies and as histories, stories of murder.
We are particularly enamoured of that fictive or non-fictive exploration of a "just war." What is a just war?
If one's home were invaded, would we call resistance to the aggressor "justified violence", or, simply, "defence"?
"Just" is not a description of a war, but of our enjoyment of its contemplation.
If the violence can be construed as "just," our perverse entertainment is less despicable. Our enshrinement of "the Greatest Generation" is an attempt to co-opt what we, their descendants, perceive as their licence to kill.
Any actual contact with violence creates an abhorrence of violence.
Ex-fighters, policemen and soldiers are, indeed, identifiable by their absolute lack of belligerence; to the contrary, those displaying arrogance or combativeness have, generally, never experienced or seen actual violence - their belligerence masks their fear, and displays their ignorant belief that battles are somehow won by intimidation.
Violent encounters are won only by those putting themselves at risk of violence.
Though the film hero does so, in his fictional setting, the audience does not. They, thus, experience what they perceive as a real thrill of victory, without risk.
This is the thrill of the war movie, and its pervasive influence has infected and perverted American foreign policy: eg, a non-combatant president sends young women into combat by quoting a cinematic taunt: "Bring it on."
The illusion of impunity has pervaded the US's national conflicts since Korea - as if it were possible to prevail against a foreign country without killing and being killed. The misconceived false antisepsis of the Vietnam air war, of Grenada, of Iraq One and Two, reveal a view of impunity like that of the moviegoer.
The viewer is presented with this paradigm: the hero (ie you, the viewer) is good. The hero will undergo various struggles in which you, the viewer, will be able to vicariously enjoy his stoicism while, of course, undergoing no pain. Your desire to do violence will be pandered to by an incontrovertible presentation of the justice of the Hero's cause, and by a (ritual) period of restraint on his part.
This false glow of triumph, of untried, and false (in the case of the moviegoer), of proxy triumph is the drug of the bully. It seduces the weak-minded, and emboldens the arrogant.
Murder has always been the theme of the dramatist, and its mythologic explanation is cathartic, eg: The Scottish Play, The Iliad, Crime and Punishment, and, in fact, Paths of Glory, The Ox-bow Incident, A Place in the Sun. These are not advertisements for, but warnings against, violence. As such they are cleansing. They exhibit artistically, they reveal and acknowledge the human capacity for evil. By so doing they strip from the viewer the burden of repression.
The fiction - I am good, I am incapable of violence, and, if I were, I know for a fact that my cause would be just, and, further, that as it is just, my crime would have no psychological (let alone criminal) consequences - is the drug of the violent film. It represses human feelings of rage, and our shame at them. As such it is a drug, of which increasingly larger doses must be taken for increasingly smaller effect. Its effect is anaesthetic. Art, bypassing the conscious mind, and, so, both its protections and pretensions, bypasses the protective mechanism, and speaks direct to the truth of the soul: that we need not fear, but we must be conscious.
The OJ Simpson show-trial was a corruptive entertainment. The probity, the care and decent aversion of interest necessary in a civil society were replaced with lurid insatiability for retelling what the viewing audience quickly forgot was an actual human tragedy.
Reaction to the verdict split, in the US, largely along racial lines: the whites appalled, the blacks content.
This was a political reaction: white juries had, for centuries, dismissed open-and-shut cases of white assaults on blacks. Police, defence and prosecutors historically colluded to enforce apartheid in the criminal courts. So blacks content with an absurd verdict, in which the colours of the major players were switched, was and is understandable. White rage and depression was, to a large extent, compounded not by incredulity, but, in fact, by an understanding (conscious or unconscious) of the black point of view: white society had just been mugged by the same vicious, transparent mechanism it had used against blacks.
Whites had been asked: "How do you like it?" And they were forced to answer: "Not at all."
Similarly, Americans, white and black, got all puffed out and happy at war films, the recruitment posters of the 1940s: Back to Bataan, the rather Stalinist patriotism of the cold war, Retreat, Hell!, Strategic Air Command; and wondered at the discrepancy between our enjoyment of this merchandising of violence, and our lack of glee at the body bags of Vietnam, and, now, of Iraq.
The unfortunate, and inevitable, concomitant of "Bring it on" is: "How do you like it, now?"
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Remember that You are the Spirit of '76 Proudly Fighting for Democracy and Our Constitution Against the Rebirth of the Tories, the Bush Cartel and the Radical Republican Party Leadership
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
Is there any doubt about it?
If this were 1776, we know that the Bush Cartel would be the Tory Party, the Monarchists defending the rule of King George, fighting off the revolutionary spirit of democracy and independence for America.
Can you imagine Dick Cheney fighting on the side of the American Revolution against the Monarchists? LOL. My God, just put a white wig on Mr. Cheney and you've got the chief advisor to the Tory Royal Court all wound up and ready to go.
And you, our dear BuzzFlash readers, would be among the men and women who would take a stand at Lexington and Concord to fight for democracy and the birth of a new form of government: of the people, by the people and for the people.
Bush has said at least three times that it would be a lot easier being a dictator -- and everything that he has done in his stolen office has indicated that he is serious about assuming the powers of one.
Supported by the likes of Tory strategists and power brokers such as Cheney, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist and Karl Rove, George W. Bush is the dauphin prince turned king, who goes along with the pretense of democracy, while working to undermine it at every opportunity.
Make no mistake about it, the so-called "cultural wars" that have fueled the right wing Republicans who have seized power in the United States know that the majority of Americans do not agree with their world view. So, they seek to assert a minority outlook and mandated behavior on the majority of Americans.
They believe that they are divinely inspired. They have contempt for democracy, because democracy is based on the rule of the majority. And the masses are not privy to divine communication -- only the King of America, George W. Bush, is; only radical Opus Dei follower Antonin Scalia is; only the self-anointing John "God is the King of America" Ashcroft is.
They and their cohorts support the rule of a divinely inspired monarchy that has no time to waste with the will of the rabble of democracy or the rights guaranteed in our Constitution.
Their rule of law is the Bible, as they interpret it. Funny, that even in this case, almost every major religious denomination had opposed the Iraq War (including Bush's Methodist faith), but the Bush Cartel, led by Mr. AWOL rich kid, believes that it is hot-wired into God -- and ignored their religious pleas. Democracy, to the Bush Royal Court, obstructs their personal claim of divine communication. God only speaks to them -- the elite self-chosen few -- not the scabrous, morally tainted majority of American voters and their ordained religious leaders.
Remember this on July 4th.
You are the true inheritors of the Spirit of '76. You are battling the Tories of this century, the Republican Party under the reign of the Second Bush Monarchy.
They use the American flag as a means to hide their Royalist loyalty and tenacious effort to institute and permanently maintain rule.
The American flag and the Constitution of this nation belong to all of us. The radical Republicans want to reverse a great revolution that occurred more than 225 years ago.
They use deceit, lies and control of the mainstream media to accomplish their goal. They try to convince us that their ineptness is really strength and determination.
This July 4th, rededicate yourself to the American Revolution.
We cannot allow a further betrayal of our Constitution, our democracy, the Declaration of Independence, and our freedoms.
We are the Minutemen and Women fighting for the traditions of our great American Revolution.
They are the Tories.
Don't ever forget it.
The stakes are too high.
If they win in 2004, democracy will have lost.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
Is there any doubt about it?
If this were 1776, we know that the Bush Cartel would be the Tory Party, the Monarchists defending the rule of King George, fighting off the revolutionary spirit of democracy and independence for America.
Can you imagine Dick Cheney fighting on the side of the American Revolution against the Monarchists? LOL. My God, just put a white wig on Mr. Cheney and you've got the chief advisor to the Tory Royal Court all wound up and ready to go.
And you, our dear BuzzFlash readers, would be among the men and women who would take a stand at Lexington and Concord to fight for democracy and the birth of a new form of government: of the people, by the people and for the people.
Bush has said at least three times that it would be a lot easier being a dictator -- and everything that he has done in his stolen office has indicated that he is serious about assuming the powers of one.
Supported by the likes of Tory strategists and power brokers such as Cheney, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist and Karl Rove, George W. Bush is the dauphin prince turned king, who goes along with the pretense of democracy, while working to undermine it at every opportunity.
Make no mistake about it, the so-called "cultural wars" that have fueled the right wing Republicans who have seized power in the United States know that the majority of Americans do not agree with their world view. So, they seek to assert a minority outlook and mandated behavior on the majority of Americans.
They believe that they are divinely inspired. They have contempt for democracy, because democracy is based on the rule of the majority. And the masses are not privy to divine communication -- only the King of America, George W. Bush, is; only radical Opus Dei follower Antonin Scalia is; only the self-anointing John "God is the King of America" Ashcroft is.
They and their cohorts support the rule of a divinely inspired monarchy that has no time to waste with the will of the rabble of democracy or the rights guaranteed in our Constitution.
Their rule of law is the Bible, as they interpret it. Funny, that even in this case, almost every major religious denomination had opposed the Iraq War (including Bush's Methodist faith), but the Bush Cartel, led by Mr. AWOL rich kid, believes that it is hot-wired into God -- and ignored their religious pleas. Democracy, to the Bush Royal Court, obstructs their personal claim of divine communication. God only speaks to them -- the elite self-chosen few -- not the scabrous, morally tainted majority of American voters and their ordained religious leaders.
Remember this on July 4th.
You are the true inheritors of the Spirit of '76. You are battling the Tories of this century, the Republican Party under the reign of the Second Bush Monarchy.
They use the American flag as a means to hide their Royalist loyalty and tenacious effort to institute and permanently maintain rule.
The American flag and the Constitution of this nation belong to all of us. The radical Republicans want to reverse a great revolution that occurred more than 225 years ago.
They use deceit, lies and control of the mainstream media to accomplish their goal. They try to convince us that their ineptness is really strength and determination.
This July 4th, rededicate yourself to the American Revolution.
We cannot allow a further betrayal of our Constitution, our democracy, the Declaration of Independence, and our freedoms.
We are the Minutemen and Women fighting for the traditions of our great American Revolution.
They are the Tories.
Don't ever forget it.
The stakes are too high.
If they win in 2004, democracy will have lost.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
Friday, July 02, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040702/pl_afp/us_vote_congress_040702062257
US lawmakers request UN observers for November 2 presidential election
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Several members of the House of Representatives have requested the United Nations to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida.
Recalling the long, drawn out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, sent a letter Thursday to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asking that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America," according to a statement issued by Florida representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort.
"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," she said in the letter.
"This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added after requesting that the UN "deploy election observers across the United States" to monitor the November, 2004 election.
The lawmakers said in the letter that in a report released in June 2001, the US Commission on Civil Rights "found that the electoral process in Florida resulted in the denial of the right to vote for countless persons."
The bipartisan commission, they stressed, determined "that the 'disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters' and in poor counties." Both groups vote predominantly Democratic in US elections.
The commission also concluded, the lawmakers added, that "despite promised nationwide reforms (of the voting system) ... adequate steps have not been taken to ensure that a similar situation will not arise in 2004 that arose in 2000."
Thirty-six days after the November 7, 2000 presidential election, after several state court interventions and vote recounts in numerous Florida counties, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Republican George W. Bush, awarding him all of Florida's 25 electoral votes.
The ruling tipped the balance against Democratic contender and then vice president Al Gore, who with 267 electoral votes lost to Bush's 271, only one more than the minimum 270 needed to clinch the presidential election.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Illegitimus non carborundum.
"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience ... Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.": The Nuremberg Tribunal 1945-1946.
US lawmakers request UN observers for November 2 presidential election
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Several members of the House of Representatives have requested the United Nations to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida.
Recalling the long, drawn out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, sent a letter Thursday to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asking that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America," according to a statement issued by Florida representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort.
"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," she said in the letter.
"This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added after requesting that the UN "deploy election observers across the United States" to monitor the November, 2004 election.
The lawmakers said in the letter that in a report released in June 2001, the US Commission on Civil Rights "found that the electoral process in Florida resulted in the denial of the right to vote for countless persons."
The bipartisan commission, they stressed, determined "that the 'disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters' and in poor counties." Both groups vote predominantly Democratic in US elections.
The commission also concluded, the lawmakers added, that "despite promised nationwide reforms (of the voting system) ... adequate steps have not been taken to ensure that a similar situation will not arise in 2004 that arose in 2000."
Thirty-six days after the November 7, 2000 presidential election, after several state court interventions and vote recounts in numerous Florida counties, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Republican George W. Bush, awarding him all of Florida's 25 electoral votes.
The ruling tipped the balance against Democratic contender and then vice president Al Gore, who with 267 electoral votes lost to Bush's 271, only one more than the minimum 270 needed to clinch the presidential election.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Illegitimus non carborundum.
"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience ... Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.": The Nuremberg Tribunal 1945-1946.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2658470
Bush pushing for religious campaigning
Churchgoers urged to get political
By ALAN COOPERMAN
Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign has sent a detailed plan of action to religious volunteers across the country asking them to turn over church directories to the campaign, distribute issue guides in their churches and persuade their pastors to hold voter registration drives.
Campaign officials said the instructions are part of an accelerating effort to mobilize President Bush's base of religious supporters. They said the suggested activities are intended to help churchgoers rally support for Bush without violating tax rules that prohibit churches from engaging in partisan activity. "We strongly believe that our religious outreach program is well within the framework of the law," said Terry Holt, a Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman.
But tax experts said the campaign is walking a fine line between permissible activity by individuals and impermissible activity by congregations. Supporters of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, charged that the Bush-Cheney campaign is luring churches into risking their tax status. "I think it is sinful of them to encourage pastors and churches to engage in partisan political activity and run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status," said Steve Rosenthal, chief executive officer of America Coming Together, a group working to defeat Bush.
The instruction sheet circulated by the Bush-Cheney campaign to religious volunteers lists 22 "duties" to be performed by specific dates. By July 31, for example, volunteers are to "send your church directory to your state Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters or give (it) to a BC04 field rep" and "talk to your pastor about holding a Citizenship Sunday and voter registration drive."
By Aug. 15, they are to "talk to your church's seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush-Cheney '04" and "recruit five more people in your church to volunteer for the Bush-Cheney campaign." By Sept. 17, they are to host at least two campaign-related potluck dinners with members, and in October they are to "finish calling all pro-Bush members of your church," "finish distributing voter guides in your church" and place notices on bulletin boards or in Sunday programs "about all Christian citizens needing to vote."
A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service, Frank Keith, said, "It would be inappropriate for the IRS, based on a limited set of facts and circumstances, to render a judgment about whether the activities in this document would or would not endanger a church's tax-exempt status."
He pointed out that the IRS on June 10 sent a strongly worded letter to both the Republican and Democratic national committees, reminding them that tax-exempt charitable groups "are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."
That warning came one week after The Washington Post and other news media reported on a Bush-Cheney campaign e-mail that sought to identify 1,600 "friendly congregations" in Pennsylvania where Bush supporters "might gather on a regular basis."
The IRS letter noted that religious organizations are allowed to sponsor debates, distribute voter guides and conduct voter registration drives. But if those efforts show "a preference for or against a certain candidate or party ... it becomes a prohibited activity," the letter said.
Milton Cerny, a tax specialist in the Washington office of the law firm Caplin & Drysdale who formerly administered tax-exempt groups for the IRS, said there is nothing in the campaign instructions "that on its face clearly would violate" the law.
"But these activities, if conducted in concert with the church or church leadership, certainly could be construed by the IRS as the church engaging in partisan electioneering," he said. "The devil is in the details."
Bush pushing for religious campaigning
Churchgoers urged to get political
By ALAN COOPERMAN
Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign has sent a detailed plan of action to religious volunteers across the country asking them to turn over church directories to the campaign, distribute issue guides in their churches and persuade their pastors to hold voter registration drives.
Campaign officials said the instructions are part of an accelerating effort to mobilize President Bush's base of religious supporters. They said the suggested activities are intended to help churchgoers rally support for Bush without violating tax rules that prohibit churches from engaging in partisan activity. "We strongly believe that our religious outreach program is well within the framework of the law," said Terry Holt, a Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman.
But tax experts said the campaign is walking a fine line between permissible activity by individuals and impermissible activity by congregations. Supporters of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, charged that the Bush-Cheney campaign is luring churches into risking their tax status. "I think it is sinful of them to encourage pastors and churches to engage in partisan political activity and run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status," said Steve Rosenthal, chief executive officer of America Coming Together, a group working to defeat Bush.
The instruction sheet circulated by the Bush-Cheney campaign to religious volunteers lists 22 "duties" to be performed by specific dates. By July 31, for example, volunteers are to "send your church directory to your state Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters or give (it) to a BC04 field rep" and "talk to your pastor about holding a Citizenship Sunday and voter registration drive."
By Aug. 15, they are to "talk to your church's seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush-Cheney '04" and "recruit five more people in your church to volunteer for the Bush-Cheney campaign." By Sept. 17, they are to host at least two campaign-related potluck dinners with members, and in October they are to "finish calling all pro-Bush members of your church," "finish distributing voter guides in your church" and place notices on bulletin boards or in Sunday programs "about all Christian citizens needing to vote."
A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service, Frank Keith, said, "It would be inappropriate for the IRS, based on a limited set of facts and circumstances, to render a judgment about whether the activities in this document would or would not endanger a church's tax-exempt status."
He pointed out that the IRS on June 10 sent a strongly worded letter to both the Republican and Democratic national committees, reminding them that tax-exempt charitable groups "are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."
That warning came one week after The Washington Post and other news media reported on a Bush-Cheney campaign e-mail that sought to identify 1,600 "friendly congregations" in Pennsylvania where Bush supporters "might gather on a regular basis."
The IRS letter noted that religious organizations are allowed to sponsor debates, distribute voter guides and conduct voter registration drives. But if those efforts show "a preference for or against a certain candidate or party ... it becomes a prohibited activity," the letter said.
Milton Cerny, a tax specialist in the Washington office of the law firm Caplin & Drysdale who formerly administered tax-exempt groups for the IRS, said there is nothing in the campaign instructions "that on its face clearly would violate" the law.
"But these activities, if conducted in concert with the church or church leadership, certainly could be construed by the IRS as the church engaging in partisan electioneering," he said. "The devil is in the details."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)