Target Centermass

Category: Politics

  • Rebel Dean Inspires Gays in Florida

    Will the ascension of failed presidential aspirant to the chair of the DNC help the Democrats develop a winning recipe for future elections? Well, not if the Democrats have any say in the matter.

    With a rebel now heading the Democratic Party, Florida’s gay Democrats vowed Saturday to be puppets of their party no longer and to bring social issues to the front of their party’s concerns.

    “I don’t want to reach across the aisle; I want to win,” said Orlando City Commissioner Patty Sheehan, who is openly gay. “Republicans used our community as a wedge in the [2004] election.”

    It seems, with the fact that Sens. Kerry and Edwards’ choice to bring up Vice President Cheney’s gay daughter in two of four national debates, the Dems were also quite willing to use the gay community as a wedge issue.

    Sheehan was one of about 40 Democrats from across the state to attend the quarterly meeting of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual Caucus of the Florida Democratic Party in Orlando. Agreeing that a lack of organization hurt Democrats in November, they said unity will be vital if they are to overcome roadblocks to gay civil rights.

    “We have four more years with [President] George [Bush], and we have a big X on our heads,” caucus President Michael Albetta said.

    Already, a group with ties to conservative Christians has launched a petition to ban gay marriage in Florida. The group hopes voters in 2006 will amend the state constitution to declare that marriage is a union between “only one man and one woman” and that no other kind of union is equivalent to marriage.

    State law bans same-sex marriage, but an amendment would remove the Legislature’s authority to change that.

    The gay community does not have a bix X on their heads because of President Bush. If there is an X there, it is because the community has sought, through the courts, to push for an agenda of new rights that the majority of America isn’t willing to grant at this time. The gay-marriage proponents pushed in the courts — mainstream America pushed back at the ballot box.

    In addition to social issues, the caucus is focused on the re-election campaign of Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and the Florida governor’s race, both in 2006.

    November’s election, in which the issue of gay marriage figured prominently, “was a real wake-up for a lot of gays,” said delegate Warren Day of Pompano Beach. “A lot of us hadn’t realized how hostile things were. We thought we were beyond that.”

    Things weren’t hostile. There was an election where people in several states blocked legal end runs. The wake-up seems to have been for those who oppose gay marriage or or not ready for it yet without public consideration and debate. Those people resented the judicial antics after the gay-marriage crowd overplayed their public support.

    The caucus also heard from Scott Maddox, chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, who called Saturday afternoon from the Democratic National Committee meeting in Washington.

    Maddox promised to offer more political candidates “with guts,” saying that in the last election “our candidates were afraid to tell what was exactly in their hearts.” Several members of the caucus criticized Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry for running a presidential campaign that was too cautious and never took a hard stand.

    Ummm … actually Kerry did take a stand against gay marriage, at least as firm a stance as the man is capable of taking.

    “We’re liberal; we’re not in the middle,” said Donnell Morris of Fort Lauderdale. “Let’s get away from that.”

    News that former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean had been elected the new chairman of the DNC was met with cheers and a standing ovation from the crowd.

    Although Dean’s strong opinions and caustic comments have sometimes led to controversy, caucus members said he understands gay issues and realizes that gays and lesbians are a vital part of the Democratic Party.

    “Democrats have always prided themselves on being a grass-roots party,” said Katy Peterson of Wilton Manors. “That’s what we’re getting back to.”

    As a candidate, Dean effectively built a grass-roots campaign based upon elements of the far left that could barely muster any success within his own party during the primary season. While those same leftist elements may feel inspired to boisterously push their agenda now that Dean has the helm of the DNC, Dean himself must find a way to reach across a broader spectrum lest he take his party the way of his own campaign.

    “We’re liberal; we’re not in the middle,” said Donnell Morris of Fort Lauderdale. “Let’s get away from that.”

    The antecedent for “that” is not immediately clear. Perhaps Morris is referring to any hope of electoral success.

  • Eason on down the Road

    Goodbye, Mr. Jordan.

    CNN’s Chief News Exec Resigns Amid Furor

    Outside the Beltway has a nice roundup of reactions from the blogosphere here.

    Kevin Aylward at Wizbang! makes an excellent point on the matter here.

    Jordan ignored the Lott/Reins/Rather rule of dealing with blog swarms: It’s the stonewalling and coverups that do you in…

  • Debate Starts on Boosting Mil Death Benefit

    A move by the Bush administration to greatly enhance cash payouts to those lost in the campaign against Islamic terror has led to a counter-proposal asking for even more.

    Democrats argued today that President George W. Bush’s proposal to boost government payments to families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and future war zones should extend to all military personnel who die on active duty.

    Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said that while he agreed with Bush’s plan to give those families an extra $250,000, the money also should “apply to all service members on active duty” who die and not just those who die in Pentagon-designated combat zones.

    Officials with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines told the committee that the Department of Defense should not give benefits to surviving spouses and children simply based on the geography of where a death occurs.

    “They can’t make a distinction. I don’t think we should either,” said Adm. John Nathman, vice chief of naval operations for the Navy. Added Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force’s vice chief of staff: “I believe a death is a death, and I believe this should be treated that way.”

    Under questioning from Levin, David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said the administration would work with Congress to determine the exact objective of the increased benefits.

    Look, folks, the objective is simple — reduce the possibilities or strength of a virtual parade of embittered widows, widowers and orphans on our TV sets, being used as a knife in the back against our efforts to conduct the needed war for our children’s sake. Sound melodramatic? The media and the left have turned victory into defeat before (see the Tet offensive) and emotionalism is a powerful tool.

    The proposal, the subject of the panel’s hearing, includes retroactive payments to the spouses or surviving relatives of the more than 1,500 who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2001. It will be in the fiscal 2006 budget proposal that Bush submits to Congress next week, a Pentagon official said.

    A tax-free “death gratuity,” now $12,420, would grow to $100,000. The government also would pay for $150,000 in life insurance for troops. Veterans groups and many in Congress have been pushing for such increases.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is sponsoring a bill with the same provisions, said yesterday that the first-year cost of the increased benefits would be $459 million, including more than $280 million in retroactive payments of the higher gratuity and the extra life insurance payouts. “The American people want to be generous to the families of service people who give their lives for their country,” he said.

    I actually back Sen. Levin’s proposed increase here, though I would go it one further. Why limit it to only deaths on active-duty service? Is a death on a National Guardman’s weekend duty less important? Put it at any deaths occurring while serving a duty period (i.e. reservist has an accident in his private vehicle during the week = no benefit beyond insurance; reservist dies in Humvee wreck on weekend drill = benefit).

    That’s just my view. Those in a combat theater deserve supplemental pay, a death is a death, the families suffer equally and the sacrifices of all should be recognized.

  • Activists Gather for World Social Forum

    I wonder how one says “pepper spray” in Portuguese.

    Tens of thousands of anti-globalization activists converged on southern Brazil Wednesday for what has become an annual ritual of opposition to corporate-sponsored capitalism and the divide between the rich and poor nations.

    The annual World Social Forum – a lively gathering of protesters where many sleep in tents or modest guest houses – is held simultaneously with the World Economic Forum, a staid gathering of finance ministers and CEOs of major corporations in the exclusive Swiss ski resort of Davos.

    In Brazil, nearly 6,000 groups will plug their causes at the six-day protest, ranging from debt relief for developing countries to distribution of idle land for impoverished Latin American farmers.

    In a new rallying cry this year, some protesters compared unfettered capitalism and the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to the tsunami that struck Indian Ocean shores last month, saying the deaths caused in poor countries by First World greed are uncountable.

    “It is even more than the numbers killed by the tsunami,” said forum organizer Meena Menon, an activist from India.

  • ‘Peek’ May Not Be Worth It

    After back-to-back bunglings on election day polling and state-calling, the media is taking a new look at their practices.

    It wasn’t fraud, it was human error. That’s one conclusion Americans should extrapolate from a report on flawed exit polling practices during the Nov. 2 presidential election.

    After President Bush’s win, some of his stunned detractors, on Internet sites and fast-circulating e-mails, immediately alleged fraud. The president’s re-election, they incorrectly charged, had to be due to shenanigans, since Election Day exit polls showed challenger John Kerry on his way to victory.

    And how could the exit polls be wrong? Well, they were, apparently because many of the surveyors, particularly younger ones, ended up talking to too many Kerry supporters.

    […]

    It seems they secured interviews with a disproportionate number of younger voters, who tended to vote for Kerry rather than Bush. This apparently helped to skew the polling results. To their credit, major news organizations did not use the exit polling data to make any predictions.

    The exit polls, however, created confusion and skepticism. One “next time” change the research firms recommended is making certain those doing the questioning represent a wider range of ages.

    Here’s a better suggestion: Just rethink the use of Election Day exit polling in general.

    The 2004 presidential election was a cliffhanger. It’s hard to fault Americans for trying to sneak a “peek” at results, and the news media for trying to offer one. We all want to know who’s winning, and we want to know as soon as possible. Unfortunately, elections don’t conform to score keeping like sporting events do.

    At some point, Americans and their news outlets are going to have to ask whether the angst, suspicion and embarrassment at risk are worth it. Now is as good a time as any to address the issue.

    Fresh out of the ’04 campaign, I’ll be the first to say I’m sick of exit polls and, for that matter, the overkill of constant poll numbers in the months leading up to the actual voting.

  • Inauguration Speech

    I missed it. You know, work, earning a living, all that jazz. I’m going to read it tonight or tomorrow but I’ve caught enough bits and pieces to feel I can approve of the gist of it.

    Strike that. After reading some of the British media reaction, I feel safe in saying I strongly approve.

  • Iran’s Defence Minister Defiant

    Relations are simmering between Iran and the U.S.

    Iran has acquired a strong military capability and will deter any attacks against it, Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said.

    Shamkhani, speaking on Monday at a technology conference, said Iran did not fear the United States, which has already toppled the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan and dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq, both Iran’s enemies.

    The defiant comments came the same day that US President George Bush said he would not rule out military action against Iran over its nuclear program.

    “We can say we have developed a might that no country can attack us because they do not have accurate information about our military capabilities,” Shamkhani said in the speech, which was made available on Tuesday by the Defence Ministry.

    “We have produced equipment at a rapid pace with the minimum investment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent force,” the ministry statement quoted Shamkhani as saying.

    Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Seymour Hersh reported in Monday’s edition of The New Yorker magazine that Bush and his national security advisers had been “conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer” for the purpose of gathering intelligence and targeting information.

    US Defence Department officials strongly criticised Hersh’s report.

    ….

    The toppling of Saddam in neighbouring Iraq has worried many Iranians about the possibility that Iran would be next in America’s list. Bush has accused Iran of being part of an “axis of evil” with North Korea and prewar Iraq.

    The United States has accused Iran of seeking a covert nuclear weapons program. Iran has denied the charge, saying its nuclear program is geared only toward generating electricity, not producing bombs.

    Hersh, who broke the story about the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture scandal in Iraq, wrote that he had repeatedly been told by intelligence and military officials, on condition of anonymity that “the next strategic target was Iran.”

    Bush administration officials however, rejected the report, saying it was inaccurate.

    European Union officials said on Tuesday they would oppose a military option against Iran. Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, whose country holds the EU presidency, said they hoped to persuade Bush during a summit later this month that the only way to solve a standoff over Iran’s nuclear program was through diplomatic means.

    Shamkhani stopped short of predicting the mother of all battles.

  • FBI Warns of Suspicious Inaugural Activity

    FoxNews is reporting that the FBI is concerned about security threats and questionable behaviour at sites related to next week’s inauguration.

    The federal government is receiving reports of “suspicious activity” around buildings where presidential inaugural events and a parade are scheduled to occur Jan. 20 in Washington, FOX News learned Friday.

    FOX News obtained an intelligence bulletin sent this week to law enforcement by the FBI’s Washington field office, which is coordinating the security for next week’s inaugural along with the U.S. Secret Service.

    An FBI official confirmed the authenticity of the bulletin and said, “there is no credible threat information but we are looking at everything and anything out of an abundance of caution.”

    More than 6,000 law enforcement personnel will be on duty Jan. 20, the day President Bush is sworn in for a second term.

    Reports of suspicious activity noted by the FBI include people taking pictures and writing descriptive notes while being near the buildings. But there is no indication that any of these activities are linked to terrorist activity. Plus, many of the buildings and streets in question consistently receive numerous suspicious activity reports due to their high visibility in the Washington area.

    I’ve lived in D.C. The very notion of trying to discern between a tourist and a terrorist based on the choice of photographic subjects or number of exposures taken seems incredibly daunting. I pity the analysts who have to pore over this stuff.

    Some of the threat reporting is coming to U.S. officials from overseas, according to the FBI bulletin.

    For example, the State Department advised that on Jan. 6, a regional security office received a letter via local mail service from a Kenyan national, alleging that terrorists will launch an attack at the inauguration using tactics similar to those employed in Iraq last month that killed 19 U.S. soldiers.

    The letter did not contain further details about the alleged attack but it rambled on about other topics such as the recent tsunami disaster, the Kenyan government’s inability to provide jobs and medical care to its citizenry and the torture of political prisoners, according to the bulletin.

    Sounds like your run-of-the-mill nutjob or Democratic Underground poster.

    The possible reference in the letter to the Dec. 21 attack in Mosul, Iraq, on a U.S. military mess hall may indicate the use of an improvised explosive device by a would-be homicide bomber, the agency noted. Based on the information received to date, this is not assessed to be a credible threat. A copy of the letter is being passed to the Kenyan police for further investigation.

    Another threat report, as outlined in the FBI bulletin, consists of word that Mohamad Chafiq Dekkak contacted a U.S. businessman of Muslim descent to sponsor his visa entry into the United States for business purposes.

    Dekkak has been associated with two possible international arms dealers, Hemad Lakhani and Samir El Mahallawy. Lakhani was arrested in the United States in August 2003 and charged with providing material support for terrorist acts and with violating the arms import/export control act. The FBI continues to investigate.

    Dekkak’s hidden intent is allegedly to attend the inauguration. This is suspicious, since Dekkak has no known basis for his recent interest in U.S. political events, the FBI noted.

    I feel it important to note that the main reason I post this and feel even a shred of concern is that it is probably the last significant opportunity to strike a blow to the U.S. prior to the Iraqi elections.

  • Atheist Protests Inauguration Prayer

    Here’s a fine example of one man overreaching and undermining his own cause.

    A federal judge heard arguments Thursday in the case of an atheist who wants to prevent a Christian minister from reciting a prayer at President Bush’s inauguration.

    Michael Newdow — best known for trying to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance — told U.S. District Judge John Bates that allowing an overtly Christian prayer at the Jan. 20 ceremony violates the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

    Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush’s decision to have a minister recite the invocation is a personal choice the court has no power to prevent.

    As an atheist, I find myself sympathetic to the effort to revert to the earlier form of the Pledge of Allegiance, one sans “under God” and all I feel that implies. I shrug with only mild interest at the concept of removing “In God We Trust” from money — I feel it would be proper but it has no effect on the beer-buying process.

    That said, this inauguration issue is a joke. Unless the prayer is a mandatory or statuatory portion of the ceremony, I see no grounds for this case.

    Much of the hearing did not focus on the merits of Newdow’s legal claims, but instead centered on whether the lawsuit should be thrown out because Newdow lost a similar case in California last year.

    The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 that Newdow did not suffer “a sufficiently concrete and specific injury” when he opposed prayers from being recited at Bush’s first inauguration.

    Newdow — arguing his case via telephone conference hookup from California — said his case is different this time because he actually has a ticket to attend the inauguration. That atmosphere, he said, is more coercive than four years ago, when he planned to watch the ceremony on television.

    Justice Department lawyer Edward White scoffed at that claim, saying the issues in the two cases are the same and that Newdow still has not shown how he would be injured by hearing the prayer.

    Hearing a prayer is not harmful, especially for one who is not compelled in any manner to attend. Granted, there are times when listening to the prayers of others can seem annoying (especially when it causes a delay in the commencement of the devouring of delicious holiday dinners), but we have no constitutional protections against mild annoyances. For that, Mr. Newdow should be thankful.

    George Terwilliger, appearing for the inaugural committee, said the details of the ceremony are not officially sanctioned government action but merely the personal choice of the president.

    That seems to sum up the case — just as I should have the right to not have religion thrust upon me, the religious should not have their faith stripped away, even in a public role.

    A decision is expected tomorrow.

  • A Little Canadian Self-Examination

    Our neighbors to the north seem to be struggling with a bit of an identity crisis: are they allies or opponents to the U.S., contributors or pretenders as members of NATO and the international community? Ben at The Tiger in Winter takes an interesting and critical look here (hat tip to Damian Brooks at Babbling Brooks).

    We are unsteady as an ally. And this is not only a Liberal failing. In fact, the most egregious example was under a Conservative government. Diefenbaker did not co-operate with the Americans during the Cuban Missile Crisis — he refused to put the Canadian military on alert. (Canadian commanders, on the other hand, put themselves on alert.) That display prompted Bobby Kennedy to say of us, “in an emergency Canada will give you all aid short of help.”

    Go give it a read. Mr. Brooks adds his two cents to the piece.

    [Canadian conservatives] want Canada to live up to its potential, both domestically and internationally, so bad it hurts. That means making Canada stronger – economically, socially, and yes – militarily. The Canadian left likes to talk about charting an independent foreign policy from the U.S., but how can you remain independent with no assets to devote to your international goals – foreign aid, consulates and embassies, and yes again – military? How do you maintain true sovereignty over Canadian domestic issues without a strong and expanding economy – one that’s competitive worldwide without the crutch of a weak dollar?