Tommy Thompson retracts anti-gay statement made during debate - that was quick

Well, that was a quick flip-flop even by Republican standards.

Tonight during the GOP presidential debate, Tommy Thompson said, quite unequivocally - well, after staring at the camera like a deer in the headlights - that he thinks it's okay for employers to fire their employees simply because they're gay. Joe has the video in the post below. Well, an astute AMERICAblog reader wrote Tommy Thompson's main campaign email address at 10:11pm this evening to complain that Thompson was an "ignorant, homophobic fool." Imagine his surprise at 10:20pm, only 9 minutes later, when he received an email from Thompson spokesman Tony Jewell saying that Thompson misheard the question and is opposed to discrimination. Yeah, well, watch the video for yourself - Thompson says it's up the individual employer if he wants to fire someone for being gay. He answered the question twice. Can't be any clearer than that.

But I am intrigued that Joe Blow reader can write the main info email at Tommy Thompson's campaign and get an email back in 9 minutes from the spokesman - that's pretty good. And it's rather telling that in spite of the GOP's rampant homophobia, when they get called on it, they backtrack fast. Though I'm guessing the religious right bigots aren't going to be very happy with Tommy after that.

Now someone needs to inform Tommy Thompson that in most of America it is 100% legal to fire someone for being gay. So, since Thompson opposes such firings, does he support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would make it illegal to fire someone simply for being gay? Read the rest of this post...

Tommy Thompson: Sure, go ahead. Fire the gays.

It wouldn't be a Republican debate without some gay bashing. Tommy Thompson delivered:

Click To Play

Read the rest of this post...

Halfway through open thread

That was truly painful.

Mitt Romney says Congress shouldn't had gotten involved in the Terri Schiavo case, and now McCain says he's starting to think Congress shouldn't have gotten involved. Giuliani gave yet another cagey answer that kind of sounded like he thinks Congress shouldn't have gotten involved. Kind of.

These guys are delusional. They keep talking about problems with the federal government. Until this January, the Republicans controlled all branches of the federal government for six years. The GOP ran Congress since 1995. They never did any of the things they are talking about. Ever. Just blathering talking points.

Well, Tommy Thompson, that great defender of family values (uh hum) says it's okay to fire people simply for being gay.

Keep it going. So painful. Read the rest of this post...

Rudy can't decide if Roe v. Wade should be overturned

Rudy equivocates on what used to be a no-brainer for him. Call him Rudy Giuliromney:

Click To Play

Read the rest of this post...

GOP Debate Open Thread

Yes, we're going to watch the Republican debate. Can't wait to see them all defend George Bush and his war in Iraq.

Let's count how many times they say:

a) September 11th

b) Al Qaeda

c) George Bush

First thought: What a bunch of whackos.

Second thought: Lots of old white men.

Third thought: Now Romney thinks we SHOULD move heaven and earth to catch bin Laden - a week ago he said no. We should have added "Romney flip-flops" to the list as well.

Okay, we're bored already. 1/3 of the way in and no one has said those two words: George Bush.

Rudy says it would be "okay" if Roe v. Wade was overturned, i.e., if all abortions were banned.

Brownback says he would support a pro-choice presidential candidate. Yikes, honey I just stabbed the religious right in the back. Read the rest of this post...

Hillary wants Bush to seek a new war authorization vote

Very interesting. And especially interesting that she has Byrd on her side - that's a big deal, and makes this far more than just a simple go-nowhere stunt. Well, that assumes she pursues this vigorously. If she does, she'll get my kudos.

Presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday sought to force another showdown with President Bush — and her Democratic rivals — over the Iraq war.

Sens. Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., announced they would introduce legislation that would require the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007.

"If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama suddenly getting Secret Service protection

And he's getting it far earlier than any previous presidential candidate.

Which makes it rather odd timing that Senator Obama just said that Rush Limbaugh's repeated racist attacks against him, African-Americans generally, and Muslims were simply innocuous jokes. Do note the picture on the page I just linked to - via its title, it links Obama to Saddam Hussein, Islam and one assumes Muslim terrorists all in one. Yes, pretty innocuous humor there. So innoncuous, in fact, that Obama now has the Secret Service protecting his life. Read the rest of this post...

He's a blithering idiot

Bush opined again, yesterday, about "the Internets." The man is a blithering idiot. From the White House's own Web site:

You thought I was kind of doing one of these -- (laughter) -- Washington, D.C. dodges. (Laughter.) I talk to a lot of families who have got a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else in this global war on terror, and they are in constant communication with their loved one. That's amazing, isn't it. You've got a kid in Iraq who is emailing mom daily, talking about the realities of what he or she sees. Information is moving -- you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets. It's amazing how many emails I see from people that are writing in what they think and what they hear.

When your head of state, your commander in chief, the man in charge of the only remaining superpower in the world, is a total freaking moron, it matters. Read the rest of this post...

Take my user survey, please

We've just launched our annual reader survey, so please click this link and take the survey so we can get a sense as to who our readers are. I'll share the results once we have them, they're usually quite interesting (in terms of age, men vs. women, etc.) Oh, and just a heads up - the survey is long as hell (it's not my fault), only the first couple of pages matter - so if you're not in the mood, only fill out the first few pages, but if you can do more, do more. Thanks, JOHN Read the rest of this post...

237-180 Hate Crime bill passes US House

UPDATE: I totally missed Pelosi hugging Barney after the vote, you can check it out here.

That is an outstanding tally.

Watch an openly gay member of Congress announce the final tally :-) There is still hope for America.

Click To Play

Read the rest of this post...

BREAKING: GOP refuses to add American troops and senior citizens to hate crime bill

Steny Hoyer and John Conyers just pulled a fast one on the GOP. The GOP has been refusing to support the hate crimes bill because it doesn't include members of the US Armed Forces and senior citizens. Conyers just rose and basically said, okay, I'll add them. The Republicans' response? Uh, no.

The Republicans have been railing for days about how this legislation doesn't cover our Armed Forces and senior citizens, and now that the Dems offer to put our Armed Forces and seniors in this legislation, the Republicans said no and affirmatively stopped the Democrats from doing it anyway.

That means the Republicans had no intent on helping our Armed Forces and seniors, on protecting them. It was just a stunt. The GOP leaders in Congress just got up and used our Armed Forces and seniors as political fodder when they had no intent on actually doing anything to help our Armed Forces and seniors.

Here is Steny Hoyer's statement, it's a doozy.

Click To Play

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks about hate crimes bill.

Click To Play

Wow, a rather amazing floor speech by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD). Wow.

Click To Play

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)

Click To Play

Read the rest of this post...

Mary Cheney, Izzy Hernandez, and NAMBLA

I'm just curious what Vice President Cheney's lesbian-partnered pregnant-out-of-wedlock daughter Mary thinks about being compared to a pedophile. That's what GOP Rep. Dan Lungren (CA) just did on the House floor moments ago. He said that the hate crimes bill is actually about giving rights to NAMBLA, a group that believes in having sex with children who are six years old. So I'm just wondering how Mary feels about being compared to a child sex predator when she's just weeks away from giving birth? And how does openly gay senior Bush official Israel Hernandez, someone who Bush considers like a son, feel about being compared to someone who rapes small children?

And for that matter, how do Dick Cheney and George Bush feel about Mary and Izzy being compared to child rapists? Read the rest of this post...

"Thought crimes" against GOP members of Congress are already illegal - but they won't support protecting gays from ACTUAL violent crimes

How interesting is this. There already is a thought crimes law on the books - it protects members of Congress from you and me even threatening them. You go to jail for even saying something threatening to a member of Congress. Yet many GOP members of Congress are opposed to hate crimes laws covering ACTUAL VIOLENCE because they call those "special rights."

The only special rights I'm seeing is that some members of Congress are okay with actual thought crimes legislation protecting them, but they're not okay with violent crime legislation protecting me.

Typical Republican hypocrisy.

The law in question criminalizes threats to assault a member of Congress, and can be found in 18 U.S.C. SS 115(a)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. SS 115(b)(4). Yes, it's not only a "worse" crime if a member of Congress is punched than if your mom is punched, but it's actually a worse crime if a member of Congress is simply threatened with words than if your mom is actually punched in the face.

Do as they say, not as they do. Read the rest of this post...

Lead gay group blasts religious right ties to hate group, white supremacist

Snap, snap.

As the U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote tomorrow (Thursday) on H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, anti-gay extremist organizations have embarked on a desperate last attempt to derail passage of the bill. Marking a new low in politics, these groups have embraced the work of a known white-supremacist filmmaker, callously invoked the Virginia Tech massacre, blatantly lied about the congressional record and even used the name and image of Jesus Christ in vain....

In recent weeks, religious right leaders have been caught outright lying about the hate crimes bill: claiming that no federal hate crimes law yet exists (it does, has for 40 years and already includes them (i.e., people of faith)) and that the proposed amendment to the hate crimes law would criminalize hate speech (it does not). Some of these same leaders have also been caught disseminating the anti-gay works of a white-supremacist filmmaker. And just last week, the head of the Family Research Council invoked the Virginia Tech victims to argue against the hate crimes bill. Details of these incidents can be found below.

Its no surprise the religious right is so concerned about hate speech for them, hate appears to be a cottage industry, [Human Rights Campaign President Joe] Solmonese added. But they have nothing to fear. Even after the hate crimes legislation is passed, the religious right will continue to have the federally protected right to preach hatred from the pulpit and disseminate the videos of white supremacists.... [I]ts clear that the right wing understands that the tides are against them because their tactics to stop hate crimes legislation have become more desperate and disgusting each day. Instead of engaging in a civil debate on the merits of this bill, they have instead chosen to spread lies and embrace white supremacists and hate groups. It is unconscionable that these groups could use the memory of Virginia Tech, one of the greatest tragedies in American history, to twist and contort the truth about this bill.

Read the rest of this post...

Did Nancy Pelosi force a breakthrough in US-Syrian relations?

Sure looks that way.

Just a month or so after Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with senior Syrian government officials, and was labeled a traitor by Republicans for visiting "a terror state," US Secretary of State Condi Rice is now planning to meet with senior Syrian government officials. Imagine that.

So does Pelosi get credit for the breakthrough in relations, or is Condi a traitor too? Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Who knew this hour of the day even existed? Read the rest of this post...

French election update - debate last night and final vote on Sunday

With only two weeks separating the first run, this year with twelve candidates, and the final vote, there is little time to have more than one debate. Last night could have been the last chance for center-left candidate Segolene Royal to close the 4-6 point gap on center-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy. Both sides landed a few digs but in general it seems doubtful that Royal did enough though she was much more aggressive and combative than usual.

So what does this mean to the US, assuming Sarkozy maintains his lead and wins? On the surface, perhaps less friction between the two countries though in reality, France and the US work together very closely on key issues such as security. Business interests on both sides will remain business interests so not much change there either. Internal issues such as the economy and employment are of greatest concern in this election. The only relevant foreign that might ignite emotions (i.e. street protests) is the EU constitution. Sarkozy is against a referendum possibly because he knows the public does not support that dog with fleas nor are they in favor of such decisions being forced upon them without proper debate.

In the end, this will translate to smoother public relations on the surface but very little change behind the scenes. Read the rest of this post...

Blair minister on Iraq planning: "I think we missed Cheney"

This Bush-Blair relationship was and is a one-way street that runs through Cheney. Blair received nothing positive in return. Nothing.

...Geoff Hoon reveals that Britain disagreed with the US administration over two key decisions in May 2003, two months after the invasion - to disband Iraq's army and "de-Ba'athify" its civil service. Mr Hoon also said he and other senior ministers completely underestimated the role and influence of the vice-president, Dick Cheney.

"Sometimes ... Tony had made his point with the president, and I'd made my point with Don [Rumsfeld] and Jack [Straw] had made his point with Colin [Powell] and the decision actually came out of a completely different place. And you think: what did we miss? I think we missed Cheney."

Giving the most frank assessment of the postwar planning, Mr Hoon, admits that "we didn't plan for the right sort of aftermath".

"Maybe we were too optimistic about the idea of the streets being lined with cheering people. Although I have reconciled it in my own mind, we perhaps didn't do enough to see it through the Sunni perspective. Perhaps we should have done more to understand their position."

Read the rest of this post...