Religious Right Turns On Bush

The New York Times buried this story on an inside page, characterizing it as being about social conservatives peeved that more of their far right leaders aren't speaking at the Republican convention. But this is actually a much bigger story about how everyone on the religious right is FURIOUS at Bush. They're mad because he doesn't gay bash enough; they're mad that he endangered their tax exempt status by trying to turn local churches around the country into campaign headquarters for his reelection; they're mad that he's afraid to let the country know how radically far right he is (Bush agrees with them that science is for losers; that everyone deserves equal rights except for infidels, women, gays, agnostics, atheists and so on) and they are letting him know it. Quoting top radical right figures who say that if Bush is too embarrassed to stand by him during the convention, why then maybe they'll be too embarrassed to stand by him on election day? Shocking. One more sign that less than four months before the election and things are not going well for Bush. Read the rest of this post...

Republican 11th hour dirty trick on Gay Bashing Amendment

Ok, this is truly surreal, as HRC's Cheryl Jacques noted today. The Republicans, at the 11th hour, have now come up with a NEW Gay Bashing Amendment that they want to vote on. Were there hearings on this amendment? No. Did the public get word of this amendment so we could examine it and debate it and its implications? No. Did the media get an advance copy? No. But Senators SURELY must have gotten an advance copy of the amendment. No, not them either.

As Cheryl Jacques so aptly put it: "I think it is outrageous and frankly surreal that at the 11th hour in this debate, they are literally rewriting the Constitution on the back of a napkin."

These disgusting people haven't had enough fun gay-bashing in the Constitution, no, now they want to treat the Constitution like some dirty old kleenex rather than the revered document that founded our nation. These people are nothing less than pigs.

Oh yeah, and if that didn't piss you off enough, the Republicans want to open the process so that anyone can offer amendments to the amendment. That means, flag burning and whatever other crazy amendment some wacko Republican fringe group wants - overturning Roe? - can be tacked on, on a whim. What a lovely frivolent way to amend the Constitution.

Read about this disgusting Republican move here. Read the rest of this post...

Senate Republicans refuse to have vote on merits of Gay Bashing Amendment

HRC's analysis (HRC, for your straight-but-not-narrow type, is the top gay rights lobbying group in DC) is spot on. This is EXACTLY what's going on.

The pro-gay Senators caught the anti-gay Republicans (plus Zell Miller) by surprise by saying "sure, you want a vote, we'll give you a vote." Why did the good guys offer a vote? Because apparently there are so FEW Senators willing to vote for the amendment that it would totally embarrass the homophobes once the final tally was in. So the phobes are instead forcing a procedural vote called "invoking cloture." All this really means is that the Senate votes to stop a filibuster on the bill - the thing is, no one is filibustering.

So why would the Republicans force such a vote to block a filibuster that isn't even happening? Because the Republicans know that:

1) Every anti-gay Senator will vote for cloture, i.e., to stop a filibuster.

2) Even some pro-gay Senators who are voting AGAINST the amendment would vote FOR cloture, i.e., they'd vote AGAINST a filibuster.

Why? Because some Senators just don't like filibusters, even if they plan to vote against the legislation itself. This means that the Republicans can inflate their vote count - they can claim, falsely, that every Senator who voted for cloture (i.e., who voted to STOP a filibuster) was actually VOTING FOR THE AMENDMENT. This is of course an outright lie, but it's the best the homophobes can do.

One final point: The phobes are actually hoping that they don't get enough votes on cloture so they can claim, again falsely, that the Democrats are filibustering the Gay Bashing Amendment and thus stopping the people from debating this issue - when in fact, the Dems were ready to have a vote today.

It's all very messed up - brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Republican noise machine. They lie to you for your own good.

From HRC:

THIS JUST IN: Senate Republicans Back-Out on Vote on Federal Marriage Amendment

The Senate Republican leadership turned down an offer from the Democrats for a vote on the substance of the Federal Marriage Amendment and instead filed for cloture on the amendment. In a stunning reversal of events, the Republican leadership decided that an up or down vote on the President?s proposal would highlight the deep divisions that exist within the Republican party over this issue and backed off of their push for a demonstration of support.

Since Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch spent most of his time on the floor talking about Senator Kerry and his position against the amendment, the political motivation of this effort was ever more transparent today. Since it is now obvious that a significant majority of the Senate agrees with Senator Kerry?s position on the issue, the Senate leadership now seems stuck with a credibility problem.

How can they have argued for months that the people wanted a vote on the issue when critics berated them for wasting the Senate?s time and then when the Democrats make just such an offer, they reject it?

This turnaround is not likely to sit well with conservative constituents. Don?t be too surprised if the Republican leadership changes its strategy yet again over the next two days. But as of now, the vote on cloture is expected to take place on Wednesday, July 14 at 12pm.

Read the rest of this post...

Buzzflash Outs Matt Drudge

Well, kind of.

Drudge has been outed so many times now, but still no one seems to realize it. Buzzflash has brought the issue up again because Drudge for the past week has been gaybaiting Kerry and Edwards. Buzzflash published a new editorial today about the issue, and republished on the same their old editorials about Drudge, his gayness and his double-standards. They're all worth a read:

Normally, we ignore Matt Drudge. If you pay him too much attention, you just start to feel slimy yourself, like you need to run and take a shower.

But, back in June of 2000, we wrote a couple of editorials about Drudge, because he is typical of Republican gays in the media and government who shore up right wing leaders who advance an anti-gay agenda.

Indeed, right now Bush and the Congressional Republicans are trying to exploit 'class value' wedge issues by promoting an anti-gay marriage Constitutional Amendment, one that they know will never be affirmed by enough states to become law. It is political opportunism at its most base.

Yet, how does Drudge, who has been outed by a variety of people -- including David Brock -- since we first wrote our June, 2000, editorials justify his anti-gay innuendo?

Last week, he headlined a series of photos (PDF of page from July 8) -- along with an extended commentary -- that insidiously tries to imply that Kerry and Edwards aren't "real men" because of photos Drudge highlights showing them patting each other on the back and so forth. In this strange cover story, Drudge breathlessly fanned the flames of gay-effeminate prejudices:

"Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees...

John Kerry and John Edwards can't keep their hands off each other!

In the past 48 hours, 'candidate handling' has become the top buzz on the trail....

Read the rest of this post...

Newsmax using Reagan to hock coins, while criticizing Ron Jr for dishonoring dead dad

Ron, Jr. speaking out about stell cems at the upcoming Democratic Convention dishonors Reagan's memory, so Newsmax says in the story cited in the post below. But when you actually take a look at the story online, there's this cute little ad that goes along with it - an ad trying to using Reagan's death to sell silver coins.

Here's the story with the ad actually published NEXT TO the story:



And here's the page it takes you to - a page that even mentions Reagan's death. No, making money off a dead guy isn't dishonoring his memory at all.

Read the rest of this post...

NewsMax: Ron Reagan's Dem Convention speech dishonors father

Per Newsmax: "the speech is clearly more than a case for stem cell research. It's a slap in the face of his late father's memory."

Yeah, because, you know, when it comes to whoring off the memory of a dead guy, selling coffee mugs of his face before his body is cold is NOT dishonoring him, but speaking publicly about the cause he devoted the last ten years of his life to - the cause that ultimately killed him - in the hopes that you can save the lives of Americans of every walk of life, THAT is dishonor.

Then again, it's easy to see how a conservative would find it ludicrous to use another conservative's memory to actually help people. I guess in their own warped world, that truly is dishonorable. Read the rest of this post...

Cabbages & Condoms Restaurant, Bangkok, Thailand (no joke)

Is that a big condom on your head, or are you just happy to see me?

Read the rest of this post...

Kiddie porn in Catholic seminary "a childish prank"

Aaahhhh, don't these idiots get it? For those in the church that always blame it on the Americans (oh, they always love to litigate) and have somehow overlooked the recently publicized scandals in Ireland, this new problem in Vienna, Austria ought to wake them up. Unfortunately, the local Bishop doesn't quite get it and as he dismissed the event and somehow overlooked the kiddie porn aspect or it. He also doesn't get it that pictures of priests having sex together is ever-so-remotely connected to homosexuality.

"A vast cache of child pornography and photos of young priests having sex has been discovered at a Roman Catholic seminary, officials said Monday, leading politicians and church leaders to demand a criminal probe and the resignation of the bishop in charge.

Bishop Kurt Krenn, who oversees the diocese, refused to step down, however, dismissing the images as a ''childish prank.''

''Anything that has to do with the practice of homosexuality or pornography has no place at a seminary for priests,'' it said.

Krenn, a conservative churchman, told Austrian television he had seen photos of seminary leaders in sexual situations with students, but he described the images as part of an elaborate prank that ''had nothing to do with homosexuality."

Read the rest of this post...

NEWSWEEK: Picking Edwards Gives Kerry a Boost-Poll

Newsweek:

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry got a boost in the polls after picking Sen. John Edwards as his running mate and would beat President Bush if the election was held now, according to a new Newsweek poll.

Reuters PhotoThe Kerry-Edwards ticket is leading Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by a margin of six percentage points, 51 percent to 45 percent, the poll said.

Read the rest of this post...

Mmmmmmm, Turtles....

What is it with these Republicans and their fixation on sex with animals? I'd hate to be a pet in these guys' households:

"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."

-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation. Read the rest of this post...

Social Conservatives Want More of Their Own to Speak at the G.O.P. Convention

NYT:

"When the only Reagan Republican to enjoy a prominent supporting role at the party's convention is a Democrat, the G.O.P. has a serious identity problem," Kate O'Beirne, the Washington editor of the conservative National Review, wrote in a column posted on its Web site last Wednesday. The list, she wrote, "is not the mark of a self-confident party establishment," adding, "if the lineup is intended to make an overwhelmingly conservative party attractive to swing voters, it does so by pretending to be something it's not." ....

On Friday, as the Senate began debating the amendment on same-sex marriage, the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, placed an advertisement in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call listing Governor Schwarzenegger, Governor Pataki, Senator McCain and Mr. Giuliani. 'Want to get a prime time spot at the Republican National Convention?' the advertisement asked. 'Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment.'

Hoping to turn the same advertisement into a message to the convention planners, Tony Perkins, president of the Christian conservative Family Research Council, sent flowers to Cheryl Jacques, the executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, with a note that said, 'Dear Cheryl, per your ad in Roll Call - thank you.'

No, thank YOU Tony. You're too stupid to realize that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you don't get one of your Bible-thumping wackos to appear at the R Convention during prime time, you'll be seen as an irrelevant pariah. If you DO get to appear, you'll kill the ticket because normal Americans loathe you people, and the Bushies know it. So please do push for one of your nutcases to speak at the convention - if you succeed, I'll be sending YOU flowers, you cutie. Read the rest of this post...

Urged by Right, Bush Takes On Gay Marriages

NYT:

"In interviews, conservative leaders said they had complained to the White House that the campaign was blocking opponents of gay marriage from prime-time speaking slots at the Republican National Convention."

Please, please, PLEASE let one of these wackos speak about gay marriage during prime time! Read the rest of this post...

Former Enquirer office fumigated for anthrax

So what ever happened with the anthrax terrorist attacks? Everyone was whipped into a frenzy for a while but so far nothing has happened with locating the guilty party? Perhaps it wasn't the right kind of terrorist or something? Read the rest of this post...

International anger at US ban on AIDS scientists

Who needs fancy-pants scientists when we can just refer to the well-respected Uganda AIDS report? Let's just forget about the reality that 1 in 5 women in South Africa, a country that has the highest rates of HIV in the world, will be raped. Don't even give it a second thought that many traditional African doctors tell people to cure themselves by raping children and old women. Why let real world realities get in the way of politics?

"The biennial conference, with 17,000 delegates, is more political rally than scientific meeting and bears huge significance for those involved in the fight against HIV/Aids.

The US government has sent only a fraction of its usual contingent of scientists, pleading cost - 50 instead of the 236 who attended the last event in Barcelona in 2002.

She [Dr DeAngelis, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association] pointed out that the trip would have been paid for by the American Medical Association, not the US government. "It is an incredible example of political pettiness. It is anti-intellectual and it is interfering with scientists and the scientific process and means American government-employed scientists are not allowed to be here to share their knowledge," she said.

Read the rest of this post...