Fox News: Manufacturing Outrage

This week, in their latest attempt to create a Republican talking point out of clean air, Fox News released the results of a poll that proved Democrats hate America. You may have read about it. The question they asked was this: "Do you want President Bush to succeed?" Of course, it's a ridiculously flawed question, and they know it. This is the latest example of Fox masquerading as an objective journalistic enterprise, while subtly helping to maintain the divisive atmosphere that keeps Bush and Co. in business.

They know that anyone hearing the question can interpret it one of two ways:

1) Do I want Bush to keep doing what he's doing to the country and to get what he wants--tax breaks for the rich, welfare for large corporations, blending of church and state, suppression of dissent, elimination of Constitutional checks on presidential power, a terrified populace, and a one-party state?

2) Do I want Bush to do a good job, to start being an honest, effective, responsible, competent President, thereby helping our country be a more just, fair, and safe place?

Obviously, the answer depends on how you interpret the question. Turns out a little more than half (51%) of Democrats heard question #1. That's all the R's needed to rehash their favorite equation: Bush=America; those who disagree with Bush are against America; Democrats hate America.

We shouldn't get upset because the Republican Party has a media arm to spin out their propaganda. They have the money and power, why wouldn't they? It's smart politics, and it's served them well. What we need to expose is their fundamental dishonesty in pretending to be something they are not--specifically, a legitimate news organization. Journalists seek information and report facts, occasionally creating genuine controversy. Propagandists suppress information, invent "facts," and manufacture outrage.

We're not leaving

During an impassioned press conference yesterday, President Bush accidentally slipped into the unfamiliar realm of honesty. Regarding the war in Iraq, he emphatically declared “We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the President.” He quickly reverted to the familiar, misleading rhetoric about coming home “when the mission is completed” and all of the wonderful progress we’re making.

Remember when Paul Wolfowitz said the war would take three to six weeks? Or dear old Don Rumsfeld saying in 2003 he doubted the insurgency would last six months? We all, of course, remember Bush declaring, "Mission Accomplished" three years ago. Later we handed over "sovereignty," yet continued to occupy the country. As this painful historical re-run has played out, we have been told countless times that the end was right around the corner. As painful as it was to hear, Bush's inadvertent candor was probably for the best.

This is a reality that everyone, across the entire political spectrum, needs to face. These people do not plan to end this war. We are there to stay, as long as this bunch is running things. Since the invasion, the U.S. has been building permanent bases. Are these gifts to the Iraqi "government?" Not likely. The intention is, and always has been, to invade and stay.

We see a lot of politicians on television debating over the best time to leave. Immediately? On a schedule? As we meet certain objectives? When a new Iraqi army is strong enough? It seems no one is willing to face the uncomfortable truth that Bush and Co. aren't pulling us out no matter what.

As we think back to every time Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice told us how hard they were working to bring Iraq to the point we could leave, it becomes very chilling. Every single one of those times, they weren't stretching the truth. They weren't being a bit disingenous. Every one of those times, they were lying.

So yesterday, at least for a few seconds, we got something different: the truth. I'm not sure which is better.

Gay marriage: one straight guy's view

We hear a lot lately about attacks on the “institution of marriage." Bloviating politicians promise to “defend” it from this perilous onslaught. Groups emerge with names like “Protect Marriage Illinois,” and senators take to the floor with dark predictions of a “world without marriage.” With all this talk of fighting for marriage, I have to ask: has someone proposed banning it? Is there a movement to outlaw straight marriage? Because I have to say, that sounds like a bad idea. I’d definitely be against that. I hope my beautiful wife would, too.

See, the thing is, I like being married to my wife. I like that when I decided to spend all my remaining days with the one I love, the law of the land allowed me to do so. I take comfort in knowing that if I’m in lying in a hospital someday, unable to speak for myself, my best friend and life partner will be allowed to make decisions for me. I appreciate the way my employer provides her with insurance, just for being married to me. And, of course, I really like the way the IRS rewards us for living in this committed arrangement. I’m able to enjoy these benefits for one reason: I was born with a disposition to be sexually drawn to the opposite sex.

In truth, of course, no one is threatening to take my marriage away. There is, however a growing movement to extend this basic civil right to all citizens, regardless of orientation. Opponents of this cause know they have to frame the issue dishonestly to win any support at all. Thus the negative, reactionary effort to keep certain people from enjoying a right is sold as a positive issue. Rhetoric and actions that can only be described accurately as anti-gay and anti-equal rights become "pro marriage" and "pro family."

Are these folks really “fighting for marriage?” Of course not. When was the last time you heard one of these “defenders” of marriage calling for a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce? Or how about a law to increase the penalties for deadbeat parents? Or, if marriage is for the purpose of biologically continuing human existence, why don’t we hear calls to ban sterile or post-menopausal people from marrying? The answer is that these people are not actually interested in defending marriage from any actual threats. They are interested in attacking people they do not like.

These people are terrified. For years, they have successfully stereotyped homosexuals as godless, immoral, unpatriotic, and promiscuous. Now the gays want to attend church, raise children, serve proudly in the military, and get married. We have long heard that the gays don’t share mainstream America’s values. Lord, if these values aren’t mainstream, what are?

The fundamentalists dominating the gay marriage debate like to frame the issue as a religious one. Liberals scoff at this notion—arguing that the issue at hand is civil rights, plain and simple—but I tell you this: the left has it wrong on this point. Marriage equality is definitely a religious issue. Almost every opponent of gay marriage is so because of his or her religious beliefs. These people fight against gay marriage because they believe being gay is a sin, so they fight against gay people. It is important to recognize this because we live in a country where our freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed.

In our great nation, you are free to believe being gay is a sin, and that gay marriage is wrong. You are also free to attend a church that refuses to perform such ceremonies. I, on the other hand, am free to hold a different religious belief, and to worship with a welcoming and affirming congregation that celebrates love between all committed adults (which, in fact, I do). Yet another citizen is free to get married down at the courthouse, without the blessing of any church. The government is constitutionally forbidden from forcing me and my church to subscribe the beliefs held by you and yours. And neither one of us can force the courthouse couple to play by our rules.

There are still churches in our country that refuse to celebrate interracial marriages, and their right to practice this faith is constitutionally protected. But the government, of course, can no longer restrict marriage based on race. In the United States, we have citizens who believe it is wrong to eat pork, or beef, or any meat at all on Fridays. Some Americans don’t believe in working on the Sabbath, be it Saturday or Sunday. Some believe it is wrong for a woman to cut her hair short, wear pants, or speak in church. Yet I hear of no plans for a Constitutional amendment to ban bacon or Sunday afternoon football games. Basing the law that governs all citizens on the religious restrictions of some is profoundly undemocratic, and contrary to everything for which our country stands.

We do not choose our sexuality, as some ludicrously claim. I certainly don’t remember choosing to develop an interest in girls as a young man. To this day, I don’t think I could choose to go the other way for all the cash in Sam Brownback’s bank account. (A side note to anyone with gay feelings who’s forcing themselves into a straight relationship: You’re being incredibly cruel to someone for whom you profess to care very deeply; and you’re heading for overwhelming heartbreak.) Amending our Constitution to single out a group of people—identifiable only by an involuntary characteristic—and deny them a specific right is the beginning of the end. It’s the slipperiest of slopes.

Allowing others the right to a marriage will not nullify yours or mine. No straighties will be forced into gay marriages. Don’t believe in it? Fine. Don’t do it. But let your fellow citizens make up their own minds, and keep the government out of it.

This is one straight guy who will stand up and fight for marriage. For everyone.

Who's out of touch?

Here's an important thing to remember while the Republicans and their deputized pundits blast the Democrats for rejecting Lieberman's "mainstream" views in favor of the "far left" candidate, Lamont: 60 % of the American public opposes Bush's war. 57% favor establishing a timetable for withdrawl. In politics, that's almost as decisive as it gets. A clear majority of Americans feel the war was a mistake, and that it's time to go.

So every time you hear Connecticut Democrats accused of picking the extreme partisan over the centrist statesman, take pause.

Who's really speaking for the mainstream here? And who's out of touch?

Christian Democrats

If you have the means, please contribute to Faithful Democrats. Help reclaim the words "morality," "family," "values," and "Christian" from the religious right. Help spread the word that equal rights is a morality issue. Poverty is a values issue. Families come in all shapes, sizes, and definitions. Help convince Christian voters they can vote Democratic, and help send a message to the Democrats that many of us vote for them because of our Christian values.

Go the this site to find out more: http://faithfuldemocrats.com/default.aspx

Anything you can give will help this country immeasurably.

Lamont's Victory

Last night, Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Primary. Most in the media had characterized the race as a battle for the soul of the party, a left-wing witch hunt, with moderate Joe besieged by the lunatic left. Would the voters choose this insurgent, unpatriotic cut-n-runner? Or would they stand by their buddy, ol’ bi-partisan Joe? The common spin was that a Lamont victory would surely mean the permanent marginalization of the party. Oh, those wacky, inept Democrats. There they go, shooting themselves in the bullet-ridden stumps that used to be their feet.

This is not only lazy journalism; it’s inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. This primary was not about ideology. It was not about any one issue, no matter how large the war looms. It certainly wasn’t a conspiracy. This primary election was about one thing: accountability. Our system of government depends on the principle that we can hold our representatives responsible for their actions. If they lose their way, we can fire them. Now, we all know this is a lot easier on paper--like the pages of high school civics textbooks--than it is out in the big, bad, world, especially in the age of Tom DeLay. Thanks to gerrymandering, media control, and our rigged campaign finance system, tossing out an incumbent is next-to-impossible.

That’s why it took a perfect storm to get us to this point. Ned Lamont has plenty going for him, including personal wealth, charisma, articulate policy positions, and a dynamite team. But that’s only half the story. Without Lieberman’s pathetic performance, there would have been no primary challenge.

So where did Joe go wrong? Was he too moderate for the radical party base? Is he a relic from the age of statesmen, unfit for this era of bitter partisanship? No. In fact, he is ideologically where a lot of Americans—and a lot of his own constituents—are: conservative in some areas, liberal in others, a common-sense approach to policy. Sounds like my neighbor. Joe’s not in trouble because he’s too far to the right, or left, or center. He faced a challenge, and lost (for now), because he has no spine.

Joe’s third Senate term saw the rise of the most corrupt, power-hungry, incompetent Presidential administration in our nation’s history. We’ve had Presidents breach their Constitutional authority before. We’ve certainly had institutional corruption for hundreds of years. And our country has seen its share of poor leadership decisions. But we’ve never seen it all in one package. Not like this. And since George Bush is a Republican, and R’s are conservative, that means anyone who criticizes his conduct is a liberal. One’s liberalism can be measured, or so it seems, by how vehemently one criticizes poor George. More inaccurate, lazy reporting. Remember the tenets of traditional populist conservatism: small government, personal freedom, humility and caution in our foreign affairs. George isn’t a conservative. He’s not a liberal. He doesn’t fight for a cause or a philosophy. He takes care of No. 1. That’s it.

And how did our man Joe respond to this profound challenge to our system of government and our way of life? Like our President, and Machiavelli before him, he took care of himself. Like the Gmork in The Neverending Story (non-nerds, Google that one), he bet on the side he thought would win. Not wanting to be left out in the cold when this bunch secured total power, he decided to help them any way he could. He sabotaged any efforts at real opposition. He lambasted Democrats, or anyone, who questioned the unconstitutional and unethical behavior of the Bushies. He even ran for President on a Bush-is-really-okay-stop-being-so-negative platform. Why? Political survival. He wanted to keep his job, above all else. It’s great fun being a U.S. Senator. He’s hardly the first to scrap his integrity for his job security. He won’t be the last.

But he guessed wrong. He failed to realize that people are so angry at the disintegration of our democracy that they’re clamoring for real leadership-crying out for anyone to stand up and tell the truth. Remember Profiles in Courage? Kennedy’s tribute to leadership was all about taking principled positions in the face of overwhelming political pressure to fold. That’s what people so desperately want, and that’s what Ned Lamont promises.

This little blue-state primary represents one of two things. It could be the last gasp of true democracy before our fair republic truly becomes an empire—with leaders selected by the powerful, and completely unaccountable. But I don’t think so. I think it’s the beginning of a better time, an age when the people began to take back their country. Left, right, or center, what people want is honesty and accountability. Transparent, ethical representation. Real elections, with real choices.

In Connecticut’s general election, voters will have a real choice. They will be able to support a person willing to provide true opposition, rather than a lapdog waiting for his next “good boy” kiss.

Lieberman vows to run as an independent candidate, and the odds are with him. Remember, he pulls Republican and independent voters very well. In a three-way race, he could easily suppress this annoying show of democracy. As he said himself, he cannot and will not accept the democratic result. He is more important than democracy. So how can we help? Contribute to Ned Lamont’s campaign. Talk to anyone you know in Connecticut. Write letters to editors demanding they treat Ned Lamont as the reasoned, articulate, brave candidate he is.

This is the beginning. Remember, as Studs Terkel says, “hope dies last.” There is always hope. Ned’s going to win. And that’s a good thing. Don’t worry about Joe. He’ll be fine.