| christian grantham | |||
| Christian Grantham was a student activist in the late 90s and later was a consultant to domestic policy forums for the Clinton Administration as well as events for HRC and GLAAD. | |||
|
|
|
||
latest posts
July 31, 2004
"Accountability" was a buzz word in the Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign. So was the phrase "the record speaks for itself."
In a significant shift in U.S. policy, the Bush administration announced this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.For several years the United States and other nations have pursued the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons. At an arms-control meeting this week in Geneva, the Bush administration told other nations it still supported a treaty, but not verification.
U.S. Shifts Stance on Nuclear Treaty
White House Resists Inspection Provision
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post
Saturday, July 31, 2004
With all those tax cuts, accountability has become too expensive even in our nation's foreign policy.
filed under:
July 31, 2004
Are you a Democrat or Independent voter wanting to attend a speech by our nation's President and Vice President on the campaign trail? On behalf of Bush/Cheney '04, here is your ticket. Now, sign here and repeat after me. I pledge allegiance to George W. Bush...
Some Democrats who signed up to hear Vice President Dick Cheney speak here Saturday were refused tickets unless they signed a pledge to endorse President Bush.
-- Casper Star Tribune, June 31, 2004
filed under:
July 29, 2004
Tom Shales, of the Washington Post, gives voice today to conservative cynicism in his column "Too Nice For Their -- and Our -- Good."
And the Democrats' namby-pamby decision to go positive -- not to attack the arguably very, very vulnerable administration of George W. Bush -- has put a pall of niceness over the proceedings that, try as they might, cranky-minded TV commentators haven't done much to dispel.
The only thing cheerleading negativity more between the two candidates for President is the nearly two-thirds of the $70.5 million spent directly by the Bush-Cheney campaign.
filed under:
July 28, 2004
The Bush/Cheney '04 campaign is upset at Democrats for portraying President Bush as a "divider" during the 2004 Democratic National Convention. In today's Bush/Cheney blog entry, Republicans state, "we can't simply let this attack go by."
Challenging the Bush/Cheney 2000 mantra that Bush is a "uniter, not divider," Democrats are asking Americans to heed another Bush/Cheney 2000 mantra: "The record speaks for itself."
Over the past four years, Bush has demonstrated little leadership in uniting our country. The record, indeed, speaks for itself.
- President Bush supports a divisive amendment to the United States Constitution.
- President Bush engages in divisive class warfare by asking average Americans to make significant sacrifices in a time of war while awarding deficit balooning tax-cuts to the wealthiest 2%.
- President Bush has refused to veto a single piece of legislation running historic deficit spending that borrows money from Seniors as well as future generations.
- President Bush opposes scientific research into the promise of stem cell technology in favor of political forces that defy science based on religious notions.
- President Bush continues providing Congressional Republicans briefings on issues separate from Democrats.
- President Bush and his campaign continue to portray those who asked important questions regarding our intelligence before the war as preferring Saddam Hussein as a dictator.
- President Bush has divided our alliances abroad by withdrawing from international treaties on the environment and trade agreements and has made global security a distinctly American problem by not mobilizing the world to take up their responsibilities in both funding and fighting the war on terror.
This list can go on and on, but one thing remains clear. America deserves a real uniter, not a divider. In contrast to the upcoming Republican National Convention, the diverse face of the Democratic party won't just be on stage in Boston. It's also among the thousands of faces in the crowd that represent our party and our nation across the country. It is the true face of a united America.
filed under:
July 27, 2004
I hope President Bush refuses to attend Michael Moore's movie premier in Crawford, TX this Wednesday. President Bush doesn't have time to attend events while on vacation, does he? He has to finish reading the 9-11 Commission Report and then act to protect our country.
Michigan Filmmaker Michael Moore is bringing his blockbuster documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to President Bush's adopted hometown -- and has invited the film's star to attend. -- "Michael Moore invites Bush to hometown screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11'" - July 27, 2004, 7:16 AM - Detroit Free Press
filed under:
July 26, 2004
Here is yet another glimpse into a divisive reshaping of the judicial branch of government by conservative forces in America. As the President places judges, Republicans in Congress pass laws to strip the courts of their power. What will President Bush's nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court look like? The record speaks for itself.
Pryor Casts Key Vote in Gay Adoption Case
6-6 vote blocks Florida gay rights suit from being reheard by 11th Circuit
by Jonathan Ringel
Fulton County Daily Report
07-23-2004{excerpt}
Since Pryor joined the bench in February, his decisions have reflected the largely uncontroversial, everyday work of federal courts.
But now Pryor has made an impact in the type of case that concerned his opponents. On Wednesday, he provided a key vote against three homosexual couples challenging Florida's law banning adoption by gays and lesbians.
filed under:
July 23, 2004
filed under:
July 22, 2004
The nation's largest lgbt civil rights organization, Human Rights Campaign (HRC), has announced they have disinvited Margaret Cho at an lgbt convention gathering.
Cho's representatives expressed disappointment to the NY Daily News today saying HRC is giving in to a political atmosphere of fear following Whoopie Goldberg's poltical comments at a Democratic fundraiser.
UNITY 2004 is described as an event hosted by 10 lgbt groups to "celebrate GLBT strength and unity" around the Democratic National Convention. The event is scheduled for July 26, 2004 at the Avalon.
"We want this event to be about the unity of the gay community," said group spokesman Mark Shields. "Margaret's people made very clear that they had material that was not in that vein and we didn't want to censor her, so we just made other plans."
In response to Cho being disinvited, NGLTF, a co-sponsor of Unity 2004, has withdrawn their co-sponsorship. "We are dismayed that Margaret Cho has been disinvited to perform at the LGBT Unity 2004 event scheduled for Monday, July 26 in Boston," said Executive Director of NGLTF, Matt Foreman.
Margaret Cho used the opportunity to launch a "STATE OF EMERGENCY" tour, promoting her latest CD, through the swing states this fall delivering what Cho describes as a "raw interpretation of what's happening daily in our ever-evolving or devolving state of the union."
John Marble, spokesperson for UNITY 2004 coalition member National Stonewall Democrats (NSD), told 365gay.com that Cho is donating to NSD half of the sales of her DVD sold through NSD's website. Marble says NSD will also register voters on campuses across the country in concert with Cho's tour.
filed under:
July 21, 2004
The following was reported yesterday by FOXnews.com. The only problem is that Berger and his lawyer never said these things. That didn't stop Republican Senators from cackling the hook, line and sinker all day on the Senate floor. It also didn't stop a laundry list of conservatives from parroting the nonsense ad nausea. Linda Chavez is just one example from today's list of conservatives that clearly rejects President Bush's disdain for "unnamed sources."
We report. You decide if we're telling the truth. Fair and Balanced!
Sandy Berger Probed Over Terror Memos
FOXnews.com
Tuesday, July 20, 2004Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
filed under:
July 20, 2004
If you were searching for a "Kerry is bin Laden's Man - Bush is Mine" bumper sticker for your car, the Jefferson County Republican Party of Kentucky wants you to know they are all gone.
GOP headquarters removes anti-Kerry bumper sticker
By Chris Poynter
The Courier-Journal
July 20, 2004
filed under:
July 19, 2004
Michael Moore bashers were on the loose in Las Vegas defacing property at the Aladdin as Linda Ronstadt sang "Desperado" by the Eagles in dedication to Michael Moore.
Hundreds of angry fans streamed from the theater as Ronstadt sang. Some of them reportedly defaced posters of her in the lobby, writing comments and tossing drinks on her pictures.
Aladdin expels Ronstadt after political remarks
By Jerry Fink
LAS VEGAS SUN
July 19, 2004
filed under:
July 17, 2004
"There's an atmosphere of fear in America right now that is deadly. Everyone is too career-conscious." So says Sir Elton John performing in New York.
While his comments are somewhat valid regarding the political atmosphere in America, Sir Elton John seems to be the epitome of the career-conscious artist fearful of expressing himself.
"As of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts - or anti-war songs that catch on, for that matter," Elton added in an interview published on BBC News.
Why, these are great ideas, Sir Elton John. What do you have in mind?
Is Sir Elton brave enough to perform before controversial political video montages like Madonna (or is it Esther?) and Ozzy Ozbourne are currently doing? Apparently not. Is he brave enough to speak his mind on stage like the Dixie Chicks and Whoopie Goldberg? Again, no. Is his money on Michael Moore's $100,000,000 box office grabbing political propaganda flick or publicly helping to fund a candidate in the race for the White House? Maybe Sir Elton should ditch the rose-colored glasses and step up to the plate.
If selling tickets is any indication of Sir Elton's commitment to speaking his mind, I suppose being "career-conscious" has a new champion in America. Compared to these artists, Sir Elton John is intellectually M.I.A. and yet another whiner on the sidelines with a weak excuse for not artistically expressing the truth he wishes to see in the world.
Talk about the “career-conscious.” We all know Sir Elton’s biggest fear isn’t a knock on his door by the F.B.I. for speaking his mind in America. That’s more likely to happen in the United Kingdom under silly speech codes. No, Sir Elton’s bottom line is far more selfish: ticket sales.
Sir Elton John can do us all a favor and can the silly charges of "censorship" in America until he has the balls to speak his mind on stage and face the consequences these artists have accepted.
filed under:
July 14, 2004
In the second day of Senate debates over a proposed amendment to the Constitution denying equal marriage rights, Republicans continue desperate arguments in favor of discrimination. While issues of tangible national security demand leadership, Republicans instead today argued that the ultimate homeland security issue is none other than denying gays equal marriage rights.
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) took the floor, yet again, presenting the audacious state of Republican priorities in a time of war. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage," Sen. Santorum asked.
Apparently so.
Despite warnings from the Bush Administration that our nation's homeland faces a serious threat in the coming weeks, despite reports that our intelligence services need desperate attention, and despite the lack of a clear vision for how our nation is to respond to these serious national security issues, Republicans continue today as though the greatest threat to America are loving couples.
Arguments by Republicans continue to invoke the same defense of marriage used against the supposed moral threat of mixed-race marriages and the right of "judicial activists" to impose such relationships on society. Still others ignorantly claim to defend a "5,000 year old institution." Yet, Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT), who cites this argument consistently, apparently doesn't read the Bible enough to know that it was relatively recent law that protected Americans from rampant polygamy of Biblical proportions.
But what do conservatives care about the substance of their arguments? These arguments are as irrational and hollow at their core as they were decades ago.
Radical conservatives continue to disgrace the Republican party and our nation with fallacious arguments echoing the regrettable banter of history's segregationists and anti-miscegenists.
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
July 13, 2004
Yesterday's attempt by Senate Republicans to ignite a public debate over whether America should welcome their discriminatory efforts to alter the U.S. Constitution is in "disarray." Republicans had to filibuster their own proposed amendment when it appeared 12 Republicans would bolt. Now they are scrambling to avoid their own scheduled vote.
Bigotry just ain't as easy as it used to be, thanks to people standing up for higher principles. Ironically, the core argument being made by a vocal minority of Republicans in the debate over equal marriage rights is that the right of states to decide this issue is being swept away by "judicial activists." Republicans conveniently ignore "judicial activists" also forced states to live up to our nation's higher laws by integrating public schools (Brown v. Board of Education) and allowing blacks and whites to marry (Loving v. Virginia).
We don't hear these radical conservatives today daring to deride those "judicial activists" in the exact same manner they do today. I wonder why? After all, the same concerns for the welfare of America's children were raised then, as well as concerns for the moral fabric of society. It almost sounds silly looking back through the discerning lense of history.
The arguments of conservatives over amending the United States Constitution to ban equal marriage rights are equally bankrupt of morality and reason, and history will forever remember those who stood for scurrilous attacks on American principles of fairness.
GOP senators in disarray over gay marriage
San Francisco Chronicle
GOP split on marriage proposals
By Amy Fagan
WASHINGTON TIMES
Senate Republicans Split on Wording Gay-Marriage Ban
By CARL HULSE
New York Times
Senators balk on gay-marriage amendment
By JOSHUA L. WEINSTEIN
Portland Press Herald
Few attend gay marriage debate
By Susan Milligan
Boston Globe
GOP May Revise Marriage Amendment
By Helen Dewar and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post
U.S. Senate to vote on federal marriage amendment Wednesday
The Leader-Chicago
filed under:
July 12, 2004
Despite widespread reports today that Lynne Cheney disagrees with her husband on "gay marriage," a more discerning look at her comments this weekend shows Lynne agrees with her husband.
In the full transcript of her comments on CNN's Late Edition July 11, 2004, Cheney indeed specifically states that her husband's position in 2000 "was very good" and "that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose."
Since those comments, however, the Cheneys and other conservatives argue "judicial activists" have changed everything, and that a new solution is required to protect states rights from these "judicial activists."
Lynne Cheney clearly asserts what lazy mainstream journalists left out of today's story, that the "ability of the states to do that has been called into some question by the actions of the court in Massachusetts."
So, what does she and other conservatives now believe will preserve the right of states to decide on equal marriage rights? Cheney never says, and then refuses to say when CNN's Wolf Blitzer openly asks if he's missing something.
Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice, shares Cheney's desire for states to decide and wasn't at all shy in answering this question for Lynne Cheney. This morning, in a debate on CSPAN's Washington Journal with Cheryl Jacques, Executive Director, Human Rights Campaign, Sekulow argued that the only way to preserve the right of states to decide on this issue was to protect that right from "judicial activists" with nothing other than a constitutional amendment.
Were you missing something in your discussion with Lynne Cheney, Wolfe? Try the answer to your question. Leave it to lazy American journalists, though, to make it up for you.
Late Edition, July 11, 2004 - TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
CHENEY: Well, I thought that the formulation he used in 2000 was very good. And first of all, to be clear that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose. And, secondly, to recognize what's historically been the situation, that when it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states.Of course, what's happened is we're in a situation now where the ability of the states to do that has been called into some question by the actions of the court in Massachusetts.
BLITZER: So you heard Olympia Snowe and Dianne Feinstein say it is a bad idea, even though they both said it's not a good idea to have same-sex marriage, to codify it into law, it's a bad idea to have a constitutional amendment, that's the nuance right there. That's the difference between the Kerry-Edwards position and the Bush-Cheney position.
CHENEY: I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact.
BLITZER: Well, and maybe I'm missing something.
CHENEY: No, I've answered the question twice, Wolf.
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
July 11, 2004
President Bush recently spoke out against American principles of fairness and equality in a cynical and pesimistic radio address that attacked equal marriage rights, the judicial branch and the United States Constitution. Click here to listen.
In the radio address, President Bush presented to the next generation of Americans that if they accept equal marriage rights, they will send a signal "that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about the institution."
If the ages of moral teachings have anything to teach us, it's that politicans that defend policies of discrimination and divisiveness with faith find their rightful place in history's dust bin.
Bush Presses Case Against Gay Marriage
By PETE YOST
AP via Post Gazette
July 10, 2004
filed under:
July 09, 2004
Rather than take up legislative issues that protect our country, balance our budget and insure the uninsured, Senate Republicans are beginning debate today on a discriminatory amendment to the United States Constitution.
When it comes to reflecting the values Bush/Cheney fraudulently sold to the American people in 2000, the Republican controlled Congress has the exact opposite in mind. Rather than uniting the American people, changing the tone in Washington, demonstrating fiscal responsibility, and handling the causes for committing American troops to war with the highest level of scrutiny, Republicans are demonstrating their true vision of America is divisive and views America's higher founding principles as the enemy to their radical partisan agenda.
Today, the debate over equal marriage rights begins in Congress, but supporters of the proposed Constitutional amendment have openly stated they don't have the votes and aren't hearing from their districts at all over the issue. Despite the will of the people, their divisive agenda moves forward.
It is time for America to speak now, or forever hold their peace on the issue of equal marriage rights.
Spend this cost of a postage stamp and make the long distance call right now to your representatives in Congress. Tell them who you are, where you live and that you oppose an amendment to the United States Constitution denying equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian Americans. Then tell them you don't appreciate them wasting your time with such nonesense when we are at war, have a budget to balance and can use real leadership in Washington.
To quickly figure out who your representatives are and their phone numbers using your zipcode, visit: http://capwiz.com/hrc/dbq/officials/
Congress to Take Up Proposals to Ban Gay Marriage
By Charles Babington and Helen Dewar
Washington Post
July 9, 2004
Senate Braces Itself for Fight on Gay Marriage
By CARL HULSE and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
New York Times
July 9, 2004
filed under:
July 06, 2004
The Baptist World Alliance feels "slandered." The Southern Baptists, the nation's largest protestant denomination, voted to leave the world body because they felt the Baptists World Alliance was "too liberal" on gay issues. The hatred of gays by Southern Baptists is a national disgrace to the Christian faith and is as tragically absurd as their history.
The Southern Baptists never fail to give us a reason to review their legacy of hatred:
- SBC formed in 1845 by splitting away from the Baptist denomination to continue justifying slavery as God's special plan for the nation's blacks.
- SBC opposed civil rights for blacks in the 1950s
- in 1995, SBC officially apologized for using misguided interpretations of God's word to justify bigotry toward blacks
- in 1996, SBC launched The Strategic Focus Initiative to covert hell-bound Jews
- in 1997, SBC launched a failed boycott of Disney protesting Disney's granting equal benefits to gay and lesbian employees
- in 2000, the SBC issued resolutions banning women from being pastors and encouraging women be submissive to their husbands. The move prompted SBC member and former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn to formally sever their ties with the SBC.
- in June 2003, the SBC announced plans to publicly oppose equal marriage rights and played a taped message of support from President George Bush stating, "You and I share many common values. We believe in fostering a culture of life and that marriage and family are sacred institutions."
- in June 2004, the SBC voted to leave the Baptist World Alliance citing 50 American Baptist congregations belong to the "pro-gay" Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists.
World Baptist group says it is not liberal
AP via Indy Star
July 3, 2004
filed under: "W" is For Wackos
July 02, 2004
In case you didn't know, it's National Hot Dog Month. I'm still waiting for the Post Office to issue a collection of stamps honoring America's appetite for weiners. Leave it to some silly queens in Chicago to use the month to claim they've got the world's largest weiner.
Chicago reclaims title of world's longest hot dog
By Megan Waitkoff
Chicago Daily Southtown
Friday, July 2, 2004
filed under:
July 01, 2004
One thing Bush and his religious base have in common is a contempt for the Constitution and the judges that uphold it. To the religious right, equality and fairness under the laws of a Democratic people threaten their belief they are better and more deserving. They have had it with judges placing them on equal footing before the law when, before their God, they are far more deserving. Their political goals, if they win, is to see things "on earth, as it is in Heavan."
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."Churchgoers Get Direction From Bush Campaign
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 1, 2004
filed under:
July 01, 2004
Hundreds of Virginians rallied across the state against a law written by 13th District Delegate Robert G. Marshall that voids any "arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage." The law also voids any "partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction" as well as "any contractual rights created" between same sex partners.
For more information, visit Stand Up For Equality
Gays rally in Roanoke to decry new law and determine how it can be challenged
By Laurence Hammack
Roanoke Times
July 1, 2004
Norfolk rally protests law restricting gay partnerships
By DEBBIE MESSINA
Virginian-Pilot
July 1, 2004
Activists Protest Anti-Gay Marriage Law
By JUSTIN BERGMAN
AP via Baltimore Sun
July 1, 2004
Gay-rights backers rally in city
By Kate Andrews
Daily Progress
July 1, 2004
New state law called a motivator for gay community
BY LAUREN WILLIAMS
Daily Press
July 1, 2004
filed under:
