02/17/2006
Discrepancies surrounding Cheney case remain. Scientific ballistics test alleges Cheney was much closer to Whittington than he admitted. Also, the only publicly available report on the shooting is "wrong, by all accounts," according to Newsday: "It shows Whittington hit on the left side of his face, neck and chest when Cheney, the Kennedy County Sheriff's office and the report itself say the wounds were on the right side."
After figure skater Johnny Weir dropped from contention yesterday, a news reporter asked him about a Tribune poll which had been taken in response to Rudy Galindo's calls to hound Weir about his sexuality. Weir's response: "I think it's funny that people care. I don't have a problem [with] people saying anything. People could be saying, 'Let's poll about Bode Miller, let's poll Michelle Kwan being a lesbian [or not].' Something like that. And it's not a big deal. Who I sleep with doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice or what I'm doing in a press conference." As far as the poll results went, approximately 93% of respondents said they didn't care about Weir's sexual orientation.
New York State court rejects argument that the state's marriage laws are unconstitutional. Case heads to Court of Appeals
Posted 10:46 AM EST by Andy in Elsewhere | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
I blame Johnny Weir.
Posted by: Blue | Feb 17, 2006 11:33:02 AM
Was Rudy Galindo out during his performance at the Olympics? If not, he needs to drink a huge glass of STFU.
Posted by: Tread | Feb 17, 2006 11:45:06 AM
WOW!
Weir handled himself aMAzingly well.
Screw you Galindo!
Screw you Media!
I'm FINE as I am.
Think what you like,
I don't give a damn!
WAY KOOL.
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 17, 2006 11:45:14 AM
It'd be a lot cooler if he wasn't ashamed to just say "yeah, I'm gay, no big deal. Next question!"
Posted by: Ken | Feb 17, 2006 12:03:08 PM
Ken,
It's nobody's business and has nothing to do with his skating.
Oh yeah! You're the guy I cdn't get to respond about the "black girls" comment.
I Remember YOU!
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 17, 2006 12:04:48 PM
Obviously at the head of his class at the "Anderson Cooper School of How Cowards Answers Question," majoring in "How To Be A Part of the Problem Not A Part of the Solution." Previous graduates: Ken Mehlman, Kevin Spacey, fill in the blank.
Next.
Posted by: Leland | Feb 17, 2006 12:07:32 PM
...would the same "couldn't care less" attitude regarding his sexuality be the same if he were a pro skiier or footballer? Wonder if, because he's a figure skater, it's "okay" for him to be gay...
Posted by: midnight lounge | Feb 17, 2006 12:10:33 PM
Agree with Leland. For all the coyness of the NBC profile before Weir's short program, were we to assume he had six toes or a third nipple or a vagina for that matter?
The "who I sleep with..." shit don't hunt anymore. It's tired and done. If Weir would have medaled, would he have answered differently? "I'll tell you I'm gay when I think I'm successful enough so you won't judge me." What pisses me off about Weir is if you're going to play the gay card, don't keep it face down (no pun intended.)
Posted by: Matthew | Feb 17, 2006 12:31:03 PM
You can't fault what he said. In a perfect world, it shouldn't matter with whom you sleep as long as the someone is of age. He could have pulled a Tom Cruise and thrown a hissy fit and called his lawyer.
Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Feb 17, 2006 12:32:19 PM
Ahhhh... So much for our new gay Mohammad Ali Poodle Princess for ushering in a new era of 'awareness and acceptance'. *chuckle*
Posted by: Blue | Feb 17, 2006 12:41:19 PM
I'm sorry, but I think he answered it perfectly. Why should he feel a need to say who he screws? If he wants to, fine, but if not what's the big deal? He's a skater, and unless you want to get into his pants (I want to by the way), who shares his sheets is of no importance.
peace
Posted by: James | Feb 17, 2006 12:45:04 PM
I have yet to hear ever why someone must come out and say they are or are not gay. People only need to be true to themselves. Is he passing laws against gay people no. Is he or Anderson preaching against gay people no, is he murdering gay people no, He is just a kid with some skating talent and talent for attracting the media's eye.
Do any of you remember when you first came out? Was it easy? Was it in the media's glare? Was it representing your nation at the worlds biggest event? He does not have to say he is gay unless he wants and all the nagging by PC queens does not make him any less of a person in mine or most other peoples minds.
It is his life, he should live it as he pleases.
Posted by: Donald | Feb 17, 2006 12:52:51 PM
Donald,
Testify brother! :-) If Weir came out said "I'm a big pig bottom," the political landscape in this country would not have changed.
peace
Posted by: James | Feb 17, 2006 1:01:28 PM
Do you think it would if he said he was a big pig top?
Posted by: Donald | Feb 17, 2006 1:03:36 PM
Holy Liberace! Mother, can George bring my candelabra?
Someone tell Weir, and the press he gives so much attention to, quit feeding that pink elephant!
Posted by: Matthew | Feb 17, 2006 1:05:17 PM
Donald, you make a good point. It would be great if he came out. It would be great if Anderson Cooper, Kevin Spacey, Ken Mehlman, and Hugh Jackman were to come out. (I know Hugh is straight, but I can dream, can't I?) If they were to come out, it would further the cause of GLBT rights. However, there is no law that says they must. You're right, coming out was traumatic enough without having millions of people watching you do it.
I apologize if none of that makes sense, but it's fucking cold here. My brain feels like an icee.
Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Feb 17, 2006 1:05:37 PM
The sad fact is that for gay private citizens it is still hard to come out, under the glare of millions? I came out in 1982 at the age of 22, in NYC, that was a hard thing to do, many in my family still give me shit over it. The truth is that Greg Louganis has never gotten the publicity his straight Olymipic counter parts have.
It is clear from the last election's gay bashing that we have a long road to go. Unless you are a polition or openly anti-gay, coming out is a private process. Though Weir is asking for some flack with all his coy fey crap.
Posted by: patrick | Feb 17, 2006 1:25:17 PM
He is who he is. Just let the god-damn kid alone fer chris-sakes.
Posted by: hadassah weinreb | Feb 17, 2006 2:22:48 PM
more on johnny on FAGULOUS.BLOGSPOT.COM
we heart him.
Posted by: m | Feb 17, 2006 2:24:49 PM
Why would anyone WANT this mincey, flouncey, femmey pansy to be part of their tribe? I WANT him to be straight.
Posted by: Larry | Feb 17, 2006 2:31:43 PM
I'm so sick of queens thinking everyone has the obligation to state their sexuality. It's not his obligation to be a spokesperson for the gay community, and that goes for Anderson as well.
If you guys think it's so important, then do something to get famous, and tell the world. Galindo is a freaky idiot.
Posted by: dattexas | Feb 17, 2006 2:37:04 PM
Larry,
There are "mincey, flouncey, femmey pans[ies]" in the tribe already. There are also butch boys looking to deflower the pansies you speak of. Both are in the tribe and it's all good.
peace
Posted by: James | Feb 17, 2006 2:39:35 PM
I don’t care. He is hot. You want the government to stay out of your personal life. Why don't you stay out of his life? The new kids don't care what people think. They grew up in an America that is far more accepting then most of you experienced in your youth. This is news most of you hate to hear. You want to believe the dark ages are upon us. America is good.
Posted by: Matthew Schooler | Feb 17, 2006 2:53:39 PM
Look at all the trouble Jake and Heath are going through, and they just acted like lovers in a film based on a novel. Every thing they say regarding BBM is endlessly analyzed and criticized. Why would anyone who is famous want to come out and be forced to act as a spokesman or figurehead? Many famous people have resisted this role, whatever constituency wanted them. And let's do some self analysis: how are all of us representing the "gay" community or "gay" people. Are we doing noble or remarkable deeds? It's lame to ask someone to fulfill a civil rights role if you're not willing to take some action yourself.
Posted by: busytimmy | Feb 17, 2006 3:11:12 PM
"Transportation problems, that's just an excuse," Weir said. "I just skated bad."
What a man. No excuses. He skated poorly and he owned it. I think he shows a lot of maturity for someone so young.
Posted by: Sam | Feb 17, 2006 3:49:40 PM
M S; I am getting scared again on the same side. But I think I saw a hint there that all is good because of the conservative agenda. Or maybe I am just looking for a subtext in your posting.
Posted by: Donald | Feb 17, 2006 3:50:32 PM
I think Johnny's response is consistent with LOTS of guys his age. The only thing he's doing that could be considered a political act is being a fully integrated human being. Of course he's gay. Would hearing him talk about it change how he skates? No. The difference between Johnny Weir and some other people in the public eye who haven't come out yet is that Johnny isn't working to portray a public image that is inconsistent with his authentic self. He's a big ol' princess, and comes across that way 100% of the time... unlike other men who are "butch in the streets, bitch in the sheets".
Johnny doesn't need to justify himself to anyone. His actions and demeanor speak volumes to anyone who will stop to listen.
Posted by: Brian | Feb 17, 2006 3:57:38 PM
Donald,
No I do not think the world would have changed if he came out as big pig top either! :-)
peace
Posted by: James | Feb 17, 2006 4:42:53 PM
Donald,
No subtext in the message. Not today. I am in 'a can't we all just get along' mood.
Posted by: Matthew Schooler | Feb 17, 2006 5:09:05 PM
Andy, what's your point? So Cheney might have been 10 feet closer and the sheriff was an idiot who doesn't know his left from his right. What are you and the wingnuts getting at?
I've been involved in a hunting accident. I don't recall if we were 20 or thirty feet apart, but I could give you a rough estimate. Ballistic tests might prove me wrong, but that doesn't indicate a conspiracy.
Jeez..it just must be positively painful sometimes to obsess about things like this, but thank God, once you guys establish the exact range and direction Mr. Whittington was struck at you'll be able to figure out why you guys keep losing elections and why we invaded Iraq.
Posted by: Mitch | Feb 17, 2006 5:37:21 PM
"The new kids don't care what people think. They grew up in an America that is far more accepting then most of you experienced in your youth." Yeah, forget about that 18 yr. old with the knife, hatchet, and gun who terrorized that gay bar in Bedford, Mass. He just got pissed off when he found out there weren't any flouncy figure skaters in the bar to give him points on his flying camel [the White Citizens Nationals were apparently coming up]. Unfortunately, they were all next door at the Ambiguously Gay Lounge, comparing fashion tips with owner Gloria Vanderbilt.
Posted by: Leland | Feb 17, 2006 5:43:46 PM
"..but thank God, once you guys establish the exact range and direction Mr. Whittington was struck at you'll be able to figure out why you guys keep losing elections and why we invaded Iraq."
ouch! that must have stung like a face full of bird shot.
Posted by: Tom | Feb 17, 2006 5:47:35 PM
Leland, did you forget to take your medication today? I think that guy could have walked into any number of places. Fortunately we don't have places like Jew bars or Black bars anymore. Maybe one day we won’t have the need to have gay bars. Oh wait then you won’t be able to get your dates drunk and then how will you get laid? I guess you will have to just go and fuck yourself.
I was in such a good mood.
Posted by: Matthew Schooler | Feb 17, 2006 6:21:33 PM
Oh, I've tried, but I realized the only way I could ever fuck myself is to become a gay Republican.
Posted by: Leland | Feb 17, 2006 6:55:03 PM
LMFAO at Leland's response. Priceless Leland, just priceless. Thanks for the laugh!
Posted by: Tom C | Feb 17, 2006 7:53:53 PM
Leland, you're already fucked.
As for Rudy and Johnny, I want to see them duke it out in a Jello wrestling contest.
Can you picture these two flamers in a tub of lime Jello? I'm beginning to sweat just thinking about it. All that writhing and jiggling.... and they should have those olympic rings on their speedos. That would make the bastards at the USOC cry.
Gay Games indeed.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 17, 2006 8:24:43 PM
"Wingnuts" would be the diehard ideologue sheep that side with Bush and Dick every chance they get. They are not people who ask questions about why some people are above the law or think they are above the law, even if that someone is the vice president, who may have been experiencing an alcohol-medication interaction at the time of the shooting which wasn't dealt with for how many hours? Just saying.
Posted by: sean | Feb 17, 2006 9:43:53 PM
The bitch about this blog is, I'm hearing all of y'all. Larry, Blue, Midnight, James - contrary, yet right. But my gut goes with Larry.
Re trigger-happy Cheney: only this admin could take a stupid, embarrassing, pathetic screw-up and, in no time at all, festoon it with so many futile, blatantly self-defeating attempts at lessening the imbecility of it. I have despised the Bush House for its evil. But I continue to revile it far, far more for its terrifying idiocy.
Posted by: Jacko | Feb 18, 2006 6:23:17 AM
Hear you, feel you, Jacko, and yet the America people still give them a pass. Bush/Cheney cronies are about to spend another $6 million to keep the 10,000 plus, fully-furnished but unused "Hurricane Katrina Trailers"—that they spent over $400 million on—from sinking any further into the Arkansas mud. Nota bene: NOT Louisiana mud, whose displaced residents they were bought for MONTHS ago, but states and "states of stupidity" away. WHAT did they put into the drinking water that allows them to stay in power after so many screw ups, e.g., the entire, ignominious botch of their Katrina response, "Ooooh Wee! Look at all those poor 'darkies' down there floating away. Pilot, when do we get to San Diego?"; over-priced Medicare prescription drug plans while legally forbidding people from purchasing medicine they need cheaper anywhere else; the flu vaccine fiasco; a Pentagon bureaucracy that, in just one of their countless idiocies, recently refused to discharge a wounded American soldier in Iraq until HE paid to replace the body armor damaged when he was blown up. He had to borrow money from his fellow soldiers. But they're the lucky ones, unlike the 2000+ Americans who've been killed in the invasion which is nothing more than an attempt at a sleight of hand trick to keep people distracted from the fact that they are totally incapable of capturing or killing the real terrorists out to destroy us HERE—not those simply trying to drive us out of their own country. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum. And, oh yeah, the fags are destroying marriage and the family.....
Posted by: Leland | Feb 18, 2006 2:13:34 PM
Leland,
"WHAT did they put into the drinking water that allows them to stay in power after so many screw ups?..."
George Bush refers to his base as the "haves" and the "have-mores". The answer is always money.
They all have a price.
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 18, 2006 2:43:43 PM
I don't see why Weir is even in the spotlight. More CHAD H!
As for Greg L. not getting the attendtion of his str8 olympic counterparts, I disagree. I may be too young, but I would have no idea who Greg was if it weren't for him having HIV and being gay! Do you remember any of the other divers out there?
Posted by: Britt | Feb 18, 2006 4:04:28 PM
BTW, if Cheney's friend had died from a heart attack, then Cheney would probably face some sort of charges and have to step down, leaving an opening for a new VP who will have a better chance of winning in 2008 than any of the other options they have right now.
BTW, why do people thing Condi will win if she runs as a republican? I honestly think that in the end, most republican angry white men (you know, the ones who put them in charge of the house in the 90s) will vote for her. In the end, she's a BLACK WOMAN, and i don't see a lot of republicans voting for her when it comes down to it!
Posted by: Britt | Feb 18, 2006 4:06:56 PM
Britt,
I'm no fan of Condi, but I can see white Republicans giving them their vote. Why do you think they are pushing for her to run?
peace
Posted by: James | Feb 18, 2006 5:06:31 PM
>>"WHAT did they put into the drinking water that allows them to stay in power after so many screw ups?..."
It seems that the mudslinging Liberals have polluted the water to the point that the Conservatives look clean by comparison. You don't hear the Republicans engaging in arguments with the Democrats, because they have learned it's counter-productive. They all toe the Party line, and avoid confrontation whenever they can.
The Democrat party lacks the cohesion to effectively put their point across. It doesn't help that their "platform" is too broad, and all encompassing. There's no way to get everyone to agree on anything, if they're constantly fighting about something.
The Republicans remain the majority party because they have the ability to focus their attention and resources on a narrowly defined goal. It's a lesson the Democrats have to learn if they want to regain power.
It's not the water, it's the Kool Aid.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 18, 2006 9:18:03 PM
Jay,
While I totally agree that the Democratic Party is a mess strategically and has been for some time [I've not gotten an e-mail from the Kerry camp for some time—I guess, thankfully, that he finally gave up on running again.], I wasn't talking about the Republican Party itself, whom I think far more fit the "Kool Aid" analogy as they line up like Jim Jones drones [except for those who were ordered to drink at gun point] behind one person/one ideology, while the Dems are all over the place, as you pointed out. I was talking about the average American voter who, who choosing not to read the fine print, believe Bush is saving them money despite the deficit, the cost of the war, and how much Repug fat cats are NOT paying in taxes.
Posted by: Leland | Feb 19, 2006 12:15:10 AM
Is money too "simple" an answer?
Republicans
*Advertising Scare tactics
*Campaign "giving"/"promises"
*Massive implementation of Volunteer incentives...
Are these not all financed by mmoney?
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 19, 2006 2:54:33 AM
Democrats have, and depend upon, just as much money as Republicans, Gilli. Campaign contributions and campaign promises are as much a part of politics as voting. As for scare tactics, they've been used by both parties, pretty equally.
If there's a division, it might be in the area of Volunteer incentives. Conservatives tend to think of using corporate, community, and religious resources to achieve the same goals that liberals want to achieve through government funding. There's an argument to be made in favor of both approaches, but volunteerism isn't the sole property of conservatives. Democrats like Jimmy Carter make extensive use of private funds to accomplish works of charity.
Leland, and many other liberals, think that tax reductions lead to larger deficits. It's an easy path to follow. Conservatives, like the ones that have advised the Republicans since the Reagan era, are convinced that lower taxes result in more disposable income for taxpayers, enabling consumers to spend more, and investors to invest more.
I don't think either theory is entirely sound. I think the past reduction of interest rates by the Fed will have some long-term, negative repercussions, and I'm glad to see them on the rise. I think tax increases will also have a negative impact, but they'll be felt in a more short-term way.
This is so much more involved than I intended, but let me say this; it's a complicated issue, and hating Bush doesn't solve the problem.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 19, 2006 5:08:59 AM
Jay, can I ask you a few questions? As someone who believes in impartiality as well, I do not understand how you can be pro-Bush as a gay male. With the statistical increase in gay hate crimes on the rise in direct correlation to Bush's moral agenda campaigning (rise in hate crimes in the days following the State of the Union Address, ex. two in Oregon and the one now semi-infamous in Mass), supporting Bush is the equivalent in hammering a nail in our civil liberties coffin. Wire tapping (which, incidentally, was extremely similar to Nixon I may remind you), campaign spending (Abramoff and Delay both are knee deep in this one), Browns and others testimony regarding the White Houses lack of quick action in Hurricane Katrina costing billions and hundreds in lives, a war which is 99.9% oil (do you REALLY think Bush is up at night worried about Habib Jarar Smith's family not being free in Iraq???), Medicare, taking away US rights to buy cheaper prescription drugs in Canada (cause you know, Canadians are so unhealthy with Witch Doctors brewing up vats of drugs in warehouses in Toronto) forcing big companies like Lilly and Merck to make billions off of the elderly who can't afford med's for staying alive, Republicans constant support for Big Business (hello, Cheney, Halliburton, war contracts, need I say more?), and let's just face it, I haven't seen such public idiocy since Kalo Kalen and the OJ Simpson trials. While I realize corruption on both sides is rampant, you would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to realize lately, it's tipping more on the Republican side. The DNC reported $15,699,473 to the RNC's $38,888,315 ($9,731,977 from individuals). Christ, even some members of the Republican party are against Bush:
Here are a dozen examples of what Republicans are saying about George W. Bush--and John Kerry--during the Nov. 2 elections:
"As son of a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry."
-- Ambassador John Eisenhower, endorsing Kerry in an opinion piece published in The Manchester Union Leader, September 28, 2004.
"The two 'Say No to Bush' signs in my yard say it all. The present Republican president has led us into an unjustified war -- based on misguided and blatantly false misrepresentations of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The terror seat was Afghanistan. Iraq had no connection to these acts of terror and was not a serious threat to the United States, as this president claimed, and there was no relation, it's now obvious, to any serious weaponry. Although Saddam Hussein is a frightful tyrant, he posed no threat to the United States when we entered the war. George W. Bush's arrogant actions to jump into Iraq when he had no plan how to get out have alienated the United States from our most trusted allies and weakened us immeasurably around the world... This imperialistic, stubborn adherence to wrongful policies and known untruths by the Cheney-Bush administration -- and that's the accurate order -- has simply become more than I can stand."
-- Former Minnesota Governor Elmer Andersen, a Republican, endorsing Kerry in an opinion piece published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, October 13, 2004. Andersen argued in the piece that, "I am more fearful for the state of this nation than I have ever been -- because this country is in the hands of an evil man: Dick Cheney. It is eminently clear that it is he who is running the country, not George W. Bush."
"I am not enamored with John Kerry, but I am frightened to death of George Bush. I fear a secret government. I abhor a government that refuses to supply the Congress with requested information. I am against a government that refuses to tell the country with whom the leaders of our country sat down and determined our energy policy, and to prove how much they want to keep the secret, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court."
-- Former US Senator Marlow Cook, Republican from Kentucky, endorsing Kerry in an opinion piece that appeared in The Louisville Courier-Journal, October 20, 2004.
"My Republican Party is the party of Theodore Roosevelt, who fought to preserve our natural resources and environment. This president has pursued policies that will cause irreparable damage to our environmental laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the public lands we share with future generations."
-- Former US Representative Pete McCloskey, R-California, from an article in the Palo Alto Weekly, September 8, 2004. McCloskey, who is active with Republicans for Kerry, says of members of the Bush administration, "These people believe God has told them what to do. They've high jacked the Republican Party we once knew."
"The war is just a misbegotten thing that's spiraling down. It's a matter of conscience for me. After 9/11, the whole world was behind us. That's all gone now. That's been squandered. Now we've made the entire Muslim world hate us. And for what? For what?"
-- Former US Senator Bob Smith, Republican from New Hampshire, from an endorsement letter sent to John Kerry, October 28, 2004.
"Nixon was a prince compared to these guys."
-- Former Michigan Governor William Milliken, from a statement published in the Traverse City Record Eagle, October 17, 2004.
"As an environmentalist who served as chairman of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I know that this administration has turned environmental policy over to lobbyists for the oil, gas and mining interests. On the other hand, I know first-hand of your commitment to a more balanced approach to environmental policy -- one where we can have both jobs and profit for industry as well as clean air and water. There is no stronger evidence of this than your outstanding leadership and support in the restoration of the Florida Everglades. John, for each of these reasons I believe President Bush has failed our country and my party. Accordingly, I want you to know that when I go into the booth next Tuesday I am going to cast my vote for you."
Need I go on? Look, my point being, I have seen you attack people on this site constantly for their opinions about Bush, the RNC, Democrats, etc. and it's unfair. People have their opinions. Unfortunately I fear you may be so enraged by their comments you become defensive and fail to see the big picture. Politicians are corrupt, especially in this country, more so than ever. However, I have never seen as much blatant corruption as I have with this current administration. Bush's public opinion is at an all time low of 34% and I hope this is in direct relation to people finally opening their eyes and minds to what is really happening. The middle class is quickly diminishing, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are benefiting from lowering capital gains and tax benefits. I will not bore anyone any further with my point, but I sincerely hope, at least for the gay community, in re-thinking your support for such a dictator, hypocrite and inept man as Bush and his cabinet. My God, how could a nation who had worldwide sympathy and understanding from 9/11 become so widely hated in such a short time? It's mind-boggling. I was born in the states, raised in London, lived in NYC, Barcelona, Madrid, Vienna, traveled to Australia, Japan, China, South Africa, South America. My point is I have many friends from many different cultures, I take a more global view and I live outside the US bubble. It's a different world and it's time we, as American's, begin to realize our impact on it before it's too late...
Posted by: Tom | Feb 19, 2006 4:35:41 PM
Ooo, but wait a minute, is that pic of "Boo Radley" you? You're a cutie. Ok, I take it all back LOL... but you know it wasn't meant as a personal attack, just an impersonal point of view...
Posted by: Tom | Feb 19, 2006 4:44:58 PM
>>Need I go on?
No Tom, you've proved my point really well.
It really is counter-productive to dissect the past failures of this administration, or past injustices, as you perceive them. My entire point was that Democrats in particular have to drop the hate and focus on the future.
What do you have to offer? Who will lead us into the future? What can be done to make this world a better place? How are you going to unify a party as diverse as the Democrats?
Forget the Bush administration. It's almost over. Focus on the past, and you'll have another Republican President in office, and another Republican Congress. That doesn't bother me, because I really don't think it matters.
I'm a cynic. If you care, don't be cynical, and don't dwell on what's wrong. Focus on the future and do something to change it.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 19, 2006 7:09:15 PM
>>I have seen you attack people on this site constantly for their opinions about Bush,
BTW Tom, I will continue to attack anyone who assaults the President of the United States with hate speech. I like politeness and respect, especially where our national leadership is concerned. If we demean the office of President, we loose respect in the eyes of the world. When the President looks weak, we look weak, and people (terrorists) feel it's safe to attack us, and safe to attack our soldiers and kidnap our overseas workers.
There are too many ways to make a statement about what is going on in the world, without trying to make our country look stupid. You make our country look stupid every time you tell the world that we are following an idiot.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 19, 2006 7:22:30 PM
Jay,
But doesn't the world also learn something positive about American democracy when the president can be called an idiot by an average citizen. That right is not held by many in the world.
peace
Posted by: James | Feb 19, 2006 11:26:36 PM
There was actually, for once, a smidgen of sanity in what you're saying, Jay, until you put on your frilly Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm panties with the duckies and horseys and tweaked, "I like politeness and respect." So do I—toward those who offer it to me, and all Bush has offered is repeated, public demonization and exploitation of us. I kinda take that personally. It's one thing to turn the other cheek and another to defend the person who slaps you. And, surely you are not as provencially ignorant about the world as you sound. Press reports and studies clearly document that most beyond our borders distinguish between a PARTICULAR, temporary occupant of the office of President and the Presidency, and, by implication, the country, itself. The majority of those who dislike Bush continue to look up to America even as they scratch their heads about how the majority [at least in 2004] elected him. At the same time, the number who dislike, even hate America itself, has radically increased BECAUSE of him.
I have no reason to pretend I didn't hate Bush from the moment I heard his first campaign speech. He oozed willful, arrogant ignorance and the solipsism that has become the core philosophy of the modern Republican. His record as TX governor, and the campaign that got him there, gave evidence to my opinion. And his years soiling the White House that you [and I, thank you] revere so much have consistently demonstrated his living up to his lack of potential. HE demeans the office of the President more than all of his critics combined.
Whistle a happy tune through the new graveyards that Bush has created if you want, but your pathological defense of this homophobic hack is hollow factually and logically. YOU may believe you are primarily defending Bush for the office he holds, but, respectfully, I do not. Can you honestly say you equally defended Clinton? Put your palm close to your mouth and breathe out. That's the stink of Bush Berry Kool Aid you smell.
Posted by: Leland | Feb 19, 2006 11:37:04 PM
Tom,
Maybe it's just the way that Jay writes, but he sounds more "independent" to me than anything else. Maybe his writing has become more diplomatic over time... I do see that if we/you aren't part of the solution, we're part of the problem.
Democrats know by now that it wasn't enough to be anyone-but-Bush. I mean, for all the attention given Michael Moore, look how much good it did at election time.
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 19, 2006 11:41:39 PM
>>Democrats know by now that it wasn't enough to be anyone-but-Bush.
You'd think so sweetie, but you just can't change the way some people think.
Let's move on to the next topic. I'm done here. Y'all can go on without me.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 20, 2006 12:27:13 AM
Gilli,
I commend Michael Moore for speaking out at a time when most thought it "unfashionable". While I might find some of his points extreme, you have to admit "Bowling For Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" made some very honest and truthful points. In regards to your comment on the 2004 election, here are some facts:
"When voters were asked which of several issues mattered most in deciding their vote, roughly equal numbers picked the Bush campaign’s main issues of moral values (22 percent) and terrorism (19 percent), as picked the Kerry campaign’s main issues of economy/jobs (20 percent) and Iraq (15 percent)."
Bush's team for the '04 election knew that it would be a very close race. They knew the left vote would go mostly to Kerry with the possibility of the republican vote disseminating. In order to secure the right vote, Bush's team decided to campaign for the far conservative right, as they would have the most backing. I have a friend who works in DC and knows (as of '05) Bush's personal chef to be gay. Bush personally does not care about gay people, or Iraqi people. The people around him are smart; they did what they had to in order to secure the necessary votes. Fact. Take it for what you will.
My point: people were touched by Michael Moore's political statement. It did have an impact, without his and many others’ efforts many more votes would have been lost to ignorance. Unfortunately, many more people were touched by Bush's moral agenda, and those individuals voted in the swing states, tipping the scales just enough for him to win. It obviously split this country in half, and the effects will be felt for a long time. Someone who would rather divide their country in half during a time of war and crisis over moral agenda, bringing up issues of civil liberties and a women's right to chose, in a time when we should be banding together in order to win office doesn't sit well with me. A leader should UNIFY the people, not divide. This cabinet has done exactly that.
"If we demean the office of President, we loose respect in the eyes of the world. When the President looks weak, we look weak, and people (terrorists) feel it's safe to attack us, and safe to attack our soldiers and kidnap our overseas workers."
Jay,
As for demeaning the President, Bush has done that well before anyone spoke. It is backwards logic to support someone who is wrong just because we "should" or it makes us "look weak". This particular President has embarrassed us long enough, and he is the reason why we look weak, not the other way around. It is not just American's who are speaking against him but the majority of the free world (note: America is not the only free nation or the leader of the free world. See: U.K., Spain, Germany, Italy as examples). As an American I have the right to speak my mind, especially if it involves my opinions on the government. As for unconditional support for our leader, using your logic when Hitler was in office the people of Germany should have supported him fully for fear of making him "look weak" (See: Schindler, Anne Frank, etc. for various few who did not). If Bush began executing homosexuals as they do in Sudan, Iran, etc. would you still support him? Would your last dying breath be "I still support our Presidents decision in taking away my liberties and now my life"? This government has disappointed me, and many others. For that, I have the right in speaking out. =)
Posted by: Tom | Feb 20, 2006 12:28:46 AM
"You'd think so sweetie, but you just can't change the way some people think."
Sadly you can't can ya Jay...
Posted by: Jackie | Feb 20, 2006 12:32:47 AM
>
>What do you have to offer? Who will lead us into the future? >What can be done to make this world a better place? How are >you going to unify a party as diverse as the Democrats?>
>
One last thing, I have volunteered in soup kitchens in NYC, built homes in "Habitats for Humanity", was a counselor in an AIDS/HIV clinics, helped campaign with Louise Slaughter in DC, and am currently planning on doing work while I am in Italy this summer. Please, do not speak for me and question what I have done for people of the WORLD (which does exist outside this country). I have done more for humanities sake than a man with mad-cowboy disease from Texas. As for the future, hopefully Bush's mark of placing right-winged Republican bedfellows into the Supreme Court will not affect us as much as it sadly may. I am hopeful (knock on wood) that the pendulum will swing the other way, and hopefully to a happy medium. As I am an idealist (and yes I may be a cynic at times), it would be nice for a political atmosphere based less on parties and mudslinging and more on what people in office truly believe. Sadly, money, greed, big business and egos have dominated those positions. Things statistically have worsened. As for looking at the past, the first lesson taught in elementary school is to study HISTORY and the past, as THE PAST WILL REPEAT ITSELF. Let's all work to keeping just that from occurring....
Posted by: Tom | Feb 20, 2006 12:47:18 AM
Tom,
You have bn eloquently heart-felt, but remember, a house divided against itself...
Still, just out of curiosity, who do you see as a "good" candidate capable of uniting the country?
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 20, 2006 2:35:08 AM