Retaining Influence vs. Winning in November

In watching the morning news while getting my caffeine fix – which was much needed after the birthday celebration last night – Chris Matthews was being interviewed on what is going on within the Democratic Party in the primary races: Obama has broken out and is challenging the powers that be within the party that are aligned with Hillary Clinton. Matthews believes they (the lobby interests, other special interest groups, etc., players in the Democratic establishment) will be doing everything they can to stop the Obama so as to not lose their power and influence. I suspect that Matthews is correct and in my view, Hillary and these players in the establishment are being very short sighted. I continue to believe that Hillary will have a much more difficult time winning in November than Obama would, particularly since she will unite the warring factions within the GOP like no one else can on the Democrat side.

If various dirty tricks are employed against Obama, the party runs the risk of (1) alienating the black vote and (2) disillusioning younger voters who are tired of the same old “business as usually” with a result that many opt out of voting. If this happens to a significant degree, Hillary’s chances of winning in the general election are made even worse. Thus, these interest groups in effect would rather retain their enhanced power and influence within the party as opposed to winning in November, 2008. Is it better for the Democrat Party and the country to have the same tired groups retain power within the Party and have a Republican in the White House? I think not and find it very sad that some are putting themselves clearly ahead of the interest of the Party as a whole, not to mention the country. Personal greed is one of the biggest problem with politicians today. I sincerely hope that they do not prevail.

Happy Birthday Martin

I went out with several friends this evening to celebrate the birthday of my dear friend Martin, pictured at right in the ABOVE PHOTO. Since coming out, Martin and his partner, Christopher (pictured at left of the photo), have been some of my dearest and most supportive friends. They have literally become family to me and in some ways saved my life. We had a great time at Empire, a tapas bar/restaurant on Granby Street in Norfolk, and then stopped by to see the young, hot, beautiful (but sadly straight) b/f of our friend Mary Beth who was with us. It was a fun evening and I hope the coming year brings happiness and success to Marty!! I also hope Mary Beth's secret "no-hang over" cure works!!!

More Monday Male Beauty

US Intelligence Suggests Coverup in Bhutto Assassination - Suicide Bomber May Have Been Inserted to Eliminate Evidence

Rawstory is reporting (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_intelligence_suggests_coverup_in_Bhutto_0107.html) that the government of President Pervez Musharraf may have been involved in a cover of in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. My gut reaction has always been to have suspicions about the rush to blame the murder on Islamic fundamentalists in order to shore up the U.S. aid to Musharraf and also allow the Chimperator to run around using the terror bogeyman once again. It was all just a little bit too convenient. Meanwhile, al Qaeda is denying responsibility and the method of the assassination do not match Al Qaeda's usual format. Here are highlights from the coverage:

Mrs. Bhutto was shot when she stood up through the sunroof of her vehicle after a campaign rally for her Pakistan Peoples Party in Rawalpindi. Immediately after the shooting, a suicide bomber detonated an explosive, killing 25 people as well as himself.

The Musharraf government's initial reaction was to blame either al Qaeda or other terrorists closely linked to al Qaeda. However, contradictions in official statements, as well as the behavior of police – who hosed down the streets in Rawalpindi just an hour after Mrs. Bhutto was assassinated – quickly began to cast doubt on the official version of what happened, leaving serious questions surrounding Musharraf and the ISI and putting more pressure on the United States to pull back its support for Pakistani leadership.

According to a former high ranking US intelligence official, who wishes to remain anonymous due to the delicate nature of the information, the US intelligence community understands the gunman to have been killed in the blast following Mrs. Bhutto's assassination. "He was killed, probably not knowing that the suicide bomber was there," said this source. "We don't know for sure if the two men arrived together. We do know that the assassin died in the explosion, and was probably meant to." Several other US intelligence officials concur that the bomber was likely "inserted" to "clean up" evidence of the shooting, including eliminating the gunman.

The reports that an al Qaeda suicide bomber had killed Mrs. Bhutto disappeared as quickly as they had surfaced, when footage showing a gunman and an audio capture which clearly indicated several shots fired prior to the explosion began to circulate online and in news accounts. Indeed, the changing official position as to the cause of death indicates that someone was very interested in making it appear that Mrs. Bhutto had died in a suicide bombing, with initial medical reports out of Rawalpindi on Thursday claiming she had died as the result of the explosion.

Others interviewed for this article share Johnson's skepticism and believe that the Bush administration will likely look the other way should any connection between Musharraf and the assassination be discovered, because, they say, at this point, the US has “no workable solution” and cannot discontinue support for Musharraf, given the options. “We are being held hostage to Musharraf's whim,” said one former intelligence official.

When asked why the West was even bothering with an investigation that would surely neither help alleviate pressure for any of the parties nor ease diplomatic tension when there is already no viable political solution, one US intelligence official responded that “This investigation is not being done for [the United States]. We are not the audience. The Pakistani people are.”

Catholic Hospital Bars Transgendered Woman from Receiving Breast Surgery

The ever wonderful Roman Catholic Church which will do nothing to clean its own corrupt house of high clerics involved in the cover up of the sex abuse of minors sadly has sufficient time to set policies against its hospitals providing medical services to the transgendered. I wish Charlene Hastings luck in taking the hospital to court and challenging its discriminatory action. I also hope that in the process someone checks to determine whether or not the hospital has (1) received state or federal funds and/or (2) bond financing as a non-discriminatory non-profit. If the answer to either question is yes, then the hospital should be challenged on these fronts as well. Here are highlights from the San Jose Mercury (http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_7889303?nclick_check=1):

"God made you a man." That's what Charlene Hastings said she was told when she called to inquire about breast enlargement surgery at Seton Medical Center, a Catholic hospital in Daly City. Now the San Franciscan is suing the hospital, claiming officials there discriminated against her because she had a sex-change operation.

Hastings, 57, had already had the major surgery she needed to become a woman. She had chosen a San Francisco plastic surgeon with privileges at Seton to perform the breast augmentation in October 2006. But the surgeon, Dr. Leonard Gray, told her that Seton no longer allowed him to operate on transgender patients, Hastings said.

When Hastings called Seton to learn more, a surgical coordinator said the hospital would not allow its facilities to be used for transgender surgery, according to the lawsuit, "She was saying, 'It's not God's will,' " Hastings said. "I couldn't believe it. It's a blatant case of discrimination." "This certainly isn't an isolated incident," said Kristina Wertz, legal director of the Transgender Law Center in San Francisco. "Seton and other hospitals in the area have put up significant barriers to care" for transgender people, she said.

The surgical coordinator was following hospital policy in refusing Hastings' surgery, said Elizabeth Nikels, vice president of communications for Daughters of Charity. Wertz thinks Seton's policy violates the Unruh Act, a state law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity or sexual orientation. "There's simply no religious exemption in the Unruh Act," Wertz said. "We're talking about a type of care that's OK for one class but not another."

"This is a civil rights story," he said. "It is about transgender people being able to use businesses and other facilities on an equal basis as other people. If you took out 'transgender' in the lawsuit and replaced it with 'African-American,' this would be a no-brainer."

Monday Male Beauty

The GOP Conniption Fits Over Huckabee Continue

This interesting article from Power Line Online (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019467.php) lays out what many in the GOP see happening if Mike Huckabee were to win the GOP nomination. Frankly, it is precisely what I hope will happen because it is the only way the Party will ever save itself from the Christianist strangle hold of the Frankenstein Monster that Karl Rove, Bush and others created out of expediency of the moment as opposed to a long term view. The GOP may be on the verge of finally reaping what it has sowed for the last decade or so. Here are some highlights:

It’s been a long time in coming. For years the Republicans have depended on evangelical voters to assure them control of the White House and at least a fighting representation in both houses of Congress. Sooner or later their most reliable, most motivated constituency would want more than just verbal assurances of support or even votes on issues of importance—abortion, gays in the military, and so forth. Eventually evangelicals would want a president of their own.

With Mike Huckabee’s victory in Iowa, however, the Republican party is now entering what might be called its Jesse Jackson moment. If Huckabee goes on to win more primaries he will have a reasonable claim to the nomination. He may, of course, lose New Hampshire, New York, California and Michigan. But let’s suppose that he manages to win enough primaries in the southern and border states to make the results in those three states irrelevant. It’s all a question of numbers. In spite of itself, the party might end up with him as its nominee, and with it, heading down the shortest road to disaster since the Goldwater debacle of 1964.

Make no mistake about it: an electoral defeat of these dimensions would represent a major watershed in the history of the Republican party. It would be faced with only two possible roads forward. One is to become the party of the religious right, a sectarian agglomeration somewhat like the small ethnic parties in inter-war Europe, perhaps capable of holding some governorships and seats in Congress but never again competitive in a presidential election. The other would be to cut itself free from the religious right and seek to appeal to the wide and growing tranche of independent voters who are socially liberal but economically conservative. In that case the Republican party would gradually resemble some of the “liberal” (that is, conservative) parties who periodically win national elections in Western Europe or Canada. These parties are friendly to market-based solutions to economic problems—that is, they are broadly libertarian.

Think this is impossible? Think again. The business of politicians is first and foremost to get elected, not to preach sermons. A Huckabee nomination would not merely assure a Democratic presidential victory but gains in both houses and a Supreme Court packed with justices somewhat resembling Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But the news is worse than that: even a Huckabee victory in the race to the White House (as difficult as it may be to imagine at this point) would also toll the death kneel of the Republican party as we have known it.

Homophobe Wingnut Del. Bob Marshall to announce GOP run for U. S. Senate

There are few Virginia elected officials who are more obsessed with gays and driving us from Virginia that GOP Delegate Bob Marshall pictured at left (he has actual said he'd be happy if gays would pack up and leave the state). He's just about as hysterical as Robert Knight, Peter LaBarbera and the men at Concerned Women for America when it comes to the "Gay Agenda." Like Knight and LaBarbera his obsession is so crazed that I often suspect him of being a self-loathing closet case out to punish those of us who have the convictions and integrity to leave openly and honestly.

In any event, this (in my opinion) lunatic has announced he wants to run for the U. S. Senate seat being vacated by John Warner's retirement. Marshall actually makes Jim Gilmore look somewhat rational and reasonable. Seeing these two try to out fascist the other to secure the GOP nomination could provide some interesting entertainment. I doubt either one of them can prevail against former Governor Mark Warner who is unopposed for the Democratic nomination. Here is the Virginian Pilot's coverage (:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VA_MARSHALL_SENATE_VAOL-?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT):

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- Del. Robert G. Marshall, one of the House's most persistent abortion opponents, will announce his Republican candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Marshall, 63, of Prince William County, has scheduled a state Capitol news conference Monday afternoon.

His announcement makes him the second Republican in the race. Former Gov. Jim Gilmore is also running. The GOP nominee will be selected during the party's statewide convention in Richmond in June. Former Gov. Mark R. Warner is unopposed for the Democratic nomination to succeed retiring five-term U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, a Republican. The Warners are not related.

George Will - A Conventional Republican's View of Huckabee

OMG, George Will does NOT like Mike Huckabee. His latest column (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will010608.php3) goes far beyond tearing him apart in a polite fashion. (He also lays into John Edwards, but that is more to be expected). I think Will's unvarnished comments on Huckabee reflect what the old GOP establishment thinks of Mr. Huckabee. It is so much fun to watch the Republicans trashing each other, even if I do agree with Will's view of Huckabee. He also had some surprising comments about Obama. Here are some highlights:

Like Job after losing his camels and acquiring boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to "take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending conservatives who want to take back the nation for James Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call "fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda. Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.

Huckabee, a compound of Uriah Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon, preens about his humble background: "In my family, 'summer' was never a verb." Nixon, who maundered about his parents' privations and his wife's cloth coat, followed Lyndon Johnson, another miscast president whose festering resentments and status anxieties colored his conduct of office. Here we go again?

Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican "establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964, when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination. The establishment's voice, the New York Herald Tribune, expired in 1966. Huckabee says that "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." G-d so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee — an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

My Readers - 138th Country

I typically do not comment when a new country pops up for visits to this blog. In this case however, I figured I would make an exception since it seemed to merited comment. The latest country added: Vatican City.

Of course, the $64 dollar question is, was the blog being read for my comments on the Catholic Church - which, if my being gay wasn't enough, no doubt would merit excommunication if I had not already left the Church - OR the Male Beauty photos. What do you readers think? Since it popped up after midnight Rome time, I can only conjecture.