On August 31, 1997 Princess Diana, her companion Dodi Fayed, and their driver Henri Paul were killed in a high speed car accident in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris.
(H/T Crooks and Liars)During a Newsweek Women & Leadership Event in Los Angeles last March, Sarah Palin said this about Hillary Clinton:
I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton…but when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or you know maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think you know that doesn’t do us any good – women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country.
Watch it:
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin can help Sen. McCain win this election by appealing to independent and young voters. She's a mainstream Republican who will unite the Party and serve John McCain well as Vice President. Gov. Palin is an inclusive Republican who will help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters.
--Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon about Gov. Sarah Palin
Gov. Sarah Palin, a rising young GOP star mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain, could see her clean-hands reputation damaged by a growing furor over whether she tried to get her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.
A legislative panel has launched a $100,000 investigation to determine if Palin dismissed Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire the trooper, Mike Wooten. Wooten went through a messy divorce from Palin's sister.
Palin has denied the commissioner's dismissal had anything to do with her former brother-in-law. And she denied orchestrating the dozens of telephone calls made by her husband and members of her administration to Wooten's bosses.
It is against the law for the governor to officially advocate for or against a ballot measure; however, Palin took what she calls "personal privilege" to discuss one of this year's most contentious initiatives, which voters will decide Tuesday.
Along with taking a position on the big mine's side, Palin's administration apparently used state Department of Natural Resources resources to lobby for defeat of the Clean Water Initiative under the pretense of creating a state run website to "educate" citizens. The citizen group Alaskans for Clean Water responded by filing “a complaint against DNR for a recently-launched state website meant to clarify the issue for voters. “
The complaint alleges that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) improperly attempted to influence the outcome of an election by publishing information against the initiative on its website. It also alleges that DNR failed to report to APOC the expenditures, including employee time, related to creation of the information.
“It has become clear to us that the Department of Natural Resources is working hand-in-hand with the industry, and that the state is inappropriately making efforts to influence voters on this ballot initiative,” said Art Hackney, a co-sponsor of Ballot Measure #4.
She can look you in eye and tell you black is white.
Especially when there's oil involved.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will “run on the final version” of the Republican Party’s election platform, a draft of which the GOP’s 112-delegate platform committee is debating today and tomorrow. The staff-written draft contains a number of hard line conservative positions with which McCain supposedly disagrees: "The platform draft calls for constitutional bans on abortion and Gay marriage, two steps McCain does not support.”
Governor Janet Napolitano had said in an interview that she opposes amending the Arizona Constitution to ban Gay and Lesbian marriage and called a fall referendum on the issue unnecessary.
This year's most prestigious award, the Godat Award, will go to Noel Matkin, a lifelong servant to the LGBT movement. The Godat Award was created to recognize those who have made outstanding, long-term contributions to Southern Arizona's LGBT community. Receiving more than a modest number of nominations, Noel is hailed as an advocate, leader, mentor and dear friend.
The Community Ally Award recognizes a straight ally who has made a significant contribution to the advancement of freedom, equality, and safety and well being of LGBT people in Southern Arizona. Mary Ellen Beaurain will be honored for her dedication to LGBT seniors. Recognizing the tremendous need for support for the community's aging LGBT population, Mary Ellen rallied support from the Pima Council on Aging, organized a community-wide survey of LGBT elders, and worked nationally with Rainbow Trainers to implement what is now Wingspan's Senior Programs. "She is a true and loyal ally to our LGBT and elder community," said Frances Coleman. "[The program] might not exist were it not for Mary Ellen’s advocacy, support and hard work."
One of Wingspan's longer-serving front desk volunteers, Shirley Snow has been a beacon of reliability and dedication for nine years. "Anyone who is lucky enough to be greeted by Shirley on their first visit to Wingspan will not leave disappointed by their experience," said Michael Woodward, Wingspan’s Health and Wellness Programs Manager. Shirley is also a key member of the library committee, helping organize and manage Wingspan’s collection, which is now one of the largest LGBT libraries in the southwest.
Likewise, AngieRose Tilghman is a touchstone for Wingspan. She too has dedicated nine years of service to Wingspan, both at the front desk and as one of the most active Anti-Violence Programs volunteers. Additionally, she has served on a variety of panels, and started the Progressive People of Color Coalition, which she directed for a year.
According to the recent financial reports filed with the Arizona Secretary of State's office, major funding for the Yes on Proposition 102 campaign is being provided by Focus on the Family (FOF).
Help spread the word about McCain: E-mail this video to everyone you know and encourage them to send it on.
Pictured is Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer, a Republican and a person who doesn't not like LGBT Arizonans. In 2006, as Secretary of State, in charge of Arizona's elections, Brewer publicly announced her support for Proposition 107, the ballot measure that would have banned governmental and legal recognition of civil unions, domestic partnerships and marriage.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center reveals that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view.
As a result, conservatives' views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared.
There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are -- from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.
Second, while the Republican Party is most often seen as the party friendly toward religion, the Democratic Party has made gains in this area. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) now say the Democratic Party is generally friendly toward religion, up from just 26% two years ago. Nevertheless, considerably more people (52%) continue to view the GOP as friendly toward religion.
The poll by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds increasing numbers of Americans believing that religiously-defined ideological groups have too much control over the parties themselves. Nearly half (48%) say religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, up from 43% in August 2007. At the same time, more people say that liberals who are not religious have too much sway over the Democrats than did so last year (43% today vs. 37% then).
In addition to somewhat greater worries about the way religious and non-religious groups are influencing the parties, the survey suggests that frustration and disillusionment among social conservatives may be a part of the reason why a greater number now think that religious institutions should keep out of politics. However, there is little to suggest that social conservatives want religion to be a less important element in American politics.
The greatest increases since 2004 in the view that churches and other houses of worship should not express themselves on political matters have occurred among less educated Republicans and people who say that social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage will be important to their vote. For example, among people who rate gay marriage as a top voting issue, the percentage saying that churches should stay out of politics soared from 25% in 2004 to 50% currently; there was little change over this period on this question among people who do not view same-sex marriage as a very important issue.
Another indication that disillusionment may be in play in increased opposition to the mixing of religion and politics is seen in the fact that this sentiment has increased most among people who rate the major parties as unfriendly toward religion. The views of citizens who see the parties as neutral or friendly toward religion have been more stable on the question of whether churches and other houses of worship should speak out on political issues.
In short, the change of mind about the role of religious institutions in politics is most apparent among people who are most concerned about the very issues that churches and other houses of worship have focused on, and among those who fault the parties for their friendliness toward religion.
Changes in views about the role of churches in politics notwithstanding, many of the contours of American public opinion relating to broad questions of religion and politics remain largely unchanged. Two-thirds of the public (66%) say that churches and other houses of worship should not endorse one candidate over another, which is unchanged since 2004 (65%). And while most say it is important for presidents to have strong religious beliefs, they are divided about whether there currently is too much, or too little, in the way of expressions of faith by contemporary political leaders. Roughly comparable numbers say political leaders express their religious beliefs too much (29%), too little (36%) or the right amount (28%).
Despite their increased reluctance to see religious institutions speaking out on politics, conservatives and Republicans continue to express very strong support for a religious president and relatively high levels of support for expressions of religious faith and prayer by political leaders.
While some social conservatives are expressing changed views about religion and politics, there is little indication that they are changing their voting preferences: John McCain has about as large a lead over Barack Obama among conservatives and white evangelicals as George Bush did at this stage in the campaign four years ago.
However, as has been the case since June, the current survey shows much more tepid support for McCain among white evangelical Protestants and conservatives generally than Bush enjoyed in August 2004. Just 28% of white evangelical Protestants say they are strong backers of the Arizona senator. Four years ago, 57% of white evangelicals described themselves as strong backers of President Bush.
As was the case in previous presidential elections, the voting inclinations of Catholic voters -- especially white non-Hispanic Catholics -- remain fluid. Four years ago at this time John Kerry held a slight edge over Bush among white non-Hispanic Catholics; but he lost that lead by the election. In the current poll, this group, which accounts for 18% of the electorate, is divided almost evenly: 45% support McCain, while 44% favor Obama.
The survey was conducted by telephone -- both landline phones and cell phones -- from July 31-Aug. 10 among a national sample of 2,905 adults. It finds that as the Democratic Party's advantage in party identification has grown, there have been some notable changes in party affiliation within key religious groups. In 2008, about half of registered voters (51%) identify themselves as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, while just 38% identify as Republicans or Republican leaners. In 2004, Democrats held only a slight, three-point advantage in party affiliation (47% to 44%).
While white non-Hispanic Catholics are divided in their presidential choices, they are increasingly identifying as Democrats. In surveys conducted this year, 49% of white non-Hispanic Catholics either affiliate with or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 40% identify with the GOP. In 2004, 47% of white non-Hispanic Catholics identified with the GOP while 45% affiliated with the Democratic Party.
The survey finds that the economy continues to dominate the concerns of voters. Nearly nine-in-ten (87%) say the economy will be very important to their vote this fall, up from 78% in October 2004. Energy has surged among voters' concerns: 77% view energy as very important, compared with only 54% in the closing weeks of the last campaign.
For the most part, the issues that are important to the public as a whole are also important to particular religious groups. However, social issues, such as same-sex marriage, continue to be more important for white evangelicals than for other registered voters. Currently, 46% of white evangelicals say same-sex marriage will be a very important voting issue, compared with 28% of all voters. That is only somewhat less than the percentage of white evangelical voters who viewed same-sex marriage as very important in October 2004 (49%).
On his radio show August 19, right-wing talker Mike Gallagher responded to the California Supreme Court’s decision to bar “doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians.” Gallagher agreed with a caller who wondered if the ruling meant “pedophiles could adopt”:
DAVID: The question I had told your screener, I said, if I’m understanding, California said because of sexual orientation, they can’t deny you service, so, does that mean pedophiles could adopt?GALLAGHER: Well that’s just, that’s a great question. I mean, if you work in an adoption agency and a guy comes in saying, “I like little girls and I want to adopt a nine-year old girl and I’m going to probably sleep with her while I’m at it,” could the adoption agency person say, “well, excuse me, my religious beliefs find that, lead me to find that repugnant, I’m not going to do it.” Can he then turn around and sue the adoption agency and win like the lesbian did?
Listen here:
Gallagher and his caller’s claims are ridiculous. Sexual contact with a minor under the age of 18 is illegal in California. In fact, California passed the “toughest” sex offender law in the nation in 2006. No matter how much the right wing tries to insist upon it, being gay is not the equivalent of being a pedophile.
This deserves its own post separate from the one I wrote on Rick Warren's presidential forum earlier. No, he doesn't say that in so many words, but that's exactly what would happen:
Neither candidate shied away from a question about which current Supreme Court justice they would not have nominated.
Obama's reply: Clarence Thomas.
"I don't think he was a strong enough jurist or a legal thinker at the time for that. I profoundly disagree with his interpretation" of the Constitution, he said.
McCain said he would have never nominated Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
"This nomination should be based on the criteria on a proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the bench," McCain added.
Those are the exact people sitting on the bench, minus Kennedy, who voted in favor of the Lawrence v. Texas decision that banned sodomy laws. He pretty much said that he wants to recriminalize homosexuality.
There isn't much better code to speak in here. The very fundies that he was speaking to at that forum were exactly the people who thought that Lawrence, along with Roe and Griswold, was an extreme case of judicial activism:
In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the court threw out all bans on sex acts between homosexuals, saying, according to Barron, "The right to privacy also included the right for same-sex couples to engage in same-sex sexual acts."
And later in 2003, when Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, it cited Lawrence v. Texas as justification.
Sekulow sees these rights expounded in Goodridge and Lawrence going straight back to Griswold.
"If you see a decision out of the Supreme Court that says same-sex marriage is required -- if that were to happen, I think they will find it primarily...originally...in Griswold, and bring it forward," Sekulow observed.
While it seems like the media doesn't really want to catch this goal (gay rights discourse is focused on marriage, and Lawrence seemed like a final decision to almost everyone), but McCain was talking to the exact audience that would want that case overturned, who agree with his reasoning, and he named almost every justice in that majority in his hit list.
Besides, whether he ever talks about wanting to reinstate sodomy laws or not, this is the most effective, direct, and, well, only way for sodomy laws to come back. And he's made it a central talking point when addressing fundamentalist audiences.
We shouldn't forget how easy it would be for that case to be overturned and to go back to the days when we were criminals just for loving.
Update: This is also a major flip-flop:
McCain wasn't a senator when Stevens was nominated, but why did he nevertheless vote to confirm Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter?
It seems he was for them before he was against them.
Will anyone pick up on this and ask him? Doubtful.
But even if he is flip-flopping here, I see no reason to doubt him. He only cares about killing people and getting money, so it's unlikely that he was lying here but that he'll nominate decent human beings to the Supreme Court. He'll do whatever the Religious Right wants on judicial nominations because he just doesn't care.
Overwhelmingly supporting Senator Obama over Senator McCain in the presidential election according to results of a Harris Interactive poll released this morning, it is also predicted that McCain will garner less of the LGBT vote than President Bush did in 2000 and 2004, reported Page One Q. 68 percent of those polled between August 1 and 7 prefer Obama. 10 percent favor McCain, while three percent prefer independent Ralph Nader and one percent back Libertarian candidate and Georgia Congressman Bob Barr. Three percent chose "Other," while 15 percent remain undecided.
In the 2000 and 2004 elections, Bush got 23 percent of the vote among gays, lesbians and bisexuals. In contrast, President Clinton had 66 percent of the gay vote in 1996.
Senator Obama enjoys an 8-point lead among registered voters, close to the 9-point lead he had in July. He has a 33-point lead among "Echo Boomers," or those under 32 years of age. McCain leads by 9 points among "Matures," those over age 62, considered the most likely to vote. Obama has a 91-point lead on the African-American vote, and 25 on Hispanics. He also leads among all income groups, and is ahead with voters that have college education, with the biggest lead being 30 points among college graduates with post-graduate education.
The poll was conducted online and collected data from 2,834 adults, of whom 6.3%, or 178, identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Data tables, courtesy of Witeck-Combs Communications, are available at this link.
