Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

Republican majority leader Bill Frist has “agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as ‘against people of faith’ for blocking President Bush’s nominees.”

My presence disproves their case.

I’m not sure why this silly-ass Federal Marriage Amendment being debated in the Senate today bugs me so; I think its presence on the national screen just shouts to me how far our national discourse has degenerated.

The whole damn thing is — or ought to be — unthinkable in the United States: Amend the U.S. Constitution, the foundation of our republic, to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples? IOW, amend the very document that guarantees rights for all citizens to take away some citizens’ rights?

All animals are created equal.
But some animals are more equal than others.
—George Orwell, Animal Farm

I don’t give a flying Cheney what my government representatives think about homosexuality and same-sex marriage — they can think anything they want but they can’t be allowed to start legislating state-sanctioned discrimination. If they’re willing to start discriminating against some of us now, at some point we’ll be the ones being discriminated against, for nearly any eventual definition of we.

Dear God, how much foresight does it take to see this? This amendment (obviously) brought to us by the same foresighted geniuses who dreamed up the Bush Doctrine of Preemption, which would be better called “Massive Motivator for Other Nations to Arm to the Hilt.”

I’ve just about given up on my Republican representative and senators — one of whom is the (in)famous Sen. Frist — to act sanely and foresightedly, but I wrote them today anyway using the MoveOn petition form that also sends an email to “the President, signer’s Senators, Representative in Congress, and other political leaders.” I wrote —

Despite all rhetoric to the contrary, this proposed Constitutional amendment is the moral equivalent of Jim Crow.

I am a heterosexual Christian committed to social justice and civil rights for all of us.

Whether I agree, or you agree, with any particular group is not relevant: your job is to uphold the U.S. Constitution for all U.S. citizens.

I believe any government official who seeks to alter the Constitution to legislate discrimination is derelict in his or her duty — and must be fired.

Please reconsider your position and reject this proposed amendment.

[several expletives deleted]

What’s the upside to enduring this unadulterated, literally un-American crap? Hmmm … Well, after all this, the return of rational, thoughtful national discourse about things that matter — a return that’s at least possible if not certain under a Kerry/Edwards Administration — ah, it will be sweeter than honey, will it not?

Last night Josh Marshall recorded his thoughts on Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist’s accusations against Richard Clarke on the Senate floor, whereon Frist accused Clarke, as Josh puts it, “of being a perjuror and a profiteer on the blood of 9/11.”

I’ve watched these proceedings rather closely, and while my political savvy is almost infinitesimal next to Josh’s, I fancy I do know how to read body language somewhat, and based on what I’ve seen Sen. Frist’s accusations don’t seem likely.

I had already read that some Republicans are attempting to declassify Clarke’s July 2002 testimony in an attempt to discredit Clarke’s present testimony, and noted Sen. Frist’s participation. Sen. Frist is, of course, a Tennessee senator and therefore mine. As I think he’s making a serious mistake (and putting Tennessee’s honor in further jeopardy) I felt impelled to write him today via Congress.org:

After sending this message I read Josh’s observation earlier yesterday that

What this is about isn’t Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It’s about what happened — finding out what happened.

One side wants to find out; the other doesn’t. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clarke unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it’s the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.

Josh concludes, as has Bob Graham, former Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and Co-Chair of the Joint Committee before whom Clarke’s July 2002 testimony was given,

Why guess? Let’s find out. Release all his testimony. All of it.

I find myself persuaded that’s a good idea, and hence would alter my next-to-last paragraph to Sen. Frist if I hadn’t already sent it.

2004-03-28 update: Clarke himself recommends releasing his earlier testimony, along with all his email and memos. I’m not sure the Republican smear machine knows how to attack people who have, apparently, nothing to hide.

Is it too much to ask that government leaders display some character, openness, and restraint? Richard Clarke showed me this week what that looks like. While I have no preexisting reason to support him one way or the other, or even to agree with his hawkish views, I’m thankful to him for reminding me that character in government is still possible, even unto apologizing for the government’s mistakes and asking forgiveness.

And I will never be satisfied with anything less. I think the time of accepting lowered expectations is drawing to a close. We can do so much better than this.

a few hours later …

Whereas I was thinking Sen. Frist’s mistake lay in smearing a decent man, risking national security, and risking his own legacy, Stirling sees his mistake more expansively: that Frist has accidentally opened the floodgates of scandal in the direction of deluging Bush’s Isengard (okay, Stirling says “floodgates,” I picture LotR):

When Senator Bill Frist called for declassification of Clarke’s earlier testimony, [alleging], or at least implying, that perjury could be in the offing — he opened the floodgates. …

By trying to attack Clarke for having been a loyal soldier of the Executive earlier — [Frist] tells every functionary in that Executive Branch that they are marked for destruction — personal political destruction — should they waver. And that their previous service would be used against them. Anything you say in support of Bush can, and will, be used against you by Bush.

Wow, fascinating analysis.

2004-04-02 update: Yes, I’m veiling what I really think about Sen. Frist in a thick bubblewrap of Southern politeness, but John Nichols isn’t. John kicks ass and takes names in yesterday’s Frists of Fury.