Sunday, February 22, 2004

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, pictured above in Sacramento last month, wants to deny same-sex couples equal marriage rights but wants the U.S. Constitution amended so that he can run for president. (Reuters photo) Asshole of the Week California Gov. Ahhhnuld Schwarzenegger is the Asshole of the Week for trying to deny same-sex couples equal marriage rights while urging that the U.S. Constitution be amended to give more rights to one person: His Highness. Yup. The Los Angeles Times reports that Schwarzenegger, a Republican (of course), wrote in a letter delivered to California Attorney Gen. Bill Lockyer on Friday, "I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy," referring to the spate of same-sex marriages that the city of San Francisco has been allowing this month. In the letter to Lockyer, Schwarzenegger stated that the same-sex marriages "are directly contrary to state law and present an imminent risk to civil order." (The Times quoted Lockyer's spokeswoman, Hallye Jordan, as saying Friday of Schwarzenegger's bullying letter, "The governor cannot direct the attorney general. He can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct 'Terminator 4.' But he can't tell the attorney general what to do. However, we are his lawyer, and we are moving as expeditiously -- with deliberation -- as possible.") "It's time for the city of San Francisco to start respecting state law," Schwazenegger swaggered at the California Republican Party's state convention on Friday night, after which, the Times reports, "the crowd of 700 Republican activists gave him a standing ovation." The Times reports that "By day's end Friday, more than 6,300 people had been married in same-sex civil ceremonies performed at San Francisco City Hall over the last week. Mayor Gavin Newsom, who cleared the way for the marriages, performed one himself Friday for a state official." Two San Francisco Superior Court judges have refused to issue an injunction against the same-sex marriages in San Francisco because the homophobic groups that requested the injunctions failed to demonstrate that the marriages are causing immediate and irreparable harm, the Times reports, noting that a San Francisco Superior Court hearing on the legality of the same-sex marriages should take place sometime next month. Not only are the same-sex marriages causing no one any actual harm whatsoever, Schwarzenegger's claim that they "present an imminent risk to civil order" is a fucking joke. Things here in California are pretty much just the same as they were before the fags and dykes started getting married in San Francisco, and that's the genius of Newsom's decision to allow same-sex couples to get married: While the homophobic right wanted to prevent same-sex marriages from ever happening anywhere, falsely claiming that same-sex marriages would cause some nebulous harm to society, the pre-emptive same-sex marriages in San Francisco are proving that the homophobes are full of shit. (Hey, I'm really liking "President" Bush's philosophy of pre-emptive strikes now!) The gay horse is out of the barn; men are marrying men and women are marrying women in San Francisco and yet, miraculously, despite the dire warnings of the right-wing "Christian" nutjobs, the Earth continues to spin on its axis. It gets better: Through a lawsuit they filed against the state of California on Thursday, San Francisco city officials are forcing the state to take up the issue of whether a state law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman -- passed by California voters as the spiteful, hateful Proposition 22 in 2000 -- violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. (Hint to the justices of the California Supreme Court: It does.) The issue most likely will wind its way up to the California Supreme Court, so that Massachusetts won't be the only state where the issue of same-sex marriage is being hashed out during a presidential election year. While he's trying to deny same-sex couples their rights, Schwarzenegger is trying to get special rights for himself. Today, the Austrian-born Gropenfuhrer said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that a foreign-born U.S. citizen -- which he just so happens to be -- should be able to run for U.S. president. That would require that the U.S. Constitution, which states that only natural-born U.S. citizens may be president, be amended. I did not watch "Meet the Press" today, but The Associated Press reports that Schwarzenegger "said [on the show that] anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years -- as he has -- should 'absolutely' be able to seek the presidency. A constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would make that possible." The AP reports that Schwarzenegger said on "Meet the Press" today "that he has been too busy with California's problems to contemplate a future run for the White House. 'I have no idea, I haven't thought about that at all,' he said." Yet, in the 1977 documentary film Pumping Iron, a 28-year-old Schwarzenegger says this: "I was always dreaming about very powerful people, dictators and things like that. I was just always impressed by people who could be remembered for hundreds of years, or, you know, even like Jesus, being for thousands of years remembered, you know." I don't think that the U.S. Constitution should be changed for one man, which, despite Schwarzenegger's ludicrously false claim to the contrary, this is all about. (As far as Ahhhnuld's truthfulness goes, recall that before he was elected in the October gubernatorial recall election, he promised that there would be an investigation into the allegations of 16 women that he had sexually harassed and/or sexually assaulted them. Of course, he promised that an investigation would be conducted after the election, but after the election, in December, he announced that there would be no investigation and called the allegations "old news.") I have nothing against immigrants. I agree with Schwarzenegger's statement on "Meet the Press," as reported by the AP, that immigants have contributed and continue to contribute much to the United States. But before I could support a constitutional amendment allowing foreign-born citizens to be U.S. president, I'd have to know whether other nations allow U.S.-born citizens to be their highest leaders, and, if so, how many other nations and which ones. And I certainly, vehemently oppose changing the Constitution of the United States of America solely for Arnold Fucking Schwarzenegger, whose ego is so massive that he apparently sees nothing wrong his little suggestion that the Constitution be tweaked for his benefit. Yeah, I'm sure that although he "was always dreaming about very powerful people, dictators and things like that," he hasn't thought once about being president of the United States; he wants that constitutional amendment for the Greek-born Arianna Huffington, I'm sure. 11:02:53 PM    Comments []

Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate for president in 2000, announces on NBC's "Meet the Press" today that he is running for president this year as an independent. Salon notes that " it is incontestable that if Nader had not run [in 2000], Al Gore would be president today. Insisting there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore and campaigning in crucial swing states, Nader cost Democrats the White House. In Florida, for instance, where the vote recount was halted by the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Bush edged Gore by just 537 votes. Nader, running as the Green Party candidate, garnered nearly 100,000 votes in the Sunshine State." (Associated Press photo) How to handle Nader's supporters (all 10 of them) I have confessed here before that I voted for Ralph Nader for president in 2000 because here in California it was clear that Al Gore was going to win all of the state's electoral votes anyway (and he did). (Nader's impact in other states was different. The Associated Press notes: "As the Green Party's nominee in 2000, Nader appeared on the ballot in 43 states and Washington, D.C., garnering only 2.7 percent of the vote. But in Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received the bulk of Nader's votes in those states, he would have won the general election.") Lest I give the inaccurate impression that my vote for Nader was just an anti-establishment vote, let me say that I agreed with Nader's positions more than any other candidate's. I don't regret having voted for Nader, and I take issue with the Green Party-bashers. Their underlying belief seems to be that in the United States there should be only two political parties -- at least during our lifetime. Aside from the fact that many other nations have more than two parties and couldn't see it being any other way, Americans wouldn't tolerate having only two choices in most areas of our lives. Having only two choices of television channels or radio stations (although the Federal Communications Commission is pushing us in that direction), automobile models, clothing designs, fast-food restaurants or religions would be unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans. Why, then, two political parties is widely considered to be an adequate choice for Americans, especially given how political parties affect our lives so deeply, escapes me. I want real choices, so I support individual candidates; I don't blindly, obediently support entire political parties. Thus, while I have supported Democratic Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry for president since spring or summer, I gave Matt Gonzalez, the Green Party candidate for San Francisco mayor, a small campaign contribution in November or December to help him defeat his Democratic opponent, Gavin Newsom, a millionaire whose campaign against the city's homeless I found (and still find) loathesome. (Newsom has redeemed himself somewhat in my eyes with his decision to allow same-sex marriage licenses to be issued in San Francisco, but I remain leery of him.) Gonzalez, who is president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, lost to Newsom in December by only 5.2 percent even after Newsom had outspent him by about 10 to one and had the likes of Democrats Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi publicly endorse him. As I wrote back in December, Democrats in San Francisco should take Gonzalez's close finish seriously, especially given that only 3 percent of San Franciscans were registered with the Green Party in December yet Gonzalez garnered 47.4 percent of the vote. Former California Gov. Gray Davis apparently didn't take his close finish in November 2002 very seriously, and look what happened to him. Anyway, Gonzalez's values and beliefs are closer to my own than are Newsom's, and I'd support Gonzalez again. (I'd have voted for him, but I live in Sacramento.) In terms of presidential elections, however, this year is a lot different from 2000; the overriding concern this year must be to end the Bush regime's hostile occupation of the White House, and voting for Ralph Nader isn't going to accomplish that mission. However, I agree with Medea Benjamin, Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate from California in 2000, whom Salon quoted as saying, "Those of us in progressive politics have always been against silencing alternative views, so it would be hypocritical to try to silence Ralph Nader." Only a fraction of Nader's supporters from 2000 will support him this year anyway. Even prominent Green Party members aren't supporting him, Salon reports. As far as prominent California Green Party members are concerned, Matt Gonzalez has endorsed Democrat Dennis Kucinich for president. (As I've divulged here before, Kucinich is my ideological favorite, but again, the overriding concern this year must be to boot Bush, and Kucinich cannot do that.) And Salon quotes Benjamin as saying of Nader, "I love and appreciate him, but I definitely want to get Bush out of office, so I won't vote for him, which would be a first for me." And that's the best way for us to handle Nader: Just don't vote for him. Attacking Nader's supporters as spoilers or traitors or, more generically, as assholes, won't work. I know, because when Democrats attacked Nader and the Green Party in 2000 for having the audacity to participate in the democratic process, it only solidified my support for Nader. The more Nader was attacked and excluded from the presidential debates, the more entrenched my support of him became. (A similar phenomenon occurred among the Deaniacs, I surmise.) Centrist Democrats should just let Nader do his thing and ignore him as much as possible. Even negative attention is attention, and it's attention that will keep Nader in the spotlight. Ignored, he should dry up and blow away.  Meanwhile, we lefties -- including those of us who voted for Nader in 2000 and those of us who support Kucinich now -- need to put our idealism on hold for the time being and focus on taking our country back from the Republicans. Whether we like it or not, the only way we can prevent a second Bush II term is by electing a Democratic president, and the most electable contender for the Democratic presidential nomination is John Kerry. Centrist Democrats and lefties can do far more toward Bush removal by appealing to the apolitical and to swing voters to vote for Kerry in November than they can by attacking Nader and his supporters.   Kerry will prove, I think, to be a good president; he will surprise, I think, those who aren't so enthusiastic about him right now. I think Kerry will prove to be significantly further to the left than Bill Clinton; and even if you're not a big fan of the centrist Clinton, as I am not, you have to admit that things were a helluva lot better under Clinton than they were under the Bush who preceded him and the Bush who succeeded him. Kerry's plan, I think (Disclaimer: this is my own educated guess, not information from the Kerry campaign), is to campaign as a centrist, but, once he takes office, enact a fairly progressive agenda. (As president Kerry would do, I think, what I will call "a reverse Bush": Bush II campaigned as a centrist -- as "a uniter, not a divider" -- but once he stole office, Bush II wasted no time in enacting one of, if not the, most radically right-wing White House agendas in the nation's history.) I can live with a President Kerry doing a reverse Bush. I could support Kucinich or Nader -- and get nothing -- or I can support Kerry and see Bush Jr.'s lying, thieving ass ousted and see the nation slowly recover from the considerable damage that the second Bush regime has caused it. Once the hard work of restoring the U.S. economy; restoring the well-being of all Americans, not just the richest Americans; and restoring the United States' global reputation is done, then we progressives will have the foundation upon which we can radically reform the Democratic Party, or, if that is not possible, support a third party that is competitive with the two that have dominated American history, be it the Green Party or a new party. 2:53:08 PM    Comments []