Who gets your vote on Nov. 4? Uh, 2008.

This weekend, I had an unexpected political conversation that started with a simple yet telling question from a gay Republican: "What are you thinking about 2008?" Like most of the country, I admit I've had November 2nd blinders on. I'm not sure I've even made dinner plans past the politically-charged date. But here was a moderate Republican getting ready for 2008, even before we know the outcome of 2004. Why?

Simple. For moderate Republicans who don't find themselves too keen on Bush, it's time to look ahead to brighter days. The current foci of these hopes are the two top [Presidentially eligible] Republicans in the field today: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. This hope isn't misplaced, either; aside from being moderates, these guys are as close as the GOP comes to Clintonesque rock star status.

With many moderate GOPers ready to wince at either outcome this Tuesday, perhaps hope for next contender will be the glue that holds them together until November 4. 2008. Of course, the first thing on the agenda for any White House hopeful is money. Naturally, part of my conversation revolved around fundraising efforts, starting in January. Yes, January '05.

In deference to the Office of the President, however, let's hope the fundraisers don't kick-off before the inauguration.

The age of the no-fault voter

Yesterday, a Polk County, Iowa District Judge threw out a lawsuit challenging Iowa's provisional balloting rules. The contested rule would allow any Iowa voter (or non-voter, really) to cast a provisional vote in any precinct in the state. Similar to my wireless plan, it essentially amounts to statewide roaming for voters.

Provisional ballots - as required under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 - have the potential to be a strong safety net to ensure that every registered voter gets the chance to vote. Under the law, voters can cast a ballot on Election Day, and voter registrars can sort out the validity of the vote - and whether or not it should be counted - after the fact.

Most states are handling the requirement well. Ohio requires provisional ballots be cast in a voter's precinct, the regional headquarters for their home precinct, or the voter registrar's office in their county. A clear line of authority. Iowans, conversely, don't even need to bother to go to their own polling place in order to cast a provisional ballot.

Plenty of tools exist to make voting as easy as possible for voters while still protecting the process: early voting, absentee voting and now provisional voting. In order to protect the continued validity of these tools, however, it is imperative we set guidelines in order to protect the continued validity of the process as a whole.

The New York Times opined this week that Congress "should make clear that provisional ballots must be counted even if they are filed in the wrong polling places." Such action would essentially remove what little voter responsibility is left in the process.

If a voter cannot take it upon themselves to glean their polling place from the voter information mailed to them, or at the most "inconvenient," enter any polling place and ask to be directed to their own, then the fault for their non-participation should lie flatly at their own feet, not at the feet of the county, state or the Congress.

Finally, some compassionate conservatism

President Bush declared his support for state-based civil unions on this morning's Good Morning America, the New York Times reports. Additionally, the President indicated that he was open to the "possibility that nature could be the defining component when it comes to a person's sexual preference," softening his original response to the same question in the third Presidential Debate.

Not to scare the fundies, however, the President made sure to reiterate his feeling that the Marriage Protection Amendment is the only way to protect marriage between a man and a woman, and once again threw his full support behind the proposal. Still, this marks a softening of the President's rhetoric on this touchy issue, perhaps in an effort to assuage moderates' fears that the Chief Executive is too deep in the pocket of the religious right-wing of the party.

We'll find out in a week if these concessions will do anything for the President in the polls, but in the last seven days, every faction counts - as long as it can be done quietly enough so as not to eviscerate the hopes of the religious zealots he needs to win.

Related Posts:
The W stands alone?

If I had an arch nemesis...

CNN American Morning's Jack Cafferty - who with two exceptions has garnered the most mentions for a non-elected person in DA's five-month history - brings us this gem this morning:

CAFFERTY: Thank you, Soledad. Ninety-six days is how long it has been since the 9/11 Commission issued its report on how to protect this country from terrorism. And Congress still has been unable to adopt any of the major recommendations. Nada.

Originally, they said they couldn't possibly act until next year. They said they were much too busy. Of course, they found time then right after that announcement to take six weeks off. Eventually, the House and Senate did pass two bills, but now it looks like they'll be unable to reconcile the differences before the election next week. And of course, they've got to take another recess -- two more months. They won't be back until January of next year.

As usual, Cafferty's propaganda is an exaggeration in order to "sell" his rant to the viewing public and get them riled up. What it isn't is accurate. Cafferty had the first part right: CQToday yesterday delivered a eulogy for the bill's chances of meeting the Nov. 2 goal of completing action, a date that House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) called "an artificial date," and indicated that they're looking for a good bill, not a good campaign issue.

What he didn't have right: Congress will be back in less than three weeks with plans to finish the Intelligence Reform Bill during the lame duck session. Now, concerns do abound, however, about a loss of momentum for the bill when the Congress reconvenes on November 15th with the election (hopefully) two weeks behind them.

Apparently Cafferty isn't sure his viewers could process that complex bit of information, so as usual, he instead chooses to just go with the old standby of exaggerations and untruths.

If Congress were as accurate as he is, I doubt he'd ignore it.

Related Posts:
Representative Democracy: 1; Cafferty: 0

No vaccine for backlash

Congressional leaders are making sure the Capitol's top doc takes the heat for offering up a plethora of vaccinations to Members and Hill staffers at a time when America's seniors are lining up around the block for the same thing.

Roll Call reports that the office of the Attending Physician will donate a new shipment of 3,000 vaccinations to local health organizations, after previously recommending all Members and staff get the vaccinations because of their heavy travel schedule and contact with the public. Congressional leaders are concerned that his recommendation doesn't jibe with the Centers for Disease Control's recommendation that the vaccines be limited to high-risk individuals, such as the elderly.

It should be noted that Majority Leader (and rock-star-caliber heart surgeon) Bill Frist (R-TN) gave the same reasoning in advocating the shots in a letter he circulated to his 99 Senate colleagues. In fairness, however, many of the 100 lawmakers do fall in the "senior citizen" category.

Alan Keyes is [no longer] Making Sense

Placeholder hopeful for U.S. Senate Alan Keyes is either self-deluded to the point of near-insanity, or he's resigned himself to defeat and is staying in the race for the fringe benefits of actual television face time. This morning on CNN's American Morning, Keyes responded to questions about the lopsided polling in his race, currently showing Obama leading by a 43 point margin.

Keyes response [transcript later today] was to deride Anchor Soledad O'Brien for quoting and/or fabricating "false polls," adding that he knows the good people of the State of Illinois will not elect a left-wing liberal who will (among other things) threaten traditional marriage. Despite the fact that he's polling at 18 percent.

Granted, there are lots of candidates hanging their hat on the public's concern about "protecting" marriage this cycle, but in Illinois at least, Obama is right to hang his hat on the public's concern about protecting themselves from crazy.

The many faces of outrage

Senator Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney's sexuality in the third debate is still making headlines this morning, with the Cheney family (sans Mary) filling the screens with talks of indignation. Their displeasure isn't focused on just the Senator, however - Mary's sister Elizabeth talked with Paula Zahn last night and denounced Elizabeth Edwards' comment that her mother must be "ashamed" of her gay daughter to be angry at the mention.

The major problem with the entire debate is that everyone is debating a different angle and their own perspectives. Jack Cafferty's question of the day on CNN's American Morning asked "Is it appropriate for Kerry and Edwards to be talking about the sexuality of Dick Cheney's daughter?" The responses were generally anticipated, save one from "J.R. in Florida": "What do you think the Democratic reaction of [sic] obesity instead of being gay was the social issue and Bush used Edwards wife as an example?"

This perfectly circles back to the importance of the original question in this debate: "Is homosexuality a choice?" It's clear that Bush's answer signals that he either: A) believes that it is a choice, but is hedging his answer to avoid offending the moderates, or B) can't afford to say it isn't a choice for fear of backlash from his right-wing base.

J.R. in Florida is the type of folk Bush is speaking to with his non-answer to this central question - people who feel that obesity is a perfect analogy to homosexuality; that who someone is attracted to is as much a choice as whether or not to supersize your value meal.

Regardless of the propriety of Kerry's comment about Mary Cheney, he succeeded - wittingly or not - in keeping the eye off the ball. The President's non-answer to this important and central question has been completely glossed over, and we're focused instead on the fallout of a point Kerry could have made in a number of other ways.

Kerry gave the right answer - it's an immutable characteristic. Bush gave the answer that protects his base and their crusade to make sure that their discrimination and bigotry is protected. If you admit that it's not a choice, your case to fight equal rights becomes harder; the right-wing has to be able to hide behind the Bible and their specious "data" that prayer can save the devilish gays.

In the long run, the Bible didn't protect mono-racial marriages, and it likely won't protect the viciousness of the right-wing for much longer; but Bush's answer gives them a little more time.

There's something about Mary

For the second time, Vice President Cheney's daughter has been brought forth as a debate issue - and for the second time, it wasn't her father or her father's running mate who did it.

Questions regarding same-sex marriage - or in the case of last night's debate - the origins of homosexuality in general - certainly shouldn't automatically revolve around any one individual, but both last night and last Tuesday the Kerry/Edwards team focused the issue on Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter Mary. What's the strategy?

One mention might have been innocuous - but not really that innocuous. Two mentions trips the red light: who are Kerry and Edwards speaking to when they remind the American public that Cheney has a gay daughter? Certainly not the moderates - they wouldn't want to do anything to soften either candidate on social issues in the eyes of the swing voters. The left? No clear line of strategy there.

Who's left? The right, actually; the President's base. One might see the strategy as an attempt to spark a "there's a fox in the hen house" murmuring in the right-wing, hoping to make them less likely to run to the polls on November 2. If that were the case, it would be difficult to argue that either candidate has shown unequivocal support for gay Americans in this election; Kerry and Edwards may have come close, but their hopes for a win have clouded their basic values of respect.

Related Posts:
Grand Marshal of the Cheney Pride Parade?

Where's the outrage?

Senator Vincent C. Fumo of Pennsylvania lodged the f-word across the Commonwealth's Senate floor on Thursday, but it wasn't the one we've most recently heard on a different Senate floor; this one is worse. Not only did Senator Fumo utter such vulgarities during an open debate, he reportedly screamed it when the recipient didn't hear it the first time.

Perhaps most interesting is the reacation - or lack thereof - from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Last month, the NGLTF sent an open letter to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger when he called Democratic legislators "girlie men."

But that was a pro-gay Republican, this is a pro-gay Democrat; is that the difference? Oddly though, Senator Fumo invoked the Governator in his "apology," saying that instead of uttering that other f-word, he "should have called the Republican leaders 'girlie men,'" instead.

Is that really an apology? Perhaps Senator Fumo should look at the Governor's recent record before he tries to spin his apology into a partisan attack.

Fight... for [states'] rights... to party!

NBC's Meet the Press this morning put U.S. Senate candidate Pete Coors in the hotseat, forcing his answer to several questions pitting Pete Coors, former chair of Coors Brewing Company versus Pete Coors, candidate for U.S. Senate. Tim Russert questioned Coors' assertion that he would support lowering Colorado's drinking age to 18; Coors responded by noting that the Constitution made the drinking age a "state issue," and that it was inappropriate for the federal government "to come in and tell the states what their drinking laws should be, and I still feel that way."

This certainly contrasts with his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would override states' rights with respect to the definition of marriage. Perhaps if Coors sold tuxedos and wedding cakes, his opinion on protecting states' rights would be a little less malleable?

Seriously, they're not drafting!

Dissuading Internet rumors probably isn't the most valid of reasons to draft - or kill - legislation in Congress, nor does it probably fall in line with the framers' intent. Nonetheless, the House voted 402-2 on Tuesday to reject a bill reinstating the draft.

The bill was introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), who believes the "all-volunteer military disproportionately burdens the country's least fortunate citizens," according to CQToday. The Congressman referred to the House leadership's decision to bring forth the bill as a "prostitution of the legislative process." No word on how Mr. Rangel would characterize the introduction of the bill in the first place. (He voted against it.)

Rangel's got a point. House Republicans have been unable to shake a persistent 'net rumor that they have a secret plan to bring back the draft after the election. The rumor has been so persistent that it sparked an organized protest by punk rockers - organized under the banner of a group called Punkvoter - to travel to the Hill yesterday to make a statement. That statement, according to Roll Call's Heard on the Hill: "punkers are “on” to their secret draft plan."

Republicans clearly killed the bill to make a political point, even if the point was that too many Americans are overly attached to the "forward" button on their e-mail accounts. As I recall, it's not the first time this fall they've considered a bill for the political points, however.

I would say that Punkvoter wasted its political capital on a dead issue, but then again, they probably didn't have a large cache to begin with.

Grand Marshal of the Cheney Pride Parade?

There's mixed reaction to Senator Edwards' unprovoked invocation of Mary Cheney during last night's debate? The best defense CNN's Paul Begala could come up with this morning was that moderator Gwen Ifill "opened the door" by saying that Cheney "used [his] family's experience as a context for [his] remarks" on gay marriage during the 2000 Vice Presidential election.

Edwards made a point of noting that "you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her." Vice President Cheney, while he did bring his daughter into the debate in 2000, did not mention her once in last night's contest, except to thank Senator Edwards for the "kind words he said about my family and our daughter."

While it would be a stretch to say that Edwards trying to draw Mary Cheney into the fray to somehow hurt the Veep with his ultra-conservative base, his commentary on Mr. Cheney's family was certainly off the mark, and has struck many folks as over the line.

Even Begala: "I don't like talking about anybody's kids."

Mixed messaging...

The American Family Association issued an action alert to its members this morning, laying further foundation for a boycott they instigated against Proctor & Gamble in mid-September. The AFA recoiled at a statement issued by the consumer product mammoth stating the company "will not tolerate discrimination in any form, against anyone, for any reason." According to AFA press statements, the conservative group considers this an affront to the family and a implicit endorsement of the "homosexual agenda."

The AFA's reading-between-the-lines isn't nearly as interesting as the policy argument they employ to make their linkage between P&G's statement and the evil homosexual agenda, however. In a major departure from conservative marriage messaging, their alert states:

What about same-sex marriage? Isn't it discrimination to allow only heterosexual couples to marry, and not homosexual couples? Wouldn't a ban on same-sex marriage violate P&G's own policy to not "discriminate in any form... for any reason"?

The conservative right - including the AFA - has been careful to ensure their messaging on marriage has repudiated the point that their push for hetero-only marriage is NOT discrimination. It's unlikely the group has veered away from its own position; AFA's own talking points feature a section entitled: Defining Marriage is not "Discrimination."

So why would they bend and twist their dogma to meet the needs of the day? Simple. It's the easiest way to draw a line between P&G's support for anti-discrimination legislation and the anti-gay issue du jour: gay marriage.

It also highlights a simple fact: religious zealots will make any concession in pursuit of their goals. Republicans who have ignored their former pledges of local control, states' rights and individual freedoms to support these groups should take note.