SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: CYBERKEN who wrote (291521)8/29/2002 12:06:24 PM
From: Mr. Palau  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Hey Cy, are you going to march in Bill Simon's Gay Pride March?

Simon's gay outreach angers religious right
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Thursday, August 29, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.

URL: sfgate.com

Gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon's outreach to gay Republicans has enraged high-profile supporters on the Christian
right, who charge the Republican with reversing a preprimary pledge to protect marriage between a man and a
woman.

"Bill Simon apparently tailors his message to his audience," said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, who heads the Anaheim
Traditional Values Coalition, in a blistering statement to supporters on Wednesday. Sheldon said he felt "misled and
conned" by Simon's "support for the homosexual agenda," adding, "he has forgotten he gave us his word on these
issues."

The angry reaction came a day after a Chronicle story detailed Simon's responses to a questionnaire from the Log
Cabin Club, the gay GOP group. Simon told the organization's members that, if elected, he would declare a "Gay
Pride" day, would not try to overturn current legislation on gay adoption, and is "supportive" of the idea of domestic
partnerships, as long as they were not based on sexual preference.

"This is such a shock," said Randy Thomassan, who heads the Campaign for California Families, a leading
conservative pro-family organization based in Sacramento, in a statement to followers Wednesday. "We never would
have believed that Bill Simon would sell out on this key family-values issue."

Thomassan charged that Simon's stated support for "domestic partnerships" and adding rights of marriage for
unmarried couples "is a contradiction of his Marriage Protection Pledge," which the candidate signed last February. In
signing that document, Simon promised that he would refuse to support any "domestic partnership" or "civil union"
rights unless they were within "the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman."

Simon's campaign argued that the candidate has not distanced himself from his conservative followers -- or shifted his
views.

"Bill Simon hasn't changed his position on any of these issues," said Simon strategist Sal Russo. "Perhaps things could
have been stated more artfully."

Simon opposed AB25 -- the landmark gay rights bill granting legal rights in domestic partnerships "because he thinks
it's a mistake for the government to make inquiries on people's sexual preferences," said Russo. "That continues to be
his view."

But "he also respects the fact that people may choose to entangle their lives legally . . . and there ought to be rules of
the road to provide for that," said Russo. Simon supports the concept of domestic partnerships not tied to sexual
preference, said Russo, adding that that "could be two sisters, or a father and son, or two friends."

"This is not designed to be a substitute for marriage," he said, "but the government ought not to be on the slippery slope
of asking questions about sexual preference."

The statements by Simon, who was touted as a "proud conservative" in the primary, appeared this week to be an
effort to move to the middle -- and mend fences with gay and lesbian Republicans, who have attempted to meet
publicly with the candidate. Simon, next week, is set to headline a Republican Unity Coalition event with Mary
Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, at an event to raise $1 million for "'gay and straight 'Big
Tent' Republican candidates" for the U.S. House and Senate.

Asked to address the issue of domestic partners on a local radio station Tuesday, Simon said he could be supportive of
such arrangements, as long as they were not based solely on sexual preferences.

"Let's not premise this thing on having the government go in your bedroom," he said. "What happens if my brother and
I . . . why couldn't we be domestic partners, if we both lost our wives?"

But Democrats quickly jumped on his statements -- charging Simon with flip- flopping on issues of gay rights.

"This is what happens when you speak out of both sides of your mouth," said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for Davis,
who said Simon's most recent statements to gay Republicans "completely contradicts" positions in the primary, when
he called AB25 "an affront."

"When you resort to pandering, as Bill Simon does, it eventually catches up with you," he said.

Chris Gilbertson, executive vice president of the Log Cabin Club, said Simon's outreach to moderate Republicans and
gay and lesbian voters is not only understandable -- but savvy.

"This is normal in the electoral process," he said. "During the primary, you go to the right -- and in the general election,
you move to the center. Bill Simon is making the swing to the center."

sfgate.com.



To: CYBERKEN who wrote (291521)8/29/2002 12:32:23 PM
From: asenna1  Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 769670
 
I'm With Dick! Let's Make War!

By MAUREEN DOWD

I was dubious at first. But now I think Dick Cheney has it
right.

Making the case for going to war in the Middle East to veterans on Monday,
the vice president said that "our goal would be . . . a government that is
democratic and pluralistic, a nation where the human rights of every ethnic
and religious group are recognized and protected."

O.K., I'm on board. Let's declare war on Saudi Arabia! Let's do "regime
change" in a kingdom that gives medieval a bad name.

By overthrowing the Saudi monarchy, the Cheney-Rummy-Condi-Wolfy-Perle-W.
contingent could realize its dream of redrawing the Middle East map.

Once everyone realizes that we're no longer being hypocrites, coddling a
corrupt, repressive dictatorship that sponsors terrorism even as we plot to
crush a corrupt, repressive dictatorship that sponsors terrorism, it will
transform our relationship with the Arab world.

We won't need Charlotte Beers at the State Department, thinking up Madison
Avenue slogans to make the Arab avenue love us. ("Democracy! Mm-mm, good.")

If America is going to have a policy of justified pre-emption, in Henry
Kissinger's clinical phrase, why not start by chasing out those sorry Saudi
royals? If we're willing to knock over Saddam for gassing the Kurds, we
should be willing to knock over the Saudis for letting the state-supported
religious police burn 15 girls to death last March in a Mecca school,
forcing them back inside a fiery building because they tried to flee without
their scarves. And shouldn't we pre-empt them before they teach more boys to
hate American infidels and before they can stunt the lives of more women?

The vice president declared on Monday, "This nation will not live at the
mercy of terrorists or terror regimes." I am absolutely with him.

Why should we (and our S.U.V.'s) be at the mercy of this family that we arm
and protect and go to war for? The Saudis have never formally apologized to
America for the 15 Saudi citizens who came here and killed 3,000 Americans
as they went to work one sun-dappled September morning. They have never even
tried to rewrite their incendiary terrorist-breeding textbooks or stop their
newspapers from spewing anti-American, anti-Semitic lies, like their stories
accusing Jews of drinking children's blood. They brazenly held a telethon,
with King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah giving millions, to raise money for
families of Palestinian suicide bombers, or "martyrs." Last week the Saudi
embassy here put out a glossy brochure hailing their "humanitarian work" at
the telethon.

It was embarrassing yesterday, given President Bush's swagger on Iraq, to
watch him fawn over the Saudis. At lunch at his ranch he entertained Prince
Bandar, the man who got private planes to spirit Osama bin Laden's relatives
out of the U.S. after the attacks. Mr. Bush also called Crown Prince
Abdullah yesterday to assure him of the "eternal friendship" between their
countries and to soothe hurt Saudi feelings over a lawsuit filed by 9/11
victims charging Saudi support of terrorism.

Mr. Cheney argues that we must invade Iraq while we have a strategic window
for action, while Saddam's army is still reeling.

But attacking the Saudis would be even easier. They are soft and spoiled.
Only yesterday Jerome Socolovsky of The A.P. wrote about how King Fahd
brought thousands of members of the House of Saud to Marbella, Spain, where
they stocked up on luxury items and hired North African servants. Women in
veils and waterproof robes rode Jet Skis and members of the royal family
talked about the 9/11 attacks as an Israeli-C.I.A. plot.

A Saudi invasion would be like the Panama invasion during Bush I. We already
have bases to use there. And this time Mr. Cheney won't have to beg the
royals to use their air space, or send American forces.

Once we make Saudi Arabia into our own self-serve gas pump, its neighbors
will get the democracy bug.

The Saudis would probably use surrogates to fight anyway. They pay poor
workers from other countries to do their menial labor. And they paid the
Americans to fight the Iraqis in 1991. The joke among the American forces
then was: "What's the Saudi national anthem? `Onward, Christian Soldiers.' "

We haven't been hit at home by any of Saddam's Scud missiles. But the human
missiles launched by Saudi Arabia have taken their toll.