With both parties’ nominees all but selected, I was wondering something about this summer’s political conventions.

Will the most recent Democratic president losing favor with a broad swath of his party’s rank and file, will he be speaking at their August confab in Denver?

And given the incumbent Republican president’s low approval ratings, will the GOP want him to speak a week later in St. Paul?

Given Bill’s quest for the limelight, I’m sure he’ll find a way to finagle his way onto the agenda of the Democratic National Convention, but Bush will bow out from speaking at the Republican convention, part of it will be his own decency, realizing it’s no longer his turn to shine and part will be the party’s interest in making this an election about the next four years not the preceding eight.

Well into my early adulthood, I used to imagine I would one day meet Julie Andrews; it would be like a reunion with my childhood nanny, called away to pursue a theatrical career after spending only a short time with our family. But, that short time left a profound and tender impression on me. She helped me discover my hidden talents, gain greater confidence in myself and become better to relate to those around me.

I don’t know when I first became aware that others had similar feelings for this greater singer and actress. She has touched so many of us such that we feel she was actually part of our lives.

Maybe it’s that I saw Mary Poppins when I was very young, remembering later in life few specific scenes, but retaining an image of her portrayal of the eponymous eccentric, but empathetic governess. And The Sound of Music has been one of my favorite movies since I first saw it at a special screening at the Carousel Theater on Reading Road in Cincinnati.

Yes, I can still remember the theater where I first saw that movie. I can even tell you that I was sitting in the back in the center section on the right side, near an aisle.

So much do I love Julie Andrews that when I bought her her book, Home: A Memoir of My Early Years, last week, I moved it to the top of a large pile of books to read. I started reading it right away. Not only did it keep me up all night, but it was something I looked forward to reading every night of the week for as long as I needed to finish it.

I couldn’t put it down, felt as connected to it — and as part of her shows — as I once felt she was a part of my life. And this despite the fact that it’s not very well written.

That is perhaps the book’s only flaw. Julie Andrews tends to write in simple declarative sentences, using the verb “to be” a little too much. But, she succeeds in telling her story such that I will be first in line to buy her sequel (she leaves off as she’s about to start filming Mary Poppins). And I recommend this book, very highly, especially to those who have been touched by this great lady and/or are eager to learn more about Broadway toward the end of its Golden Age.

(more…)

Right after posting my piece, John McCain & the Gay Vote, I e-mailed Washington Blade Editor Kevin Naff encouraging him to link it on the Blade’s Blogwatch. Readily assenting, he alerted me to a post he had just posted on the presidential election.

After reading it, I wrote back, taking issue issue with some of his points and standing “by my prediction that McCain will do better than 30% of the gay vote provided Obama is the Democratic nominee–and am even willing to bet a dinner (with wine) on it.” He took the bet.

As usual with anything Kevin has written, this post is well-worth reading even as I disagree with many of his major points. I disagree with him that the gay political movement is a “civil rights struggle.” If it is, then it’s over. By the traditional understanding of civil rights, we have them in the sense that we can participate fully in civil society. We can vote in elections, express our views publicly, associate with individuals of our own choosing and other wise carry about our lives freely as do our straight peers.

The problem is that most states (and the federal government) do not recognize our partnerships and the military still discriminates against openly gay individuals. We need legislation recognizing those unions and overturning that ban. But, note, these are privileges the state grants not rights it denies.

As to the issue of the McCain vote, I don’t think the issues Kevin raises, particularly the Supreme Court, will matter much to gay Americans considering a vote for the Arizona Senator. While many of them, including yours truly, wish the presumptive GOP nominee would push to repeal DADT, we understand that our candidates don’t have to be perfect.

The gay Democrats and Independents (as well as a near unanimity of gay Republicans) likely to vote for McCain will do so because of his overall record. They see that while his record on gay issues is far from perfect, he did lead the opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 while the then-presumptive GOP presidential nominee, George W. Bush, gaining a reputation for attacking gays and losing support in our community.

(more…)

Welcome Andrew Sullivan Readers!

One of the reasons I am such a fan of Rudy Giuliani is that he was a true conservative on the issues which mattered most to me, cutting spending and protecting citizens as Mayor and advocating a tough stand against terrorism as a presidential candidate. While conservative on this issues, he was liberal on social issues, having many gay friends and signing, in 1994, the Big Apple’s then-landmark domestic partnership program into law.

It seems that the new Tory Mayor of London has a lot in common with the former Republican Mayor oF New York. Via the Washington Blade’s blogwatch, we learn that Boris Johnson has appointed Tony Barnes, an openly gay man “as one of his deputy mayors.” And Barnes isn’t the only gay person this Tory has tapped:

Another gay Tory Assembly Member, Brian Coleman, has been appointed Chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

Sir Simon Milton, leader of Westminster Council, becomes a Senior Adviser on Planning. Knighted in the 2006 New Year’s Honours List, he publicly declared his sexuality and married his long-term partner Councillor Robert Davis at The Ritz hotel last year.

The New Mayor even plans to attend London’s Pride celebration later this year.

It looks like gay conservatives may have a new hero across the pond, a principled conservative who reaches out to and recognizes the accomplishments of men and women like us. Seems that we have more to celebrate than “Red Ken” being voted out.

Kudos, Boris!

Shortly after posting my piece where I put forward my belief that the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is over, I perused the blogs to read what others were saying about the state of the campaign.

Hugh wrote he didn’t expect Hillary “to bail, at least not until the final primaries are held and the Tony Rezko trial verdict in. (Final arguments open Monday.)” He observed:

. . . if Rezko is convicted and is facing a long stretch in jail, won’t he have to think long and hard about naming names in order to limit his years in federal prison? Clearly Rezko and Obama are close. That’s a huge potential nightmare for the Dems, and Team Hillary won’t be shy about underscoring the dangers of an unfolding scandal consuming Chicago politics.

While it may be a little far-fetched, it’s still within the realm of possibility that Rezko has some damaging information on the likely Democratic ominee. Perhaps, Hillary is clinging to this as her last best hope to return to the White House.

Just as some lefty bloggers assumed Scooter Libby would implicate the Vice President, some in the Hillary camp may well be hoping that Rezko implicates Obama.

What a delicious irony that would be, if some scandal brings Obama’s presidential bid to a halt and puts Hillary on the path to the White House when numerous scandals failed to prevent her husband from getting there and failed to evict him from that prestigious property before his lease was up.

When I drove cross country last fall, I often turned off my CD player so as to better let my thoughts wander. A number of ideas came to me, some of which I have addressed on this blog. One of the first notions which which popped into my head, somewhere in Arizona or New Mexico on the first day of the journey, was to wonder if my ambivalence on gay marriage was related to how many gay advocates approached the issue.

As I read David Blankenhorn’s book this past week, his description of some of these advocates reminded me of my own encounters. They saw marriage as just a relationship between two people, nothing more than a “right.” They scorned monogamy and delighted in the institution’s decline.

Few saw the conversation on gay marriage as part of a means to strengthen the institution. Indeed, some expressly sought to weaken it.

I found it difficult to take seriously advocates whose understanding of marriage as a right defined by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1967 decision Loving v. Virginia, banning “miscegenation” laws, as if the concept originated in jurisprudence and its social and ritual aspects irrelevant.

That all changed when I started reading Jonathan Rauch’s Gay Marriage: Why It is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, particularly the chapter, “What Marriage is For” (which I have praised numerous times on this blog). He got at the meaning of this institution.

As fate would have it, at the same time I was reading the book, Jonathan was in LA. I went to hear him speak at A Different Light bookstore where he offered two anecdotes which showed that like Blankenhorn, he understood the debate on gay marriage involved the issue of marriage itself.

First, he mentioned a straight couple who came up to him after his talk and thanked him for reminding them what marriage was all about it; his words thus served to strengthen their marital bond. Then, he mentioned how when he presents the very same issues to gay activists, many who had a similar positive reaction, while his words caused others to question their own support for gay marriage. If marriage involves retreating from sexual liberation, they didn’t want it.

Given what that institution entails and some of the mores of our community, a real conversation on marriage is likely to trouble many gay people who favor a more libertine approach to sexuality.

If we really want gay marriage, we need to address that attitude.

(more…)

Now that Barack Obama has all but cinched the Democratic nomination, I am going to offer a prediction which will likely upset some of the Illinois Senator’s most enthusiastic gay supporters in the netroots. Obama will receive the lowest share of the gay vote of any Democratic presidential nominee since pollsters identified gays as a voting bloc.

I expect McCain to hold the gay votes George W. Bush drew in 2004 and pick up about 10-20% of John Kerry’s vote. That would mean the GOP nominee will take somewhere between 30 and 38% of the measured gay vote. His actual gay vote (as was Bush’s) will, in my view, be higher.

Given how much grief we gay Republicans take from our peers for our politics, many of our fellows prefer not to discuss politics. When approached by exit pollsters, they would be less likely to take the time to answer their surveys than would be gay Democrats. That’s why, I believe, George W. Bush may have gotten as much as 30% of the gay vote in 2004 and why McCain could get as much as 40%.

Yet, it seems this year there is less stigma attached to a vote for John McCain. I say this noting the number of gay Democrats (and Democrat-leaners) who have publicly said they would for McCain. It’s not just that they’ve told me. Other friends, some Democrats, have reported that a a good number of their fellows have said they prefer McCain to Obama.

No gay outreach is necessary. These people are aware of John McCain’s opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment and have seen enough of Barack Obama not to trust him.

The real question is whether McCain’s increased share of the gay vote will make a difference. It could help secure his margin in Florida and make him more competitive in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. A lot depends on how other demographic groups break. If Obama continues to do poorly among Catholics, the gay vote could tip the balance in these states–and possibly others as well.

Every now and again as a blogger, you think you’re onto something. You make an observation or unearth a fact which will generate interest in the blogosphere, maybe even getting notice in the MSM. So, you write your post, double-check your facts, review your text, then e-mail a number of bloggers alerting others to your revelation.

But, hours later, you find that no one else really takes notice.

Other times, you’ll hack out a post to find your getting links up the wazoo (sometimes without sending out a similar e-mail (as I did with this post which survived the hijacking of our blogspot site).

Yesterday after beginning research on a post I was writing (anticipating Hillary’s success in Indiana), outlining the episodes in her life which defined her as a narrow partisan, I thought I chanced onto a huge story.

One of those episodes was her decision to skip the funeral of one of her predecessors as First Lady. So, I contacted the Nixon Library (amazingly friendly & helpful people), confirming within a matter of minutes that Mrs. Clinton had not attended Mrs. Nixon’s funeral.

Then, I googled Mrs. Clinton’s White House schedule for the date of the funeral (June 26, 1993) and found she had attended a political fundraiser that day. It was as if I had hit pay dirt. It seemed big news to me that the then-First Lady would prefer a partisan event to a religious ceremony honoring a woman who had transcended her husband’s partisanship to serve as a unifying national figure during her tenure as First Lady.

I wrote out my post, e-mail a number of bloggers. Only Pajamas picked it up. Maybe it was the interest in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. Or maybe it was just that the story wasn’t as big as I had thought it was.

(more…)

What a difference a day makes.

Yesterday, I thought Hillary might emerge from yesterday’s primaries in the driver’s seat for the Democratic nomination. She had had a good two weeks, raising $10 million online in the twenty-four hours after her Pennsylvania victory, getting good reviews from her interview with Bill O’Reilly (and an audience of 10 million viewers), drawing large & enthusiastic crowds at her campaign appearances, earning admiration from erstwhile adversaries and rising in most polls.

At the same time, her opponent had a rough two weeks, with media focus on his former pastor and people taking notice of his contradictory explanations of his relationship with that unhappy man. I thought that ol’ Clinton luck was kicking in and she’d Indiana easily while keeping Obama’s margin in the single digits.

But, then Tarheel or Hoosier State Democrat. When they voted yesterday, things started to change.

Last night, when I went to bed, I expected to wake up to learn she had dropped out, but when I flipped on FoxNews, heard she was campaigning in West Virginia.

My best guess is that it was the trust issue which did her in. Only 54% of Democrats in Indiana think she’s honest and trustworthy. (44% do not.)* That coupled with her changing campaign persona may have factored into yesterday’s outcome.

I hate to break this to my conservative friends eager for a drawn out contest, but it’s over. It’s over. Mighty Clinton has struck out.

———

*Jim Geraghty links the CNN exit polls which show that only 49% of Democrats think she’s honest and trustworthy and references a Washington Post article showing an “erosion of trust” in the former First Lady.

UPDATE: Hugh says HIllary won’t quit. The Corner’s James Robbins writes:

It will only end if Hillary Clinton loses the will to keep fighting. It all comes down to her inner strength, her belief in herself and her destiny. Right now the only person who can prevent Hillary from taking this all the way is Hillary.

Perhaps had I known Mrs. Clinton would do as poorly as she did last night, I would not have written as many critical posts as I had in the past few days. I had expected her to do well, to lose to Obama in North Carolina by a margin similar to that of her victory in Pennsylvania and to win Indiana by a comfortable margin.

Perhaps, Democrats in those states saw her as did I, a politician pandering and leaving principle by the wayside. They just didn’t trust someone who seemed to believe only in her own ambition.

She might not have won the narrow margin she did in the Hoosier State had it not been for her longtime nemesis of the airwaves. According to Byron York, the Obama campaign contends that “just under 7% of the primary electorate the number that may be attributed to a ‘Limbaugh Effect.’“

Not to mention the last-minute deciders breaking for her 56-44 in Indiana. Seems this time the polls underestimated Obama’s support. If those deciding in the past few days broke for her, he must have led among those who decided before this weekend, something we only saw in one or two polls.

She didn’t get a big enough margin of victory in Indiana to maintain the bounce she got out of the Keystone State, but then she didn’t see to get much bounce from that victory.

Watching the speeches, I thought both candidates went out way too long. It seems the victory speech has become a stump speech. She seemed a little melancholy. At one time, I actually thought she was going to call it quits. Her husband looked particularly glum. Commentators on Fox agreed while Kathryn Jean Lopex wrote that he and Chelsea had the look of “a loved one with when you’re proud of them as they face a loss/embarrassment bravely.“

She may stay in to win next week in Kentucky and West Virginia, but for all intents and purposes, it’s over. Hillary Clinton has lost the Democratic nomination. And she may not be in the position she’s in now had she not been as overconfident as she was last fall, banking on knocking out her opponents by early February.

(more…)

When Bess Truman, the wife of Harry S Truman, the 33rd president of the United States and a Democrat, died in 1982, Nancy Reagan, wife to the then-incumbent Republican president of the United States, traveled to Missouri to attend her funeral.

Eleven years later, when funeral services for Pat Nixon, wife of a former Republican president, were held on June 26, 1993 at her husband’s library and birthplace in Yorba Linda, California, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton was in Washington, attending a fundraiser for Mary Sue Terry, then the Democratic candidate for Governor of Virginia, at the residence of West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller.

Mrs. Clinton prefers Democratic politics to paying homage to one of her predecessors.

When I sketched out this post last night, I had intended to call it, “Hillary Clinton: Phony” and make some reference to Holden Caulfield, but then as I did my morning blog-read, I chanced (if chance it was) upon Glenn’s link to David Brooks’s insightful New York Times Op-Ed, “Combat and Composure” where he said a lot of what I had wanted to say about Ms. Hillary, but with far more flair:

[Her response to George Stephanopoulos’ question on the gas tax] wasn’t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader — helping one’s own.

Shameless. She’ll say or do anything to get elected.

Even in her latest incarnation as what Brooks terms, “an alpha dog leader,” an incarnation which has earned her some admiration on the right, she continues to campaign not as an principled leader committed to improving the world, but as a pandering politician eager to please an audience.

Recall, that on saving her campaign from oblivion by winning in New Hampshire, she didn’t extol the virtues of standing on principle, but said, “I listened to you and in the process, I found my own voice.” She doesn’t find her voice through a lifetime of experience and thoughtful reflection, but in listening to others. A voice dependent on the whims of others.

Perhaps for a politician this is a good thing, to reflect he needs of his constituents, but shouldn’t a leader have a voice, an identity, different from that of the masses? For without a solid sense of one’s own identity, of core values, such an individual could not offer steadfast leadership in times of crisis.

(more…)

I just finished reading David Blankenhorn’s interesting and excellent* The Future of Marriage. I’m not sure yet how I intend to blog about this, either as a more formal review-type post or a series of posts on the issues he raises, but I do want to draw your attention to something he says in the Acknowledgments at the end of the book as it echoes what I’ve been saying about gay marriage at least as long as I’ve been blogging about the topic:

Today’s gay marriage debate is an invaluable opportunity for Americans to have a serious national discussion about marriage’s meaning and future.

The greatest criticism I make of gay marriage advocates is that most are unwilling to have that conversation. They’ve reduced the discussion to a debate over rights and equality without considering the history of marriage and the very ideas the social institution embodies. Blankenhorn addresses these issues. It one reason I recommend his book.

To be sure, there are exceptions to this rule, gay marriage advocates who do consider the institution’s meaning. It’s just too bad they’re not more prominent in the debate. Instead we’re subject to those who blather on with their trite and treacly tirades against those who would deny their right to shack up with the individual of their choosing.

All too many neglect to address the social benefits of marriage and the obligations which inhere in this ancient institution. And the transformation it effects on those who agree to submit to its strictures.

—-
*I use this adjective despite finding some flaws in the book. Blankenhorn repeats himself a bit overmuch in the second half and does not adequately address the point some gay marriage advocates, Jonathan Rauch most particularly, make about how expanding marriage to includ same-sex union could strengthen this ancient institution. That said, he offers a valuable argument backed up by much research. It’s why I recommend the book and believe it merits at least one review on this blog.

A couple weeks ago, seeing the DVD for the 2000 flick Chocolat on sale at a bookstore checkout display, I grabbed a copy, recalling how much I had enjoyed it when I saw it on the big screen.

When I watched it last night (and tonight), the flick still held my interest, despite its typical (for Hollywood today) theme of repressive religion. Still, the story’s villain, the town’s prudish mayor did find redemption at the end. It does seem that more often than not when the movies do faith, the faithful are portrayed either as hypocrites or judgmental fools.

And this flick did seem at times a feminist fairy tale. Still, while slow at the end and a bit contrived at times, it had a theme of the power of an individual to break stultifying conformity and help people better relate to one another.

That said, the thing that struck me the most about the movie was Juliette Binoche, its star. Thirty-six at the time the film was released, she seemed comfortable playing a young mother and did nothing to hide her age. Unlike Norma Desmond, she wasn’t trying to recapture a lost, glorious youth. To be sure, Binoche is has a face which seems to improve for the wear.

She seems almost the anti-Meg Ryan, who tried too long to hold onto her screen persona as the cute young woman. Perhaps, it’s Binoche’s good fortune that she never achieved fame in such a guise.

Let’s hope more actresses should take a page from her book and dare shed their youthful ambitions, settling for more mature roles. Instead of seeing their careers tank when they hit forty, while not getting lead roles, like Sigourney, Meryl and the late, great Miss Kate, they may continue to work and continue to dazzle us with their talents.

UPDATE:  Just realized something else.  While Johnny Depp, Binoche’s co-star in the flick, is nine months older than his cinematic love interest, he looks much younger.  That didn’t seem to bother her in the least.

In the current issue of the Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery observes the *strange new respect” many on the right currently accord Mrs. Clinton, largely because of her tenacity on the campaign trail. No fan of the former First Lady, I admire how scrappy she’s become, her back up to the wall, “hanging in there with ferocious and grim resolution.”

My admiration might become respect if the New York Senator had been as consistent in support of certain principles as she has been tenacious on the hustings. Right now it seems the only thing Mrs. Clinton believes is that she should be president.

Emery finds she’s now “running the classic Republican race against her opponent, running on toughness and use-of-force issues.” This lady has gone from decrying Republican tactics to adopting them for her own survival.

She seems to have had as many campaign strategies in 2008 as she had hairstyles in the 1990s.

And seemingly as many views on each issue.  This weekend she said again that she was “actually against Nafta” while the recently-released schedule from her days as First Lady shows how diligently she lobbied for that treaty’s passage.

As another conservative woman puts it, “If Hillary has shown anything over a lifetime of climbing the greasy pole of political power, it’s that she’s willing become whatever you want her to be.” (Via Thunder Run).

Many of Hillary’s supporters claim she’s a strong woman, so strong says one that she makes Rocky Balboa seem weak, but wouldn’t a strong woman be steadfast in support of something more significant than her own political survival? While we commend her perseverance, we wonder about someone so determined to promote herself.

In yesterday’s Powerline, Paul Mirengoff, grateful that he doesn’t have to participate in the selection of the Democratic presidential nominee argues why, he believes, Obama would make a better president than Ms. Hillary:

It’s hard to see Clinton being a good president, at least from my perspective. However, there probably are limits as to how bad she would be. Hillary seems to understand that the world is a dangerous place; that our enemies make it so; and that therefore, at a minimum, we should not be in a rush to accommodate them.

Obama may or may not grasp these basic realities. If he does not, then he will be another Jimmy Carter.

Yet, in contrast to Clinton, one can imagine Obama turning out to be a good president. That’s because there’s some evidence that he’s intellectually open to deviations from orthodox liberalism in ways that Clinton isn’t. In addition, there may be something to his (admittedly self-serving) claim that he’s temperamentally better suited than Clinton to working with his political adversaries. It’s difficult to see how he could be more poorly suited.

Paul’s analysis is remarkably similar to my own. Whereas Hillary dismisses Reagan’s ideas as “bad,” Obama recognizes them as significant even finding, finding merit in such conservative proposals as market approaches to reducing pollution and charter schools to improving education.

Just as smart as (if not smarter than) his brainy Democratic rival, Obama at least shows respect for the intellectual ferment on the right embodied in the Reagan Revolution. This is not to excuse the Illinois Senator for his liberal voting record or for his ever-changing explanations of his relationship to his angry former pastor, but it does show an intellectual curiosity and openness to new ideas that seems wanting in the wonkish Senator from New York.

It just seems that the Democratic frontrunner would sit down with his ideological adversaries for reasons other than political necessity.

Remember how CNN got all worked up when John McCain failed to denounce a supporter who had asked him how he was going to beat the b****, using the word for “female dog” to describe Mrs. Clinton. Well, someone recently asked him a question using a derogatory term for a part of the female anatomy and that network is nowhere to be found.

Maybe it’s because that the person posing the question supports Barack Obama’s presidential bid and used the “C” word to describe Mr. McCain’s wife (presumably a Republican) and not the “B” word to describe former President Clinton’s wife (most definitely a Democrat).

Jim Hoft informs us that Marty Parrish, one-time office manager for Delaware Senator Joe Biden’s presidential bid, asked the presumptive GOP nominee at an Iowa even if it were true that he ever called his wife a c—. Parrish now works for the Huffington Post.

Although CNN reporter Rich Sanchez devoting a lengthy segment of his show to the Republican woman’s use of the “B” word to describe Mrs. Clinton, wondering about McCain’s refusal to apologize for his supporter’s colorful remark, he has not seen fit to run a segment on this Democratic operative’s use of the “C” word to describe Mrs. McCain nor has he considered Obama’s refusal to apologize for his supporter’s sexually explicit remark.

Maybe Sanchez would have shown greater interest had the Democrat used the word to describe Mrs. Clinton.

And you wonder why some believe CNN stands for Clinton News Network.

Because neither the PatriotMomWest nor the PatriotMom qualifies for the military mom’s category, we have to choose an another mother to be “America’s Favorite Mom.” Therefore, we join other bloggers in supporting Patti Patton-Baden, founder of Soldier’s Angels, for American’s Favorite Mom in NBC’s contest.

Click here to vote for Patti Patton-Baden.

As you may know, Mrs. Patton-Baden, the great-niece of World War II General George S. Patton, Jr.. has two sons who had been deployed to Iraq. Her youngest son currently serves while her eldest was deployed there in 2003-04. To help bring comfort to men and women like her own children who risk their lives for the nation we love, she established Soldiers’ Angels to send care packages and letters to our troops.

Today, you can honor her work on behalf of our servicemen and women by voting for Patti Patton-Baden for America’s Favorite Mom in the military Moms category.

And every day, you can support her great group by making a donation here.

The time has come as I finally get my official “say” in the 2008 election.  Tomorrow is the North Carolina Primary!  And we have a lot going on in the Tar Heel state besides that one primary race you are hearing a lot about.

So for all of you from North Carolina who read GayPatriot or have family/friends that do…. here are my official, personal endorsements.  (GP Ed. Note:  I respectfully still disagree with Dan on his support of John McCain, so these are my PERSONAL endorsements).

FOR REPUBLICAN NC GOVERNOR:  Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory.

It is about time that the largest metro area in the state have a larger say in Raleigh.  Our voice has been minimized lately because the former DEMOCRAT from our area who was the Speaker of the House is sitting his ass in jail due to massive corruption.

McCrory is the seven-term Mayor of the City of Charlotte.  He has governed with, what I would call, a conservative pragmatism.  Not perfect, but just right for being a Republican mayor in the second largest city in the South. (Yes, that’s right Atlanta!)   He has made job growth, fighting crime and cracking down on illegal immigration the cornerstones of his campaign.   I think he is the best GOP candidate to win back the Governor’s Mansion for conservative governing this year.

DISCLOSURE:  I am a proud financial contributor to McCrory for Governor.

FOR DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION:  Senator Hillary Clinton

As a proud footsoldier of Operation Chaos, it is my duty to urge unaffiliated and switched-Republicans in North Carolina to VOTE HILLARY!!! (I think a little vomit just came up…)   

Ahem, anyway… if we have to have a Democrat in the White House I’d much rather have the devil we know than the silver-tongued devil we don’t know.   

Oh yeah….and on gay rights — Hillary, Obama & McCain are all the same; why waste my breath on that topic?

FOR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION:  “NONE OF THE ABOVE”

We have a cool option on the North Carolina ballot that I plan to use tomorrow:  None Of The Above (NOTA); technically the spot on the ballot reads: No Preference - Republican.

I cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain who, without the pantsuit and cackle, looks to be a lot like Hillary Clinton rather than Ronald Reagan to me.  I fear the unchecked President McCain (with support/acquiensence) of the Democratic Congress) will roll the clock back on securing the border, ensuring economic growth and may allow millions of Americans to be vaporized because he doesn’t want to even consider the Jack Bauer-treatment of terror suspects.  Don’t even get me started about the threat as President he poses due to his blatant disregard to the freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment (McCain-Feingold).

Sorry John…. you may have won over others in the Republican Party — but you have a LONG way to go with me.   I can at least let you know how I feel … with my vote for ‘NOTA’ tomorrow in North Carolina.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Although I completely disagree with Tom Hanks’ endorsement of Barack Obama, I do applaud his maturity, humor and historical context for doing so. If only more Hollywood types would thoughtfully do the same, then perhaps they would be relevant again in our world.

Bravo, Tom Hanks!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)