Back in 1992, the two major English-speaking democracies (the United Kingdom and the United States) held elections which, while they went different ways, the more conservative party holding on in the UK while being voted out here, offered a similar lesson — that when times are tough, people are only willing to change course when they have confidence in the opposing party. In both nations, the opposition party led in polls in the immediate run-up to the general election.

While Neil Kinnock’s Labour Party picked up seats that year, substantially reducing the Conservative majority in Parliament, voters deciding at the last minute opted for the incumbent party, not confident that the Kinnock, from Labour’s left wing, could pull the UK out of its then-lingering recession. Thus, even in a recession, British voters preferred the mundane Major and his incumbent Conservatives to his more colorful challenger.

In our country, however, also suffering under a recession, Bill Clinton presented himself as “New Democrat.” And while he was critical of then-President George H.W. Bush’s policies, he, unlike the Democrats of today, did not oppose everything a President Bush proposed. He was mealy-mouthed on the First Gulf War, eventually coming out in favor and agreed with the incumbent on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). So well did he put forward his in that campaign that I can still remember it fourteen years later. That Democrat promised a middle-class tax cut and to “end welfare as we know it.”

In short, Clinton won in 1992, not merely because things were not as good as they had been in the 1980s, but because he put forward a more moderate agenda than had previous Democratic nominees. More importantly, he used his charm to present his platform in a positive manner. Unlike his Republican opponent that year, he had learned from Ronald Reagan and knew to be optimistic, playing to people’s hopes.

(more…)

While many gay activists accuse Republicans of being anti-gay, some leading Republicans, including my great Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, sign pro-gay legislation and reach out to gay citizens. As Mayor of New York, my man for ’08, Rudy Giuliani signed a domestic partnership policy into law — one of the first in the nation. While other Republican leaders do not live up to the examples of these two fine leaders, some are often doing good in smaller ways.

Such was the case yesterday when Maryland’s Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich fired Robert J. Smith “his state’s representative on the board of directors of the D.C. area Metro subway and bus system” when he learned that Smith had “referred to gay men and lesbians as ‘sexual deviants.’” In a statement, Ehrlich said:

Robert Smith’s comments were highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. . . . They are in direct conflict to my administration’s commitment to inclusiveness, tolerance and opportunity.

Ehrlich fired Smith fewer than four hours after openly-gay D.C. Council member Jim Graham, who also serves on the Metro Board, “demanded Smith’s resignation.” Later, Graham said that, “Governor Ehrlich got it. . . . He recognized the seriousness of this situation.“

Kudos, Governor Ehrlich. Let’s hope that, like Jim Graham, other Democrats acknowledge this Republican’s swift response to a mean-spiritied remark.

(H/t: Washington Blade)

…And for those of you who think you have it sooooo bad as a gay person here in the United States. 

Via Little Green Footballs:

Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, founder of the IslamOnline web site and head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, is a very influential Islamic cleric often described as a “moderate.”

From our pals at Al Jazeera, broadcast on June 5, 2005, here’s the moderate sheikh on the subject of gay marriage.

Actually, he never reaches the marriage part, because al-Qaradawi gets stuck at the issue of whether to throw gays off buildings or burn them alive.

Here’s a partial transcript of the interview.

Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Kerry, who ran against Bush, was supported by homosexuals and nudists. But it was Bush who won [the elections], because he is Christian, right-wing, tenacious, and unyielding. In other words, the religious overcame the perverted. So we cannot blame all Americans and Westerners.

But unfortunately, because the Westerners – Americans and others – want to flatter these people on account of the elections, a disaster occurs. In order to succeed and win the elections, he flatters these people, rather than saying to them: No, you are sinning against yourselves, against society, and against humanity. This is forbidden. Instead of leveling with them, people flatter them to win their votes. This is the disaster that has befallen humanity.

Interviewer: How should a homosexual or a lesbian be punished? We mentioned the story of the people of Sodom and how Allah punished them, but how should someone who commits this abomination be punished today?

Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: The same punishment as any sexual pervert – the same as the fornicator.

The schools of thought disagree about the punishment. Some say they should be punished like fornicators, and then we distinguish between married and unmarried men, and between married and unmarried women. Some say both should be punished the same way. Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement.

The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.

Now some of you have been convinced by The Advocate and the HRC for all of your lives that there are gay concentration camps with your name on them in Idaho.  But it is sad if you can’t see the stark truth of how good we have it here in the United States.  I’d rather not have the “right” to marry and be free to debate that issue in public, than live in a Islamic country that debates on how to kill gays and lesbians.

Which side are YOU on in the War On Terror?

[Related Story - Self-Loathing and the Denial of Terrorism] (A must read for many of our moonbat commenters)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)