I am not sure how i missed this....but is joe solmonese fiddling?
Our so-called "leader of the gay community" is writing an op/ed slamming the minority party's leader while the DEMOCRATIC House and the DEMOCRATIC Senate hasn't given us a single piece of legislation in their 2 years in power. And we've been told by the DEMOCRATIC White House that it won't be possible in 2009.....
so where's Joe??
Washington is burning and he's fiddling with the minority party.
Solmonese needs to put down the party invitations, stop sending his resume to the Obama Personnel Office - and get to work.
What is that saying about the plank in your own eye? I think Joe needs to tell his DEMOCRATIC cabal that they need to put their mouth where our money is.
Where's the inclusion, Steele?
By: Joe Solmonese March 5, 2009 04:46 AM EST
How many times have we heard this refrain: There’s a war going on for the heart and soul of the Republican Party? Here’s another one: The Republican Party shoul d be an open tent. Or this one: Republicans need to make sure everyone is welcome and has a voice in his or her party. In reading the political tea leaves, that’s what many thought we were witnessing in the race for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee. This, we believed, might tell us a lot about where the party was headed. In fact, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who ultimately won the post, was portrayed as the moderate in a field that included incumbent Mike Duncan, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson. Yet, after his slim victory on the sixth ballot, Steele seems focused more on style than on substance, calling for a “hip-hop” approach. The president’s economic package was called “bling bling” by the new chairman. This is going to bring the Republicans back from two terrible elections in 2006 and 2008? As Ricky Ricardo used to say to his wife, “Lucy, you’ve got some explaining to do.” But I digress. It’s not that we didn’t know Steele was ultimately a conservative. But he was also a founding member of the Republican Leadership Council, whose stated mission is promoting fiscal responsibility while allowing diverse views on social issues. His co-founders were former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman and former Missouri Sen. John Danforth, two public figures who have broadened the dialogue from the Republican side of the aisle. Even though he distanced himself from the council in his successful bid to lead the GOP, we still held out a little hope, particularly given the alternatives. He even told Fox News that he thought there was an opportunity to “build a bridge between moderates and conservatives” on the issues of abortion and gay rights. But talk about cold water. First, Steele told the Christian Broadcast Network that, while he was personally opposed to a federal marriage amendment that would ban marriage equality, the party would advocate for its passage if the bill was filed again. How is that a departure from the Bush-Rove era of attacking gay Americans for political gain? How is that new leadership? Then, this same new party chairman who greeted his election with the words, “Get ready, baby. It’s time to turn it on,” really went off the deep end. In the same week that Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, also a Republican, announced his support for civil unions, Steele completely shut that conversation off.
When asked by a conservative radio talk show host the simple question, “Do you favor civil unions?” Steele seemingly couldn’t wait to shoot back, “No, no, no. What would we do that for? What, are you crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country?” I’ve been in and around politics long enough to recognize the knee-jerk tendency to veer sharply right after the defeat of what some saw as a moderate Republican presidential candidate. Perhaps, but did they forget about Sarah Palin? The truth is, America is changing its view on marriage equality and on civil unions. Depending on the poll, somewhere between 50 percent and 55 percent of Americans believe in civil unions or relationship recognition protection for loving gay and lesbian couples. Support for same-sex marriage gains additional support every year. And in a recent Newsweek poll that asked whether people favored marriage, civil unions or no recognition at all, 63 percent favored either marriage or civil unions. As for the Federal Marriage Amendment, even before our economic crisis, a plurality of Americans viewed this as a waste of time. This is a time for a new direction, not more of the same old, same old when it comes to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered America and the Republican Party. Most voters are dead tired of rhetoric that vilifies one group of Americans, or diminishes one family over another, or says to one teenager, “You’re OK” and to another, “You’re not.” And those lines are not drawn by a level of civic participation, scholastic aptitude or family values; they’re drawn by age-old prejudice that has no place in the uncertain world we all live in today. Chairman Steele would do well to look closer at where America is headed=2 0on these issues of family, heart, and basic fairness and to lead his party forward. Hip-hop, after all, is about authenticity, if nothing else. This three steps forward, two steps back approach not only won’t win elections; it won’t win many new party members, either. Joe Solmonese is president of the Human Rights Campaign.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
advice for the u.s. ambassador to the u.n.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/26/some-advice-for-ambassador-rice/
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Some advice for Ambassador Rice
From 2001 to 2008 I spent my days (and many nights) speaking for the United States at the United Nations. I was the longest serving American spokesman in history and it gave me a unique perspective on the United Nations and its relationship with its largest funder - the American taxpayer. The reality of how the U.N. works is not what some people on the right and the left would have you believe. As Susan Rice begins her tenure representing America at the U.N., she will find an institution in great need of change.
We all want the U.N. to live up to its original intent and be the place where the world comes together to solve international problems. Currently, however, too many members like the status quo too much to want to make any changes. While the United States, Japan and a handful of others are pressing to reform how money is appropriated and spent, others - including South Africa, Egypt and China are more interested in adding new programs and studies (that benefit their own economies or employ their own bureaucrats) with little regard for who pays the bill.
The biggest loser is the American taxpayer who is already spending more than $1 billion every year on U.N. dues, peacekeeping and contributions to U.N. agencies and yet has one vote among the 192 others to do anything about it.
The U.N.'s effort to support the fight against terrorism is a particular study in chaos. Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, the U.N. committed to fight terrorism and freeze the assets of terrorists. Committees were established and reports demanded of every country as to what was being done to stop the flow of terrorists within their border. Since then, after millions of dollars spent on committee structures and salaries, reports have either been shelved, not used or not even given to the U.N. As Security Council resolutions go unimplemented with no consequences for those who ignore them, more must be done to hold countries accountable. Former U.S. Ambassador John Danforth famously asked, "Can't we agree that shooting children in the back is terrorism?" To no avail.
After eight frustrating years, I still have hope for the U.N. I also know that it will take a lot of sustained fortitude to fix these problems. Here are my recommendations for the New U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Ms. Rice:
1. Make reforming the U.N. budget process your No. 1 priority.
2. Don't agree to any increase in U.S. taxpayer dollars spent at the U.N. until we see actual reforms.
3. The current committees designed for fighting terrorism are not working and must be changed by demanding more of members, not less.
4. Global warming, AIDS education and funding, smarter humanitarian assistance, and the protection of children are all noble causes that will greatly benefit from reforming the U.N. budget.
5. The best run agencies at the U.N. are the ones like UNICEF and the World Food Program where contributions are voluntary, not obligatory, and the top management are responsible to and held accountable by a board.
6. Fight hard for Japan to get a permanent seat on the Security Council, as it is one of our greatest allies.
7. The Human Rights Council will not be a legitimate agency until human rights abusers are denied membership.
8. You should get up every day and ask yourself "How do I make America stronger?" not "How do I make the U.N. stronger?"
9. If you are popular with other ambassadors it is probably because they like the fact that you aren't asking them to do anything.
10. You should ignore the far right conservatives who think the U.N. doesn't do anything good and the far left liberals who think the U.N. bestows legitimacy and therefore must first approve American ideas.
These reforms will go a long way toward showing Americans that the ideals of the U.N. can become reality and that the money we give to the U.N. to alleviate poverty and despair is worth the investment.
Richard Grenell served as director of communications for four U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations from 2001-2008.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Some advice for Ambassador Rice
From 2001 to 2008 I spent my days (and many nights) speaking for the United States at the United Nations. I was the longest serving American spokesman in history and it gave me a unique perspective on the United Nations and its relationship with its largest funder - the American taxpayer. The reality of how the U.N. works is not what some people on the right and the left would have you believe. As Susan Rice begins her tenure representing America at the U.N., she will find an institution in great need of change.
We all want the U.N. to live up to its original intent and be the place where the world comes together to solve international problems. Currently, however, too many members like the status quo too much to want to make any changes. While the United States, Japan and a handful of others are pressing to reform how money is appropriated and spent, others - including South Africa, Egypt and China are more interested in adding new programs and studies (that benefit their own economies or employ their own bureaucrats) with little regard for who pays the bill.
The biggest loser is the American taxpayer who is already spending more than $1 billion every year on U.N. dues, peacekeeping and contributions to U.N. agencies and yet has one vote among the 192 others to do anything about it.
The U.N.'s effort to support the fight against terrorism is a particular study in chaos. Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, the U.N. committed to fight terrorism and freeze the assets of terrorists. Committees were established and reports demanded of every country as to what was being done to stop the flow of terrorists within their border. Since then, after millions of dollars spent on committee structures and salaries, reports have either been shelved, not used or not even given to the U.N. As Security Council resolutions go unimplemented with no consequences for those who ignore them, more must be done to hold countries accountable. Former U.S. Ambassador John Danforth famously asked, "Can't we agree that shooting children in the back is terrorism?" To no avail.
After eight frustrating years, I still have hope for the U.N. I also know that it will take a lot of sustained fortitude to fix these problems. Here are my recommendations for the New U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Ms. Rice:
1. Make reforming the U.N. budget process your No. 1 priority.
2. Don't agree to any increase in U.S. taxpayer dollars spent at the U.N. until we see actual reforms.
3. The current committees designed for fighting terrorism are not working and must be changed by demanding more of members, not less.
4. Global warming, AIDS education and funding, smarter humanitarian assistance, and the protection of children are all noble causes that will greatly benefit from reforming the U.N. budget.
5. The best run agencies at the U.N. are the ones like UNICEF and the World Food Program where contributions are voluntary, not obligatory, and the top management are responsible to and held accountable by a board.
6. Fight hard for Japan to get a permanent seat on the Security Council, as it is one of our greatest allies.
7. The Human Rights Council will not be a legitimate agency until human rights abusers are denied membership.
8. You should get up every day and ask yourself "How do I make America stronger?" not "How do I make the U.N. stronger?"
9. If you are popular with other ambassadors it is probably because they like the fact that you aren't asking them to do anything.
10. You should ignore the far right conservatives who think the U.N. doesn't do anything good and the far left liberals who think the U.N. bestows legitimacy and therefore must first approve American ideas.
These reforms will go a long way toward showing Americans that the ideals of the U.N. can become reality and that the money we give to the U.N. to alleviate poverty and despair is worth the investment.
Richard Grenell served as director of communications for four U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations from 2001-2008.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Monday, December 22, 2008
a disappointment from my bush administration colleagues
http://advocate.com/news_detail_ektid68878.asp
12/20/08-12/22/08
U.S. Rejects U.N.'s Gay Rights Statement, Cites "Don't Ask"
A joint statement addressing homophobia and LGBT rights for the first time at the United Nations was tabled Thursday, without the backing of the United States.
"We urge states to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention," the draft document read.
The unprecedented gay rights declaration was proposed by the French and read by Argentinean ambassador Jorge Arguello. The nonbinding statement is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
The United States did not sign the statement, but former U.N. spokesman Richard Grenell said the U.S. was hung up on its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars out gays and lesbians from serving in the military.
"The fact that the Bush administration hired as many gays and lesbians with top secret security clearances in and of itself means that we are not criminals," Grenell said. "To later suggest that because of 'don't ask, don't tell' we can't support this resolution flies in the face of real compassion."
Grenell added that before he left his post in October as the longest-running American spokesman for the United Nations, he explained to State Department officials that the United States should sign the statement immediately, as a means to show the Bush administration is compassionate and accepting. "Yet, they came up with this phony argument that legally they had a problem with 'don't ask, don't tell.'"
Sixty-six of the 192 member countries, including the full European Union, Central African Republic, Brazil, Cuba, Israel, and Japan urged the decriminalization of homosexuality on Thursday to fellow member countries. In addition to the United States, China, Russia, and all of the Arab nations refused to back the statement.
A rival statement, read by Syria, garnered 58 signatures, according to Bloomberg News. Syrian envoy Abdullah al-Hallaq, reading the statement, said homosexuality could "usher into social normalization and possibly the legitimization of many deplorable acts, including pedophilia."
More than 77 countries find consensual same-sex relations to be a punishable offense, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Association. Seven countries -- Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen -- punish homosexuality by death. (Michelle Garcia, Advocate.com)
12/20/08-12/22/08
U.S. Rejects U.N.'s Gay Rights Statement, Cites "Don't Ask"
A joint statement addressing homophobia and LGBT rights for the first time at the United Nations was tabled Thursday, without the backing of the United States.
"We urge states to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention," the draft document read.
The unprecedented gay rights declaration was proposed by the French and read by Argentinean ambassador Jorge Arguello. The nonbinding statement is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
The United States did not sign the statement, but former U.N. spokesman Richard Grenell said the U.S. was hung up on its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars out gays and lesbians from serving in the military.
"The fact that the Bush administration hired as many gays and lesbians with top secret security clearances in and of itself means that we are not criminals," Grenell said. "To later suggest that because of 'don't ask, don't tell' we can't support this resolution flies in the face of real compassion."
Grenell added that before he left his post in October as the longest-running American spokesman for the United Nations, he explained to State Department officials that the United States should sign the statement immediately, as a means to show the Bush administration is compassionate and accepting. "Yet, they came up with this phony argument that legally they had a problem with 'don't ask, don't tell.'"
Sixty-six of the 192 member countries, including the full European Union, Central African Republic, Brazil, Cuba, Israel, and Japan urged the decriminalization of homosexuality on Thursday to fellow member countries. In addition to the United States, China, Russia, and all of the Arab nations refused to back the statement.
A rival statement, read by Syria, garnered 58 signatures, according to Bloomberg News. Syrian envoy Abdullah al-Hallaq, reading the statement, said homosexuality could "usher into social normalization and possibly the legitimization of many deplorable acts, including pedophilia."
More than 77 countries find consensual same-sex relations to be a punishable offense, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Association. Seven countries -- Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen -- punish homosexuality by death. (Michelle Garcia, Advocate.com)
Saturday, December 20, 2008
a true conservative would....
http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/kralev-diplomacy/2008/Dec/19/gays-republicans-and-a-un-resolution/
Gays, Republicans and a UN Resolution
The document was introduced in the U.N. General Assembly by France and the Netherlands and so far has been backed by 66 of the 192 members of the United Nations. It urges countries "to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention."
Homosexuality is illegal in 77 countries, seven of which punish it by death, according to the resolution's sponsors. Some of those states offered a rival document that gathered about 60 signatures. It said the original text "delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states" and could lead to "the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia."
The Bush administration, after intense lobbying by Catholics and hard-line conservatives, did not support France's draft, which was backed by all 27 European Union members. The administration cited legal reason for its decision, saying that endorsing the resolution's language is in conflict with U.S. laws, a reference to gay marriage.
But "that's a huge stretch," said Richard Grenell, a gay Republican who until recently was a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations. "Concerns about a remote possibility (marriage) ignores the purpose of the resolution, which is to make sure that people are not killed or oppressed just because they are gay."
A true conservative, Mr. Grenell said, is "always interested in less government involvement and more personal responsibilities."
"If being gay is a criminal act, then the State Department has granted hundreds of criminals like me top-secret security clearance," he said. "Common sense says that we should be the leader in making sure other governments grant more freedoms to their people."
U.S. diplomats said that supporting a non-binding resolution in defense of human rights should have been relatively easy for the administration and would have sent an important message a month before President Bush leaves office. But they also wondered why France did not wait another month to introduce the document, which most likely would have been endorsed by the incoming Obama administration.
"Perhaps the French wanted to embarrass the Bush administration," one diplomat said.
Gays, Republicans and a UN Resolution
December 19 2008 7:15 PM BY NICHOLAS KRALEV
Gay Republicans are furious at the Bush administration for opposing a non-binding U.N. resolution calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality around the world, alongside such abusers of human rights as Syria and Saudi Arabia.
The document was introduced in the U.N. General Assembly by France and the Netherlands and so far has been backed by 66 of the 192 members of the United Nations. It urges countries "to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention."
Homosexuality is illegal in 77 countries, seven of which punish it by death, according to the resolution's sponsors. Some of those states offered a rival document that gathered about 60 signatures. It said the original text "delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states" and could lead to "the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia."
The Bush administration, after intense lobbying by Catholics and hard-line conservatives, did not support France's draft, which was backed by all 27 European Union members. The administration cited legal reason for its decision, saying that endorsing the resolution's language is in conflict with U.S. laws, a reference to gay marriage.
But "that's a huge stretch," said Richard Grenell, a gay Republican who until recently was a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations. "Concerns about a remote possibility (marriage) ignores the purpose of the resolution, which is to make sure that people are not killed or oppressed just because they are gay."
A true conservative, Mr. Grenell said, is "always interested in less government involvement and more personal responsibilities."
"If being gay is a criminal act, then the State Department has granted hundreds of criminals like me top-secret security clearance," he said. "Common sense says that we should be the leader in making sure other governments grant more freedoms to their people."
U.S. diplomats said that supporting a non-binding resolution in defense of human rights should have been relatively easy for the administration and would have sent an important message a month before President Bush leaves office. But they also wondered why France did not wait another month to introduce the document, which most likely would have been endorsed by the incoming Obama administration.
"Perhaps the French wanted to embarrass the Bush administration," one diplomat said.
Friday, December 19, 2008
taking on the bush administration and my former colleagues
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6496273
Gay Rights Activists Upset By U.S. Refusal to Sign UN Measure
U.S. Only Major Western Nation Not to Sign Measure on Decriminalizing Homosexuality
By DAVID CRARY
Dec. 19, 2008—
Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.
In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration -- which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.
Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.
"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position -- which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights.
According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.
Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States -- despite its unwillingness to sign -- condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.
Gay rights activists nonetheless were angered by the U.S. position.
"It's an appalling stance -- to not join with other countries that are standing up and calling for decriminalization of homosexuality," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
She expressed hope that the U.S. position might change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.
Also denouncing the U.S. stance was Richard Grenell, who until two months ago had been the chief spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N.
"It is ridiculous to suggest that there are legal reasons why we can't support this resolution -- common sense says we should be the leader in making sure other governments are granting more freedoms for their people, not less," said Grenell, who described himself as a gay Republican. "The U.S. lack of support on this issue only dims our once bright beacon of hope and freedom for those who are persecuted and oppressed."
More than 50 countries opposed to the declaration, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a joint statement Thursday criticizing the initiative as an unwarranted attempt to give special prominence to gays and lesbians.
The statement suggested that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest.
The declaration also has been opposed by the Vatican, a stance which prompted a protest in Rome earlier this month.
A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Roman Catholic Church opposed the death penalty and other harsh repression of gays and lesbians, but he expressed concern that the declaration would be used as pressure against those who believe marriage rights should not be extended to gays.
A new Vatican statement, issued Thursday, endorsed the call to end criminal penalties against gays, but said that overall the declaration "gives rise to uncertainty in the law and challenges existing human norms."
The European nations backing the declaration waged their campaign in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Dutch foreign affairs minister, Maxime Verhagen, said countries that endorsed that 1948 document had no right to carve out exceptions based on religion or culture that allowed discrimination against gays.
"Human rights apply to all people in all places at all times," he said. "I will not accept any excuse."
He acknowledged that the new declaration had only symbolic import, but said it marked the first time such a large number of nations had raised the cause of gay rights in the context of General Assembly proceedings.
"This statement aims to make debate commonplace," he said. "It is not meant to be a source of division, but to eliminate the taboo that surrounds the issue."
Although the declaration's backers were pleased that nations on six continents had signed it, there were only two from Asia and four from Africa.
Gay Rights Activists Upset By U.S. Refusal to Sign UN Measure
U.S. Only Major Western Nation Not to Sign Measure on Decriminalizing Homosexuality
By DAVID CRARY
Dec. 19, 2008—
Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.
In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration -- which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.
Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.
"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position -- which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights.
According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.
Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States -- despite its unwillingness to sign -- condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.
Gay rights activists nonetheless were angered by the U.S. position.
"It's an appalling stance -- to not join with other countries that are standing up and calling for decriminalization of homosexuality," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
She expressed hope that the U.S. position might change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.
Also denouncing the U.S. stance was Richard Grenell, who until two months ago had been the chief spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N.
"It is ridiculous to suggest that there are legal reasons why we can't support this resolution -- common sense says we should be the leader in making sure other governments are granting more freedoms for their people, not less," said Grenell, who described himself as a gay Republican. "The U.S. lack of support on this issue only dims our once bright beacon of hope and freedom for those who are persecuted and oppressed."
More than 50 countries opposed to the declaration, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a joint statement Thursday criticizing the initiative as an unwarranted attempt to give special prominence to gays and lesbians.
The statement suggested that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest.
The declaration also has been opposed by the Vatican, a stance which prompted a protest in Rome earlier this month.
A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Roman Catholic Church opposed the death penalty and other harsh repression of gays and lesbians, but he expressed concern that the declaration would be used as pressure against those who believe marriage rights should not be extended to gays.
A new Vatican statement, issued Thursday, endorsed the call to end criminal penalties against gays, but said that overall the declaration "gives rise to uncertainty in the law and challenges existing human norms."
The European nations backing the declaration waged their campaign in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Dutch foreign affairs minister, Maxime Verhagen, said countries that endorsed that 1948 document had no right to carve out exceptions based on religion or culture that allowed discrimination against gays.
"Human rights apply to all people in all places at all times," he said. "I will not accept any excuse."
He acknowledged that the new declaration had only symbolic import, but said it marked the first time such a large number of nations had raised the cause of gay rights in the context of General Assembly proceedings.
"This statement aims to make debate commonplace," he said. "It is not meant to be a source of division, but to eliminate the taboo that surrounds the issue."
Although the declaration's backers were pleased that nations on six continents had signed it, there were only two from Asia and four from Africa.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
i hope they won't be sore winners - washington times op/ed
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/25/not-another-sore-loser/
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
GRENELL: Not another sore loser
Richard Grenell
COMMENTARY:
Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States. Even though I was one of the 57 million people who voted for John McCain, I am an American first and I will give my support to President-elect Barack Obama. John McCain showed us he isn't a sore loser and so his supporters shouldn't be either.
In fact, Hillary Clinton led the way in showing us why America's political process is the best in the world, as did Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee when they lost their party's nomination.
After working as the Spokesman for the United States at the United Nations for eight years, I learned that America is not Zimbabwe and when we have hard-fought elections we don't show our disappointment with the outcome by rioting or starting a war.
I want to give the newly elected Democratic president my support because I know what it is like to win an election and have the other side try and undercut you every step of the way immediately after the oath of office is administered. I know what it is like to feel the pain of friends who say that my guy is "ruining America" or "making the economy tank" or that I "hate black people" because of whom I voted for.
I know what it is like to see sore losers work to ensure defeat. I know what it is like when people complain and gossip instead of work to make our Union better. We are all Americans and regardless of who wins the White House, he is everyone's president.
Of course we will face challenges ahead, but if only 52 percent of us work on solving those problems then we won't accomplish much.
One of the reasons I voted for Mr. McCain is that I didn't recognize Barack Obama's America. Mr. Obama seems to see an America full of people dying in the streets with no place to go - where no one owns homes and everyone is bankrupt because the government is out to get them. His America is not the one I live in or see today.
I see an America where a black man has every opportunity to be president of the United States on Nov. 3, 2008, not just on Nov. 4, 2008. America did not go from terrible to great in one day of voting. I see an America that is and will always be the greatest place to live and work in the world. I am not just an optimist when I win elections.
Mr. Obama spoke of hope but described nonstop despair; he spoke of Red and Blue States as one, but worked to divide us economically; he says he will be everyone's president but relentlessly ridiculed the current president.
I won't act the way the partisan Democrats did toward President Bush. The way the liberals treated the 43rd president of the United States was sickening. The ugly comments, ridiculous innuendos and rumors that President Bush had to deal with during his two terms in office may have scored political points but it tore America apart. The all-accepting "liberal" party showed us they weren't really all accepting and tolerant after all.
The last eight years were incredibly tough for this country: Sept. 11, 2001, two wars, natural disasters and a stock market crash. But there was President Bush in front of the White House after the election to welcome Barack Obama and promise a smooth transition.
As the current President stood in front of the cameras and committed to do everything he can to prepare Mr. Obama's team, I wondered if Mr. Obama regretted spending $100 million in television commercials to ridicule and second-guess the current commander in chief. And I wonder how Rahm Emmanuel would react if the current White House staff stole the "o's" from the computer keyboards the way his team stole the "w's" from ours in 2000.
As we decide to not be sore losers, I hope the 65 million people who voted for Mr. Obama will not be sore winners.
Richard Grenell has just left the Bush administration after serving eight years as the spokesman for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
GRENELL: Not another sore loser
Richard Grenell
COMMENTARY:
Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States. Even though I was one of the 57 million people who voted for John McCain, I am an American first and I will give my support to President-elect Barack Obama. John McCain showed us he isn't a sore loser and so his supporters shouldn't be either.
In fact, Hillary Clinton led the way in showing us why America's political process is the best in the world, as did Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee when they lost their party's nomination.
After working as the Spokesman for the United States at the United Nations for eight years, I learned that America is not Zimbabwe and when we have hard-fought elections we don't show our disappointment with the outcome by rioting or starting a war.
I want to give the newly elected Democratic president my support because I know what it is like to win an election and have the other side try and undercut you every step of the way immediately after the oath of office is administered. I know what it is like to feel the pain of friends who say that my guy is "ruining America" or "making the economy tank" or that I "hate black people" because of whom I voted for.
I know what it is like to see sore losers work to ensure defeat. I know what it is like when people complain and gossip instead of work to make our Union better. We are all Americans and regardless of who wins the White House, he is everyone's president.
Of course we will face challenges ahead, but if only 52 percent of us work on solving those problems then we won't accomplish much.
One of the reasons I voted for Mr. McCain is that I didn't recognize Barack Obama's America. Mr. Obama seems to see an America full of people dying in the streets with no place to go - where no one owns homes and everyone is bankrupt because the government is out to get them. His America is not the one I live in or see today.
I see an America where a black man has every opportunity to be president of the United States on Nov. 3, 2008, not just on Nov. 4, 2008. America did not go from terrible to great in one day of voting. I see an America that is and will always be the greatest place to live and work in the world. I am not just an optimist when I win elections.
Mr. Obama spoke of hope but described nonstop despair; he spoke of Red and Blue States as one, but worked to divide us economically; he says he will be everyone's president but relentlessly ridiculed the current president.
I won't act the way the partisan Democrats did toward President Bush. The way the liberals treated the 43rd president of the United States was sickening. The ugly comments, ridiculous innuendos and rumors that President Bush had to deal with during his two terms in office may have scored political points but it tore America apart. The all-accepting "liberal" party showed us they weren't really all accepting and tolerant after all.
The last eight years were incredibly tough for this country: Sept. 11, 2001, two wars, natural disasters and a stock market crash. But there was President Bush in front of the White House after the election to welcome Barack Obama and promise a smooth transition.
As the current President stood in front of the cameras and committed to do everything he can to prepare Mr. Obama's team, I wondered if Mr. Obama regretted spending $100 million in television commercials to ridicule and second-guess the current commander in chief. And I wonder how Rahm Emmanuel would react if the current White House staff stole the "o's" from the computer keyboards the way his team stole the "w's" from ours in 2000.
As we decide to not be sore losers, I hope the 65 million people who voted for Mr. Obama will not be sore winners.
Richard Grenell has just left the Bush administration after serving eight years as the spokesman for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
sheryl gay stolberg is such a liberal democrat....
The New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg covers the White House. Anyone want to guess what her political persuasion is? i bet she voted for Obama. She has been letting her partisanship show for years but lately she is giddy with Obama-mania....is she really someone that is objective enough to cover President Bush and have an unbiased perspective on his 2 terms as he leaves the White House? here are just the 2 stories she did after Obama was elected.
November 9th's story was titled: "White House Memo - Obama Will Visit Bush, Watching Out for Tacks ...". Does Sheryl really think President Bush is that bitter and class-less? i think he has been gracious and honorable. Wasn't it Obama that spent more than $100 million to bash Bush during the Campaign? Why didn't Sheryl point that out? Obama has been the one leaving "tacks" on the chairs...or maybe it's been Sheryl??
November 11th's story finished with this paragraph: "A sense of anticipation extended beyond 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As the Obamas’ limousine made its way to the White House, hundreds of people lined the streets, craning their necks to see. When the door opened and the couple stepped out to greet the Bushes, there was an unfamiliar sound: cheering outside the White House gates."
How does Sheryl know that to be true? She doesn't - from her office she can't hear or see the front gates of the White House. This is her opinion. And since her story didn't appear on the Editorial and Opinion Page, her views should stay inside the voting booth and not in a newsstory. This is what I emailed Sheryl yesterday:
"why did you write that snotty comment at the end of your story today about how there hasn't been applause heard outside of the white house in a long time. it seems like a comment from someone with a partisan agenda, as well as just plain mean-spirited. weren't you the reporter lamenting how politics has gotten nasty lately? i am certain you don't know if it is actually true that there hasn't been applause outside of the white house in a long time. have you stood out front of the white house to know? and if you did, how long did you stand out there?"
she hasn't answered me.....
November 9th's story was titled: "White House Memo - Obama Will Visit Bush, Watching Out for Tacks ...". Does Sheryl really think President Bush is that bitter and class-less? i think he has been gracious and honorable. Wasn't it Obama that spent more than $100 million to bash Bush during the Campaign? Why didn't Sheryl point that out? Obama has been the one leaving "tacks" on the chairs...or maybe it's been Sheryl??
November 11th's story finished with this paragraph: "A sense of anticipation extended beyond 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As the Obamas’ limousine made its way to the White House, hundreds of people lined the streets, craning their necks to see. When the door opened and the couple stepped out to greet the Bushes, there was an unfamiliar sound: cheering outside the White House gates."
How does Sheryl know that to be true? She doesn't - from her office she can't hear or see the front gates of the White House. This is her opinion. And since her story didn't appear on the Editorial and Opinion Page, her views should stay inside the voting booth and not in a newsstory. This is what I emailed Sheryl yesterday:
"why did you write that snotty comment at the end of your story today about how there hasn't been applause heard outside of the white house in a long time. it seems like a comment from someone with a partisan agenda, as well as just plain mean-spirited. weren't you the reporter lamenting how politics has gotten nasty lately? i am certain you don't know if it is actually true that there hasn't been applause outside of the white house in a long time. have you stood out front of the white house to know? and if you did, how long did you stand out there?"
she hasn't answered me.....
Sunday, November 9, 2008
washington post: oops...we were biased
now tell me why they waited to annouce this until after the election? seriously....this woman says she has been following the trend for a year! speak up, deb. i think she should be fired for knowing this and waiting to tell the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html?sub=AR
An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, November 9, 2008;
B06
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 of last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.
The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."
The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.
Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.
The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.
McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.
Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.
Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward.
Some readers complain that coverage is too poll-driven. They're right, but it's not going to change. The Post's polling was on the mark, and in some cases ahead of the curve, in focusing on independent voters, racial attitudes, low-wage voters, the shift of African Americans' support from Clinton to Obama and the rising importance of economic issues. The Post and its polling partner ABC News include 50 to 60 issues questions in every survey instead of just horse-race questions, so public attitudes were plumbed as well.
The Post had a hard-working team on the campaign. Special praise goes to Dan Balz, the best, most level-headed, incisive political reporter and analyst in newspapers. His stories and "Dan Balz's Take" on washingtonpost.com were fair, penetrating and on the mark. His mentor, David S. Broder, was as sharp as ever.
Michael Dobbs, the Fact Checker, also deserves praise for parsing campaign rhetoric for the overblown or just flat wrong. Howard Kurtz's Ad Watch was a sharp reality check.
The Post's biographical pieces, especially the first ones -- McCain by Michael Leahy and Obama by David Maraniss -- were compelling. Maraniss demystified Obama's growing-up years; the piece on his mother and grandparents was a great read. Leahy's first piece on McCain's father and grandfather, both admirals, told me where McCain got his maverick ways as a kid -- right from the two old men.
But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.
The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts.
One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.
In early coverage, I wasn't a big fan of the long-running series called "The Gurus" on consultants and important people in the campaigns. The Post has always prided itself on its political coverage, and profiles of the top dogs were probably well read by political junkies. But I thought the series was of no practical use to readers. While there were some interesting pieces in The Frontrunners series, none of them told me anything about where the candidates stood on any issue.
Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or ombudsman@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html?sub=AR
An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, November 9, 2008;
B06
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 of last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.
The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."
The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.
Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.
The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.
McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.
Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.
Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward.
Some readers complain that coverage is too poll-driven. They're right, but it's not going to change. The Post's polling was on the mark, and in some cases ahead of the curve, in focusing on independent voters, racial attitudes, low-wage voters, the shift of African Americans' support from Clinton to Obama and the rising importance of economic issues. The Post and its polling partner ABC News include 50 to 60 issues questions in every survey instead of just horse-race questions, so public attitudes were plumbed as well.
The Post had a hard-working team on the campaign. Special praise goes to Dan Balz, the best, most level-headed, incisive political reporter and analyst in newspapers. His stories and "Dan Balz's Take" on washingtonpost.com were fair, penetrating and on the mark. His mentor, David S. Broder, was as sharp as ever.
Michael Dobbs, the Fact Checker, also deserves praise for parsing campaign rhetoric for the overblown or just flat wrong. Howard Kurtz's Ad Watch was a sharp reality check.
The Post's biographical pieces, especially the first ones -- McCain by Michael Leahy and Obama by David Maraniss -- were compelling. Maraniss demystified Obama's growing-up years; the piece on his mother and grandparents was a great read. Leahy's first piece on McCain's father and grandfather, both admirals, told me where McCain got his maverick ways as a kid -- right from the two old men.
But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.
The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts.
One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.
In early coverage, I wasn't a big fan of the long-running series called "The Gurus" on consultants and important people in the campaigns. The Post has always prided itself on its political coverage, and profiles of the top dogs were probably well read by political junkies. But I thought the series was of no practical use to readers. While there were some interesting pieces in The Frontrunners series, none of them told me anything about where the candidates stood on any issue.
Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or ombudsman@washpost.com
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
"Change" the media.....
Since "Change" won, can we start with the Media?
Seriously, now that Obama has won can we just admit that the Media were his running mate? Objective observers can't disagree that the national Media were tripping over themselves to elect the first Black President.
I know hundreds of journalists and the overwhelming majority of them are Democrats. While some of them try and hide their bias, very few of them can. I have no problem with reporters being partisan but with their inability to admit that their partisanship directly effects their work - especially during emotional national campaigns - has ruined their credibility. With newspapers in decline and cable television becoming more opinionated, it is time for the public to demand a change in Who brings us the news.
If "Change" is good for the political process then it should hold true for all the pundits and journalists that feed us the "facts" during the political process. It is time to "change" the media.
CNN, which claims to be the only unbiased cable news station, is marketing and selling President Obama t-shirts (no joke). Jack Cafferty today read 4 emails on camera that he says he received from typical Americans and every one of them was an Obama supporter, Wolff Blitzer and Soledad O'brien were giddy last night every time Obama won a state, Jessica Yellin was assigned to cover Obama-Biden and she's a total partisan Democrat, Ed Henry has been chided by CNN Executives for Bush-bashing and crossing the line while covering The White House beat for CNN.
The New York Times, ABC News, CBS News and of course NBC News are all filled with partisan Democrats i know well. While the Republicans have their supporters in the Media too, albeit in drastically fewer outlets, what is mostly offensive from the Liberal partisan Media is their assumption that their journalistic standard is unbiased and above reproach.
When Linda Douglas left ABC News where she covered the Bush Administration for many years to join the Obama campaign as the Spokeswoman it should have been a national Media story about journalistic standards and integrity. The fact that Linda's new job was largely ignored by her peers is appalling and telling. When Charlie Gibson started his one on one interview with Obama, the week before the Presidential election on November 4th, with a giggle and the question "Have you thought about what decision you will make first on November 5th?" every American should have felt betrayed.
This year's Presidential Election proved to be entirely too much for the national Media to contain their excitement. The historic nature of electing the first Black President was an emotional time for America, but Obama's inexperience begged for a thorough review of his qualifications from the national Media not a coronation. Now that President-elect Obama has officially won the election, I will be very anxious to see Who the major news outlets select as the reporters to cover the Obama White House. The American people deserve new and unbiased political reporters covering Washington.
Richard Grenell has been a Spokesman for public officials at the local, state, national and international level for 15 years.
Seriously, now that Obama has won can we just admit that the Media were his running mate? Objective observers can't disagree that the national Media were tripping over themselves to elect the first Black President.
I know hundreds of journalists and the overwhelming majority of them are Democrats. While some of them try and hide their bias, very few of them can. I have no problem with reporters being partisan but with their inability to admit that their partisanship directly effects their work - especially during emotional national campaigns - has ruined their credibility. With newspapers in decline and cable television becoming more opinionated, it is time for the public to demand a change in Who brings us the news.
If "Change" is good for the political process then it should hold true for all the pundits and journalists that feed us the "facts" during the political process. It is time to "change" the media.
CNN, which claims to be the only unbiased cable news station, is marketing and selling President Obama t-shirts (no joke). Jack Cafferty today read 4 emails on camera that he says he received from typical Americans and every one of them was an Obama supporter, Wolff Blitzer and Soledad O'brien were giddy last night every time Obama won a state, Jessica Yellin was assigned to cover Obama-Biden and she's a total partisan Democrat, Ed Henry has been chided by CNN Executives for Bush-bashing and crossing the line while covering The White House beat for CNN.
The New York Times, ABC News, CBS News and of course NBC News are all filled with partisan Democrats i know well. While the Republicans have their supporters in the Media too, albeit in drastically fewer outlets, what is mostly offensive from the Liberal partisan Media is their assumption that their journalistic standard is unbiased and above reproach.
When Linda Douglas left ABC News where she covered the Bush Administration for many years to join the Obama campaign as the Spokeswoman it should have been a national Media story about journalistic standards and integrity. The fact that Linda's new job was largely ignored by her peers is appalling and telling. When Charlie Gibson started his one on one interview with Obama, the week before the Presidential election on November 4th, with a giggle and the question "Have you thought about what decision you will make first on November 5th?" every American should have felt betrayed.
This year's Presidential Election proved to be entirely too much for the national Media to contain their excitement. The historic nature of electing the first Black President was an emotional time for America, but Obama's inexperience begged for a thorough review of his qualifications from the national Media not a coronation. Now that President-elect Obama has officially won the election, I will be very anxious to see Who the major news outlets select as the reporters to cover the Obama White House. The American people deserve new and unbiased political reporters covering Washington.
Richard Grenell has been a Spokesman for public officials at the local, state, national and international level for 15 years.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
my prediction picked up by the huffington post
and check out the many comments it prompted from outraged liberals at the end of the blog....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-grenell/why-obama-will-lose-today_b_140948.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-grenell/why-obama-will-lose-today_b_140948.html
why obama will lose today.....
The mainstream media did everything they could to knock off Hillary Clinton in the Primary Election and John McCain in the General Election in order to help elect Barack Obama the 44th President of the United States. Fortunately, their attempt to convince the American people that the inexperienced and untested Junior Senator from Illinois was qualified to be President has backfired.
While the media try and weave a story of a unified Democratic Party and a Republican Party in turmoil, the facts point to a different outcome. While I may be one of the few pundits in America that think John McCain will win on Tuesday, I hold firm to the lessons learned in the Democratic Primary and Politics 101.
For anyone to win the Presidency, he/she must unify their base, split the Independent votes and steal one more vote from the other side. Although the media's polls have unanimously concluded that Obama will sweep to victory on Tuesday, there remains fundamental problems for the Obama campaign with their base of Democratic voters. Since Obama's problems from this summer's Democratic Primary have not been resolved, nor reported by the national media, the Electoral College map signals trouble for the media's main man.
Throughout the Democratic Primary election, Obama never garnered significant support from 4 of the major groups within the Democratic base. Union members, women, older voters and Jewish voters all were Hillary Clinton supporters in significant numbers. While the national media did focus on the disgruntled female supporters of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, they dropped the issue after Obama won the nomination at the Convention. However, the media's short attention span has not solved the problem for the man whose Pastor of 20 years still gives many Americans pause. Additionally, there has been very little written or aired about the lack of support for Obama with older voters, Jewish voters and union members. The assumption that the 25 million people who voted for Hillary and the rest of the Democratic candidates now have Obama yard signs will prove to be a fatal misstake for the media and Howard Dean. Now I will admit that the majority of the members of these groups will ultimately end up voting for the Democratic nominee, but the slightest amount of slippage in the percentage of these voters means Obama will not have the support the media and the polls are assuming he will have. And this is no small problem. Since Obama has not united the Democratic Party the way Sarah Palin helped John McCain unite the Republican Party, the 44th President of the United States will be John S. McCain.
If this doesn't make sense to you then your emotions have carried you away from reality. McCain doesn't need the majority of supporters from these tradtional Democratic groups in order to win today. McCain needs to get only a small amount because these voters are not independents or swing voters, these people are traditional and frequent Democratic voters. None of the main media outlets have looked in to whether or not these groups, who did not support Obama in the Primary, have come back to the Democratic base. But they have not. How else does one explain the fact that Pennsylvania gave Hillary a huge win in the Primary and is still giving Obama trouble today. Pennsylvania is a tradionally Democratic State and yet in this anti-Republican year, Obama has failed to close the deal. A closer look at Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri and even Michigan suggests that union members and older Americans are not comfortable with Barack Obama.
The media, however, have all but called the race for Obama; but they have overplayed their hand. While CNN reports, as they did last week, that Obama is up in Missouri and NPR and the New York Times are trying to convince us that North Carolina and Virginia are really toss-up states, the American electorate quietly wait for the opening of the polls.
While the media try and weave a story of a unified Democratic Party and a Republican Party in turmoil, the facts point to a different outcome. While I may be one of the few pundits in America that think John McCain will win on Tuesday, I hold firm to the lessons learned in the Democratic Primary and Politics 101.
For anyone to win the Presidency, he/she must unify their base, split the Independent votes and steal one more vote from the other side. Although the media's polls have unanimously concluded that Obama will sweep to victory on Tuesday, there remains fundamental problems for the Obama campaign with their base of Democratic voters. Since Obama's problems from this summer's Democratic Primary have not been resolved, nor reported by the national media, the Electoral College map signals trouble for the media's main man.
Throughout the Democratic Primary election, Obama never garnered significant support from 4 of the major groups within the Democratic base. Union members, women, older voters and Jewish voters all were Hillary Clinton supporters in significant numbers. While the national media did focus on the disgruntled female supporters of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, they dropped the issue after Obama won the nomination at the Convention. However, the media's short attention span has not solved the problem for the man whose Pastor of 20 years still gives many Americans pause. Additionally, there has been very little written or aired about the lack of support for Obama with older voters, Jewish voters and union members. The assumption that the 25 million people who voted for Hillary and the rest of the Democratic candidates now have Obama yard signs will prove to be a fatal misstake for the media and Howard Dean. Now I will admit that the majority of the members of these groups will ultimately end up voting for the Democratic nominee, but the slightest amount of slippage in the percentage of these voters means Obama will not have the support the media and the polls are assuming he will have. And this is no small problem. Since Obama has not united the Democratic Party the way Sarah Palin helped John McCain unite the Republican Party, the 44th President of the United States will be John S. McCain.
If this doesn't make sense to you then your emotions have carried you away from reality. McCain doesn't need the majority of supporters from these tradtional Democratic groups in order to win today. McCain needs to get only a small amount because these voters are not independents or swing voters, these people are traditional and frequent Democratic voters. None of the main media outlets have looked in to whether or not these groups, who did not support Obama in the Primary, have come back to the Democratic base. But they have not. How else does one explain the fact that Pennsylvania gave Hillary a huge win in the Primary and is still giving Obama trouble today. Pennsylvania is a tradionally Democratic State and yet in this anti-Republican year, Obama has failed to close the deal. A closer look at Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri and even Michigan suggests that union members and older Americans are not comfortable with Barack Obama.
The media, however, have all but called the race for Obama; but they have overplayed their hand. While CNN reports, as they did last week, that Obama is up in Missouri and NPR and the New York Times are trying to convince us that North Carolina and Virginia are really toss-up states, the American electorate quietly wait for the opening of the polls.
Friday, October 31, 2008
where is the national media outrage on this story?
imagine what would have happened had the mccain campaign tossed off the plane the new york times reporter or the cnn reporter? (see story below). conservatives know how to deal with bias media because we have been up against the liberal media machine for years.
the obama campaign should point out the hypocrisies of the media when they don't feel like they are getting a fair shake - but they shouldn't exclude them.
all media is bias in some way, so we must give equal accesss to everyone but hold them accountable when they are not fair.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashopp.htm
PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET
**Exclusive**
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president! The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president. MORE Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES' Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain's Straight Talk Express airplane. After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.
the obama campaign should point out the hypocrisies of the media when they don't feel like they are getting a fair shake - but they shouldn't exclude them.
all media is bias in some way, so we must give equal accesss to everyone but hold them accountable when they are not fair.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashopp.htm
PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET
**Exclusive**
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president! The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president. MORE Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES' Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain's Straight Talk Express airplane. After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.
Monday, October 20, 2008
10 questions that should have been asked of powell.....
Since Tom Brokaw was tongue-tied on Meet The Press on Sunday and Andrea Mitchell was unable to think clearly about a man she covered for 4 years, I thought i should suggest some questions for any other reporters who get a chance to interview former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
1 - First and foremost, if you are so concerned about the direction of your so called party, why didn't you get involved or even speak out during the Republican primary?
2 - Why did you wait for the last 16 days of the GENERAL ELECTION to speak out if you were truly troubled about "your party's direction"?
3 - As the man who presented the facts to the UN Security Council on the U.S. intelligence in Iraq, does your endorsement of Obama mean that you agree with Obama that it was the biggest misstake we ever made by going into Iraq?
4 - And if you don't agree with Obama on Iraq then how do you square endorsing a man that thinks you are the leader of the stupidist foreign policy blunder the U.S. has ever made?
5 - Does your desire "for a fresh set of eyes" leading America mean that you will commit to not taking a job in the next Administration?
6 - While we appreciate your economic assessment that McCain doesn't seem to know how to respond to the economic crisis facing America, should we take financial advice from a Secretary of State that was billions of dollars over budget on his spending in Iraq and Afghanistan?
7 - And while we are at it, did you or did you not tell the President we should liberate Iraq?
8 - Since Obama has made an issue of the sleezy tactics used to out former CIA agent Valerie Plame, did you tell him before you endorsed him that it was your long term deputy that was the leak?
9 - Obama has said that he would sit down with Ahmedineajad without conditions and you have said that it is foolish to do so, is Obama foolish or have you changed your mind?
10 - You authored, recommended and still advocate for the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, does your endorsement of Obama (who doesn't agree with it) mean that Obama has agreed to break his promise to change the policy?
richard grenell spent 8 years working at the department of state (4 of which were under powell).
1 - First and foremost, if you are so concerned about the direction of your so called party, why didn't you get involved or even speak out during the Republican primary?
2 - Why did you wait for the last 16 days of the GENERAL ELECTION to speak out if you were truly troubled about "your party's direction"?
3 - As the man who presented the facts to the UN Security Council on the U.S. intelligence in Iraq, does your endorsement of Obama mean that you agree with Obama that it was the biggest misstake we ever made by going into Iraq?
4 - And if you don't agree with Obama on Iraq then how do you square endorsing a man that thinks you are the leader of the stupidist foreign policy blunder the U.S. has ever made?
5 - Does your desire "for a fresh set of eyes" leading America mean that you will commit to not taking a job in the next Administration?
6 - While we appreciate your economic assessment that McCain doesn't seem to know how to respond to the economic crisis facing America, should we take financial advice from a Secretary of State that was billions of dollars over budget on his spending in Iraq and Afghanistan?
7 - And while we are at it, did you or did you not tell the President we should liberate Iraq?
8 - Since Obama has made an issue of the sleezy tactics used to out former CIA agent Valerie Plame, did you tell him before you endorsed him that it was your long term deputy that was the leak?
9 - Obama has said that he would sit down with Ahmedineajad without conditions and you have said that it is foolish to do so, is Obama foolish or have you changed your mind?
10 - You authored, recommended and still advocate for the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, does your endorsement of Obama (who doesn't agree with it) mean that Obama has agreed to break his promise to change the policy?
richard grenell spent 8 years working at the department of state (4 of which were under powell).
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
voter fraud......
this story is disturbing on so many levels. one of the many lessons i learned from working at the UN for more than 7 years is that there is no greater threat to democracy than voter fraud and intimidation. people should not be coerced at the polls. i challenge everyone who cares about our democracy to volunteer on election day at the polls to ensure that those who are voting are not intimidated or coerced or participating in fradulent schemes.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10062008/news/nationalnews/homeless_driven_to_vote_obama_132395.htm
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10062008/news/nationalnews/homeless_driven_to_vote_obama_132395.htm
Monday, October 6, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
the intolerant left
Intolerance is Back Again
I was recently having dinner with 3 others in New York City, in the heart of the West Village, when the table next to us leaned over and proclaimed that we were the problem with America. My friends and I were all shocked and perplexed. Did we know these people? Had they confused us with someone they knew? After calling us "bigots" and "ignorant" we realized they had been eaves-dropping on our political discussion during a quiet Saturday night dinner. Our opinions about Sarah Palin and women in politics were too much for them to sit and enjoy their own dinner, instead they chose to insert themselves into the conversation next to them and loudly start an argument. The irony was not lost on me: a man in the West Village, wearing an ascot around his neck, was lecturing us about being "bigots who want to control the way other people chose to live their lives" - after he interrupted our dinner to shout us down! I tried to explain to him that he has become what he hates - an intolerant and angry voter.
In the 1990's, the liberals were proud to display a popular bumber sticker: "HATE is not a family value"? The slogan was a backlash to the Religious Right's (RR) attempt to promote family values in politics. The liberals found the RR's social campaign and their subsequent intolerant actions to be too hypocritical to not push back. Correctly, the liberals mounted a campaign to show the hypocrisy of promoting love and family values well at the same time angrily denouncing some people. Hypocrisy never wins elections and the liberal backlash succeeded. Social conservatives and their promotion of family values as the primary issue in the 1992 and 1996 Congressional and Presidential campaigns naively believed that Americans would vote for the party that promoted social policy over any other policy. The disasterious Houston Republican Convention of 1992 was highlighted by Pat Buchanan's speech promoting social policy as the mantra of the election. The RR didn't learn any lessons that year when Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush and a plethora of Democratic senators swept into Washington, they ultimately tried to push the same social policy messages into the 1996 campaigns as well. And although the Republican reformers and fiscal budget hawks in Congress wrestled control of the Republican message from the RR in 1994 (and ultimately became the Majority in Congress for the first time in 40 years), the Religious Right came roaring back in 1996 with more social policy demands. The 1996 elections for Republicans focused mainly on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's affair and only proved that the RR's message of social policy as government policy would be rejected by the American people - the RR had once again lost the General election.
In 2000, George W. Bush seemed to learn the lessons of the intolerant right's failures by launching his Presidential bid with vows of "compassionate conservativism" and committments to work with both sides of the partisan aisle. For many of us, we thought the lessons had been learned that intolerance is not only un-American but it doesn't win elections either. Although the current Bush Presidency's plans for the country were drastcially changed on 9/11/01, many Republicans wonder if the compassionate conservative campaign pledge of 2000 would have ushered in a greater sense of unity in Washington, less divisive political theatre and a final defeat for intolerant politics. Unfortunately, we may never know the answer.
In 2008, the Republicans had a plethora of candidates to chose from in the primary. The candidate chosen by the GOP, John McCain, wasn't the choice of social conservatives and yet he is the nominee. For many in the Republican party, the choice of McCain is another defeat for intolerant politics led by the Religious Right.
But while the war over intolerance and narrow-mindedness is waging in Republican circles, it is alive and well on the Left. The angry Left has taken over the Democratic Party and is in full control of the message. The actions by the self-described "all accepting" and "diverse" liberals started to creep into politics with John Kerry's campaign in 2004. But in 2008, we are seeing the most angry and intolerant liberals America has ever seen. The liberal elites are having a hard time discussing policy without becoming apoplectic and resorting to name-calling. The height of hypocrisy is to see the angry left advocate for diversity but to completely become enraged when someone isn't seeing the world the way they do. They believe that if you don't agree with them then you are a bigot and "ruining America". Try listening to The View's Joy Behar and you quickly see that she shouts over all other views with cynicism and anger or watch MSNBC to witness the Left's new intolerant message that there is only one way to think.
Living in New York City one would assume you would be surrounded by liberal and accepting people with diverse opinions. This is a City that declares you can be anything you want. This is the heart of American liberalism. But try being a conservative in liberal circles these days and you quickly see that the diverse party isn't so accepting. Try telling the liberal elites that you are a pro-life Democrat and you'll get a lashing about how you don't care about women. Or tell the standard bearers of tolerance that you are a gay Republican or an environmentalist voting for McCain and the angry name-calling reaches a new level. But why has the angry and intolerant left taken over the Religious Right as the new intolerant group? For many in the Republican mainstream, we thought we were making progress on getting rid of the narrow-minded from the political scene, but now we find they have popped up on the left. The elite have become completely unwilling to listen to other ideas other than their own. The intolerant angry left has replaced the religious right in 2008. And it makes you wonder if "Intolerance and Anger is the CHANGE we need"?
I was recently having dinner with 3 others in New York City, in the heart of the West Village, when the table next to us leaned over and proclaimed that we were the problem with America. My friends and I were all shocked and perplexed. Did we know these people? Had they confused us with someone they knew? After calling us "bigots" and "ignorant" we realized they had been eaves-dropping on our political discussion during a quiet Saturday night dinner. Our opinions about Sarah Palin and women in politics were too much for them to sit and enjoy their own dinner, instead they chose to insert themselves into the conversation next to them and loudly start an argument. The irony was not lost on me: a man in the West Village, wearing an ascot around his neck, was lecturing us about being "bigots who want to control the way other people chose to live their lives" - after he interrupted our dinner to shout us down! I tried to explain to him that he has become what he hates - an intolerant and angry voter.
In the 1990's, the liberals were proud to display a popular bumber sticker: "HATE is not a family value"? The slogan was a backlash to the Religious Right's (RR) attempt to promote family values in politics. The liberals found the RR's social campaign and their subsequent intolerant actions to be too hypocritical to not push back. Correctly, the liberals mounted a campaign to show the hypocrisy of promoting love and family values well at the same time angrily denouncing some people. Hypocrisy never wins elections and the liberal backlash succeeded. Social conservatives and their promotion of family values as the primary issue in the 1992 and 1996 Congressional and Presidential campaigns naively believed that Americans would vote for the party that promoted social policy over any other policy. The disasterious Houston Republican Convention of 1992 was highlighted by Pat Buchanan's speech promoting social policy as the mantra of the election. The RR didn't learn any lessons that year when Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush and a plethora of Democratic senators swept into Washington, they ultimately tried to push the same social policy messages into the 1996 campaigns as well. And although the Republican reformers and fiscal budget hawks in Congress wrestled control of the Republican message from the RR in 1994 (and ultimately became the Majority in Congress for the first time in 40 years), the Religious Right came roaring back in 1996 with more social policy demands. The 1996 elections for Republicans focused mainly on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's affair and only proved that the RR's message of social policy as government policy would be rejected by the American people - the RR had once again lost the General election.
In 2000, George W. Bush seemed to learn the lessons of the intolerant right's failures by launching his Presidential bid with vows of "compassionate conservativism" and committments to work with both sides of the partisan aisle. For many of us, we thought the lessons had been learned that intolerance is not only un-American but it doesn't win elections either. Although the current Bush Presidency's plans for the country were drastcially changed on 9/11/01, many Republicans wonder if the compassionate conservative campaign pledge of 2000 would have ushered in a greater sense of unity in Washington, less divisive political theatre and a final defeat for intolerant politics. Unfortunately, we may never know the answer.
In 2008, the Republicans had a plethora of candidates to chose from in the primary. The candidate chosen by the GOP, John McCain, wasn't the choice of social conservatives and yet he is the nominee. For many in the Republican party, the choice of McCain is another defeat for intolerant politics led by the Religious Right.
But while the war over intolerance and narrow-mindedness is waging in Republican circles, it is alive and well on the Left. The angry Left has taken over the Democratic Party and is in full control of the message. The actions by the self-described "all accepting" and "diverse" liberals started to creep into politics with John Kerry's campaign in 2004. But in 2008, we are seeing the most angry and intolerant liberals America has ever seen. The liberal elites are having a hard time discussing policy without becoming apoplectic and resorting to name-calling. The height of hypocrisy is to see the angry left advocate for diversity but to completely become enraged when someone isn't seeing the world the way they do. They believe that if you don't agree with them then you are a bigot and "ruining America". Try listening to The View's Joy Behar and you quickly see that she shouts over all other views with cynicism and anger or watch MSNBC to witness the Left's new intolerant message that there is only one way to think.
Living in New York City one would assume you would be surrounded by liberal and accepting people with diverse opinions. This is a City that declares you can be anything you want. This is the heart of American liberalism. But try being a conservative in liberal circles these days and you quickly see that the diverse party isn't so accepting. Try telling the liberal elites that you are a pro-life Democrat and you'll get a lashing about how you don't care about women. Or tell the standard bearers of tolerance that you are a gay Republican or an environmentalist voting for McCain and the angry name-calling reaches a new level. But why has the angry and intolerant left taken over the Religious Right as the new intolerant group? For many in the Republican mainstream, we thought we were making progress on getting rid of the narrow-minded from the political scene, but now we find they have popped up on the left. The elite have become completely unwilling to listen to other ideas other than their own. The intolerant angry left has replaced the religious right in 2008. And it makes you wonder if "Intolerance and Anger is the CHANGE we need"?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
