Good for him!!!
Everyone in the party that disagrees with Bush needs to stand up to him about this amendment, and other bad choices he is makeing....
Conversely, however, the democratic party needs to stand up to Kerry's faults--his disagreeable stances on gay marriage and Iraq, and his nonstances on so many issues--Its time we end the era of straight-ticket party loyalty. Other countries in this world have more than two dominating parties. We are so feircely loyal to our parties here, that is impossible. We must break this feirce and faulty blind faith down. Noone agrees totally with their party, and those that don't agree should speak up and make their parties accountable. That goes for Republicans AND democrats. Bush wants to support the FMA, but Kerry is not too much better, publicly stating he does not support gay marriage. Even if he IS in support of Civil Unions, that's still crappy. How can we be so vehemently against Bush for the FMA, when the democratic candidate is milqutoast on the subject at best. No more staunch party loyalty! I am a Green here in mid-Michigan, but I refused to vote for Sterling Johnson--a man who teaches at my school, and whom I have enormous respect for because he is a very smart man--because his GLARING personality weaknesses make him a poor leader. I don't support people who beat their wives and drink and drive, no matter how genius their policies are. This is the kind of party rank-breaking we need. I support the Green party, but not all greens. Dave Catania supports the Republican Party, but not all Republicans.
I understand what Catania says about breaking from his party... sort of. I was raised a staunch Republican, and I had been known in my past to turn people INTO republicans. But ever since I started high school, I began to have serious doubts about the party, and its place in my life. By the time I was a senior in High School, I was breaking ranks big time with what I had believed in for so long. Once McCain lost the primaries, I knew that my days as a loyal Elephant were numbered. I had been raised to be socially liberal, environmentally conscious, feminist (well, besides abortion, that WAS bad, but all other women equality was GOOD), and pro-welfare. These liberal seeds that my very Republican parents had planted in me, began to grow throughout high school, as I explored my sexuality, my relationship with diversity issues, and other things. I became very social-justice minded, and realized that a lot of my beliefs were in direct conflict with the candidates of the republican party--not really the idea behind the republican party, just the whole of its current incarnation. I guess I realized that, just like communism, the Republican party is a good idea... in theory. But people are greedy. people are selfish. People are proud. People are biased. People are hateful. People are violent. Rather than try to bring people together, the republican party was pushing people further and further to margins. Being a republican meant being EXTREMELY against feminism. Being a republican meant being EXTREMELY against social welfare. A good republican accepted the veiws of Rush Limbaugh wholly and without addition or revision. That is the problem with staunch party loyalty. Its like buying Abercrombie and Fitch. You don't care what it looks like, or if it fulfills its function, you're just buying it for the name. By the time summer had run its course, and I got here to college, I had already jumped ship--without my parents knowing. In fact, a propsal my father had helped write the language of, and was on the committee to develop was on the ballot for vote, and I had to vote against it on principle. Because--unlike Republicans IN GENERAL--I felt that the first amendment seperation of Church and State was one of the most important laws of this land, and MUST be preserved. His bill came dangerously close to compromising that seperation in Michigan. So I out and out voted against my father, a fact I had to explain to him at Christmas. Strangely enough he had agreed with me, said that most of the poeple there had wanted to propose it differently, the way I had told him I would have been able to support it as, but that diretives had come down from higher places (Engler) asking for the prop to be written the way it was. Then, in a reversal, Engler flip-flopped on the issue and came out against the proposal in an effort to try to save Spence Abraham's reelection bid (he lost anyways, but lucky for him, he's now the secretary of Energy, the big fuckstick). My dad understood, but his duty to his party had seemed greater to him at the time than his own oppinion, forcing him to quell the inclination to break ranks. Why??? This makes no sense to me. Why support something you don't believe in because of party loyalty. Sounds like the National Socialist Party of Germany to me, doesn't it. Oh, I don't support the gas chambers, but the party says it's good, so I just keep loading them up. You know how that ends up "I was just following Orders." That's how.
End fascistic uber-party-loyalty today. On BOTH sides.
Salon.com News | Burning down the Log Cabin
