Two of the most powerful moments of political deja vu I have ever experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens.

First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications.

This example of presidential phrase parsing was followed quickly by the president's press secretary, Scott McLellan, dead-panning to reporters that when Bush said a couple of years ago that he would never allow the NSA to monitor Americans without a court order, what he really meant was something different than what he actually said. If McLellan's last name had been McCurry, and the topic an illicit relationship with a White House intern rather than illegal spying on American citizens, I could have easily been listening to a White House news conference at the height of the Clinton impeachment scandal.

On foreign policy, domestic issues, relationships with Congress, and even their selection of White House Christmas cards and china patterns, presidents are as different as night and day. But when caught with a hand in the cookie jar and their survival called into question, administrations circle the wagons, fall back on time-worn but often effective defense mechanisms, and seamlessly morph into one another.

First, we get a president bobbing and weaving like Muhammad Ali. He knows he can't really tell the truth and he knows he can't rely only on lies. The resulting dilemma leads him to veer from unintelligible muttering to attempts to distract, and then to chest-beating bravado and attacks on his accusers.

Soon, he begins taking trips abroad and appearing at the White House podium with foreign leaders with minimal command of English, allowing him to duck for cover whenever scandal questions arise.

Of course, the president can't carry the entire stonewalling burden alone. The next actors to enter the stage typically are the president's press secretary and the White House counsel's office. Serious scandals tend to spawn congressional investigations and independent counsels. As Clinton quickly learned, and Richard Nixon before him, the best way to short-circuit such endeavors is to force the investigators and lawyers to fight like dogs for every inch of ground they get.

By using the White House counsel's office to bury investigators in a sea of motions, pleadings and memoranda, an administration can drag out an investigation to the point of exhaustion. By the time the investigation actually slogs through this legal maze to bring real charges or issue a report, the courts, public and media are so sick and tired of hearing about it that the final charges fall stillborn from the press.

A critical component of White House Scandal Defense 101 is rallying the partisan base. This keeps approval ratings in territory where the wheels don't start falling off. The way to achieve this goal is you go negative and you don't let up. If you're always attacking your accusers, the debate becomes one of Democrat vs. Republican, rather than right vs. wrong. Anyone who questions the legality of the decision to wiretap thousands of Americans unlawfully is attacked, as either an enabler of terrorists or a bitter partisan trying to distract a president at war.

Yet another tactic is to shore up your congressional base in order to avoid or at least control pesky oversight investigations. A president's job here is made far easier if his party maintains a majority in one or both houses. Even if your party doesn't enjoy control of either the House or the Senate, you can still achieve your desired goal, as did Clinton — America's master scandal handler. You've just got to work harder at it.

The signs are everywhere that the Bush White House is busily implementing all parts of this defense strategy. It would be refreshing if it decided to clear the air and actually be honest about its post-Sept. 11 surveillance. However, that's unlikely. The problem this president faces, as did his predecessors, is that full disclosure would lead to the remedy stage. No president wants to fight that end-game.

— Former U.S. attorney and congressman Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. His Web site: www.bobbarr.org

Published 12/28/2005, guest column, Atlanta Journal Constitution
See the full article

ROBERT STEINBACK
rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com posted 12/26/2005

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?
See the full article

AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers . . .
Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years . . .

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.

Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make his misgivings public and demand more information.

Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.
See the full article

Messages asking for money are "political speech," not spam, an official says.

By ADAM C. SMITH
St. Petersburg Times

As attorney general, Charlie Crist rails against spam e-mails.

"Spam is an annoying, intrusive form of e-mail that almost all of us receive but few of us want. Much of it is just clutter, but some of it can be downright offensive," the attorney general declared in a May press release heralding his efforts to fight unwanted e-mail.

But as a Republican candidate for governor, Crist is annoying Floridians himself by obtaining people's addresses and sending them unsolicited e-mails touting his gubernatorial candidacy and asking for campaign donations.

"It's not spam," insisted Arlene DiBenigno, Crist's political director. "It's political speech. We're not selling anything, we're not being deceptive. We love the First Amendment, and there's nothing more powerful than political speech."

But don't tell that to Dorothy Butler, a 59-year-old postal worker and ardent Democrat from Land O'Lakes.

She had signed up for the attorney general's official e-mail newsletters, but was none too pleased when she started receiving Crist's gubernatorial campaign pitches.

"He's not living up to his own standards. To me that is spam because I never asked for any of his political stuff," Butler said.

"My first reaction was, why am I getting this? I'm not a Republican. My second reaction was aggravation because the only place I could think of where he got my e-mail address was from the state Web site," Butler said.

The Crist campaign built a campaign e-mail list in part by filing public records requests for e-newsletter requests sent to the attorney general's office and governor's office.

On Wednesday, state employees received Crist campaign e-mails on their state e-mail accounts: "I need your help to spread our message of consistent conservatism -- less taxes, less government and more freedom, Crist wrote. Your donation of $500, $250, $100 or $25 will go a long way toward supporting our efforts."

One employee with the Pinellas Health Department e-mailed the St. Petersburg Times Wednesday complaining that Crist was misusing state property and resources.

Crist campaign staffers said they recently filed a public records request for the e-mail addresses of people who subscribe to the governor's e-newsletter.

The campaign tried to scrub all the state employee addresses but apparently missed some.

The Crist campaign e-mails, they noted, prominently show people how to unsubscribe.

That didn't work so well for Joe Spooner, a 41-year-old investment adviser from Brandon. He has no idea how the Crist campaign got his e-mail address, but repeatedly tried to unsubscribe.

After the fifth request to be removed, a frustrated Spooner fired off an e-mail reminding the Crist campaign how Crist touts his fight against spammers:

"The irony and hypocrisy amazes me. Do I need to file a complaint with the Attorney General's office? Anybody have the number for the Fraud Hotline?" wrote Spooner, a Republican.

Ultimately, Spooner did get removed from Crist's e-mail list.

Crist is running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination against chief financial officer Tom Gallagher.

The Gallagher campaign said Tuesday it uses no state e-mail databases for its campaign.

"This is the season of giving, and I guess Charlie felt what Floridians needed most this Christmas is more spam," quipped Gallagher campaign spokesman Albert Martinez.

Crist has touted his efforts to fight spam as attorney general, including pushing for a 2004 law giving the attorney general authority to prosecute companies that send unsolicited and deceitful commercial e-mail.

In a news release earlier this month about his office shutting down two Tampa spam operations, Crist said: "By enforcing the Anti-Spam law that we were proud to propose, Florida will penalize and shut down those responsible for this unwanted and illegal nuisance."

Butler, the Land O'Lakes Democrat who complained that Crist "abused my privacy" by using her e-mail for his campaign, said Crist's e-mails got past her spam filters.

She has asked for the Crist campaign to stop e-mailing her.

"I haven't received anything from anybody except Crist," she said after learning that her e-mail address became a public record after she signed up with state Web sites. "God forbid, I should get something from that Katherine Harris."
See the full article

Danica Kirka, Associated Press
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 / 09:29 AM

WINDSOR, England -- Britain's most famous gay couple -- Sir Elton John and Canadian filmmaker David Furnish -- tied the knot Wednesday in a much-anticipated ceremony that capped the first week of legalized civil unions in the United Kingdom.

John, 58, and Furnish, 43, were among hundreds of same-sex couples taking advantage of a new British law offering same-sex couples a legal status similar to marriage. The law took effect Wednesday in England and Wales. Ceremonies were held earlier this week in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Fans turned up before sunrise in the cobbled streets around Windsor's town hall, the Guildhall, where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles wed in April. Cameras flickered as the couple -- John wearing purple spectacles and a black suit -- walked out arm-in-arm, waving to the crowd.

The couple drove off in a black Rolls-Royce for a lunch followed by a glitzy reception with more than 700 guests.

"I think it's amazing -- it's brilliant," said Tim Alcock, 43, one of dozens of onlookers.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking to reporters at a news conference, wished the couple well and congratulated them for exercising their newfound legal right. Activists saw the union as milestone in the gay-rights movement.

Peter Tatchell, spokesman for the gay and lesbian human rights group OutRage! said the wedding "would raise the profile of gay love and commitment."

"Their same-sex civil partnership ceremony will be reported all over the world including in countries where news about gay issues is normally never reported," he said. "This will give hope to millions of isolated, vulnerable, lesbian and gay people especially those living in repressive and homophobic countries."

The new law -- passed last year despite some opposition from Parliament's unelected House of Lords -- allows civil ceremonies that will give same-sex couples the same social security, tax, pension and inheritance rights as married couples.

Furnish, best known for a documentary about the pop star called "Tantrums and Tiaras," has been with John for 12 years. Both acknowledged that their ceremony might have broader ramifications.

"As far as I'm concerned I've always considered myself committed to Elton, and he's the person that I want to spend the rest of my life with. So in that sense I don't feel like the dynamic of our relationship is going to change," Furnish told Attitude magazine. "But from a social standpoint, I think it's hugely significant. It is a major, major change. It is one of the defining issues of our times."

After the ceremony the couple headed for a lunch with their family to be followed by a reception -- costing an estimated $1.75 million -- where pink champagne and lamb would be served to hundreds of celebrity guests inside two giant white tents that have been erected on the grounds of the pop star's Windsor mansion.

Their low-key ceremony was attended by friends and family, including John's mother, Sheila, and stepfather Fred, and Furnish's parents Gladys and Jack, who flew in from Canada.

Art dealer Jay Jopling was among the couple's friends who said the ceremony was "like any other couple getting married."

"They kissed at the end. It was very, very happy," Jopling said.

Guests at the couple's bachelor night on Monday included heavy metal rocker-turned- reality-TV-star Ozzy Osbourne and his wife, Sharon, model and actress Liz Hurley and musicians Bryan Adams, Gary Barlow and Kid Rock.

John, who was married once before to studio engineer Renate Blauel, is known for such songs as "Crocodile Rock" and "Rocket Man." He was also a close friend of Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in Paris in 1997, and was knighted in 1998 -- an honor he described as the pinnacle of his decades-long career.

"It's a long time coming really," said Suzi Uprichard, 33, of Maidenhead, who was in the crowd in Windsor. She said she was excited to be part of what she described as a historic day for same-sex couples.

Other couples tying the knot Wednesday included actor Sir Antony Sher, 56, and his partner Greg Doran, 47, who wed at Islington Town Hall in north London.

Three couples signed their documents moments after the register office opened at 8 a.m. in Brighton, the south coast city known as Britain's gay capital.

"I'm really excited! I'm very happy to be one of the first," said Gino Meriano, who was with his partner, Mike Ullett.

The Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and Spain have legalized same-sex marriage, while Germany, France and Switzerland have laws similar to Britain's. In the United States, only Massachusetts allows gay marriage, while Vermont and Connecticut permit civil unions, which are identical to California's domestic partnerships.
See the full article

From the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a great organization that was created ten years ago to help overturn the military's anti-gay Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy.

According to recent press reports, Pentagon officials have been spying on what they call "suspicious" meetings by civilian groups, including student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. The story, first reported by Lisa Myers and NBC News last week, noted that Pentagon investigators had records pertaining to April protests at the State University of New York at Albany and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's LGBT advocacy group OUTlaw, which was classified as "possibly violent" by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) condemned the Pentagon surveillance and monitoring. "The Pentagon is supposed to defend the Constitution, not turn it upside down," said SLDN executive director C. Dixon Osburn. "Students have a first amendment right to protest and Americans have a right to expect that their government will respect our constitutional right to privacy. To suggest that a gay kiss-in is a 'credible threat' is absurd, homophobic and irrational. To suggest the Constitution does not apply to groups with views differing with Pentagon policy is chilling."

In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay. The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop "chemicals that effect (sic) human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic). One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior." SLDN also condemned that report, and the Pentagon later said it never intended to develop the program.

"The Pentagon seems to constantly find new and more offensive ways to demean lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said Osburn. "First, we were deemed unfit to serve our country, despite winning wars, medals and the praise of fellow service members. Then, our sexual orientation was suggested as a means to destabilize the enemy. Now, our public displays of affection are equated with al Qaeda terrorist activity. It is time for new Pentagon policy consistent with the views of 21st century America."

SLDN announced it plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to learn if it or other LGBT organizations have also been monitored by the Pentagon. To date, only a small portion of DoD's total database of information has been made public.

Sources that show the Pentagon keeping tabs on gay groups include this news report:

A secret Pentagon document obtained by NBC News reveals that the military has been spying on what they call "suspicious" civilian meetings - including many "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests.

Only eight pages from the four-hundred page document have been released so far. But on those eight pages, Sirius OutQ News discovered that the Defense Department has been keeping tabs NOT just on anti-war protests, but also on seemingly non-threatening protests against the military's ban on gay servicemembers. According to those first eight pages, Pentagon investigators kept tabs on April protests at UC-Santa Cruz, State University of New York at Albany, and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's gay advocacy group "OUTlaw," and was classified as "possibly violent."

All of these protests were against the military's policy excluding gay personnel, and against the presence of military recruiters on campus. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says the Pentagon needs to explain why "don't ask, don't tell" protesters are considered a threat.
See the full article

8 Pioneers and Rangers face wide range of allegations

By JOSHUA BOAK
TOLEDO BLADE STAFF WRITER

Tom Noe is not the only top Bush fund-raiser under criminal investigation this year. He shares that distinction with seven others.

Federal and state authorities are investigating the Bush Pioneers and Rangers, individuals who raised at least $100,000 or $200,000 for President Bush's re-election, for bribery, money laundering, stock manipulation, and extortion.

Democrats have said that as investigations continue, there will be "enough [convictions] for their own prison softball team."

"The Republican culture of corruption, it knows no bounds. It's a deterioration of values." said Amaya Smith, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

In Ohio, investigators have dug into the finances of two Bush Pioneers - Mr. Noe and Larry Householder, the former speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, who is under grand jury scrutiny for the alleged skimming of campaign funds.

Mr. Noe was indicted in October by a federal grand jury in Toledo on charges of laundering donations to Mr. Bush's re-election campaign. State officials have accused the former Toledo-area coin dealer of stealing $4 million from the rare-coin investment he managed for the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

Nationwide, other Bush fund-raisers are at the center of scandals involving the government, prominent corporations, and the public's trust.

On Thursday, a federal jury found James Tobin, a Maine political consultant, guilty of jamming the Democrats' phone lines in New Hampshire three years ago. He could serve five years in jail and pay a $250,000 fine.

A federal grand jury in Florida indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff in August on conspiracy and wire fraud charges in the purchase of gambling boats, whose former owner was later murdered. Mr. Abramoff continues to be under suspicion for his lobbying actions on behalf of a slew of Indian casinos.

Investment banker P. Nicholas Hurtgen was federally indicted in May in a hospital construction extortion scam. A former aide to Tommy Thompson, the Wisconsin governor who later became a Bush cabinet member, Mr. Hurtgen faces a maximum of 80 years in jail and a $1 million fine if convicted on all charges.

"Co-conspirator No. 1" in the November plea agreement by U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R., Calif.) is defense consultant Brent Wilkes, according to Mr. Wilkes' lawyer. Accused of bribing the congressman with $635,000, Mr. Wilkes also was subpoenaed by Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle in connection with the money laundering charges leveled against former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R., Texas).

Billionaire Maurice "Hank" Greenberg was ousted in March from AIG, the Shanghai property insurance company he built into a revered powerhouse because of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into his alleged stock manipulation. Also, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has filed suit against Mr. Greenberg detailing a history of misdeeds.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in November that the FBI is investigating Manuel Stamatakis, a management consultant who once chaired the region's port authority. A grand jury has convened to examine the suspect insurance contracts Mr. Stamatakis negotiated as the agency's chairman.

Despite these scandals, Ms. Smith said that Democrats plan to focus on their "own positive message" in 2006 elections.

"Republicans are going to have to deal with their own issues," she said. "We can't deal with those issues for them."

Contact Joshua Boak at: jboak@theblade.com or 419-724-6728.
See the full article

The Ford Motor Company today released the following letter (below) clarifying that whatever did or did not happen behind closed doors with the American Family Association (AFA) two weeks ago, the company is NOT backing off of its support for the gay community or gay advertising (in contrast to what was reported over the past two weeks).

According to the AFA and media reports over the past two weeks, in order to avoid a boycott from the extremist gay-hating organization, Ford allegedly agreed to:

1. No longer run ads promoting Jaguar or Land Rover in the gay press.
2. No longer support gay events or organizations.
3. Continue running Volvo ads in the gay press, but no longer tailor those ads to the gay community (i.e., in the future such ads would be the same ads that are run in the mainstream media, rather than the crafting the ads to appeal to a gay readership).

Ford addressed and resolved each of our three concerns regarding the above:

1. Ford announced that it will continue to support gay organizations and gay events in the coming year and beyond.

2. Ford is going to run advertisements in the gay media NOT ONLY promoting the Jaguar and Land Rover brands, but the ads will promote ALL of Fords brands, by name, including Jaguar and Land Rover.

3. Ford states unequivocally that it will continue to tailor its ads for the specific audience it is trying to reach, and then goes one step further. Ford challenges us to keep an eye out on their upcoming ads in order to verify that they will in fact be tailored.

There is no other way to read this than that Ford did the right thing. Whether or not an agreement was reached with the American Family Association - and the AFA has a record of crowing about such "victories" when no such victory occurred (sounds a lot like our president) - Ford has rectified the real or perceived problem, and the AFA has been shown to have no clothes (other than a very rusty chastity belt).

The thanks for this goes out to all of you. YOU did this. WE did this, together. And the we doesn't just include everyone who writes on and reads this blog. It includes the entire blogosphere who helped on this issue. It includes - yes, I'm serious - the gay civil rights groups who did the right thing here, stepped up to the plate, coordinated as they never have before, and stood firm against a bully. And finally, part of the credit goes to Ford and its brands (and I strongly suspect its employees as well). They could have told us to go to hell. They could have decided it was smarter to embrace intolerance and bigotry, but they didn't. Ford chose to embrace fairness and equality, Ford chose to embrace the values that doesn't just make American corporations great, they're the values that make America great.

Today, we all won.

Here is the text of Ford's letter:

December 14, 2005

Matt Foreman, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign
Neil Giuliano, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Craig Bowman, National Youth Advocacy Coalition
Jody Huckaby, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
Alexander Robinson, National Black Justice Coalition
Jeff Montgomery, Triangle Foundation

Dear Friends:

Thank you again for taking the time to speak with us on Monday. In my view, it was the start of a valuable and healthy dialogue, and I was pleased to be there on behalf of Bill Ford, Chairman and CEO of Ford Motor Company.

My intention was to be as direct and forthright. You deserve no less. I appreciate your candor in return. I'd like to take this opportunity to review the information we shared face-to-face and to tell you how our thinking has evolved.

You asked us specifically to reaffirm our principles of nondiscrimination and inclusiveness. We agreed, without any reservations, and issued a statement immediately after the meeting in which Bill Ford did so personally. We pointed out that Ford Motor Company and its brands value diversity among all of our constituents and pride ourselves on strong and clear values - respect for our customers, communities, employees, suppliers and dealers; acceptance of our differences; inclusion of different people with different perspectives; and integrity. That commitment is unchanged and we believe it is reflected in our policies, practices and marketing.

You asked us to comment on reports that we had placed creative restrictions on the way our brands could speak to gay and lesbian audiences. We expect our brands to create advertising that supports their brand image and is appropriate and effective in connecting with the intended audience. That is unchanged. But we do not have to deal with this topic in the abstract. The best answer to your question will be in the ads themselves. I would ask you to judge our intent by what you see.

You asked directly whether Ford Motor Company will continue to support nonprofit groups and events in the GLBT community. While we will still support certain events, I know you understand that the business situation will limit the extent of our support in all communities in 2006. We will continue all of our workplace policies and practices in support of Ford GLOBE members and supporters. That is unchanged.

You asked directly for us to have Jaguar and Land Rover reverse its plans and advertise in gay and lesbian targeted publications in 2006. As we said, Jaguar and Land Rover made a business decision about their media plans and it would be inconsistent with the way we manage our business to direct them to do otherwise. It is clear there is a misperception about our intent. As a result, we have decided to run corporate ads in these targeted publications that will include not only
Jaguar/Land Rover but all eight of Ford's vehicle brands. As we have said, the content will be appropriate and effective in connecting with the intended audience. It is my hope that this will remove any ambiguity about Ford's desire to advertise to all important audiences and put this particular issue behind us.

Finally, you expressed your strong objections to our having even met with one of your harshest critics. We meet every day with people and organizations on many issues, and, as a business, do not wish be drawn into those that detract from our effectiveness in the marketplace. That said, we expect to be measured not by the meetings we conduct but by our conduct itself. Our record on tolerance and inclusion speaks for itself and I am proud to be judged on that record at any time.

In closing, thank you again for your candor and professionalism. We listened and learned, and hope that you continue to understand the values and commitments of Ford Motor Company. I look forward to hearing from you at any time.

Sincerely,

Joe Laymon
See the full article

By: Doug Windsor, 365Gay.com New York Bureau

Posted: December 10, 2005 11:00 am ET

(New York City) Facing a maelstrom of criticism over allegations it caved in to conservative Christians, Ford Motor Company has agreed to meet with national LGBT groups over the company's decision to pull advertising from the gay media.

The meeting will take place on Monday, Rita Sklar, the spokesperson for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, told 365Gay.com.

Following Ford's announcement that it was dropping ads in the gay media for its Land Rover and Jaguar lines the American Family Association declared victory and said it was ending its threatened boycott.

The AFA said the Ford decision was made following a meeting between it and the company at Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan. (story)

Ford claims that the decision to cut back on advertising and the AFA meeting were not related but the company did not dispute the conservative group's interpretation of the meeting.

The company also says it remains committed to diversity in the workplace.

The disparity between the AFA and Ford over the real reason for the advertising decision and the timing of the announcements by the two led 19 LGBT civil rights groups to demand an immediate meeting with Ford.

"If there is an agreement with AFA, we expect Ford to disavow it," the groups said in a joint statement.

Five days later, and after a hail of bad press - both in the mainstream and the gay media - Ford agreed to meet.

Earlier this year the AFA took aim at Kraft Foods - stopping just short of calling for a full boycott - for sponsoring the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago. (story) Kraft has not budged in its support for the games.

The AFA boycotted Proctor and Gamble last year after the Cincinnati-based P&G supported the repeal of an anti-gay law in that city. (story)

In April AFA declared victory over Proctor & Gamble after the company ended most of its advertising in the gay media. (story) The group claimed that more than 300,000 people had signed pledges not to buy P&G products.

The effect on P&G is believed to be one of the major reasons Microsoft decided to withdraw its support of a gay rights bill in the state of Washington following a meeting with a conservative Christian leader. (story) Following outrage from the company's gay workers and LGBT rights groups in Washington the company reversed course again and announced it would support gay rights measures in the future. (story)

Last weekend another Conservative Christian group, Focus on the Family, announced it was withdrawing its funds from Wells Fargo because of the banks involvement in pro-gay causes. (story)

On Wednesday the two top ranking politicians in West Hollywood released a letter to Ford Motor Co. Chair William Ford blasting the company's decision to end its LGBT advertising. (story)

"By bending to the will of an organization like the AFA, the Ford Motor Company has aligned itself with a group that uses fear and promotes bigotry," the letter from Mayor Abbe Land and Mayor Pro Tem John Heilman said.

Hornburg Jaguar and Land Rover a Ford dealer in West Hollywood.

The Commercial Closet Association, which educates marketers and ad agencies about the LGBT community, said boycotts against companies that support gays have had little effect.

"Boycott threats by anti-gay groups have proven over the years to have no measurable or adverse sales impact on targeted companies, including years-long efforts against American Airlines and Disney. As it has always been, success in the marketplace is dictated by the effectiveness of marketing strategies -- not approval from bigoted organizations," said Michael Wilke, the executive director of the Commercial Closet in a statement Friday.

(C) 2005 365GAY.COM
See the full article

source: Strategic Vision

Below are the poll results based on telephone interviews with 1200 registered voters in Florida, aged 18+, and conducted November 25-28, 2005. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

1. Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's overall job performance?
Approve 37%
Disapprove 54%
Undecided 9%

2. Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's handling of the economy?
Approve 38%
Disapprove 49%
Undecided 13%

3. Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's handling of Iraq?
Approve 42%
Disapprove 50%
Undecided 8%

4. Do you view President Bush as a conservative in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only)
Yes 27%
No 47%
Undecided 26%

5. Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Jeb Bush's job performance?
Approve 55%
Disapprove 39%
Undecided 6%

6. Would you like to see Governor Jeb Bush run for President in 2008?
Yes 21%
No 63%
Undecided 16%

7. Would you like to see Governor Jeb Bush as a Vice Presidential Candidate in 2008?
Yes 32%
No 48%
Undecided 20%

8. Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Jeb Bush included, Republicans only)
Rudy Giuliani 35%
John McCain 24%
Jeb Bush 10%
Newt Gingrich 8%
Bill Frist 4%
George Allen 4%
Rick Santorum 1%
Mitt Romney 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
George Pataki 1%
Undecided 11%

9. If Jeb Bush were not to run for President in 2008, whom would you support for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)
Rudy Giuliani 40%
John McCain 26%
Newt Gingrich 9%
Bill Frist 4%
George Allen 4%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Mitt Romney 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 13%

10. Would you like to see Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice run for President in 2008? (Republicans only)
Yes 50%
No 40%
Undecided 10%

11. If Condoleeza Rice were to run for President in 2008, who would you support for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)
Rudy Guliani 33%
Condoleeza Rice 20%
John McCain 14%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Bill Frist 3%
George Allen 2%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Mitt Romney 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 17%

12. Who is your first choice for the Democratic nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)
Hillary Clinton 34%
Al Gore 13%
John Edwards 10%
John Kerry 8%
Wesley Clark 6%
Mark Warner 5%
Joseph Biden 3%
Bill Richardson 1%
Russ Feingold 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 15%

13. Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court?
Approve 52%
Disapprove 38%
Undecided 10%

14. Would you like to see the United States Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade?
Yes 38%
No 56%
Undecided 6%

15. Do you expect another terrorist attack in the near future?
Yes 62%
No 10%
Undecided 28%

16. Do you approve or disapprove of Lt. Governor Toni Jennings' job performance?
Approve 46%
Disapprove 20%
Undecided 34%

17. Do you approve or disapprove of Attorney General Charlie Crist's job performance?
Approve 55%
Disapprove 32%
Undecided 13%

18. Do you approve or disapprove of Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher's job performance?
Approve 58%
Disapprove 30%
Undecided 12%

19. Do you approve or disapprove of Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Bronson's job performance?
Approve 45%
Disapprove 17%
Undecided 38%

20. Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Bill Nelson's job performance?
Approve 48%
Disapprove 41%
Undecided 11%

21. Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Mel Martinez's job performance?
Approve 41%
Disapprove 37%
Undecided 22%

22. If the election for the Republican nomination for Governor in 2006 were held today between Attorney General Charlie Crist and Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher, whom would you vote for? (Republicans only)
Charlie Crist 47%
Tom Gallagher 40%
Undecided 13%

23. Are you satisfied with the two Republican candidates running for Governor or would you prefer to see someone else run? (Republicans only)
Satisfied 63%
Prefer another candidate 13%
Undecided 24%

24. If the election for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 2006 were held today between Congressman Jim Davis and State Senator Rod Smith, whom would you vote for? (Democrats only)
Jim Davis 34%
Rod Smith 19%
Undecided 47%

25. Are you satisfied with the two Democratic candidates running for Governor or would you prefer to see someone else run? (Democrats only)
Satisfied 35%
Prefer another candidate 55%
Undecided 10%

26. If the election for Governor were between Charlie Crist, the Republican and Jim Davis, the Democrat, whom would you support?
Charlie Crist 45%
Jim Davis 38%
Undecided 17%

27. If the election for Governor were between Tom Gallagher, the Republican and Jim Davis, the Democrat, whom would you support?
Tom Gallagher 48%
Jim Davis 37%
Undecided 15%

28. If the election for Governor were between Charlie Crist, the Republican and Rod Smith, the Democrat, whom would you support?
Charlie Crist 46%
Rod Smith 34%
Undecided 20%

29. If the election for Governor were between Tom Gallagher, the Republican and Rod Smith, the Democrat, whom would you support?
Tom Gallagher 47%
Rod Smith 35%
Undecided 18%

30. If the election for Chief Financial Officer were held today between State Senate President Tom Lee and State Representative Randy Johnson, whom would you support? (Republicans only)
Tom Lee 27%
Randy Johnson 19%
Undecided 54%

31. If the election for Attorney General were held today between former Congressman Bill McCollum, State Representative Joe Negron, State Representative Everett Rice, and State Senator Burt Saunders, whom would you support? (Republicans only)
Bill McCollum 41%
Joe Negron 13%
Everett Rice 11%
Burt Saunders 8%
Undecided 27%

32. If the election for the Republican nomination for United States Senator in 2006 were held today, whom would you support? (Republicans only)
Katherine Harris 48%
Toni Jennings 13%
Mark Foley 11%
Allan Bense 6%
Ginny Brown-Waite 5%
Dave Weldon 4%
Daniel Webster 1%
Undecided 12%

33. If the election for the Republican nomination for United States Senator in 2006 were held today, whom would you support? (Katherine Harris not included, Republicans only)
Toni Jennings 27%
Mark Foley 25%
Allan Bense 12%
Ginny Brown-Waite 9%
Dave Weldon 7%
Daniel Webster 4%
Undecided 16%

34. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Katherine Harris?
Favorable 33%
Unfavorable 42%
Undecided 25%

35. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Bill Nelson?
Favorable 40%
Unfavorable 15%
Undecided 45%

36. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Katherine Harris, the Republican?
Bill Nelson 48%
Katherine Harris 32%
Undecided 20%

37. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Toni Jennings, the Republican?
Bill Nelson 47%
Toni Jennings 39%
Undecided 14%

38. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Mark Foley, the Republican?
Bill Nelson 47%
Mark Foley 40%
Undecided 13%

39. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Allan Bense, the Republican?
Bill Nelson 47%
Allan Bense 37%
Undecided 16%

40. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Ginny Brown-Waite, the Republican?
Bill Nelson 48%
Ginny Brown-Waite 39%
Undecided 13%

41. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Dave Weldon, the Republican?
Bill Nelson 47%
Dave Weldon 37%
Undecided 16%

42. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Daniel Webster, the Republican?
Bill Nelson 49%
Daniel Webster 33%
Undecided 18%

43. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Jeb Bush, the Republican?
Jeb Bush 51%
Bill Nelson 40%
Undecided 9%

44. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Charlie Crist, the Republican?
Charlie Crist 45%
Bill Nelson 44%
Undecided 11%

45. If the election were held today for United States Senate, whom would you support, Bill Nelson, the Democrat or Tom Gallagher, the Republican?
Tom Gallagher 46%
Bill Nelson 43%
Undecided 11%

46. Do you think Florida is headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Right 42%
Wrong 47%
Undecided 11%

47. Would you favor a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages?
Yes 62%
No 33%
Undecided 5%
See the full article

Associated Press
BRENDAN FARRINGTON
Posted on Sat, Dec. 03, 2005

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - 1996 was a bad year for Florida Democrats. So was 1998. And 2000. 2002 was even worse. So was 2004.

But things could improve in 2006 and there's actually a feeling of hope at the Florida Democratic Party. And it's not just hollow optimism.

The party is starting to raise more money. It has a gubernatorial candidate, U.S. Rep. Jim Davis, who is even with better known Republicans in one recent poll. Gov. Jeb Bush won't be on the ballot. Democrats are avoiding primary contests in two key Cabinet races and trying more actively to recruit legislative and congressional candidates.

And next weekend the party is bringing in an impressive lineup of nationally recognized politicians to its annual convention in Orlando, an event that will seek to showcase its 2006 candidates while rallying support for the party itself.

"You could see not only a stop to the Republican victories in recent years, but you'll see a reversal," said state Sen. Dave Aronberg, who leads a group called Florida Mainstream Democrats. "The bleeding has stopped. We're going to make some gains."

While a lot can change in a year, University of North Florida political science professor Matthew Corrigan said Democrats do have reason to be optimistic.

"I don't think it's time to open the champagne, but both in terms of organization and electoral process, things are looking better now than they have since 1998 when Bush took over," he said.

Right now Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson is a heavy favorite to retain his seat. He's far ahead of Republican challenger U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris in the polls and Harris is having trouble raising money.

And with Republicans in Washington beginning to lose public support, Democrats feel they may be able to turn opinions in Florida, particularly when it comes to congressional races.

Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, the ballooning federal deficit and controversies surrounding and top presidential aid Karl Rove have hurt Republicans nationally. Nelson, though, thinks public opinion started changing with an issue closer to home: The right-to-die case of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo and Republican-led attempts to keep her alive.

"People were feeling like a certain segment of society was trying to cram their agenda down the throats of everybody else" said Nelson.

Maintaining ground in the next election would be an improvement for Democrats.

In 1996, they lost power in the state House. In 1998, they lost the governor's seat. In 2000, President Bush carried the state by 537 votes in an election some Democrats still say was stolen. In 2002, Republicans swept the three Cabinet races and picked up two seats in Congress; Bush was re-elected by a wide margin. In 2004, Republican Mel Martinez won retiring Democratic Sen. Bob Graham's seat and President Bush easily defeated John Kerry.

State Democratic Chairman Karen Thurman, who took over in May, believes people are seeing improvements in the party and like what they see in Democratic candidates. The party is seeing an increase in donations for an off-election year. Over the three months ending in September, the party raised more than $1.2 million, its second-best quarter in a non-election year in a decade.

"It begins to build this feeling that we can win and quite frankly I think we're in the best position to win," Thurman said. "To this day, I still think we are a 50-50 state. It has never leaned more Republican or Democratic, it leans more toward the people" running for office.

Democrats have a slim edge over Republicans in registered voters, with 4.3 million registered compared to 3.9 million. More than 2.1 million voters don't register with either party.

Davis of Tampa and state Sen. Rod Smith of Alachua are the two Democratic gubernatorial candidates. Neither can be reasonably painted as liberal and either could appeal to moderate voters outside the Democrats' South Florida base.

Republicans, though, have two much-better known candidates, Attorney General Charlie Crist and Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher. The two Republicans have raised about $10 million compared to $2 million raised by the two Democrats.

Republican Party Chairman Carole Jean Jordan also notes that the Republicans have built a powerful grass-roots organization and has become more efficient than Democrats at getting out voters. The fact that Gov. Bush isn't on the ticket won't be a concern, she said.

"(Bush) is committed to helping the party. He's leading our fundraising again this year," Jordan said. "He's not going to leave the state of Florida. He's worked too hard and turned too many things around. I think Gov. Bush will always be there for us."

Even as his brother's popularity as president has reached new lows, Gov. Bush's approval rating has remained strong in Florida and he is largely credited with building the party to its current dominance. He proved in his re-election campaign that he can turn out a Republican base at the polls and the machine he built helped President Bush win Florida by a comfortable margin.

Republican political consultant Geoffrey Becker, who used to be the state party's executive director, conceded that 2006 could provide a better opportunity for Democrats to make some races competitive, but said Democrats are still a long way from taking advantage of it.

"There may be a sense that without the governor at the top of the ticket or the name Bush at the top of the ticket, it may make a difference, but it's too early to claim victory when their only claim to fame is negative news," Becker said. "They're feeding off national trends, if you will. That often times doesn't translate into state trends."

Money, organization and the depth of candidates seeking office are still in the GOP's favor, he said.

Democrats acknowledge that their message has to go beyond Republican bashing.

"We can't simply be carping and we can't simply be contrarians," said Rep. Dan Gelber of Miami Beach, who is working with Thurman to recruit House candidates. "We have to offer ideas and we are trying to."

Next weekend will be an important rally for Democrats. Speakers will include Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, last year's vice presidential candidate John Edwards, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a rising Democratic star from Illinois.

"Those are some pretty big names," said Corrigan. "National leaders sense political opportunity. Maybe the idea is if they can turn Florida, they can turn the whole nation, or a significant part of it."

That's the hope, Dean said.

"There are a lot of things coming together: The resurgence of the party, the willingness of the DNC to get involved in the local races and to support state parties, and quite frankly a fatigue with the kind of more extreme positions that Republicans often take."
See the full article