Could Rudy Change the GOP?

Last week I attended a Rudy Giuliani campaign stop. I can't honestly say I was genuinely interested in what he had to say, nor was I there just to see how much I disagreed with him. He's just a big name, a man I have seen on TV so often over the past 6 years, and the fact that he isn't a social conservative would allow me to listen to him speak for a half an hour without wanting to punch the person standing in front of me in the back of the head. So I stood there, listened to what he had to say, read a little pamphlet on his "12 Commitments to the American people", listened to him ramble about his successes in New York City...

Was I impressed? No, not really. I've seen Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton speak and they both run laps around him.

But something surprised me. In this large group of conservative-minded northwest Iowans, not one person asked him about abortion or gay marriage. And when asked about his own religion, his answer seemed less "Republicany" than any response I've heard from a Democrat thus far--he never intertwined faith and politics, and he went on to joke about his poor church attendance! Perhaps I will need to attend a Brownback, Huckabee, or Romney event to really get a scope of how prevalent these concerns are among Republicans around here, but regardless---having been closely watching conservative politics over the past few years, it was a refreshing change.

So I was thinking (and have been thinking for several months now), could the nomination and potential election of Rudy Giuliani fundementally change the Republican party's stance towards social issues such as abortion and gay marriage and reduce the influence of religion on party politics? I think so. Consider groups like Focus on the Family, and the American Family Association. Having a man like George Bush in our nation's highest office validates these groups--his actions undermine how radical they really are. A more moderate Republican president, depending on how popular he his, would isoloate these groups, making it obvious how not mainstream they are. I believe other moderate Republicans would follow suit--with their constituency more concerned with things like taxes and defense, they could become more progressive on social issues without turning too many heads.

When the GOP turns its back on them, where will the religious-right have to turn?

Likely, this is all wishful thinking. There are around 251 Republicans in congress, many of whom run on socially-conservative, "pro-family" platforms. They aren't going to be quick to change, and neither will their constituency. And Giulinai is going to have a hell of a time getting through the Evanglelical-infested primaries. To see true progressive change on these issues, a Democrat is still the best bet--and as a first time voter I have no intention whatsoever of giving my vote to the GOP. However, if in January of 2009 we find ourselves with Rudy in the White House, I'll be able to find at least some sort of silver lining.

the American Family Association

Ahhhhh, the American Family Association (AFA). You would think with a name like that, that they would be concerned with falling wages, the shrinking middle-class, rising crime, and the horrendous number of uninsured children in our nation.

But no, of course not. They're a Christian organization, you know, pro-family....which obviously means hating anything pro-gay rights, pro-choice, or anything that shows the seperation between church and state is still alive and well in this country. They may the the American Family Association, but it is very clear that they only care about your family if it's led by a heterosexual, evangelical, Republican-voting couple.

I check out their website once in a while, just to see what's happenin' on the Christian-extremist front, and they never fail to shock me with their OBSESSION with anything gay related. (they're the ones that tried to boycott Disney; remember that?)

Take a look for yourself:









^thanks to http://www.goodasyou.org/ for the images. I would have taken my own screen-shots, but the http://www.afa.net/ seems less gay obessesed today than usual--instead focusing on evolution, and stem cell research.

Bill O'Reilly

Once upon a time, I liked Bill O'Reilly---but then again, that was like 4 years ago, before I was old enough to drive--or as I can see now, think for myself. I haven't really payed attention to him for years...but then this whole Daily Kos thing came about..and all I can say is "Wow". Seriously now, what else is there to say? Does he not understand how the internet works? Hundreds of thousands of people read that blog--they read the dozens of new postings made every day, and in seconds can make a comment on those postings. Offensive things are bound to be said..it's the reality facing any well-read blog. Bill doesn't understand that, though--he reads of these comments on his show, passing off the Daily Kos as a hate website---then has some little intern from his office bombard the CEO of JetBlue, since they were (and have since cancelled) sponsoring the YearlyKos event in Chicago. You gotta feel for that JetBlue guy, though. He has enough to worry about without some self-absorbed prick from Fox News wasting his time.

I'm thinking, though--Bill O'Relly isn't stupid. Weird, self-obsessed, harmful to political dialogue, yes---but not stupid. He must realize that what he's doing here is silly, but he's already dedicated so much time and energy into it...he won't let it go now. He'll keep spewing this crap until he runs out of material, taking solice in the notion that he's hurting the reputation of a liberal website.

His style of reporting wouldn't be so bad if he weren't so biased, if he actually were fair and balanced. I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to seem him attack the freaky far-right like he does the hippy far-left. But he doesn't. He claims to have just as many liberal guests as he does conservative guests--and I'm sure that's true. But he has the conservatives on to provide input. He has the liberals on for him to argue with, in a debate set up that makes it look like he won no matter what really happens..even if he does have to cut a mic in the process. Like here:

O’Reilly cuts Hall’s mic to get the last word about BilloReilly.com’s HATE comments

In conculsion: Bill Oreilly = Ewwww.

So, I went to Chicago.

My family and I have been visiting Chicago every summer since I was 14. Being the city-nut that I am, obsessed with anything urban, and seeing as how my parents have lived most of their lives in small town in NW Iowa, it's always a big deal for us.






^That right there is the atrium of Marshall Fields---the second largest department store in the world. Saldy it not longer goes by the Marshall Fields name; the chain was bought by Federated Department Stores who changed it to a Macy's. I was pissed...and so was everyone in Chicago. Hopefully they come to their senses and change it back. Marshall Fields is a Chicago icon.






^I love this shot. I mean, it a pretty common view, and if you google searched "Chicago Skyline" you'd probably find dozens just like it....but whatever. It's purty.



^outside of Marshall Fields (or Macy's [ewwww]) last winter.









^I like this picture, too. It was taken somewhere in southern portion of the Gold Coast neighborhood.



^view from our hotel.

Speaking of our hotel (the Ritz Carlton at Water Tower Place), Oprah used to live in the residential portion above---and speaking of Oprah, I totally saw Stedman getting some photos developed!



^Looks New York'ish.