9.22.18: a rebel alliance of quality content
our facebook page our twitter page intrepid media feature page rss feed
FEATURES  :  GALLERYhover for drop down menu  :  STUDIOhover for drop down menu  :  ABOUThover for drop down menu sign in

swift tongued patriot for truth
this one goes out to the gays*
by robert a. melos
pop culture

This may be my last chance at Bush bashing before the election, so in the spirit of this election year, and keeping with the general spirit of the campaigns by just touching on subjects and not really delving below the surface, consider me a Swift Tongued Patriot For Truth! Now sit back and enjoy the ride.

I am a gay American, just like New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey. Unlike McGreevey, I never tried to live a lie through two marriages, and I didn’t use my sexuality as a smoke screen to distract from my many political indiscretions. Yet I am a gay American, and like McGreevey I am proud to be a gay American.

It is with this pride in mind that I must ask my fellow homosexuals, what possesses some of you to be so blind as to call yourselves republicans? How can any homosexual reconcile being gay and belonging to a political party that outright hates your very existence? That’s like a black man belonging to the Ku Klux Klan.

Let’s face it, no self-respecting homosexual is going to support a party that wants to deny them equality in marriage, and protections that heterosexuals daily take for granted. If you are so self-loathing to take a position that would make you into a second class citizen, then somebody better bitch slap you into the reality of your obviously unbearable lightness of being, and point out that you are what the universe made you by birth and you should be proud of who you are.

Are you listening, Mary Cheney? I don’t care what blood relationship you have to that heartless maniacal creature you call daddy. If you are so greedy as to sell out your sexuality for 30 billion pieces of daddy’s silver, than turn in your membership card, dump your girlfriend, and hook up with some guy on the fast track up the political ladder. I’d suggest Rick Santorum, but he’s married and constantly compares sex to bestiality. Unless you like it doggie style, and are into married men, I’d steer clear of him.

If attacks on homosexuality aren’t enough to turn homosexuals away from the republican party, what about the faltering economy? More and more jobs are being outsourced, or simply disappear as companies move out of the country for cheaper foreign shores, and the jobs President Bush talks of being created are low wage positions that even high school kids don’t want to fill on their summer breaks.

How can anyone support a family, or themselves, on $7.00 an hour?

If those aren’t reasons enough to hate Bush, and embrace Kerry, lets talk about senior citizens. Now while everyone simple assumes all homosexuals are young, hot and attractive, the truth of the matter is, some homosexuals are of a certain age, and out of respect to them I will not point out social security benefits start when a person reaches their mid 60s.

George W. Bush has more than enough money not to worry about his fading years. So does Mary Cheney’s father. These men are beyond well off, and if they need a medication they will have the money to afford it in bulk. On the other hand, America’s not so fortunate elderly must rely on things like Medicare and Social Security, both of which Bush either has or is planning to mess with.

At no time in this current campaign has either candidate suggested that drug companies charge too much for medications. George W. Bush is suggesting that America’s youth start special savings accounts, through their work, that they can take with them from job to job, that will help them cover medical expenses, as they grow older.

I guess George W. Bush doesn’t realize that a one-week stay in a hospital, without surgery or anything more extreme than a few blood tests and possibly one CAT scan, costs roughly 60k. That is $60,000.00! I thought you should see it written out, since the number tends to lose importance when it is shown followed by the letter “k”.

How long will it take to piss away the savings accounts of Americans if they have more than a week in the hospital? And I’m not even going to talk about the rising costs of insurance, because almost one half of all Americans do not have such a luxury item in their budgets.

Next up, the war. I’ll skip education because I’m a single childless gay American. So on to the war. According to George W. Bush, we are winning the war on terrorism in Iraq. Now if I remember correctly, Mr. Bush declared the actual Iraqi War over some time ago when he appeared in front of that now famous sign that read, “Mission Accomplished”.

So if the war is over, why are American soldiers getting killed there almost every day? I know I’m being picky, but if the war is over doesn’t that mean we stop shooting at each other? I mean it just seems like the thing to do once an end to hostilities is declared. So if insurgents are still shooting at us, then it doesn’t seem to me that the war is over or the mission accomplished.

Maybe I just don’t understand the dynamics of war? After all, I have very little interest in what either John Kerry or George W. Bush did more than 35 years ago during the Vietnam War. Thirty-five years ago I was in kindergarten, making fun of the kid who crapped his pants in the cloakroom. I was five. I’ll admit I am today ashamed of my actions back then. I wasn’t dodging my duty, but rather dodging doody.

So I say to my fellow homosexuals, while the candidates are slinging their own doody at one another, we have two responsibilities to ourselves as American citizens and homosexuals. One is to vote, because if we don’t exercise our right as an American citizen then we really have no right to complain about the outcome of an election. This is the most important right we have, and one that some republicans, like Alan Keyes (R), would like to take away from us, resorting to Gubernatorial appointments rather than open elections.

The second responsibility we have to ourselves is to be open, out, honest and true to who we are as a people. We are homosexuals, a tribe unto ourselves. Through our DNA we are given the natural attraction to people of the same-sex. We are unique in that, thanks to societies past hurtful actions toward us, we must come to terms with who we are sexually and accept ourselves and love ourselves when society still insists on denying us and mistreating us. We are special because we endure, survive, and in many cases thrive in our acceptance of ourselves. We live in a time when this is possible, and a time when we can demand more and will eventually get it.

George W. Bush seeks to take away every benefit and right we have fought to get, and everything we deserve simply because we are what we are by nature. He does so by using the Bible as a weapon against us, claiming the institution of marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. He does this out of ignorance and fear, and a desire not to lose the financial backing of his Religious Right cronies.

He is using homosexuality as a wedge to assist in his division of the country so he can cloud the issues long enough to win a re-election bid. When homosexuality isn’t a gambit, he uses the memory of murdered citizens who lost their lives in terrorist attacks on 9/11. He claims he has kept us safe from further terrorist attacks and he will continue to keep us safe, but I don’t believe that for one moment.

Anyone with half a brain, and I am assuming Log Cabin Republicans do have a brain that isn’t being used when they vote or think republican, knows that no one will be able to keep America completely safe from terrorism. We are simply lucky, at the moment, given the number of television news programs I see that explain in detail to potential terrorists exactly how to infiltrate the country through unprotected borders, or how to smuggle in a dirty bomb or a nuclear weapon through our minimally guarded ports.

All George W. Bush has really managed to protect us from, in my opinion, is a middle-aged folk singer.

So when you go out and decide on whom you will be voting for in the upcoming election, vote your conscience and your sexuality. Be a proud gay American. Vote November 2nd.

*Thank you to the heterosexuals who were secure enough in their sexuality to read this.


Robert is the author of the novels Cool Mint Blue, Melba Ridge, and the recently released The Adventures of Homosexual Man and Lesbian Lad; and the creator of the on-line comix Impure Thoughts found at his web site Inside R.A. Melos, as well as having been an on-line staff writer for QBliss where he had a monthly humor column, Maybe A Yip, Maybe A Yap. In his non-writing time, when he's not studying the metaphysical or creating a tarot deck, he sells real estate in Middlesex County New Jersey, hangs out with his dog Zeus, and spends time at the Pride Center of New Jersey in Highland Park, NJ, where he is on the Board of Trustees.

more about robert a. melos


soul mate divorce
taking marriage and divorce to a whole new level
by robert a. melos
topic: pop culture
published: 4.16.02

is rome burning?
stop fiddling with morality
by robert a. melos
topic: pop culture
published: 11.21.04


lucy lediaev
10.17.04 @ 2:20p


anya werner
10.18.04 @ 2:00a

Well, the only thing I disagree with you on... is that it takes a secure hetero to read this. I think you make good points relevant to everyone who cares about human rights! :)

tracey kelley
10.18.04 @ 4:30p

Do you think, like Mary Cahill suggested, that it was okay for Kerry to particularly reference Mary Cheney in the last debate? Cahill suggested that Cheney was "fair game."

juli mccarthy
10.18.04 @ 4:47p

Kerry took a cheap shot. Period.

jeff wilder
10.18.04 @ 5:26p

While I do agree with the assesment that Kerry's shot was cheap and with the viewpoint that he had no business bringing that up in the context of the debate, I found the shot taken by Alan Keyes even cheaper. Keyes said that Mary is "a 'selfish hedonist' because she is a lesbian". Charming, real charming.

robert melos
10.18.04 @ 10:38p

I don't think it was a cheap shot. If you remember back to Jimmy Carter, his brother was a constant source of cheap shots, as was Clinton's brother, before Clinton became his own source of cheap shots.

Mary Cheney's sexuality is on the record as an out and proud lesbian, and sparked the DearMary.Com issue earlier this year.

Personally I think Kerry's remarks were in good taste, polite, and not in any way as harsh as Alan Keyes. Interesting enough, there is speculation about Keyes daughter possibly being a lesbian, and he has dodged questions to that effect.

We are not talking about juvenile children here, but adult children of political figures. Once the kid is over 18 they are fair game. If the kids are caught underage drinking, then again, they are fair game, but their parents are also fair game.

As a gay man, I find it interesting when any homosexual agrees that homosexuals are not deserving of the same rights as heterosexuals. That tells me they have issues with their sexuality. I would be interested to know how Mary Cheney's girlfriend feels about the issues of marriage, and the fact that her girlfriend, by her support of her father, makes it clear that the girlfriend is not as important to her as her blood relations.

I know many heterosexual women who would not take a backseat to their in-laws. If their husbands choose to take a parent's side in an issue, said husband would either be on the way to sleeping on the couch for a few years , or on the way to becoming an ex.

For the record, I do not believe in marriage for anyone if it is based on anything other than love. I think everyone should be taxed as single instead of some being couples, with the only adjustment being that only one individual in the "family unit" could claim any children for tax purposes.

As for Alan Keyes, the fact he wants to do away with some elections and go to a system of appointments for governors should be enough of a reason to vote against him. I don't think I would want a governor appointed by a bigot like Bush. His choices would obviously be opposed to my choices.

Homosexuality is a red herring in the campaign issues, while it distracts from the real issues of the economy and the war. It's right up there with what Bush and Kerry were doing 35 years ago. I don't care if they were both peace-niks smoking pot with Jane Fonda at an orgy. What I care about is what they believe today.

juli mccarthy
10.18.04 @ 11:23p

Bobby, if Kerry's comment had been more along the lines of "I believe that homosexuality is genetic" or "It's my understaning that most homosexuals feel this way" he'd have been in the clear. By using a member of his opponent's family - regardless of whether his facts were correct - he took a cheap shot. What's more, the Cheneys were expecting it to come from SOMEWHERE, and they were ready for it. That Kerry was the one to grab the chance makes him look like a tool.

juli mccarthy
10.18.04 @ 11:26p

Incidentally, I agree with you that the issue is a red herring. I'm pretty sure I said it before - there have been enormous strides made for gay rights in recent years, and very soon the point will be moot in politics. Or at least as moot as Roe vs. Wade, which is to say it's here to stay, even though it will likely continue to be a debate topic.

adam kraemer
10.19.04 @ 12:13p

I wouldn't be too sure of that, given the direction the country seems to be going in. Think about Bush-appointed Supreme Court Justices.

robert melos
10.19.04 @ 4:04p

I agree with Adam on Roe v. Wade. A woman's right to choose is in more danger of being struck down, or watered down to the point that only rape victims may be allowed a choice. And even that might be in question, if the religious right has their way.

dan gonzalez
10.20.04 @ 12:53a

Anyone with half a brain, and I am assuming Log Cabin Republicans

Strange to me is the villification of the minorities within the so-called minorities, e.g., ifeminists, the Black Conservatives, and Log Cabin Republicans, by democrats. In fact, it is pure bigotry on the part of the Left. People who have the courage to eschew the false promises and protections of the Left and demand to be treated as individuals who can think for themselves are chided and told to be ashamed. They should be viewed as heroes because they are strong enough to resist the warped sense of socialist entitlement that has been hammered into their heads since birth, and declare themselves as equals and demand their rightful place. So what if that place is as a conservative that votes Republican?

Think about Bush-appointed Supreme Court Justices.

Ooh, scary. They said that when Reagan was running, and look at the records of his two appointees.

robert melos
10.20.04 @ 1:27a

They should be viewed as heroes because they are strong enough to resist the warped sense of socialist entitlement that has been hammered into their heads since birth, and declare themselves as equals and demand their rightful place.

So you are saying that people are not equal?

dan gonzalez
10.22.04 @ 3:51a

Caught me. The use of the word strong is qualitative and implies the contradictory weak. That was judgemental and contextually innacurate. Perhaps 'distinctive' is more appropriate.

Also I called them 'heroes'. I meant this in terms of terms of admiring their pursuit of individuality by stepping out of the confines of group-based thinking.

In any case, I don't believe people really are equal. Tracey, for example, is taller than me and has boobies. But I am certain that we have the same rights and responsibilities, and that we should be treated equally. It's clear that this can not come to pass as long as we are regarded as members of some group instead of as the individuals we really are.

lisa r
10.22.04 @ 9:19a

While I do agree with the assesment that Kerry's shot was cheap and with the viewpoint that he had no business bringing that up in the context of the debate, I found the shot taken by Alan Keyes even cheaper. Keyes said that Mary is "a 'selfish hedonist' because she is a lesbian". Charming, real charming.

Jeff, the word "charming" does not belong in the same sentence with the name Alan Keyes. It's an insult to the word.

Back to the issue at hand. Kerry's deliberate insertion of Mary Cheney into the debate was more of the "if I keep finding insidious ways to insult the other candidates, I will eventually round up enough votes from to possibly win an electoral college vote here and there" strategy. It was cheap, it was tacky, it was a snide remark which attempted to look open-minded. It failed miserably.

Normally I'd take a candidate's assertion that his opponent would do and say anything to get elected as just typical election year rhetoric, but for once I think the Bush camp's frequent use of that phrase is spot on. Kerry's got putting his foot in his mouth down to a fine art.

I could agree with everything Kerry stands for (if I knew what they were) and still not vote for the man because he has all the charm of a boil on my butt. And his wife's not an improvement over him, either. I can just imagine the impression he's going to make on foreign leaders he'd have to deal with on a regular basis as President.


robert melos
10.22.04 @ 4:27p

Dan, I agree that until we are all seen as individuals, and not as part of one group or another, we will always be labeled and never have the opportunity to be seen by the masses as ourselves.

Lisa, I obviously disagree that it was a cheap shot. For me, as a gay man, it was a no-brainer to come out and state that any self-respecting homosexual would consider it insulting to be told they are denied the opportunity to marry and have all the legal benefits of a heterosexual. However, Mary Cheney uses her homosexuality much like Jim McGreevey uses his, as a smoke screen.

She is not a private person, but works on her father's campaign and has used her sexuality in the 2000 election to garner the support of homosexuals from the Log Cabin Republicans in the face of the bigotry of the Bush administration stance on same-sex marriage, so she can't now claim to be insulted by Kerry's statement without really hurting the support she might've gained back then.

After all, she is siding against her own sexuality in an effort to gain something for her father that can end up hurting her legal rights later on. Notice I too take "cheap shots" at Mary Cheney. If she were an out and proud teenager, under 18 years of age, I would say she should've been off limits. As an adult, if she can't take the heat, get out of the sauna.

And I don't see why hedonism is considered to be wrong. It's like stating that "liberal" is a dirty word. We only have dirty words if we allow those words to be dirty.

lisa r
10.22.04 @ 7:42p

Robert, I can understand your feelings on the matter. And logically, Mary Cheney is in the public eye because she has a public role in the campaign. However, my problem was with Kerry mentioning it gratuitously in an effort to gain points with the voters. And why mention her by name anyway? No other campaign staffers were mentioned for any reason, let alone by name, yet both campaigns employ minorities, women, and people with disabilities.

If a candidate wants to mention one of his own family members to make a point, that's acceptable. Presumably they have that person's permission to be discussed in a public forum. But for the opposing candidate to bring up the family member of a candidate in such a way was inappropriate, or to borrow Lynn Cheney's word for it, tawdry. What's next--will they drag Noel Bush's drug problems into the spotlight, or the Bush twins' collegiate escapades? How about Marvin Bush's Chron's Disease to make a point about healthcare?

The only point Kerry made with me with that comment was to reinforce my opinion that Bush is a gentleman and Kerry's a boor. I cannot wait for this election to be over. Heaven forbid we have a repeat of Florida's idiocy this time around. I'm fed to the teeth with campaign news ad nauseum.

dan gonzalez
10.22.04 @ 10:24p

Kerry bringing up Mary Cheney when he's debating with Bush is about as sensible as bringing up Alan Keyes when we're talking about Kerry. Talk about wild tangents.

Lisa, this election will never be over, however it goes.

lisa r
10.22.04 @ 11:20p

I agree. So much so I wrote a column on it. Wait, column is too tame a word...I wrote a rant. Yeah, that's it.

robert melos
10.23.04 @ 12:51a

Yay, for a rant.

I can never share your view of Bush as a gentleman. I see his smug attitude, and hear it in his voice.

Bill Clinton was all but crucified for lying about having sex, and yet Bush lied to get into a war that is going to bring down two countries and people tell me he makes them feel safe. Meanwhile Mary Cheney has once again served her father's purpose by throwing up a smoke screen using her sexual orientation to divert the issues from what I also consider to be the wrong war, the economy, health care and all the other issues that were skimmed over in the debate.

I'll be thrilled when this election is over, but I agree with Dan that it'll never be over. I predict riots by Nov. 3rd either way.

Also, I'd like to say that this has been a very dirty, very negative campaign from both sides, and the example it has set for future generations is shameful. However, this is not entirely the fault of the candidates. The public hungers for the kind of mud slinging both parties have slung. That is something the American people on the whole should be ashamed of, but I'm guessing that too will be something that will remain a divided issue with the country long after Nov. 2nd.

lisa r
10.23.04 @ 9:29a

The mudslinging and vicious attacks are the worst they've been since I've been old enough to pay attention. And I blame Al Gore and his hanging chad obsession for opening this particular Pandora's box.

It's as if both candidates' campaign people, and perhaps the candidates themselves, have made the decision that it really doesn't matter what the people say in the polls because they're each convinced they can sway the courts once they get there.

We all know there's a certain sleeze factor involved in being a politician in the first place, but for years they've tried to hide it as much as possible. This year they haven't even bothered. Instead they rabble-rouse.

And yet the fine folks in Washington, D.C. and around the country who claim to be experts in democracy hold our election system out to the rest of the world as the epitome of the democratic process in action.

What's democratic about circumventing the U.S. Constitution's assertion that the people decide who the president shall be by battling every hanging chad out in the courts?

Why do we keep putting these nitwits back in power? Sometimes I wonder if the voting public isn't dumber than a bunch of rocks, and that includes me because I'm going to go vote a week from Tuesday on my way to work just like 20-30% of the rest of the eligible voters in this country. I don't know whether to be proud I intend to do my civic duty or embarrassed.

stacy smith
10.23.04 @ 3:10p

So Dan, tell me something. You are going to run in 2008 right? The anarchist party all the way Baby! LOL

Bush/Kerry they are both on of the same. They just use different plays on words to preach to same sad story.

Although for once I'm kind of glad PETA is around. I'm sure they will use their tactics to put a dent in Kerry's votes after pictures were shown of him goose hunting.

Lisa- I could provide a long list of answers to your "nit wit" question, however I won't due to lack of time.

robert melos
10.23.04 @ 4:52p

Not only was he goose hunting, but they were Canadian geese. So while Bush alienates Europe, Kerry is alienating Canada. I suppose he could explain it away as part of a war on terrorism, cause we all know how terroristic geese can be.

Lisa, I fully agree that both parties have muddied the election process even further with their mud slinging. I wonder if it would even be possible to have a future election without sinking to the LCD of tearing down the opponent? I also wonder if someone who ran based on their platform, instead of tearing down their opponent, would stand a chance?

I'm not ashamed of the actual system, but of the way the candidates and their "handlers" abuse it. It's true neither candidate has really said much beyond "I'll stay the course" and "I'll change the course". I want to know what course? Change can mean anything including dictatorship, and staying the course can mean anything including dictatorship.

Unfortunately, we have to cast our votes and hope for the best.

lisa r
10.23.04 @ 5:44p

A disclaimer--I have nothing against hunting....as long as the target has a sporting chance, and as long as the hunter's not just after a trophy. If you're going to kill the animal, you better be planning to eat it, in my opinion.

Which is why I'm offended by Kerry's latest stunt. Why make an innocent animal die in pursuit of a few votes?

robert melos
10.24.04 @ 1:11a

Why make soldiers die in pursuit of a few votes?

Yeah, I'm bringing up the war. I swore I wouldn't but it just goes with this.

Of course this also comes down to the division of the country. I'm against war in general, and this one in particular. Had he (Bush) stopped at Afghanistan, and continued the hunt for Bin-Laden, I would support the war. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Thus, he (Bush) is sending soldiers to their deaths by pursuing the same course of action he has been taking.

Now some people thing my statement is treason because it shows the terrorists a lack of support for the troops. Not true, I say. I do support our troops, but I do not support the actions they are being forced to take by being involved in this war.

I fully disagree with the thought that a country must blindly follow the government decisions.

On the other hand, the geese are in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and are victims of political photo-ops. Innocent feathers are flying in the name of democracy, and I am further shamed by the depths to which candidates must sink to win votes.

This shouldn't be about hunter/gatherer skills of the candidates. So Kerry can shoot, and Bush can, um, well his tracking of WMD's wasn't so good, but he finally found oil.

Why are the American people so blind to all of the political trickery and smoke and mirror illusions? What is wrong with the population, that it thrives on this mudslinging, and vote pandering? Why can't we just stick to issues instead of showing how each candidate is, "just like a common guy"?

I'm a common guy, and I wouldn't want me in office, or someone like me. Why must the candidates stoop to baby kissing, duck hunting, and empty promises?

I don't care if he (Kerry) can shoot a duck, I just want him (Kerry) to get us out of Iraq, balance the budget, straighten out the economy, fix health care, and make America a respected country in the world once again. Martha Stewart could do it and bake a perfect cake, if she weren't rotting in jail for lying.


stacy smith
10.24.04 @ 10:42a

LOL! Well it seems as though everybody is guilty of having their attention diverted from the issues, otherwise my goose hunting comment would have gone ignored. No?

And no, I'm not blind. However when people talk about political "issues" a turn a deaf ear as what is being spoken of and only part of a much bigger problem.

Let's pick on healthcare for a minute. A major rant with me lately as I've been swept up amongst the idiots.

Healthcare in this country sucks! People that need to be taken care of, are not getting what they need. Medicare is telling the elderly to have pace makers put in even though they may not need one and so the list goes on.

So, the best way to "fix" this problem is the proposed Universal HealthCare. That way everybody gets what they need and we have a healthy society again. Looks good on paper, and perhaps in theory, but has anyone bothered to see peek over the US border and see what this kind of thinking caused in Canada? I'm lead to believe they haven't otherwise they wouldn't insistant about it. Canada's healthcare system crashed and burned because there wasn't enough money being put in the socialist pot. I think Russia also took a stab at this and ended up in the same position...Broke!

As for Iraq, we cannot up and leave now. If we did, there would be a full blown civil war thanks to the missionaries we have that are making sure that everyody over there has the same training and weapons to fight with.

Balance the budget? How is Kerry going to balance the budget? He's more liberal than Ted Kennedy. He wants everybody to live under the rule and budget of the federal goverment so nobody has anything to worry about. We'll all be equal and taken care of. History dictates that this doesn't work! Why repeat already proven failures?

Something you didn't mention Robert-- How come China has favorite nation status when they have nuclear missles pointed at us? Personally I see this a huge problem or "issue" however it just makes it to the mass media or anywhere else for that matter.

As I said, the issues of this country run considerably deeper than what people are only willing to talk about. When politicans start actually resolving issues and stop blowing smoke up my fourth point of contact I'll lend and ear and listen. Until then, they are all on my shitlist.

Oh and let us not forget all the people that only become involved in politics when it's an election year, otherwise they don't want to hear about it, nor discuss it because it brings out the worst in people. Not pointing fingers, however if these people actually practiced what they preached every day of every year, it may be possible that some of this "issues" might have possibly been resolved by now.

lisa r
10.24.04 @ 11:06a

First of all, my apologies to Robert for us hijacking his excellent column for yet another discussion on election politics in general.

Now, back to the goose hunting, since I read something else about it last night. Seems Dick Cheney's having fun with it because Kerry bought a new hunting jacket for the excursion--because it was a photo op. What's wrong with wearing the old one, for crying out loud?

Yes, I know....that's a shallow thing to focus on, but it indicates something inherent in Kerry's character--he's all about appearances.

It's yet another thing that makes me uncomfortable with the idea of him as President. It's typical with his pattern of trying to be in vogue with the activity or topic of the moment and not taking a firm stand.

Oh, and all this bluster about "If I had been President we'd already have captured or killed Osama bin Laden." Yeah, right. Okay, Mr. "I fought the nasty Viet Cong while my opponent played at being in the National Guard" Kerry, let's see you go over and chase bin Laden through what everyone else in the world acknowledges is a terrain many, many times less hospitable than the Vietnamese jungle. We've got some of our most elite special ops forces on the job. If they haven't succeeded yet, you surely won't.

By the way, that former president that's going against doctor's orders to go out and campaign for you next week--he got out of serving in Vietnam, and you and all your Democratic cronies excused his behavior (and his marijuana use) during his 2 terms in office when the Republicans were taking potshots at him.

I'm at the point where every time someone from either campaign appears on t.v., I get this mental picture of the two-faced mask Mozart's father wore to the costume ball in Amadeus.

Please, someone...anyone...make this election season END!


dan gonzalez
10.24.04 @ 12:50p

Stacy - I'd need a VP to run, and although that would mean grouping up, we'd have to do it. The public isn't ready for anarchy, so we'd have to spin it like Naral spun abortion into choice. How 'bout we run as the Disenfranchised Individualist Party? It'd be fun, and as anarchists, we could debate each other on the campaign trail: for the first time ever there would be dialog on issues within the Pres/VP ticket.

Lisa, Robert, et al.- Well, it's not like Kerry fought in the jungle. He was in a boat on a river shooting into the jungle. He apparantly did as much damage to himself as to the VC, but he did fight so I give him that. But it was only for what, 12 weeks or so, right? So, and the DNC brought this up, he doesn't really have any qualifications to assert he would have caught Bin Laden or could even be a decent command-in-chief. All he can say is he's a tad more qualified than some rich hump who flew stateside in the guard. Comforting, isn't it?

But to get back on topic, let's remember that Kerry's position on gay marriage is every bit as hypocritical as Bush's, but is demonstrably weaker due to his invertebrate tendency to straddle both sides of every damn fence. So gay people who support Kerry aren't voting for a strong guy who supports them, they're just voting for a guy who has so many splinters in his ass already that it's pretty unlikely he's gonna stand up anytime soon.


robert melos
10.24.04 @ 4:59p

Dan, Bush has made it clear he is against any relationship other than that of a one man and one woman. Cheney feels the states should decide. I feel it should be individual choice. Although I firmly disapprove of any form of marriage that is not solely based on love. Getting married got tax breaks, or because some ignorant relative left a codicil to their will stipulating marriage as the only way to get their money is vulgar. I also feel the American people, deep down, don't want monogamy. Let me rephrase that. I feel a majority of American males don't want monogamy. I come by this conclusion based on the number of married in heterosexual unions males who constantly try to pick me up on-line begging to meet in real life for, as they put it, "no-strings sex." For some reason society seems to be under the false impression that being gay means you want no-strings sex.

Now as for Kerry. I don't say he'll be better than Bush. He can't pull out of Iraq because the actions that led us into war make it impossible to abandon the Iraqi people with any conscience. However, the candidates need to be more honest with the people who are clamoring to get us out of Iraq by telling them the truth. This war will never end, and American soldiers will need to be in Iraq permanently (meaning longer than a year, or ten years, or fifty years).

And Kerry might've bought a new hunting jacket because his was hanging up in a closet somewhere gathering dust. As a gemini constantly concerned with wardrobe, I completely understand buying new clothes (all the time).

I still don't excuse duck hunting, but I'm practically a vegaterian. If I didn't split meals with my dog, I wouldn't eat meat at all. (fussy dog sometimes turns up him nose at steak).

And about Clinton's marijuana use. Let's talk Bush's cocaine use. I believe in the legalization of natural herbs, not manmade in a lab drugs. Clinton was a hippie of sorts, and went one toke over the line when he cheated on his wife. Yet his wife stays with him, whatever her agenda, which a lot of women globally humiliated by their husbands wouldn't do. She either loves him, or she's just waiting for the right moment to leave on her terms.

Oh, issues. At this point issues are moot. I saw an ad depicting the terrorist threat as wolves waiting for Kerry to assume office so they can attack. I personally think wolves are cute. I know they aren't friendly, but given that several of my neighbors have dogs that are part wolf mix, and I've gotten to know these halfbreeds, I like wolves.

Issues are meaningless. Nothing is going to get done by either potential president. We don't need universal healthcare. I have no insurance. I was in the emergency room for 3 hours with kidney stones, and for the joy of laying in cubical, having my blood taken and two CATscans, I was charged just under $6000. And elderly woman

jael mchenry
10.24.04 @ 5:00p

Please, someone...anyone...make this election season END!

I can do that... but not til November 3rd. *wink*

Well, actually, Election Day didn't end election season last time, but I continue to hold out hope that this time will be different. I'm an optimist.

robert melos
10.24.04 @ 5:00p

I was cut off. Here's the rest.

An elderly woman I know was in the hospital for one week for malnutrition, and was charged $63,000. She had one EKG while there, and left the hospital three pound heavier than when she went in.

What we need is a reasonable charge for medical treatment and drugs. A hospital Tylenol is $65. It's the same Tylenol you buy in Walgreen's for $5.99 a bottle. My mother is diabetic and spends almost $500 on medications per month. One pill is $105 for a 15 day supply. That isn't reasonable for seniors, or anyone else.

I expect neither candidate to do anything about the issues of daily living, when they've got war to deal with, and a budget that David Copperfield couldn't make disappear.

It's a lesser of two evils situation, and the prospect for the future is girm, unless we simply ignore it and do as we please.

robert melos
10.24.04 @ 5:01p

Election season!
Duck season!

jael mchenry
10.24.04 @ 5:47p


(All I can think is - Duck season! Wabbit season! Duck season! Wabbit season!)

tracey kelley
10.24.04 @ 9:34p

Election season!
Duck season!


Intrepid Media is built by Intrepid Company and runs on Dash