 September 2007 | |||
|
Table of Contents
President's Column
The year was 1992, and the Republican Party had owned the Presidency for 12 years. Bill Clinton was the Democrats’ nominee for President, and the story of Jennifer Flowers was tarnishing his good ol’ Southern boy image. That year’s Republican convention featured speaker after speaker talking about “family values,” deriding the moral depravity of America and working to establish their party as the party of values. And ever since the Republicans claimed the mantra of “family values,” the Democrats have floundered on a number of social issues – from their collapse on the “Defense of Marriage Act” to their allowance of the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade by their inability to filibuster appointments like Alito and Roberts. Our party has lacked “values” not only because we have internalized the Republicans’ platform but because we have not stood up for the values that we truly possess, like access to quality health care and education for everyone, equality for all people, and standing up for the little guy – values that have been lost in the corporatization of our country and, in some ways, the Democratic Party. Well, now the party that has built its reputation on “family values” finds itself in the height of hypocrisy. And it was simply a matter of time for a party that says one thing and then does another that it would be caught, quite literally, with its pants down. Months ago, we got the story that Senator David Vitter of Louisiana was on the phone list of the “DC Madam” as one of her clientele. Turns out he not only used the services of her operations, but of others in the New Orleans area. Word even came out that he liked to wear diapers while fooling around with various prostitutes. And while you might be tempted to think these revelations would be embarrassing for a man who epitomized the “values culture” in D.C., railing against same-sex marriage as a threat to opposite-sex marriage, you’d be wrong. Sure, he apologized, with his wife by his side. But upon his return to D.C., he received a standing ovation from his fellow Republican senators. One can only speculate why they so admired this man for cheating on his wife. And then, in late August, we got the story of Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, who solicited sex from an undercover cop in the Minneapolis airport on his way home from D.C. He was arrested, booked, and, weeks later, pled guilty to the charges against him. Within days of the story breaking, Craig’s party abandoned him, with calls for his resignation coming even from Senator John McCain. Here was a man who had rubbed another guys’ foot under a bathroom stall, and this was worthy of removal from the U.S. Senate, but a fellow senator’s trysts in diapers with numerous prostitutes was rewarded with a standing ovation? Yep, that’s the party of “family values.” I’ve thought a lot on why these two stories received such different reactions from the party of “family values.” And, no, I do not believe as a reasonable explanation the trope offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that Craig pled guilty and Vitter never did. I think the vast difference in responses hinges on two things. First, Craig’s crime involved same-sex attractions, the ultimate no-no in the party of Ted Haggard and Mark Foley. Better to be an admitted adulterer, like David Vitter, than to want to get it on with another guy. Even if you’ve made a living capitalizing on the adultery of others (like Bill Clinton), you’re forgiven in the party of family values for sleeping around on your wife and possibly causing irreparable emotional damage to your children. Second, Craig hails from a state with a Republican governor, and his resignation will do nothing to upset the Republicans’ 49-seat minority in the Senate. By contrast, a Vitter resignation, from a state with a Democratic governor, would have likely resulted in one more seat switching to the Democrats. And so it is that political expedience has taken precedence over so-called “family values” once again in the Republican Party. Thus, the “family values” party is the party of blatant hypocrisy. What is good for the goose clearly isn’t good for the gander, and what matters above all else to today’s GOP, no matter how much they talk of “values,” is power and control. And, yes, a dash of homophobia. God only knows why the need for such homophobia except probably both the way it turns out voters and also the fear so many of those men (and women) have of their own inner dialogues and the need to act out those fears by supporting repressive, hateful legislation (again, i.e. Craig, Haggard, and Foley). I suppose the question that remains open is how the Democrats are going to learn from this experience and realize that they have nothing to cede to this power-fanatical, comically hypocritical party? Michael's Minute I intend to use my space here to report on political issues which are going on in San Francisco using my first hand knowledge and second hand hearsay to put together a report on issues of concern. Sound insightful or interesting??? Ever since voters decided in 1977 and 1999 that San Francisco would be a Transit First city, policymakers and developers have had to make decisions which guided the city in that direction. This November, there is a proposition on the ballot that reaffirms this stance by strengthening the transportation department and locking in parking restrictions downtown. But, not surprisingly, this measure is being challenged by big business seeking to change the rules that govern parking policy. The Transit First policy takes form this election cycle in Proposition A which is billed as both a MUNI reform measure as well as a tool to limit downtown parking. Proposition A began with a conversation between the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association and Board President Aaron Peskin around the time that the T-Third Light Rail Line was making headlines for poor performance. Everyone knew that MUNI, as a whole, needed help and Peskin, one of the most successful legislatures in City history by the numbers, took the chance and put forward a measure to reform MUNI. Unfortunately, the initial proposal was anti-labor and granted far too much power to the mayoral appointed MTA Commission. Unions and Peskin, along with MTA Director Nathaniel Ford and Mayor Newsom, spent several weeks negotiating over the language of the proposal. At the end, a much improved initiative was formally put forward with the support of Labor, transit advocates, and environmental groups. But, as is the case with all things political in San Francisco, there is a twist. Towards the end of the negotiations, Peskin inserted some new language which locked into the City Charter parking provisions governing the amount of parking allotted to new development. This sent Don Fisher, the billionaire owner of Gap, and all of his downtown business colleagues into a frenzy. They had been circulating a petition to increase the amount of parking downtown, which was directly contrary to the City’s goal of improving and increasing public transit. The parking increase reform, Proposition H, increases the amount of parking allotted to new luxury condominium developments in SOMA and would only increase congestion in the downtown areas. This directly detracts from a real opportunity for the ‘Manhattan of the West Coast’ as planners and developers envision the future SOMA. This could be a public transportation and pedestrian friendly urban setting instead of a SUV crowded parking lot. My take on the issues is that Proposition A inserts more funding into MUNI, allows the department to issue bond debt to increase its current infrastructure to meet the growing demand, and creates a labor/management group to meet on a regular basis to work together on improving the transit department. And Proposition H allows wealthy people to increase the amount of parking spaces for their automobiles. When voting this November, think about what’s best for San Francisco, the environment, and public transportation. Report from our August Meeting At our August 8 San Francisco Young Dem’s Membership meeting we had a great line up of speakers to address a wide range of topics. | |||
| Â |
