While the Republican Party thinks that it has purged itself of racism in the aftermath of the Trent Lott affair—and let's not forget, please, that Trent Lott is still in the Senate, and will have considerable influence on at least one committee—in actuality the ugly little scandal provides yet another prism through which to look at the party's positions on other issues. With the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade upon us, for example, it's important to remember that the days of segregation were also the days of back-alley abortions. And while many of Lott's Republican critics—and Lott himself—vehemently and indignantly claimed they didn't want to go back in time to the 1950s with regard to Jim Crow laws, they openly and proudly admit their desire to bring the country back to the 1950s when it comes to a woman's right to choose.
Actually, some in the anti-abortion movement would like to take things back even farther. 'There are times I believe that the biggest mistake Americans made was to give women the vote,' writes Dorothy Seese, a columnist for the far-right Sierra Times, which bills itself as an 'Internet publication for real Americans.'
Seese may be an obscure columnist on yet another Web site, but thousands of people like her, lots of them writing on scores of Web sites and in dozens of publications—many of which are funded by right-wing think tanks—make up the heart and soul of the anti-abortion movement, which is ensconced within the Republican Party.
'Since 1920 women have been forsaking their traditional role of helper and nurturer, turning into what Rudyard Kipling called 'the female of the species [that] is deadlier than the male,'' Seese writes. 'They have aided and abetted the cause of statism in America, misused all their freedoms, and wielded a large scalpel to psychologically and socially neuter American men, particularly white men, while at the same time becoming the newest mass murderers on the planet.'
Back when I was having my Handmaid's Tale moment, shortly after the midterm elections, some so-called moderate conservatives—the types who claim to be pro-choice and even pro-gay but still supported George W. Bush—wrote in to say I was being alarmist. They seemed to be slightly vindicated in that charge when Lott—chastised by a White House that didn't want to seem arrogant right after the Republican win—backed off the abortion issue shortly after he'd announced plans to immediately push through anti-abortion legislation come January.
With the new Bush-installed Bill Frist at the helm of the Senate, however, the religious right is organizing fiercely to dismantle abortion rights, starting with pushing legislation to ban so-called 'partial birth' abortions, an incremental step and, for them, the very beginning of bigger things. They're giddy: Frist, a doctor and a 'compassionate conservative,' can help them attain their goals because he's less of a lightning rod. The 30th anniversary of Roe comes at perhaps the most precarious time in its history.
Compassionate Homophobe
We've seen them compared on a number of issues, but, as usual, there was one that most of the mainstream media ignored. So, what is the difference between former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and new Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist when it comes to the issue of gay rights?
Here's what Lott has said about gays: 'You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol or sex addiction or kleptomaniacs.'
Frist, meanwhile, has said, 'I think there is a desire by Republicans to reach out more broadly to various coalitions—instead of dwelling on our differences.' Lott has never had an interest in cultivating gay supporters. Frist has met with gay Republicans several times.
But both men have a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign, the D.C. gay lobby, meaning that they voted in the exact same (bad) way every time on gay rights. So, while Frist talks the talk, he walks with Lott.
Unlike many members of Congress, including a fair number of Republicans, Frist refused to sign a declaration against firing members of his own staff because they are gay. Even Virginia Republican Sens. Chuck Allen and John Warner, no champions of gay rights, have such a policy regarding their staffs.
As chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee this year—which obviously gave lots of money to the most antigay members of the Senate—Frist was responsible for authorizing NRSC-paid ads that gay-baited Democratic Senate opponents. Among the most prominent were ads run on behalf of Saxby Chambliss, who won the Georgia Senate race by charging that his opponent, former Sen. Max Cleland, was 'against the Boy Scouts.' He was referring to a Helms amendment that Cleland voted against that would have cut off federal funding to any school that did not allow the Boy Scouts equal access to meeting space because of its ban on gay scouts. Other antigay ads paid for by NRSC were run on behalf of Suzanne Terrell—who lost the Louisiana Senate race—gay-baiting Sen. Mary Landrieu.
In each of those cases, Frist offered no apology after Democrats and gay activists criticized the ads and the NRSC. In contrast, when Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus ran a gay-baiting spot against his opponent, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a critical statement. Frist's own political action committee, meanwhile, for which he presumably chooses recipients, gave money to some notable antigay crusaders in the last cycle, such as Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe and Texas' John Cornyn.
None of that, of course, has kept the Log Cabin Republicans from going orgasmic on the guy. 'We're thrilled,' Mark Mead, the group's communications director, told Gay City News. 'He's a new, compassionate face.' Hmm. Perhaps we should call it compassionate homophobia.
Glutton for Punishment
I probably shouldn't write on this again, but call me, um, a glutton. Last week when I pointed out the hypocrisy of Bill Bennett's obvious gorging out on food while he lectures others of us about our supposedly immoral behavior, some people objected. A small handful who usually support the column thought it was crass or offensive to point to Bennett's portliness and to attack him for committing the 'sin' of gluttony. I'm not sure they appreciated that the piece was satirical, however, and was meant not to make fun of fat people but to show that Bennett is in no place to be moralizing about anything.
Much more of the criticism, however, came from conservatives who pretty much charged the same thing but in a much angrier fashion. All I would say to them is, if you think my criticisms were offensive, look to your Fat-Phobe-in-Chief. George W. Bush is not only an exercise nazi, but he's urged the entire White House staff to hit the gym. And while I would never advocate firing anyone—including Bill Bennett—because of his girth, that apparently was a factor in Bush's dumping of his White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey last month. 'Bush blamed Lindsey for many of the administration's economic missteps in recent months and even complained privately about his failure to exercise physically, aides said,' reported The Washington Post.
To which Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz added: 'Get it? Not only was he a lousy adviser, but he was too fat!'
