I"m Back. A bit jet-lagged, but ready to pick up where we left off.
More on Montana. When last we blogged, the news of Democratic Sen. Max Baucus's slimy attack ad had just hit, and I wondered what the response might be. In fact, the Democratic-leaning Human Rights Campaign did come out with a critical statement saying, "HRC deplores any attempt to make a political issue of a candidate's real or perceived sexual orientation," and that "This type of ad has no place in politics, it is an affront to gay people and we hope we have seen the last of this campaign tactic." The HRC release, however, includes a lengthy excerpt from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee denying that the ad traded on anti-gay stereotypes. HRC does not comment on the DSCC statement. Are they trying to have their cake (denouncing a clearly homophobic tactic) and eat it, too (by avoiding giving too much offense to Democrats)?
Mickey Kaus of Slate's kausfiles had an item that includes a link to the ad. Comments Kaus, "It's a fabulous, highly-refined exercise in sleazy, leering innuendo, especially the final few nanoseconds in which Taylor's hand reaches down, down. ...." [toward his customer's crotch]
And finally, it was nice to see Marc Racicot, former governor of Montana and current head of the Republican National Committee, criticize the ad by telling the AP that "What is particularly insidious is that the Democratic Party has tried to present itself as a champion of fair and equal treatment of everyone, including those who are victims of judgment based on sexual orientation." Still, his comments come close to suggesting that labeling someone as gay is what's unacceptable, rather than the offensive stereotypes and, as Kaus says, leering innuendo.
More Political Slime. A Campaign Update from the Democratic National Committee's Office of GLBT Outreach that's making the e-mail rounds (but not posted online) focuses on the race between Oregon's GOP incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith and his opponent, Democrat Bill Bradbury. It's titled "Bradbury Calls on Gordon Smith to Explain Comment Comparing Homosexuality to Adultery and Implying that Gays and Lesbians Should be 'Saved"."
Gordon Smith, you might not realize, is a pro-gay moderate Republican who supports both the proposed federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the proposed federal hate crimes statute, two key items on the liberal gay movement's agenda. His transgression, apparently, was to appear before a group of religious conservatives and to try to mute their opposition to a hate crimes law that would increase penalties for attacks motivated by anti-gay bias. Smith reportedly told them, "If Christ can save a woman's life caught in the act of adultery -- without endorsing her lifestyle, but saving her life -- why can't we do that?"
Said Bradbury, "Smith's quote equating homosexuality with
adultery undermines his claim that he supports the gay and lesbian
community." Now think about this. Here is Gordon Smith trying to
talk to religious conservatives in the language they understand,
telling them that even if they don't accept homosexuality based on
their religious literalism, they should still support -- or at
least not mobilize to oppose -- efforts to curtail anti-gay
violence (and, by the way, this is regardless of our own debate
about whether a hate crimes bill actually will accomplish this).
But oh, he used the word "lifestyle" and drew on a religious
parallel. For shame! He's a HOMOPHOBE, so vote him out of
office.