GOP rightwingers hate Bush's nominee for Republican National Committee Chair, Mel Martinez, but so do (and understandably so) LGBT Democratic activists.
Something to Agree On?
ADVERTISEMENT
GOP rightwingers hate Bush's nominee for Republican National Committee Chair, Mel Martinez, but so do (and understandably so) LGBT Democratic activists.
42 Comments for “Something to Agree On?”
posted by Sanford on
Have the Log Cabin Republicans expressed an opinion, yet? I hope that the LCR will support this good and decent man. He is a friend of gays and lesbians.
posted by grendel on
on what do you base that comment. From the HRC press release:
* Scored a zero on the Human Rights Campaign?s 2006 Congressional Scorecard measuring support for equality and fairness in the 109th Congress.
* An ardent supporter and co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Martinez has been on the record opposing Republican Sen. John McCain?s states-rights stance on the issue, saying, ?It isn’t good enough to say, ?Leave it up to the states.? If we leave it up to the states we will see the erosion of marriage that we’ve seen by activist courts, which we otherwise will not see if we protect the institution of marriage at the federal level.?
* Attacked his 2004 Republican primary opponent for supporting hate crimes legislation accusing him of catering to the ?radical homosexual lobby.?
* Ran a 2004 campaign that was so anti-gay and divisive that Florida?s Republican governor, Jeb Bush, called on him to stop the attacks. Also because of his anti-gay tactics, The St. Petersburg Times revoked its endorsement after Martinez sent a mailer against his opponent calling him ?the new darling of the homosexual extremists.?
if he’s a friend, do we need enemies?
posted by Bobby on
Fuck the Human Rights Campaign. They’re nothing but an ultra-liberal embarasment for gays like me.
Mel Martinez is nothing more than a typical republican. If you want me to hate him, find me evidence that he supports gun control, more government and higher taxes.
Same-sex marriage is nothing more than a pipe dream. You might as well promise to end poverty, cure AIDS and defeat global warming (if it exists which I doubt).
Both liberals and conservatives use same-sex marriage to raise money and votes when we all know that it’s not gonna be legal in all 50 states for a very long time.
posted by kittynboi on
Looks like bobby is still angry that not everyone here has his priorities.
posted by Sanford on
The HCR analysis is superficial. Senator Martinez employs many gays on his staff and as political advisors. His politics are not important. Do you really think that gays and lesbians will be better off just because a few of them can get married? Let’s keep our eyes on the important thing — jobs.
posted by Greg A on
Martinez is a slime ball. I’ve met him, and while I am pretty much of the opinion that all politicians are scum he is especially deserving of my scorn. In his primary race for the Senate, he smeared his opponent (Bill McCollum another less than honorable man that is no great friend of gays) as “anti-family” and pushing the ‘homosexual agenda’ simply because he supported adding sexual orientation to the extant hate crimes law.
And cheer up Bobby, same sex marriage is inevitable, it already exists, and it will spread. Unless we destroy the world first we will eventually be able to marry anywhere in the states it might take a few decades, but it will happen.
posted by Alex on
His politics are not important.
His politics are all important. He either supports the idea that people should not face employment discrimination for factors unrelated to job performance (ex: being an out gay man) or he doesn’t. Either he supports the idea that people should not be evicted from housing because they’re gay or he doesn’t. Just because he has gay people on staff doesn’t mean that he is fighting for us.
I agree that the HRC evaluation is narrow focused and there are other issues that are also important. But fighting for us…doesn’t sound like he does.
posted by Sanford on
You may think his politics are important, but that is because you don’t agree with them. Senator Martinez employs gays who disagree with the radical HCR agenda, and you won’t find many Senators who forthrightly support gays and lesbians who don’t buy into liberal nonsense.
And anyway, if Senator Martinez was as bad as you seem to think, I’m sure that Steve would say something about it.
posted by grendel on
I’m not a member of HRC myself, and disagree with some of their positions, but really, how can a guy who enthusiastically supports the federal marriage amendment be gay-friendly. It’s one thing to not actively oppose it, it’s quite another thing to actively support it. The amendment is wrongheaded from a separation of powers perspective, whatever you may think of same sex marriage. I don’t see how any real conservative can support it.
As for employing gays, I don’t see what that has to do with anything. I understand white racists frequently employed african americans — that doesn’t mean they actually supported racial equality now does it?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m not a member of HRC myself, and disagree with some of their positions, but really, how can a guy who enthusiastically supports the federal marriage amendment be gay-friendly.
HRC pumped tens of millions of dollars into the 2004 elections to support this; indeed, they even called said candidate “pro-gay” and “gay-friendly”.
Furthermore, Joe Solmonese, in his previous life, endorsed an FMA supporter because she was a Democrat.
What should be patently obvious to anyone by now is that HRC’s and the HRC Executive Board’s definition of antigay and pro-gay is based on party affiliation, not on action or principle.
posted by grendel on
OK, but I didn’t mean this to be a debate about the merits of the HRC — I mentioned them only as a source for my information. Do you have anything to say about the substantive points raised against Martinez, as opposed to simply attacking the source of the information? (and I’ll agree that in and of itself scoring 0 on the HRC report card doesn’t say much substantive — but what about the other points?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Martinez and his ilk will be what solidifies the eviction of the libertarian Republicans from that party. After this election, they had a choice — change and survive, or wither over time and die.
By nominating this guy (and choosing Trent Lott to lead them), they’ve reduced themselves to a regional rump party for religious fundamentalists with no future and no ideas.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are beating a hasty retreat from supporting gays, with open calls for “abandoning the gay special interests” to focus on socialized medicine, increased government regulations in the private sector, and higher taxes for more government “services.”
Gays need not engage this Hobson’s choice — there’s never been a better time to think differently about how you vote.
posted by Alex on
Sanford:
On what basis are you calling Mr. Martinez “…a friend of gays and lesbians.” ‘Cause I’m not seeing it.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I believe the term is “wishful thinking.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Do you have anything to say about the substantive points raised against Martinez, as opposed to simply attacking the source of the information?
Yup.
First off, what exactly is wrong with calling a Democrat “the new darling of the homosexual extremists”? Why is that something over which gays should get upset, especially since HRC and the outing operatives like Mike Rogers insist that there is nothing wrong with being associated with homosexuality, and that Democrats always support homosexuals?
Second, hate crimes laws are not acceptable to me because they demand activity and assign penalty based on the comparison between the perpetrator and the victim. It makes no sense to me that a black man would get a lesser sentence for killing a black man than a white man would, or a heterosexual get a greater one for killing a gay person than s/he would for killing another heterosexual. Finally, HRC and the gay left have never reconciled their own contradiction — namely, why they oppose harsher penalties and death sentences overall based on it allegedly “doing nothing” to deter crime, but insist that harsher penalties will deter crimes against gays.
Finally, as to the FMA, since HRC and Joe Solmonese see no issue with Democrats supporting similar amendments, I fail to see why I should inherently loathe anyone else for doing it.
posted by ETJB on
The Libertarian Party or any other third political party is not a viable option until we can real campaign law reform.
Mel Martinez record on equal rights is clear; it sucks. You can disagree or agree with the HRC but his policy views on gay rights (something of some interest to a gay politics web page) as it relates to the future direction of the GOP should be of note.
I heard many GOP leaders the day after the election promise to focus more and more on the social issues that appeal to a minority of deeply socially conservative voters, instead of working with the middle.
posted by Greg A on
NDT, Bill McCollum is a REPUBLICAN not a democrat. He leveled this charge against ‘one of his own’ and as I said, someone that is no great friend of gays (though certainly not as bad as Martinez)
My issue isn’t that he identified McCollum’s limited pro gay stance, but that he grossly mischaracterized it, and deliberately used it to play to the bigotry of a portion of the republican base. He didn’t use this ploy against the democrat that he faced in the general election because he had to ‘appear’ reasonable to draw enough moderates to win.
I’ve been watching him since he was Orange County Chairman, and have never been impressed, his sole concern is himself.
FWIW I voted for McCollum (R) for ATTNY General in no small measure because the democrat ran ads saying that I should vote for him because he believed in God (not just my faith informs my views or something like that but literally, I believe in God so vote for me) It helped of course that McCollum was well qualified ;). Crist almost had me until he waffled on civil unions at the last minute (his adoption stand really bothered me though). I voted for several republicans in local races, but on the state wide races for the most part the choices were stark, and republicans here play too much to the religious right to be anything but dangerous for gays (Crist seemed to be an exception, beating back a republican challenger that all but accused him of being gay and then for the most part ignoring social issues in the general election but he caved in the final inning).
I do not support democrats that don’t solidly stand in the ‘pro gay rights’ corner, and since there are almost no local repubs that do, I don’t support them at all (though as indicated I’ll vote for them if they are the lesser of evils available to me)
posted by Timothy Kincaid on
Sometimes I think some conservative gay people are not so much conservative as they are contrarian. If “elite gays” or HRC or a gay Democrat somewhere favors an issue that would put gay people on an equal standing, they feel that they must oppose it. I really don’t know whether it is a form of self-loathing (as many liberals would claim), whether it is a form of over-compensation, or whether there is something else at play.
But whatever it is, I don’t much like it. Though a Republican, I can’t stomach defending Republicans for anti-gay bigotry any more than I could for racism, sexual harrassment, taking bribes, or any other despicable trait. Being “a Republican” or “a conservative” doesn’t get you a pass.
I support positions because they are right, not because they are opposed by liberals. My views are not thrust upon me in opposition by political opponents and just because a liberal may support a view doesn’t make it wrong.
Mel Martinez is not by any definition of the word “a fried of gays and lesbians”. And qualifying this as him being a friend of gays that opposed gay equality is hardly logical (nor does it say good things about his “friends”). When the question arises, “Shall gay people be treated the same as straight people on the issue of __________”, Martinez can be counted on to say “no”. This is not the behavior of a friend.
I would suggest that those gay persons who only find that they like politicians who are anti-gay in their rhetoric or their voting patterns carefully review their own motivations. If you can’t find pro-gay candidates you like, it probably isn’t because of their position on guns, or taxes, or whatever. It’s probably you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT, Bill McCollum is a REPUBLICAN not a democrat. He leveled this charge against ‘one of his own’ and as I said, someone that is no great friend of gays (though certainly not as bad as Martinez).
Then I owe you an apology, Greg; I thought McCollum was a Democrat.
At the same time, though, I stand by my original point; why should gays get upset over politicians being associated with us?
If “elite gays” or HRC or a gay Democrat somewhere favors an issue that would put gay people on an equal standing, they feel that they must oppose it.
As I have pointed out twice now, “equality” in their terms translates to “supporting state constitutional amendments, supporting DOMA, supporting the FMA, and pandering to religious bigots — as long as you’re a Democrat”.
Furthermore, the fact that Martinez has gay people on staff shows quite well that he does not support the concept of firing people simply for being gay. He merely does not believe that it needs to be codified into law.
posted by Sanford on
If conservatives and the liberocrats both hate Martinez, but the LCR is okay when him, then he is my kind of guy.
Again, Senator Martinez’s public positions are not important, because every Republican needs to be solidly on record against the homosexual agenda. In private, Senator Martinez puts gays into senior positions on his staff and in his political organization. That counts more than liberocrat words.
A gay in a senior position on the staff of a powerful Republican Senator working silently to advance our cause is worth more than a thousand yapping activists.
The LCR knows how it works, unlike the conservatives and the HRC.
posted by dalea on
And sometime the theo’s are going to catch on to this. Like fairly soon if Mike Rogers can get his message across. In a way, I no longer find this as comforting as I once did. Having seen how ‘our friends’ in the Catholic church gays there, not so sure this is a viable method to advance gay people.
posted by Tim on
“Again, Senator Martinez’s public positions are not important, because every Republican needs to be solidly on record against the homosexual agenda. In private, Senator Martinez puts gays into senior positions on his staff and in his political organization. That counts more than liberocrat words.”
That’s absolutely,fuckin’ incredible.
posted by Randy R. on
Sanford: ‘Senator Martinez’s public positions are not important, because every Republican needs to be solidly on record against the homosexual agenda. In private, Senator Martinez puts gays into senior positions on his staff and in his political organization. That counts more than liberocrat words.’
This is the biggest bunch of malarky I have heard in a while. So I guess we should just assume that politicians lie to us on important issues? Actually, Sanford says it’s good that he’s lying! And why must Repubs be on record against ‘the homosexual agenda? And what exactly is our agenda? And who sets it?
So Mel has a few gay people who are working to marginlize gay people — and that’s a good thing? What a weird world Republicans inhabit.
How about honesty and transparency? Wouldnt’ those be better values in a politician than lies to pander to certain sects? I guess not….
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I suspect Sanford is a troll having a bit of fun stirring the pot. Nobody could seriously believe any of that crap. 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And sometime the theo’s are going to catch on to this. Like fairly soon if Mike Rogers can get his message across.
One, they already know.
And two, doesn’t it bother you that gay leftists are trying to use homophobia to get gay people removed from positions of power?
This is the biggest bunch of malarky I have heard in a while. So I guess we should just assume that politicians lie to us on important issues? Actually, Sanford says it’s good that he’s lying! And why must Repubs be on record against ‘the homosexual agenda? And what exactly is our agenda? And who sets it?
Yes, politicians lie. That’s hardly earthshaking, and should be of no surprise to any gay supporter of Howard Dean or John Kerry.
And as to why, the homosexual agenda is pro-abortion, anti-religious, anti-military, anti-business, and, above all, anti-Republican.
You laugh, but every one of those has a referenceable situation in which being gay is used as justification for it. Furthermore, given that gay leftists regularly and loudly call gay people who don’t hold those positions “misogynist”, “self-laothing”, “trolls”, and other names, and claim that they aren’t really gay, it should be obvious that “gay” is dependent on holding that defined set of beliefs.
In that context, Martinez is to be applauded; instead of doing the easy thing and actually believing the gay leftists and their conformist statements, he has actually evaluated individuals who are gay and hired them.
Sometimes I wonder if gay leftists who are so quick to fling “self-loathing” are really gay fundamentalists; they hold a vast array of unpopular and contradictory beliefs, and they use hate, fear, and intimidation as a means of keeping people toeing the line. It’s really no different than ghetto blacks denigrating kids who succeed academically as “acting white”, or calling successful blacks and black conservatives “house slaves”, “oreos”, and “Uncle Toms”.
posted by Randy R. on
ND 30: ‘In that context, Martinez is to be applauded; instead of doing the easy thing and actually believing the gay leftists and their conformist statements, he has actually evaluated individuals who are gay and hired them.’
As have many Dems. The difference is that the Dems admit that that have hired them, the repubs rarely do. But you would never applaud a Dem for actually being honest and saying he’s in favor of gay rights AND hires gay people.
You applaud the hypocrisy of Mel, yet condemn the honesty of any Dem. this is the topsy-turvy world that was rejected in the mid-term elections.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The difference is that the Dems admit that that have hired them, the repubs rarely do.
LOL….why on earth would you want to publicize the sexual orientation of an individual you’ve hired, especially when it, according to gay leftists, has nothing to do with their job performance or qualifications and is a private matter?
The reason the Dems do it is simple tokenism; as was made obvious by Donald Hitchcock’s firing, LGBT employees of Dem politicians are there for looks, not for input, and can be discarded as necessary if they anger the masters or are inconvenient to the voters of the moment (such as when gays were omitted from Dem Party outreach information).
And finally to this statement:
But you would never applaud a Dem for actually being honest and saying he’s in favor of gay rights AND hires gay people.
You’re right, I wouldn’t; what I care about is that he hires the most qualified applicant regardless of sexual orientation. His statement appears to me to be nothing more than a crass attempt to pander to an identity group, and makes me wonder if he’s interested more in hiring the best people for the job, or filling his required minority quota.
With Martinez, I am far more convinced that his hiring is based on an evaluation of their qualifications, rather than on an attempt to pander to minority groups or meet quotas. Indeed, if your characterization of his electorate is correct, he is taking an enormous risk by having gay employees at all; in theory, it would only be positive to a voter group that would never vote for him anyway because he’s a Republican, and negative to the antigay bigots that people insist make up the overwhelming majority of his constituents.
posted by Randy R. on
So, in other words, when a Repub lies and panders to his base for votes, that’s good. When a Dem, lies and panders to his base, that’s bad.
When a Dem hires a gay person, that’s tokenism and never based on actual qualifications, when a Repub hires a gay person, that terrific. (Which of course ignores the fact that so many of these ‘tokens’ whipped the ass of their republican counterparts in a week ago)
Look, ND 30, you obviously don’t live in Washington and know nothing about what your talk about. Congress is filled with openly gay staffers, on both sides. Most Dems have at least a one or two, sometime quite a bit more, openly gay people on their staff. It isn’t tokenism by any means. And the Dems don’t ‘publicize’ it any more than the Repubs do. And no one has claimed that anyone does.
Same thing with the Repubs – they have openly gay people but they also have a lot more closeted ones as well.
But to say that all Dems have unqualified gay people on their staff, and that it is done only for window dressing slanders the legion of good hardworking staffers that exist on both sides of the aisle.
That you can’t accept this obvious truth shows your blindness to ideology.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, in other words, when a Repub lies and panders to his base for votes, that’s good. When a Dem, lies and panders to his base, that’s bad.
LOL….Martinez hiring gays is going AGAINST what you allege his “base’s” attitudes are. What then, exactly, is your point?
Which of course ignores the fact that so many of these ‘tokens’ whipped the ass of their republican counterparts in a week ago
Yes, believe me, I’m impressed by all the gays at the DNC and DCCC who worked so hard for such pro-gay luminaries as Heath Shuler and who came within a whisker of getting FMA supporter Harold Ford into office. Most ordinary human beings would collapse from irony overdose, especially when they start going after gay Republican staffers for being “self-loathing” for working for “homophobes”. But then again, these are the same folks who thought John Kerry’s support of stripping gay people of rights because of how they were born was “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”; they’ve no doubt built up an immunity by now.
But to say that all Dems have unqualified gay people on their staff, and that it is done only for window dressing slanders the legion of good hardworking staffers that exist on both sides of the aisle.
Oh please. Your faux outrage becomes even more hilarious when one remembers that you were slandering these Republican staffers just this morning, claiming that they want to “marginalize gay people”. Furthermore, your insistence that “they don’t publicize it any more than the Repubs do” is downright side-splitting when earlier this afternoon you were claiming that the Dems were superior because they bragged about how they hired gay people.
Look, ND 30, you obviously don’t live in Washington
Thank God for small favors.
posted by Randy R. on
ND30: Martinez hiring gays is going AGAINST what you allege his “base’s” attitudes are.
Yes, of course. But he says exactly what his base wants to hear. That’s part of pandering to the base, right? So when a repub lies and condemns gay people, you think that’s just fine and dandy. I don’t.
And when a Dem has good things to say about gays, and actually hires them, you think that’s bad. And you still haven’t explained that except to assume that the gays hired must somehow be unqualified, without any evidence whatsoever.
“Your faux outrage becomes even more hilarious when one remembers that you were slandering these Republican staffers just this morning, claiming that they want to “marginalize gay people”.
Well, yes, of course. Congressmen (and women) work as a team with their staffers. Most of their speeches are written by staffers, their appearances are staged managed by staffers, invitations are vetted by staffers, and so on. So if Mel is condemning gay people, and he has gay people on his staff, then that staff is working to condemn gay people. Rick Santorum’s commuications director was openly gay, and he knew that RS was actively against any sort of gay rights initiative. Therefore, the gay worker was working to marginilize gay people. Maybe not intentionally, maybe not knowingly, but nonetheless he did.
And yes, Santorum got his ass whipped.
And no, I didn’t claim that Dems were superior for hiring openly gay people. I just think that’s a fine idea.
posted by raj on
On the subject matter of the post
Randy R. | November 18, 2006, 6:25am |
ND30: Martinez hiring gays is going AGAINST what you allege his “base’s” attitudes are.
I sincerely don’t particularly care that an incidental congressman or senator might be willing to hire an openly gay man or woman even though he himself votes against equal rights for gay people in general. That issue is a red herring–a diversion from the real issue. That might affect maybe–what?–a few tens or maybe a little more than a hundred openly gay people.
If the congressman or senator votes against equal rights for gay people, that can affect the lives of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of gay people. That is the significant issue, and diversionary tactics such as those from the innumerate and known dissembler NDXXX should not divert from that issue.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But he says exactly what his base wants to hear. That’s part of pandering to the base, right? So when a repub lies and condemns gay people, you think that’s just fine and dandy. I don’t.
Funny; it didn’t stop you and yours from pumping tens of millions of dollars to this or this, or keep you from calling them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Furthermore, what do you think about the gay staffers who worked for these individuals? Are you going to apply the same rules and say that they’re working to marginalize gays like their bosses do, or are you suddenly going to discover an exception?
And when a Dem has good things to say about gays, and actually hires them, you think that’s bad. And you still haven’t explained that except to assume that the gays hired must somehow be unqualified, without any evidence whatsoever.
That’s simply based on the fact that Dems fire qualified individuals, like Hitchcock, for the strangest of reasons (for something his partner wrote?), and replace them with people who haven’t demonstrated competency beyond an ability to parrot talking points.
Employers will tell you why they hired the people they do based on what they emphasize. Republicans emphasize performance and merit; Democrats emphasize sexual orientation.
If the congressman or senator votes against equal rights for gay people, that can affect the lives of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of gay people. That is the significant issue, and diversionary tactics such as those from the innumerate and known dissembler NDXXX should not divert from that issue.
Unfortunately, Raj, given your record of support for Kerry and Clinton and your insistence that their support and enactment of laws stripping gays of rights is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, it should be obvious to anyone that you don’t consider antigay votes significant
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas thirty said “Unfortunately, Raj, given your record of support for Kerry and Clinton and your insistence that their support and enactment of laws stripping gays of rights is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, it should be obvious to anyone that you don’t consider antigay votes significant ”
ND30, from a pro-gay perspective compared to Bush and the Republicans Kerry and the Democrats are at the very least the lesser of two evils. You have no credibility criticizing anyone for not voting pro-gay when you support the party and presidential candidate by far the most synonymous with anti-gay. Clearly being pro-gay is not a concern of yours when it comes to who you support.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Clearly being pro-gay is not a concern of yours when it comes to who you support.
Actually, it’s only one of many factors.
But, Randi, since you and your fellow leftists insist that gays must vote Democrat because they’re “pro-gay”, I intend to make it obvious what exactly you define “pro-gay” as being. Given that you insist that stripping gays of rights is “pro-gay” when John Kerry and Bill Clinton do it, I fail to see from where you’re criticizing Republicans.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
from a pro-gay perspective compared to Bush and the Republicans Kerry and the Democrats are at the very least the lesser of two evils
No it’s not.
Republicans and Democrats both try to sell us shit, and then get into slinging matches with each other over whether Republican bullshit or Democrat horseshit stinks worse. But at the end of the day, it’s still shit, all around.
posted by dalea on
Is it my imagination, or do most of NDxxx’s postings boil down to: gay people should be a doormat? We need a poll feature here at IGF.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
ND30 does what he needs to do in order to shift scrutiny from a facts-based analysis of his own party’s bizarre and out-of-touch policies to dog-chasing-tail debates of others’ motives based on his assigning of fictional positions to other people.
A bit bizarre when one considers he’s an outspoken advocate of Congressmen preying on teenaged page-boys without consequences.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, NL, I give you credit for persistence, but again, your effectiveness in that tactic is limited, at best.
Furthermore, your idea of a “facts-based analysis” is, as we’ve seen, to make something up, then, when cornered and confronted by clear, linked, references, first try to change definitions, then make personal attacks, then try to change your initial statement.
Is it my imagination, or do most of NDxxx’s postings boil down to: gay people should be a doormat?
That is because, dalea, you miss a very important lesson and idea: one can be assertive without being an ass.
For you, the “rights of gay people” are nothing more than an excuse to play out your various other prejudices, particularly against religion, and to give them some tattered cloak of social acceptability. Unless you’re spitting on altars, namecalling Catholics, and desecrating churches, you feel like you’re being a “doormat”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas Thirty, I never said all Bill Clinton’s and John Kerry’s actions are pro-gay, I said they are at the very least the lesser of two evils and the vast majority of gays would rightly agree with that. You’re so out of touch with reality you have to lie about what people have said to try and make yourself seem slightly credible.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Dallas Thirty, I never said all Bill Clinton’s and John Kerry’s actions are pro-gay, I said they are at the very least the lesser of two evils and the vast majority of gays would rightly agree with that.
You know, I think it’s time to confront that “lesser of two evils” head-on.
Clinton and Kerry said they supported gays, took millions of dollars in gay money, and then turned around and pushed/supported/voted for antigay laws.
The Republicans never claimed to support gays, never took millions of dollars in gay money, and pushed/supported/voted for antigay laws.
The latter were honest, the former were fraudulent.
Gays like you, Randi, don’t want to admit that they were defrauded. I’m sure on some level it drives you crazy that you were such a fool, that you let Clinton, Kerry, and the Dems lie to you, and how much good you could have done with that money rather than wasting it on homophobes.
But instead of admitting that the Dems defrauded you, you vent your ire on the Republicans and make up excuses for why the Democrats really aren’t that bad.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas Thirty, Kerry and Clinton went with the anti-gay flow but they weren’t the ones pushing it that way. Its the ant-gay republicans and Bush that are pushing and initiating these anti-gay measures and sentiment. When the public sentiment goes pro-gay so will the Democrats, but the Republicans will still be frothing at the mouth trying to turn it around and screaming for gay blood.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Dallas Thirty, Kerry and Clinton went with the anti-gay flow but they weren’t the ones pushing it that way.
I might as well repeat my previous post, Randi, because it obviously went right over your head.
Clinton and Kerry said they supported gays, took millions of dollars in gay money, and then turned around and pushed/supported/voted for antigay laws.
The Republicans never claimed to support gays, never took millions of dollars in gay money, and pushed/supported/voted for antigay laws.
The latter were honest, the former were fraudulent.
Gays like you, Randi, don’t want to admit that they were defrauded. I’m sure on some level it drives you crazy that you were such a fool, that you let Clinton, Kerry, and the Dems lie to you, and how much good you could have done with that money rather than wasting it on homophobes.
But instead of admitting that the Dems defrauded you, you vent your ire on the Republicans and make up excuses for why the Democrats really aren’t that bad.