I was underwhelmed and agree with many insta-analysts that the questioning by rock singer (she called herself a "rock star") Melisa Etheridge was at best vapid (hey, Ellen or Rosie at least would have had talkshow interviewing experience). Making Etheridge a panelist for what was billed as an historic, first-ever, nationally televised (via cable station Logo) LGBT presidential candidates forum was an embarrassment-especially when she all but endorsed Dennis Kucinich!
Much babble about the LGBT community, which helped the candidates to avoid saying "gay" (although, eventually, they do). An inconvenient truth: there is no "LGBT community," but that's another posting.
Some have noted that the big three (Obama, Clinton and Edwards), who favor civil unions and are against the Federal Marriage Amendment, but oppose "gay marriage," actually have the same or even a weaker position than Dick Cheney (but are better than Bush, who supports the FMA).
I don't have much to add to the live blogging comments by Ryan Sager, here, or Dan Blatt, here. If you missed it, they convey the feel of the nonevent.
38 Comments for “The LGBT Presidential Debate”
posted by Casey on
While politically… unimpressive… I think there actually was value to having Etheridge on the panel. Celebrity or not, her not being a political animal or a journalist puts her into the camp of “normal person,” which is only sharpened by her experience with breast cancer, her having kids, being married in everything but law – as a celebrity, everybody knows this background, and so she gets to be the “real person” onstage providing a more personal story to the dialogue… and aren’t we always saying that its the personal stories that will have an impact? Just two cents from somebody who always tries to see the positive in anything.
posted by Jordan on
If Etheridge endorsed Kucinich, then Solmonese was humping Hil’s leg. Did you notice how he giggled like a little school-girl every time she batted an eyelash in his direction?
And why did she keep referencing how much they’ve worked together? Like it’s supposed to impress us that someone from the HRC has been up a Democrat’s ass for the last seven years. “Oh Joe, you /know/ how you and I have plotted to destroy the last vestiges of radicalism in the ‘GLBT’ community!” *GAG*
posted by ETJB on
Well, the LCR are free to try and organize a debate, but how many candidates would show up?
Primary debates are not really ‘debates’, and the major general election debate is not really one either.
posted by Brian Miller on
I loved Hillary’s bit about how “I think of us more as pro-civil union than anti-gay-marriage.”
That’s a bit like saying “I think of us more as pro-black-only theater entrance than segregationist.”
Of course, gay Democrats will defend her to the nines just like they did her lying, pervert husband — to the further detriment of gay equality. Then again, the Democratic party — and gay partisan Democrats — never were big on “equality” anyway.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Celebrity or not, her not being a political animal or a journalist puts her into the camp of ‘normal person…'”
Exactly right. Speaking as someone who has relatives in the entertainment world, I can definitely tell you they are as normal as anyone else. They pay humongous tax rates on the money they make — money they work very hard to earn — and they have every right to express their opinions and to take active part in the political process.
Won’t go over well with the “shut up and sing” crowd, I guess, but there it is.
posted by Jorge on
That Hillary line kinda says it all. The tension is not lost on her, and she’s honest about it.
posted by Casey on
I sometimes do fall into the “shut up and sing crowd” I guess – because when it comes to matters of serious public policy, I really dislike when celebrities are given greater credence than they deserve… Clooney doesn’t know shit about geopolitics, etc. He’s just an ordinary person, exceedingly arrogant, who manages to wield excessive influence because he’s been in movies. However, in a debate scenario, where the objective is to find out what somebody else thinks, then a celebrity like Etheridge is strengthened, not weakened by her “normality.” Her political ignorance and yes, tendency to gush at political celebrities, makes her like almost any of us would be in that scenario (conservatives, imagine yourself in the company of some of your favor GOP, same for you libertarians). And so, she plays a role we don’t often get to see in these things, and wouldn’t have seen if it’d been Foreman or some other Professional Gay up there. Plus I happen to think that she got in a few decent shots at dodgey wannabe presidential candidates, things I’ve waited YEARS for HRC leaders to say (telling Hilary that Bill threw us under the bus, for example), and I’m not gonna forget that anytime soon. Now, if she’d just get away from Gore…
posted by Lori Heine on
Casey, it is also totally up to us whether we are going to give inordinate credence to what our favorite celebrities say.
Neither of us is the sort of airhead who’s going to march right out and vote for a particular candidate or ballot measure just because a singer or a movie star tells us to. And I still have enough faith left in America to believe most other people won’t, either.
Celebrites do often use their fame to heighten awareness of causes that are very worthwhile but would otherwise be ignored. There are many children in the Third World whose daily meals, schooling and medical care are paid for by people who saw those late-night ads with celebrity spokespeople and pledged their support to these charities as a result.
posted by Brian Miller on
Far be it from me to interrupt the Republicratic Propaganda Wars (it is, after all, sElection Time), but I had to chuckle at this one:
the big three (Obama, Clinton and Edwards), who favor civil unions and are against the Federal Marriage Amendment, but oppose “gay marriage,” actually have the same or even a weaker position than Dick Cheney (but are better than Bush, who supports the FMA).
Dick Cheney changed his position on the FMA and announced he favored it, shortly before it went down to defeat.
Not a surprise — Democrats and Republicans have no principles other than “get power at all costs” after all — but it’s important that the record remain straight on this issue (pardon the pun).
posted by Dave on
Oh, Good Lord, ladies…give it a rest.
1. It’s a great day that we have candidates of ANY kind showing up to a forum to talk about LGBT issues on national television, albeit cable. Granted, they should have been paying attention years ago, but it makes a pretty significant statement that NONE of the Republicans were willing to show up.
2. I liked Melissa. She’s someone that most LGBT Americans recognize (and based on her sales over her career, “Rock Star” is actually appropriate), and when you consider that the majority of people watching WILL appreciate seeing a face they recognize I think it was a wise choice. And while each panelist DID have their favorites, she ALSO asked a hard question of each of them…harder than most of the other panelists.
3. On the Hillary front, I’m still a bit on the fence personally. I actually like her as a politician overall (I know…some here will disagree…just my opinion) but I heard a lot more in Kucinich’s statements that resonated with me. But since there isn’t a snowball’s chance he’d be elected the next president, I have to look to the one that would get me CLOSEST to the kind of freedom I expect, and I think that’s probably Hillary.
4. Let’s face it. I want marriage. But I’m certainly not going to turn down a civil union that offers all the same rights and benefits of marriage on a FEDERAL LEVEL on the road to getting there. If Hillary made good on what she said (or Barack or Edwards, etc…) we’d make a MAJOR leap forward in this presidency. Our job is to hold them to it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Granted, they should have been paying attention years ago, but it makes a pretty significant statement that NONE of the Republicans were willing to show up.
Again, why should they?
HRC itself has stated that it’s only interested in supporting Democrats.
HRC’s leaders give support and endorsement to people who hold the exact same stances (and brag about it) they berate Republicans for holding.
Furthermore, being gay, according to HRC, means you must support abortion, demand higher taxes, oppose Social Security reform, and push for healthcare nationalization — and you can be religious, but only if it’s a religion that supports all of the above.
Yeah, that’s a value proposition any Republican just can’t turn down.
posted by Brian Miller on
I’m certainly not going to turn down a civil union that offers all the same rights and benefits of marriage on a FEDERAL LEVEL on the road to getting there
More meaninglessness. DOMA forbids “the same rights and benefits of marriage on a federal level.” Hillary Clinton supports DOMA, as written. Ergo, her statements claiming to “support equal treatment for civil unions” is meaningless fluff, designed to confuse her already-confused queer apologists.
posted by Lori Heine on
Hillary thinks we’re stupid; she has made that more than amply clear over the years.
Are Barack and the Silky Pony any better? I think it’s pretty clear that all the Dems think we aren’t very bright.
They gave a dog-and-Silky-Pony show for us. Oh, goody! I feel so affirmed now!
The GOP is still too tied up with its idiot base to throw us any but the barest of bones.
A pox on both their houses, as far as I’m concerned.
posted by Casey on
Brian, for one as interested in keeping the record straight as you claim to be, surely you’d be interested to know that all of the Democratic candidates support amending or repealing DOMA, at least so far as to all the federal government to recognize marriages in states which have legalized them. I’m no fan of the Dems, but at least I’ll give them credit for that. http://www.gaynewswatch.com/Page.cfm?PageID=22&SID=1047
posted by Lori Heine on
Although I think she had every right to be there, participating in the event (the argument that she had no place there because she was a celebrity clearly the lamest one of all), I think Melissa Etheridge is using her time much more wisely when she spends it singing.
Is it just me, or is the current crop of presidential wannabees especially stinko?
posted by Hank on
Lori – I am a big fan of John Edwards – to the tune of sending money, knocking on doors, whatever – but your “Silky Pony” comment cracked me up. Thanks…
posted by Lori Heine on
Hank — “Silky Pony” really isn’t mine. I wish I could claim credit for it, but I’ve heard the term floating around on the blogosphere.
I think it might have been coined by my goddess, one of the ten sexiest women in America: Tammy Bruce.
posted by Casey on
Gotta say, the “dog-and-silky-pony show” is a variant I hadn’t seen before, which did get a chuckle out of me. Good chatting with you again, btw, Lori. Always a pleasure.
posted by Jordan on
NDT, you have to be the biggest troll I have ever met in the blogosphere. You continue to throw out completely baseless support for the Republicans and never respond directly to anyone’s challenges of your bullshit with anything coherent or logical. I will ask you the same thing here as I did on Gay Patriot: wouldn’t this have been the perfect opportunity for a Republican to show up, “call the bluff” of the HRC (in a manner of speaking) and explain to us how they support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or even gay marriage? Wouldn’t the audience have been shocked to find out that a Republican has those ideals?
Of course not — because none of them have any of those ideals. They have no support whatsoever for the GLBT community. They didn’t want to show up to this forum because they knew that they would have nothing to say to the questions that were asked, except that being gay is a sin, it’s against “God”‘s will, and they will do everything their power to ensure civil unions or gay marriage never comes to pass.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
“Hillary thinks we’re stupid; she has made that more than amply clear over the years. They gave a dog-and-Silky-Pony show for us. Oh, goody! I feel so affirmed now! The GOP is still too tied up with its idiot base to throw us any but the barest of bones. A pox on both their houses, as far as I’m concerned.”
Amen, Lori! Plus, gotta love “silky pony!” I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I saw that! You may not have created the phrase, but thanks for bringing it to our attention! It’s even better than “Breck Girl” for describing this phony.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I will ask you the same thing here as I did on Gay Patriot: wouldn’t this have been the perfect opportunity for a Republican to show up, “call the bluff” of the HRC (in a manner of speaking) and explain to us how they support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or even gay marriage?
The problem with that logic, Jordan, is that, as facts show, you don’t care about any of those things.
You don’t care about marriage, civil unions, or whatnot, given HRC and its leaders’ support of FMA supporters and state constitutional amendment supporters.
You don’t care about pandering to people who think homosexuality is a sin.
And you especially don’t care about gay staffers working for or donors giving to any of the same, even when they proudly proclaim their stances as being “the same” as the Republican stance you call homophobic and evil and blast others for working for and supporting.
Perhaps if you could demonstrate the same hatemongering and such for these people as you do for Republicans, you would have something.
But that would require you referring to HRC using the derogatory names you do for groups like Log Cabin, calling Melissa Etheridge an “Aunt Jemima” for her support of Kerry, calling Joe Solomonese and Hilary Rosen “Uncle Toms” for their support of FMA supporters, turning loose harassing callers and bloggers on Steve Elmendorf and Bob Shrum, and blasting the Democrat Party as “Christianists”, “homophobes”, “fascists”, and all the other charming names you’ve applied to Republicans.
And just how popular would that make you? Indeed, you’d have the people who used to be your “friends” denouncing YOU as a “troll” because you didn’t just shut up and do what your Democrat masters told you to do.
Better to demand perfection of the Republicans you loathe than requiring Democrats to live up to the promises they made in exchange for millions of your dollars, eh?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Wow…ND30 is such an unbearable asshole. How about answering the question next time instead of slinging mud?
posted by crankyd on
Good comments so far; but I’ve yet to hear much about someone i found interesting: Bill Richardson.
Early in his introduction, he stressed something that I’d like to hear from more candidates out there. He’s more about what is really “doable” than promising what every interest group wants to hear.
His position on gay marriage is in lockstep with the leading Dem candidates so far; opposes gay marriage / supports civil unions. No one that supports gay marriage is going to get elected. Period.
He’s knows full damn well that most Americans can’t wrap their minds around accepting gay marriage, but civil unions ARE doable. Why can’t any of the other candidates just come out and say it?
I consider myself a pragmatist on most political issues. Most of the gay activists, (bless their brave little hearts) demand marriage during the most hostile administration in years. Stupid move. It’s a war they wont win.
By refusing to entertain the idea of civil unions, they’ve embittered even more of the straight electorate towards us.
Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe that civil unions are a second-class marriage, but that’s in name only. As long as we have full legal rights, we don’t need to give a damn what some bigot thinks of our lives.
posted by crankyd on
PART 2
Back to Bill Richardson.
I thought he seemed rather ill-at-ease in general. When he was asked if he thought homosexuality was an inborn trait or a choice, he responded “choice”, to the obvious dismay of the crowd and the panel.
Though I’m not sure he really understood or reasoned out the question before he responded, he went on to say that he personally can’t judge what determines a person’s sexual orientation. He seems genuinely confounded about how he feels.
Yet, he strongly supports civil unions. This is a wonderful thing.
Here we have a man, that, by his own admittance is conflicted about why some of are the way we are. But that doesn’t matter. Even if it is a “choice” to be gay, he seems to say that’s just fine, you still deserve the same legal protections and privileges as anyone else.
Not sure how the other candidates feel about the “born-that-way or choice” issue, but I’d be willing to guess that most fall on the side of it being an inborn trait. Yet, their support is no stronger than a man that admits his lack of full understanding.
Maybe this simple philosophy is something that many people out there could learn from. We don’t need to condone or even understand one another fully, but we do recognize that at certain levels, we need to treat each other as we would wish to be.
The Golden Rule is still the gold standard in my book, maybe in Richardson’s too.
posted by ETJB on
Why should they? For the same reason that they should attend something by the NAACP or the AARP or even the NRA.
The HRC is — i think — the largest LGBT organization in the nation. If GOP candidates were even willing to entertain earning the support of LGBT voters, then they would have shown up.
The HRC is a bipartisan interest group. They have endorsed Republicans for Congress when they actually earn such an endorsement.
Frankly, most GOP presidential candidates do not seem to want to E-A-R-N the HRC endorsement.
Does the HRC speak for all LGBT Americans? No, but most LGBT Americans probably do support civil rights and hate crimes laws, do support a right to privacy, do support progressive taxation, do support affordable health care for all, do support the First Amendment.
A significant number (70%-ish) of gay Americans vote for Democrats. Roughly 20% for Republicans and roughly 5% for Independents.
Furthermore, being gay, according to HRC, means you must support abortion, demand higher taxes, oppose Social Security reform, and push for healthcare nationalization — and you can be religious, but only if it’s a religion that supports all of the above.
Yeah, that’s a value proposition any Republican just can’t turn down.
posted by ETJB on
None of the GOP presidential candidates wanted to attend the HRC debate. They were not excluded, they simply did not want to show up. Period. Why?
(1) They oppose every single LGBT rights issue before LGBT Americans? (2) They did not want to alienate the religious right?
(3) Both?
Yes, the HRC does support candidates that do not have a perfect record on LGBT equal rights. Most interest groups do so as well.
The reality is that a Democrat or a Republican will become the nation’s next president. Probably some one who can appeal to the so-called ‘moderate-swing voters’.
Some of the candidates are CLEARLY better then others on LGBT rights issues. What is wrong with the truth? Why do some gay Republicans insist on being ‘flip floppers’?
It is not the fault of progressives of Democrats that the Republican Party and its GOP presidential hopefuls oppose just about every gay rights issue.
Nor is it the fault of the Green Party, the Libertarian Party or the Raving Loonies Party. The fault lies within the party itself and its desire for power, above all else.
John Kerry (2004) was certainly not perfect, but his record on LGBT rights was far better then George Bush (2000 and 2004).
Bill Clinton was certainly not perfect, but he was far better then Bush sr. or Dole on LGBT rights issues.
None of the electable Democrats are perfect, but what are the electable Republicans offering us?
posted by Jordan on
Give me a break, NDT — you’re going to deflect with THAT? Once again, a total line of bullshit. In fact, your line of reasoning is so convoluted I’m not even sure where to start.
You seem to forget the fact that Republicans have absolutely ZERO interest in forwarding the gay agenda. In demonizing Democrats, you also forget that they have, on the whole, a much BETTER record in attempting to move forward GLBT politics. No one, especially not be, is arguing that the Democrats are perfect or are where they SHOULD be in terms of our “agenda.” But just because a candidate isn’t 100% what you want them to be doesn’t mean that you don’t support them as a “lesser of all evils.”
Yes, the whole slate of Democrats are against gay marriage. But all of them were at least pro-civil unions in the forum. As far as I can tell, Guliani is the ONLY Republican candidate who is even in favor of civil unions.
So what exactly is your point with all that rambling about Democrat anti-Republicanism? Yeah, I get it: neither side likes each other. But you still failed to answer the basic question that was asked: why did no Republican at least not show up to say that they were willing to forward ANY GLBT causes?
You seem to be saying that the HRC’s stance on being pro-Democrats is the reason why none of them showed up. Yet the Republicans WERE invited. I don’t understand what your point is. They had the option to show up and support GLBT causes, but they didn’t. That’s not HRC’s fault. That’s the unwillingness of the candidates to be pro-GLBT concerns.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You seem to forget the fact that Republicans have absolutely ZERO interest in forwarding the gay agenda.
Of course.
The “gay agenda” is to elect Democrats and only Democrats, as HRC has openly stated. Add to that the fact that HRC and gays have shackled the “gay agenda” to other positions such as supporting abortion, demanding higher taxes, opposing Social Security reform, pushing for healthcare nationalization, and open public contempt for religion, and it becomes very apparent why they wouldn’t bother.
And then there’s the other reason, which you so neatly exemplified.
No one, especially not be, is arguing that the Democrats are perfect or are where they SHOULD be in terms of our “agenda.” But just because a candidate isn’t 100% what you want them to be doesn’t mean that you don’t support them as a “lesser of all evils.”
I see; so you don’t really care if Democrats oppose gay marriage, because they’re the “lesser of all evils”.
Not that this really surprises the Dems; they already know, as I pointed out above, that they can support the FMA, support state constitutional amendments, pander to those who think being gay is a sin, fire their gay employees for speaking out, proudly proclaim their position as being “the same” as Republicans, and so forth, and in the money and endorsements will continue to roll.
What surprises them, I think,is that gays still fall for it. But they’ve pretty well figured out the pattern; promise everything way in advance of the election, and then renege as you go along and have to appeal to the voters who REALLY matter. You’ll still have your gay ATM and your gay votes; they never change their minds, and they can always rationalize whatever you do as “Republicans are worse”.
And finally, what makes this completely ironic is that there are two Democrat candidates who are 100% where you want them to be on gay issues: Kucinich and Gravel.
If you were being consistent, since you insist gay issues are supposed to be the absolute determinant of gay peoples’ votes, you would be loudly supporting these two and bashing the other Democrat candidates as retrogressive and evil homophobes, just like you do the Republicans.
In short, why should the Republicans care one whit about a group that is a) openly hostile towards them in every respect, regardless of their behavior and b) hypocritical in terms of supporting candidates who hold positions they supposedly oppose and not supporting candidates who are 100% in synch with them?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jordan, no matter your attempt at creating logic where none exists, the question you place forward as your proof that GOPers are anti-gay by default (because they wouldn’t show up for a para-Democrat Party shill fest) is intellectually dishonest in the 1st place. Why should ANY GOPer show up at any GayLeft event? Or NAACP event? Or PLO event? Or alQaeda Recruitment event? Or a rally for Chavez?
Why should any GOPer show up at any HRC event when that organization is decidedly and unabashedly pro-Democrat? Oh, cause it was a presidential debate on gay issues? LOL. Silly boy, it was a photo op for Hillary and the HRC. If Bill Richardson hadn’t gotten caught like a deer in the headlights, Hillary would have cleaned up on the PR moment; but his comments screwed that pooch for her and the HRC lackies.
If GOP candidates did participate, you and your HRC gal pals would slam whatever was said, take it out of context for the next Pride booth SignUp2Vote effort and be absolutely adverse to describing their appearance as an attempt at dialogue with the GayLeft while continuing to cluck about how great a ClintonReDeux will be for gays.
Just because the GayLeft continues to gladly fetch water on the Democrat Plantation for their liberal masters doesn’t mean GOP candidates have to engage in “community brain damage” like that GLBT event proved to be… you CAN ask why didn’t GOPers show up… but it’s about as intellectually dishonest as Sen Clinton’s 2-step, slide shuffles on nearly ever question.
Maybe ND30 has it right: “why should they” is the right question rather than your’s of “why didn’t they”. Kind of reminds me of all those brave, strong Democrats who hid from the Black Democrat Caucus & FoxNews debates in Detroit this past spring. Oh wait, the brave Democrat candidates were right to avoid that event… I forgot, it’s ok to avoid issue debates when you’re a Democrat; not if you’re a GOPer.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Brian Miller, you wrote “Dick Cheney changed his position on the FMA and announced he favored it, shortly before it went down to defeat.”
I missed that Kerry-esque FlipFlop moment; care to document it?
I thought “Freedom means freedom for everyone” was pretty clear. But like many GOPs in June 06, I wasn’t interested in the PR gamesmanship of the FMA. He changed his clarion position?
posted by ColroadoPatriot on
And the river of filth continues to spill from ND30 and his butt-boy MM…was that just some logic I saw float by? Nope, just more crap.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Whoops, make that June 04; my mistake.
ColroadoPatriot, wow. I think you need to attend a juvenile anger mgt class, dude; you’re really off-the-chart these days. Things not going well at DailyKos?
posted by Lori Heine on
The GOP certainly isn’t going to lead on gay issues. But the Dems, as they continue their “Republicans are worse” strategy, are merely dragging it all down to the lowest common denominator.
Neither of the major parties is showing much in the way of leadership. Both are clinging to the status quo — which of course makes their claim that they must play if safe to stay politically viable into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I still don’t see why I should be impressed because the Dems went through a few touchy-feely motions for gay voters. Their position on gay marriage is identical to that of the more-progressive (or least-regressive) Republicans.
Rudy Guiliani is showing more courage — however watered-down his support for gay rights may be — than are most Democrats. At this point, a blatantly homophobic statement from a Democratic candidate is no smarter than a bold stand in favor of gay rights would be for a Republican.
America seems pretty united in one conclusion: this is a pretty darned uninspiring field of presidential wannabees.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Juvenile anger,huh? I was aiming for juvenile humor lol…never visited kos myself, I take it you frequent that site regularly? Is it worth my time?
posted by dalea on
Actually two of the Democrats (Kucinich and Gravel) do support full gay equality. The statement that none of them do is false.
The reason that presidential candidates should attend events by national groups, when invited of course, is that they are running to be president of ALL AMERICANS. When the dust settles after election day, the winner leads the whole country, not just those who voted for him. I think the term used here is: Patriotism.
No Republican attended the LOGO debate. Only Tancredo attended the NAACP event. And this amazes me, no Republican appeared at the National Latino Elected Officials event. All the Democrats did. There were lots of elected Latino Republicans there; and they felt like they had been betrayed.
Colorado Patriot, you most definitely should look into DailyKos. The site is awesome with something like a million comments a day. And there are many diaries posted by straight people supporting gays. I find it heartwarming to watch as straight progressives come out to denounce any anti-gay slurs.
One profound difference between DailyKos and IGF, is that ordinary people can put up diaries that are available for everyone to read. Unlike IGF where discussion is controlled on a Soviet model: only the elite chosen by some unknown means using some unintellible criteria can initiate discourse. IGF appears to be put together with some banana republic government as the ideal.
One wonderful DailyKos feature. When responding to a troll, not naming anyone of course, the responces is in the form of a reciepe. Take two cups of flour etc. Posters here might take up this tactic.
posted by Brian Miller on
surely you’d be interested to know that all of the Democratic candidates support amending or repealing DOMA
Barack Obama is a Senator. He has not advanced legislation that would do this.
Hillary Clinton is a Senator. She has not advanced legislation that would do this.
Chris Dodd is a Senator. He has not advanced legislation that would do this.
Joe Biden is a Senator. He has not advanced legislation that would do this.
John Edwards was a Senator. He did not advance legislation that would do this.
Dennis Kucinich is a Congressman. He *has* advanced legislation that would do this, but his party wouldn’t let it get to committee.
Honestly, how stupid do they (and you) think we are?!? If they supported a repeal or amendment, they could have made it happen years ago.
They didn’t.
Why not?
Because they have no intention of doing so. “Official positions” without implementation are worse than useless — they’re a form of lying. And Democrats are used to lying to us — they’re so practiced at it that they actually gasp when one of their number tells a real truth to us every once in a while.
posted by Brian Miller on
I missed that Kerry-esque FlipFlop moment; care to document it?
I thought “Freedom means freedom for everyone” was pretty clear.
You took a politician at his word! Mistake number one.
In a press conference shortly before the vote, Cheney declared that it was the position of his office that the FMA was a good idea “regardless of his personal feelings on the matter.” How brave of him!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Brian, when I asked for documentation of your claim that VP Cheney flip-floped on his clear opposition to federal measures aimed at denying gays civil rights, you provided it was at “a press conference shortly before the vote”.
How about being a tad more specific if you can… I’ve goggled it many ways and can’t find a mention.