No one's death is cause for celebration, but Jesse Helms's retirement from politics certainly was. My take (2002) on the man who banned people with HIV from entering America (you really had to be a special kind of human being to think of that):
He is often referred to...as "Senator No." Better would be "Senator Zero," as in "zero-sum." Reagan made conservatism credible by showing that it could solve problems. It could make headway against inflation, against economic entropy, against communism, even against "malaise." He believed that dynamic change, kindled by the prodigious energies of entrepreneurs and ordinary people, would produce win-win outcomes: a country that was stronger and also more genuinely compassionate, richer but also fairer.
Then there is Helms. In his world, if homosexuals win, heterosexuals lose. If blacks win, whites lose...
The difference between Reagan and Helms is the difference between a conservatism of hope and a conservatism of resentment. There are, I have little doubt, literally millions of Americans who would be conservatives today if not for the snarling visage of Jesse Helms.
In the fullness of time, history may write that Helms, despite his best efforts, did us a favor by helping discredit homophobia. A pity he degraded conservatism in the process.
56 Comments for “Goodbye, Senator Zero”
posted by Carl on
Jesse Helms was a very unfortunate senator on several levels, but he was at least honest about his beliefs. I don’t go for that type of idea often, but when I see politicians who take money and support from gay Republicans and then cast the deciding vote on a state amendment which will ban gay marriage (if passed by voters), I realize Helms’ consistency was more principled than many Republicans offer today.
http://www.svherald.com/articles/2008/07/04/news/doc486dc4deb85da559717217.txt
posted by Bobby on
Jesse Helms comes from a time when homophobia was the norm. Remember George Wallace? He might have changed his mind about blacks, but he never changed his mind about “queers” as he called them. The same can be said of Johnny Carson, he was also another homophobe, but unlike Helms, he was a liberal, so the media loved him.
However, Jesse did support the second amendment, which to most gays is not an issue they care about, but I find the idea of shooting gay bashers very empowering. And people like Helms make it possible, at least in principle.
I don’t think he degraded conservative values. It’s so-called “compassionate” conservatives that hurt the cause by supporting massive government spending, trying to please everyone and in the end pleasing nobody.
And I’m sick of hearing how great Reagan was and how all conservatives should aspire to be like him. Conservative values existed long before Reagan was born and will continue to exist long after he’s gone.
posted by DUMP on
Did Bobby just compare Jesse Helms to Johnny Carson? Why would a person do that?
posted by Richard on
I question wheather or not Reagan really wanted or got a more fair or compassionate society. He certainly had little use for gay rights.
What did Helms do that was anti-conservative? He was a major player in the GOP’s “Southern Plan” that arose in the 1970s. His social politics were certainly conservative, if not outright reactionary.
I just do not see how these two men’s politics were all that different.
posted by Bobby on
“Did Bobby just compare Jesse Helms to Johnny Carson? Why would a person do that?”
—Because is the truth.
(Wayne) Newton told King, “I’m going to say something I’ve never said on television, Mr. King. Johnny Carson was a mean-spirited human being. And there are people that he has hurt that people will never know about. And for some reason, at some point, he decided to turn that kind of negative attention toward me. And I refused to have it.”
http://www.pageoneq.com/news/2007/Wayne_Newton_threatened_to_kick_Johnny_Carsons_ass_over_gay__1130.html
posted by David Skidmore on
My outstanding memory of Helms is that he seemed to get a little too excited about Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography. But then homophobes do seem to have a morbid obsession with gay sexuality.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jesse Helms, like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd and Carl Levin and J Rockefller and Chirs Dodd, was walking proof that US Senators should be term limited to no more than two 6 year terms, even if the idiot voters in their respective states continue to be manipulated by the political machine -and voters in NC were manipulated by the Helms machine… just like Mass voters continue to be made to pull the lever for Kennedy or WVirgies for Byrd.
I remember Helms as someone who was flawed, but passionate in his beliefs. I cheered when he finally took on all the money fed taxpayers wasted on liberal screedings like NPR or NEH or arts “promotion” in general. I remember him as someone who was solidly opposite of my views on many matters, but could and would continue to listen if the discussion was civil, fair and respectful.
No one can say that about his peers TeddieK or BobbieByrd. Frankly, when I read this headline, I was of the mind it might be either of those two Senators who had died, not Helms.
posted by Greg on
Michigan Matt–If you were black, Helms would not have been civil, fair, or respectful to you–he would have called you “Fred” regardless of your name.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/07/former_senator.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed4
If you were a female African-American Senator in an elevator with Helms, he’d say “I’m going to sing Dixie until you cry.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080705/cm_thenation/1334586
And of course if you had HIV, God only knows what he’d say.
Jesse Helms was a racist and a bigot, and he never apologized for that. He did not respect people who were African-American or gay & lesbian. And he never apologized ofr his horrific race-baiting (calling UNC the “University of Negroes and Communists.) Why pretend otherwise by claiming he’d respect differences of opinion?
posted by Spencer on
“No one’s death is cause for celebration?” I’m afraid we’re either going to have to agree to disagree, or compromise by calling Senator Helms’s passing “the exception that proves the rule.” The world is a better place for his absence.
posted by ShermanStreet on
When I heard of his passing, I experienced Schadenfreude for a moment.
There are bad Liberals and good ones. There are good Conservatives and bad ones.
Jesse Helms was a bad one, in fact he was just a a bad man altogether.
posted by Attmay on
Jesse Helms was a redneck, a heterosexual supremacist, and a white supremacist. He was unapologetic about all three. He probably cost the GOP a great deal of minority and gay support.
Good riddance, breeder.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Greg, rather than take my cues from the liberally biased MSM reflecting on what Helms said or did, I base my opinion on what I observed in his presence on 6-8 occasions over 5 years working in the Capitol… I led groups of moderate2conservative gays activists into his office ( I think 7 times) and met with the Senator and his senior staff. He was always cordial, sincere, civil and respective; he was that way when I chanced to see him in other venues. While we agreed on many things far more important to America, there were things –especially the agenda items we were advancing– that he strongly, solidly opposed. And a lot that we did agree upon even if we disagreed on methods or operations to secure those goals.
There are racists and bigots that the gayLeft has embraced and defended of late… paging BarryO’s infamous mentor and spiritual leader of 20+ years, ta da the Rev Wright.
Of course, being a racist, bigot and homophobe like Rev Wright or Sen Helms isn’t a good, democrat-enriching value. But the gayLeft doesn’t have a problem with embracing and defending Wright BECAUSE he was/is a strong left-of-center Democrat… and that what separates him from Helms.
Not the rhetoric. Not the hate. Not the bombast. Not the fawning admirers like BarryO and his wife and his family and his Chicago mob peers and his church-going buddies…
Bash away at Helms. Pull out all those quotes that belittle his contribution to America and NorthCarolina –but in the end, what it proves is that our community has a great facility in erecting double standards for Democrats and Republicans… and it’s all about baiting the vote, keeping the gay vote safe for Dems.
Was Helms evil? No. Was he a blight on the body politic? No. Was he a target of liberals? Oh yeah. Even in death, it seems.
posted by DUMP on
MM: “Of course, being a racist, bigot and homophobe like Rev Wright…”
Care to back that statement up with something other then your own tired blather? I would be grateful if you could please provide a citation for Wright’s anti-gay statements. If you are unable to provide such a citation (I know you won’t) then I’ll just have to assume that you are anti-truth and not to be trusted or listened to. Thanks!
posted by Spencer on
MM: “Of course, being a racist, bigot and homophobe like Rev Wright…”
There is also a substantial difference between the impact of these two men on American society. Whatever Rev. Wright’s flaws (honestly, that fuss seemed so obviously irrelevent, on par with the Britney Spears coverage, that I ignored it entirely) he never successfully blocked the earliest information for gay men on how to prevent the spread of HIV, nor prevented people with HIV from entering the country. Helms’s hatefulness was far more potent than anything Wright has ever dreamed of. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
posted by Rob on
I led groups of moderate2conservative gays activists into his office ( I think 7 times) and met with the Senator and his senior staff. He was always cordial, sincere, civil and respective; he was that way when I chanced to see him in other venues.
Well that sounded like a complete waste of time. I wonder what Helms stated after you left his office.
While we agreed on many things far more important to America, there were things –especially the agenda items we were advancing– that he strongly, solidly opposed. And a lot that we did agree upon even if we disagreed on methods or operations to secure those goals.
You called yourselves activists in what exactly, if the health and security LGBT lives aren’t an important issue to your group? Minimal tacit support while being publically bashed?
There are racists and bigots that the gayLeft has embraced and defended of late… paging BarryO’s infamous mentor and spiritual leader of 20+ years, ta da the Rev Wright.
Apples and oranges. Wright never had any influence outside his congregation. Helms shaped federal antigay policy. Besides, what evidence do you have of his homophobia and racism? His congragation does have a mixed race crowd, and he does have Michael Pfleger as a close friend.
Of course, being a racist, bigot and homophobe like Rev Wright or Sen Helms isn’t a good, democrat-enriching value. But the gayLeft doesn’t have a problem with embracing and defending Wright BECAUSE he was/is a strong left-of-center Democrat… and that what separates him from Helms.
Not the rhetoric. Not the hate. Not the bombast. Not the fawning admirers like BarryO and his wife and his family and his Chicago mob peers and his church-going buddies…
So how come Helms has generated more bashing from the ‘Left’ than Nelson Rockefeller, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mary Bono Mack, or hell, even Barry Goldwater? Furthermore, a lot of gay leftists don’t care for old Dixiecrat fossils like Zell Miller or Robert Byrd, as much as Strom Thurmond and Helms.
Bash away at Helms. Pull out all those quotes that belittle his contribution to America and NorthCarolina –but in the end, what it proves is that our community has a great facility in erecting double standards for Democrats and Republicans… and it’s all about baiting the vote, keeping the gay vote safe for Dems.
What about the gay leftists that like and respect (but disagree on most issues) most of the politicians I listed above? I agree that many Dems are pretty awful, and tepid after making empty promises. They shouldn’t be supported until they show some real efforts. Yet does this excuse bigotry from the Repubs?
Was Helms evil? No. Was he a blight on the body politic? No. Was he a target of liberals? Oh yeah. Even in death, it seems.
To paraphrase Joannie ‘Nan’ Taylor: Jesse Helms, what a load of old shit!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP whines: about BarryO’s mentor, spiritual advisor and family pastor Rev Wright’s bigoted, racist and homophobic comments – “Care to back that statement up…”
Coming to the party late, eh? GayWired –a virtual pulsing, throbbing organ of the gayLeft agenda called Wright’s comments anti-gay… which I and others have provided links to the gayDemocrat naysayers here… I guess for you and other BarryOBackers, applying the anti-gay label depends largely on whether the culprit is a Democrat or GOPer.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Rob offers: “Wright never had any influence outside his congregation”
Yeah, Rob… that’s why he was on the talk circuit, the news media outlets, the BillMoyers’ LoveFest and why he’s been embraced by the gayLeft, defended by the Democrats and BarryO until they collectively decided to toss the Rev Wright under the ObamaBus… “Driving the Bus to the Center, beep beep”
No influence, eh? Get real Rob. His Natl Press Club rant/speech and personal attacks on all nearby the dais even got covered for a 4 day news spin cycle in the MSM.
Here is Rev Wright being welcomed by SlickWilly for (probably) continuing to deliver all those black Chicago votes to the Democrat Party… I don’t see the ObamaBus rev’ving up the engines yet… oh wait… Rev Wright has no influence outside his church? Isn’t that what you wrote, Rob?
Rev Wright milked the anti-white, anti-govt, victimization industry inside the Chicago black community to the point where his cult can build an estimated $1.5 million retirement mansion in WhiteyBoiLand to add to Rev Wright’s real estate holdings estimated in excess of $14 million including a $3.5m condo in Sarasota on the Gulf.
Nawh, no influence outside his church. Paging BillMoyers, paging NYT, paging WaPo, paging CharlieRose, paging LarryKing… nawh, no influence.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Rob, here’s the link of Rev Wright shaking and embracing the hand of the Devil
http://chicagoist.com/2008/03/29/controversial_r.php#comments
posted by Attmay on
Jesse Helms and Jeremiah Wrong: two sides of the same coin.
Meanwhile, if I were a mechanic I would kill to fix the axles on the Obama bus.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
By the way DUMP, Spencer and Rob… you’re doing an excellent job of employing LAST MONTH’s talking points from the ObamaBusRide4Hope&Change… but the facts on the ground have changed and you need to get the new spinDoc’s talking points on Rev Wright’s anti-gay remarks… and BarryO’s embrace of anti-gay black ministers…
PinkNews –the Stonewall Publication of the Year Award winner puts it this way:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7513.html
QT (Queer Travel) magazine puts it this way
http://www.qtmagazine.com/article.cfm?section=9&id=18859
GayWired (sigh, again) put it this way:
http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?ID=18875
And that was before GayWired reported the same about YET ANOTHER anti-gay black minister closely tied to BarryO
http://gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=163&id=18614
But out of all that… I kind of think that our community’s press commenting on Rev Wright and Rev Meeks being anti-gay and filled with hateful rhetoric is topped by response from your fellow spinDoc’s in the gayLeft… represented here in AngelCity’sDevil blog
http://angelcitysdevil.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=692&Itemid=2
Anytime either of the three of you want to stand like men and admit you were wrong… the door’s open.
Recalling DUMP’s> “Care to back that statement up with something”
Recalling Spencer’s> “honestly, that fuss seemed so obviously irrelevent”
Recalling Rob’s> “Besides, what evidence do you have of his homophobia and racism”
You guys are such tools of the gayLeft and Democrats… still selling out your gayBrothers to the man.
posted by DUMP on
Did you read your own links MM? There is nothing incriminating in ANY of your citations. So, again, why are you calling Wright a homophobe? Do you have any proof of that claim or are you just a partisan hack who is anti-truth?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Jesse Helms was a mean-spirited man who never turned away from his racist politics the way others like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond did; eagerly stoked the fires of resentment; routinely and with gusto played up social divisions for political gain; and enthusiastically supported murderers like Pinochet in Chile and D’Aubuisson in El Salvador. Obviously the far left has much to answer for as well, but these kinds of reflexive “So’s your Mom!” rejoinders belong on the playground more than in a serious adult discussion. The sins of leftists, including (for example) their continuing defense of the murderous thug Castro, do not get Helms off the hook. Neither do his sins get leftists off the hook.
As to Obama being supported by the anti-gay Rev. James Meeks: this point was made by Clinton supporters, despite the fact that Clinton?s own anti-gay supporters included Bishop Eddie Long of Lithonia, Georgia, and former D.C. Council member Vincent Orange (who denounced his opponents in the 2006 mayoral race for supporting same-sex marriage). Obama?s associations have not kept him from challenging homophobia from the pulpits of black churches. Rick Garcia of Equality Illinois once came upon Obama strongly rebuking Meeks for his homphobia in a stairway of the state capitol during a discussion of a gay rights bill that Obama was backing. When you catch someone doing the right thing, that’s a pretty clear sign that his heart is in the right place.
As to Rev. Wright, his many faults (and I do not for a moment minimize them) do not erase his good works that include his HIV/AIDS ministry (notwithstanding his silly and vile conspiracy mongering concerning HIV having been created as a bio-warfare agent to kill black people) and his leading a gay-welcoming congregation. My ex-partner’s friend Reggie is a friend of Rev. Wright and has had him in his home. Homophobia among black ministers is common; less common is any openness or welcoming attitude toward gays. If all you are willing to notice or mention are the negatives, then you are merely trading in partisan hackery and not making an honest examination.
Speaking of Rev. Wright, he is responsible for his own views and actions. If all you are willing to notice about Obama are negative things, you miss the significant fact that Obama’s politics are much more positive and racially conciliatory than Wright’s. Obama’s personal background helps explain his longstanding and strong impulse to reach across lines of division to overcome differences, but in any case this is true of the man whether you like him or not, and if your hostility toward him is honest and not based on special pleading, then you should simply acknowledge it. As to Obama’s failure to break with Wright years ago, it would do you no harm to make a greater effort to understand (not excuse, but understand) the social and political dynamics in black urban communities. But if we are going to ignore a politician’s own stances and actions and damn him for a few questionable associates (whom we have carefully cherry-picked in order to give a distorted picture), then who would be left standing?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If all you are willing to notice about Obama are negative things, you miss the significant fact that Obama’s politics are much more positive and racially conciliatory than Wright’s.
Except for the fact that Wright himself stated that Obama is only saying what he has to say to get elected, versus what Obama really believes.
Wright has a record of publicly stating the truth, regardless of whether or not it’s unpopular. Obama, on the other hand, has a record of saying one thing then doing another, such as his public denunciation of NAFTA while whispering secretly to the Canadians that he really supports it.
As to Obama’s failure to break with Wright years ago, it would do you no harm to make a greater effort to understand (not excuse, but understand) the social and political dynamics in black urban communities.
In other words, Obama’s skin color and desire for social acceptance govern his behavior, not his sense of right and wrong.
Oprah and several other black parishoners managed to ditch Reverend Wright quite nicely without harm to their reputations. Then again, Oprah is a competent, intelligent, and hardworking person who isn’t dependent on her skin color or minority status.
Obama is little more than a warmed-over Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton. Indeed, Jesse and Al are superior to Obama, inasmuch as they both tell the truth instead of lying to voters about what they believe.
posted by DUMP on
“Indeed, Jesse and Al are superior to Obama, inasmuch as they both tell the truth instead of lying to voters about what they believe.”
Jeff, you can’t be serious…can you? Jesse and Al are truthful? Really??! How does your Jewish boyfriend feel about you defending Hymietown?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You forgot Mike Nifong, the Jena 6, Tawana, and innumerable other examples, DUMP.
Obviously, both Reverend Al and Jesse are race-baiting scum; however, even as rotten as they are, they’re still superior to Obama. Pretty bad, huh?
posted by Spencer on
“Nawh, no influence outside his church. Paging BillMoyers, paging NYT, paging WaPo, paging CharlieRose, paging LarryKing… nawh, no influence.”
If fifteen minutes of shooting yer big yap off on TV were evidence of influence, then Paris Hilton ought to be the most powerful person in America. Authoring legislation, killing judicial appointments, cutting vital funding…these are things that can impact our country for decades. And having done PR targeting the gay press, I’m impressed that not one of the gay press outlets you’ve cited regarding Wright are particularly major ones. Not one leading national magazine, not one of the established newspapers from the larger cities, no Gay.com or PlanetOut.com… Dude, what did you just do a Google search and then cut and paste the last twelve entries?
“Partisan hack” is one thing; “pissing all over yourself” is quite another.
And just to return to the subject of this thread — the world is STILL a better place without Jesse Helms.
posted by Bobby on
“US Senators should be term limited to no more than two 6 year terms, even if the idiot voters in their respective states continue to be manipulated by the political machine”
—I disagree, if people want change they’re free to vote for change. Remember Jessee Ventura? He’s a nice guy, they gave him a chance. But was he good enough for others like him to get a chance? No. So in the end, the voters got the usual suspects back in office.
In Massachusetts they don’t mind high taxes so they elect those types of politicians, in New York they love gun control and anti-smoking bans so they gave us a fascist like Bloomberg, and in South Carolina they love a man who has the guts to admit that sometimes whites don’t get jobs because of affirmative action. It’s ironic that a former segregationist would want to end the real segregation that programs like affirmative action create.
My point is that people should get the government they want.
posted by David Skidmore on
Bobby’s raised an interesting point (apart from describing Michael Bloomberg as a “fascist” – don’t you realise that leftists tend to describe politicians they don’t like as “fascists”?).
Why can’t the President stand for more than two terms? American voters obviously liked Roosevelt and kept voting him back into office. Why weren’t voters allowed the same opportunity to re-elect popular presidents like Reagan and Clinton?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “Except for the fact that Wright himself stated that Obama is only saying what he has to say to get elected, versus what Obama really believes.”
So you have no use for Wright except as a source for trash-talk about Obama? Please. Obama has a record that shows what he believes in, and despite all the recent hyperventilating about flip-flopping (where “refine” is treated as meaning “abandon”), he has been quite consistent in what he stands for. You won’t acknowledge this, because scornful dismissal is about all you know, but your posturing says more about you than about Obama.
“In other words, Obama’s skin color and desire for social acceptance govern his behavior, not his sense of right and wrong.”
No, that is not what I was saying. Obama’s community organizing was about change–not just accepting things the way they were–but did require him to start with people and organizations where they were. That aside, an honest assessment of Wright and his congregation requires doing more than cherry-picking a few obnoxious quotes and beliefs. (And I should not have to keep stressing my own strong disagreement with Wright’s obnoxious statements and views, but you have a habit of distorting and trivializing the statements of people with whom you argue.) Wright and his church did a lot of commendable work in their community. And even the foolish and vile trash talk that he has engaged in do not mean he can be accurately summarized as hating America. In political shorthand, yes of course that’s how it gets translated. But if your purpose is to overcome black anger and mistrust, and work to heal social divisions, the way to start is not simply to condemn but to understand the roots of it. Obama himself discussed this rather well in his speeh in Philadelphia on race.
“Obama is little more than a warmed-over Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton. Indeed, Jesse and Al are superior to Obama, inasmuch as they both tell the truth instead of lying to voters about what they believe.”
The contrast between Obama and Jackson was made quite clear yesterday with Jackson’s crude comments about Obama in reaction to Obama’s talking to black congregations about responsibility. Jackson’s approach is fundamentally negative and based on grievance mongering, whereas Obama’s approach (long predating his presidential campaign) is much more positive.
ND30, someone who argues as dishonestly as you is in no position to call others liars. As I said, Obama has a record that goes back to his law school days, and it is a much more commendable one than you are willing to notice. The fact that the self-marginalizing left has gripes about him does not refute that. I think it was Andy Borowitz last week who titled a piece, “Liberal bloggers accuse Obama of trying to win election.” Heavens!
Your criticisms of Obama would be more plausible if you offered a shred of nuance, or showed the slightest interest in giving whatever small amount of credit may be due. Instead, you merely treat him like a lying scumbag, and this is cheap and tired in addition to being a serious underestimation of the man. A lot of people have made the mistake of underestimating Obama, so you have company. I don’t think he’s perfect, but I do think he has leadership skills that our country could well use.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP posits: “Did you read your own links MM? There is nothing incriminating in ANY of your citations.”
Bzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong again greatO defender.
I guess you can’t even read the headlines anymore? GayWired says it in one article “Wright defends… anti-gay remarks” and Pink and GayTravel mimic the headline (see, I even took into consideration your penchant for missing the plain, the apparent, the headline and gave you 3 … that would be “three”, DUMP… references linking your precious and oh-so-protectable bigoted, racist, homphobic Rev Wright pal.
Then there’s the sticky little problem of BarryO’s EARLIER embrace of a bigoted, racist, hateful homophobic black preacher in Rev Meeks… as linked in the balance of references.
Hey DUMP, did you read the links? Even at the 3rd grade level of “Only Reads Headlines Well”?
That’s pathetic even of your efforts here, DUMP. Like I said, you are a tool of the Democrats and you haven’t even gotten the up-to-date line from your man BarryO’s campaign… they’ve driven over Rev Wright, Rev Meeks and lots of other folks in that rush to the center lane.
Honestly, when gayLeft media organs declare Wright’s remarks as anti-gay, you’d think da’ brethern here would get the message.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Spencer, no offense intended, but you may like watersports; I’m not into trash sex so go ahead and have “fun” with yourself.
RJR, I get your reasoned approach to defending BarryO by defending Rev Wright but when you and many, many other gayApologists for Rev Wright took to underscoring his HIV/AIDS ministry efforts –there was more than a little misdirection in that effort.
Yep, Rev Wright’s church embarked on an HIV/AIDS ministry. But what you’re hoping for is for gay voters to see that as a “gay” ministry rather than what it truly was: a ministry devoted to black youth, innercity drug addicts infected by HIV, black prostitutes and black heterosexual men at risk and infected by HIV.
If gay men were served in the ministry, it was by accident of place, not program design or target of audience.
Additionally, the use of the argument that “Rev Wright had an HIV/AIDS ministry” and was helping gays suffering with AIDS and was, therefore, a “gay friendly” black minister is deceptive. I know you know your ex-partner’s friend had Rev Wright over for dinner but, honestly, against the onslaught of Chicago gay activists who have demonstrated that Rev Wright wasn’t all that friendly or supportive of gays or welcoming undercuts the personal 3 times removed reference.
I think it’s intellectually dishonest of gays, even if they’ve been blinded by their unswerving allegiance to BarryO’s candidacy, to continue to argue that by having an AIDS/HIV ministry, Trinity and Rev Wright were -sort of- one of us and therefore, BarryO will be friendly to gays and -sort of- be one of us… like SlickWilly was the “black president”… the argument goes that BarryO will be the “gay president” for our community if we can just keep the vote solidly in the gayDemocrat column this fall.
Frankly, from what I’ve heard issued forth from Rev Wright’s own lips, my hunch is that if a white gay was lined up to be served in Trinity’s defunct HIV ministry, Rev Wright would have pushed him out of the way so a black could be served first… your own guy, BarryO, put it this way Rev Wright’s comments were “…a bunch of rants that aren’t grounded in the truth” and properly ID’ed Wright as a racist and bigot who was “giving comfort to those who prey on hate.”
All that AFTER RevWright did the sly wink to the NatlPressClub about getting tossed under the bus by BarryO as just political posturing very much needed to win in November.
You should have heard Rev Wright in Detroit at the NAACP event and the press availability events prior/post.
By the way, Rev Wright was invited by seven metro-Detroit area HIV/AIDS community groups to meet with them for 1 hr during his 2 day Apr 26-27th trip to Detroit for the NAACP Dinner. He said, via the Church secy, he had no time for it and his focus was on other issues.
I get, RJR, that you think Wright a flawed man but someone who did good for gays… I think trotting out the HIV/AIDS ministry as an example and hoping that gay men will read that as a special sensitivity to gays by Wright is all wrong and misleading.
As for BarryO’s embrace of Rev Meeks and Mr Garcia’s memory of seeing BarryO take exception to Meeks’ homophobia… I can only offer that Mr Garcia is being a good little gayDemocrat and I wouldn’t expect anything less of PatBuchanan or KarlRove in defense of GOPers.
I guess even after BarryO’s “burning bush” moment with Meeks in the back hallways of the legislature… BarryO still appointed Meeks to his steering group. In that case, it’s a known homophobe and shame on BarryO for giving him that honor and distinction.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Sorry for getting off topic… the point I was trying to originally make is that gayDemocrats and gayLeftists have a double standard and it’s apparent with those who rise to defend the hate-filled, bigoted, racist, homophobic BarryO supporters but decry Helms as a bigoted, racist, homophobic monster.
Granted, Helms was wrong a lot of things… and his legacy will be tarnished by his hateful rhetoric… but his rhetoric and hate and bigotry and racism and homophobia is no less offensive than Rev Wright’s or Rev Meeks’ or dozens of other BarryO supoortin’ black ministers still lurking behind those pulpits.
It isn’t reduced to the other side has got ’em too… with Rev Wright and BarryO, it’s a serious question of BarryO’s judgement and temporary loyalty to important allies.
posted by DUMP on
Excuse me? If YOU would pay attention, you would see that there is NOTHING ANTI-GAY about Reverend Wright in the articles you presented (there is really no need to post multiple links to THE EXACT SAME ARTICLE, by the way). I know it suits your argument to jump tracks to focus on Reverend Meeks, but your claims were never about him. You specifically called Reverend Wright anti-gay but have NO PROOF. So, once again…please, if you have a citation for your claim that Reverend Wright is anti-gay, please provide it. So far you have shown nothing but your own lack of honesty and a propensity for juvenile name-calling. Listen, Reverend Wright provided copies of decades worth of sermons to the media. Certainly if there was ANYTHING of note from those sermons they would have seen the light of day. So you and those of your despicable kind should have access to MOUNTAINS of writings by Reverend Wright…why are you unable to provide a single anti-gay quotation from the man? If you can’t provide proof of Reverend Wright’s homophobic statements I can only assume that you are anti-truth and not to be trusted or listened to. Thanks!
posted by Spencer on
My point, which you’ve ignored, is that, by the criteria you’ve used, Fred Phelps is an influential voice in mainstream Christianity — members of his church have appeared on Larry King, been quoted in most of the mainstream papers, etc. And I’ve seen anti-Christian fanatics try to argue that Phelps is typical of Christians. But the argument is on the face of it a silly one, and because of that, it’s only possible to go so far in trying to present a rational rebuttal, because…well, there’s just no escaping the fact that the thesis is silly.
Furthermore, comparing Wright to Helms and insisting that they’re somehow equivalent is a little bit like suggesting that Ted Kennedy and the LaRouchites that sometimes have an informational table in my neighborhood are equivalent in importance. The LaRouchites just aren’t going to change anything in a meaningful way, no matter how much they scream.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So you have no use for Wright except as a source for trash-talk about Obama?
Actually, I have enormous use for Wright, just as I do for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton — as fine examples of what liberal Democrats and the “black community” believe, profess, and support.
Obama has a record that shows what he believes in, and despite all the recent hyperventilating about flip-flopping (where “refine” is treated as meaning “abandon”), he has been quite consistent in what he stands for.
Indeed he has; it’s quite obvious that he believed, professed, and supported what Wright did, to the point of referring to Wright as his “spiritual mentor”, to specifically citing Wright in his books, and to faithful worship with Wright for upwards of two decades.
The consistency of Obama’s record is that he never lets what he professes or claims to believe stand in the way of what he actually does. He condemns slumlords while taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from them. He condemns banks while he himself is getting preferential treatment on loans. He condemns greedy overpaid healthcare executives while somehow overlooking the doubling of his hospital administrator’s wife’s salary upon his election. He claims to loathe lobbyists, then surrounds himself with them. He insists on public financing, only to jettison it when that would become inconvenient. He condemns racist attacks while he and his supporters state and insinuate that people who criticize him do so out of racism.
Instead, you merely treat him like a lying scumbag, and this is cheap and tired in addition to being a serious underestimation of the man.
Oh, I don’t underestimate Obama in the least. I think he is an intelligent man with a gift for public speaking who also happens to be utterly and completely amoral — mainly because he has never been held accountable in any way for his action.
Obama has figured out, Richard, that there are enough white liberals like yourself who have substituted skin color for competence and pretty words for substance that he can ride that to considerable heights in the Democrat Party — as he has.
But the true Obama comes out in his contemptuous words about “bitter” voters, in his flippant public statements in which he is obviously incensed that other people dare to hold him accountable for what he says, and his adherence to the racist views of Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton right up to the point in which they started costing him politically.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “white liberals like yourself who have substituted skin color for competence and pretty words for substance.”
Don’t put words in my mouth. Obama is certainly a gifted speaker, but he is also smart, tough, a good organizer and fundraiser, has a cool demeanor and a lifelong habit of reaching across lines of difference, qualities that will serve him well as President. As to his skin color, Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton were also black, and they even supported same-sex marriage, but I didn’t support their candidacies.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP continues his obtuse, obstructive ways by declaring “You specifically called Reverend Wright anti-gay but have NO PROOF.”
Wrong, wrong and wrong again DUMP; it seems to be a pattern for you these days.
The GayWired editors headline their piece “Wright defends… his anti-gay statements”… now, seems to me that if three separate gay-media organs use the label “anti-gay” they’d have a pretty good idea of what that means. It’s in the headlines for you, DUMP, even if you chose to not read for comprehension.
You can find added anti-gay remarks by the good Reverend in 1) his speech before the Natl Press Club last month as we’ve discussed at IGF before, 2) some of his comments at the recent DTW NAACP Dinner we’ve referenced before, and 3) in his comments during the April 8, 2007 “homily” at Trinity… of course, if you still won’t accept that your homophobic, bigoted, racist preacher/mentor of BarryO didn’t ever say anything remotely anti-gay and you simply can’t find the opportunity to read/listen to the above referenced remarks… you can take Sen Clinton’s word for it… she called his remarks anti-gay and I’ve linked her statement in prior threads.
The rub remains for you, DUMP, just like with all the other gayDemocrats trying to keep the gay vote tight in the pocket of the Democrats, you want to ignore both Wright and Meeks anti-gay remarks, you want to spin Trinity’s “stellar” HIV/AIDS ministry into a pro-gay, service to gays kind of proof of Wright’s that warrants the gayLeft’s defensible posture of said bigot and you want to deny anything else which is contrary to reality –even if reality is staring at you from 72 pixel xtra bold jet black type.
Meeks is an anti-gay bigot and we’ve solidly proved it and is a close advisor to BarryO.
Wright is also an anti-gay bigot –and a racist to boot– and we’ve proved it but he’s been tossed under the ObamaBus almost as fast as BarryO’s white grannie… but only AFTER Wright let slip that BarryO’s posturing was a political necessity for the lurch to Center.
The simple truth is, like with FISA and the wiretap laws that BarryO now supports… and BarryO’s flipflop on unconditionally bringing home the troops in Iraq… on gay rights, gay marriage and likely other gay related issues, BarryO can’t be trusted to hold true to his earlier statements.
Of course, you don’t like that. But the facts are the facts and you have to keep defending a candidate that you’ve presented as pro-gay no matter what he does to rebuke that notion.
I get it: job #1 for you is keep that gay vote for the Democrat Masta.
Like I’ve written above, Helms is being decried for his racially bigoted and anti-gay statements but when it comes to gayLefties holding the same standard to their own bigots… the defense seems to be to deny, deny, deny and hope the truth is fleeting and forgotten by gay voters.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Spencer contends: “My point, which you’ve ignored, is that….”
Actually Spencer, with respect, I didn’t ignore it… I didn’t think it warranted a response.
You seem to think that influence is related to media coverage/exposure on the TV… but the trials of idiot Hollywood media darlings are hardly equivalent to a 60 minute show on the uber-liberal, uber-leftwing, uber-Democrat BillMoyers’ show… that’s what Wright got… and his 90 minutes of tape had to be edited down by BMH editors.
Your opinion that all media exposure is equally useful or indictative of what Americans are focusing in on as important issues or relevant is just silly and I didn’t think that needed to be pointed out to you.
I was wrong in assuming you were smarter than that or needing that point underscored for your education. It’s an opinion you should have divorced yourself from a while ago, Spencer.
As for your other “point”… namely that Rev Wright just isn’t important… well, BarryO thought him and the issues his screetching rants from the pulpit raised WERE IMPORTANT ENOUGH that BarryO gave a Philly speech on race… worked the Wright-Obama connection for 15 days and many back-n-forth tit-tats with each other via surrogates and directly in the media… then tossed Wright under the ObamaBus moving to the GreatPoliticalCenter.
Your own guy, BarryO, thought it was important. For you to contend you don’t get what the fuss was about suggests those blinders are cutting off the blood flow to your brain.
As for pissing all over ones self, I’ll leave that task for you and the opinion that all media attention is equally important. Enjoy the flow, Spencer.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
MM, your rant against Obama not only repeats things that have already been refuted, but your tone is so vitriolic as to make it almost pointless to argue with you. So I won’t bother with a point-for-point response, since it is clear that you are beyond being persuaded. I will just mention a few things.
Why does supporting a Democrat cause someone to deserve a chep slur about supporting a “Democrat masta”? What does this sort of crude stuff prove?
Obama has not flip-flopped on withdrawal lfrom Iraq. He said “refine,” not “abandon.” Please pay attention. He has not flip-flopped on gay rights or gay marriage. He never said he supported same-sex marriage; rather, he says he supports granting all the federal rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. I am not thrilled with this, but it is not a flip-flop. As I pointed out earlier, the incident that Rick Garcia of Equality Illinois reported, of coming upon Obama and Meeks in a stairway of the state capital and witnessing Obama strongly rebuking Meeks for his homophobia, shows that Obama (who didn’t know Garcia was there) is not faking his support for gay rights. Yes, he is compromising on marriage in the usual way that politicians have; so who among the available choices is better?
Your obsession about people allegedly close to Obama is largely irrelevant. Anyone who has been involved in public affairs as long as Obama inevitably knows a lot of people. Obama is responsible for his own statements and actions and beliefs. If you really cared about the anti-gay influence on Obama by, say, Rev. Meeks, then it would matter to you that Obama has been seen rebuking Meeks by one of the leading gay rights advocates in Illinois. The fact that you don’t care proves that you are not interested in honestly evaluating the candidate, but only in looking for excuses to trash him, which you whip into a froth.
One annoying trops of the Obama skeptics is their loud and gleeful trumpeting of any evidence that he is a politician and not some sort of demigod. Well, I never thought he was a demigod. But he’s the best politician the Democrats have produced in a couple of generations.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….Rick Garcia is also the one who insisted, when cornered, that he had no idea that Steamworks, which is just down the street from Equality Illinois’s office, was a sex club.
In short, he sees what the Democrats tell him to see — not surprising, since he’s a paid shill of the Democrat Party.
And here we come to the crux of the problem.
Your obsession about people allegedly close to Obama is largely irrelevant.
On the other hand, when it comes to smear-by-association, Richard and his ilk are screaming “Jerry Falwell” every time John McCain is mentioned.
The reason Richard deems it “irrelevant” is because Richard is under the belief that Obama is always right; therefore, any information to the contrary must be “irrelevant”.
One annoying trops of the Obama skeptics is their loud and gleeful trumpeting of any evidence that he is a politician and not some sort of demigod.
Obama claims he is not a politician. He claims he does not practice politics as usual. Yet again and again, he clearly acts as one, he does practice politics as usual, and you yourself admit he is one.
But he’s the best politician the Democrats have produced in a couple of generations.
Indeed he is; well-spoken, moderately intelligent, and completely amoral, with a bedrock faith that everything he does is right because he’s a minority member, and that anyone who criticizes him is a racist. He’s the epitome of the Democrat Party’s values.
posted by DUMP on
MM, you have never provided ONE SINGLE QUOTE from Reverend Wright that could be construed as anti-gay. Why is that? You might not be aware of this, but headlines are NOT THE SAME AS QUOTES. News editors use bold headlines to get you to read the article. The article you linked to had an inflammatory headline but the text had nothing to say about Wright being anti-gay. You claim that these remarks are out there but you are unwilling to provide them. Again, WHY? I’ve looked. I can’t find them. You act as if you have access to these anti-gay remarks. Why are you unable to provide them? I’m pretty sure the answer is they don’t exist. I’ve yet to see a single quote from Reverend Wright that is anti-gay. Please provide this information. If you are unable to back up your statements…well, that makes you a liar. Why are you lying here? What is the reason for your dishonesty? Is it mere partisan assholery or are you just a sociopath? Once again, please provide proof for your repeated statements that Reverend Wright is anti-gay. If you are unable to provide such proof I can only assume that you are a liar and, as such, are not to be trusted or listened to. Thanks!
posted by Spencer on
Actually, I’ve made no statement that would allow an inference one way or the other regarding my general politics, nor my specific support for any particular candidate. While Bill Moyers may, in your view, be an ultra-liberal, I’d suggest you compare his viewership numbers to those of Larry King. Let me state again — I’ve done PR, and have some sense of how to judge the influence of various media outlets. And to go back to your original quote, you were the one who suggested that media appearances were the judge of importance: “Nawh, no influence outside his church. Paging BillMoyers, paging NYT, paging WaPo, paging CharlieRose, paging LarryKing… nawh, no influence.”
Also, at what point does this all slop over into an ugly kind of McCarthyism? I have friends — close friends — with whom I strongly disagree regarding politics. I consider it a great advantage to have my views regularly challenged by intelligent people who strongly disagree with me. Are we expected to shutter ourselves off into tiny little enclaves of people who strictly agree with us, lest we be thought to hold opinions that we don’t have? It’s an ugly perspective, and appropriate to be held by one who began by defending the memory of the late and little lamented Senator Helms.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, as a matter of fact, I have not once screamed “Jerry Falwell” when John McCain is mentioned, though since you bring it up I think it is a shame that McCain reversed his earlier criticism of Falwell and other agents of intolerance. I certainly do not believe that Obama is always right; in fact, on these discussion boards I have lately noted my disagreement with Obama’s position on same-sex marriage.
I would like to see ND30 provide evidence that Obama has claimed not to be a politician; ND30 is doubtless just making that up. I do not “admit” that Obama is a politician, as if there was ever any possible doubt about it. Spare us this obvious prejudicial framing. Seeking to change our politics is not seeking to abolish politics.
Where is the basis for the claim that Obama has “a bedrock faith that everything he does is right because he’s a minority member, and that anyone who criticizes him is a racist.” He has never said any such thing. That is far indeed from what he has shown over many years that he stands for.
Apparently, ND30, what Obama has actually done and said is not enough to justify your hostility, so you just make stuff up.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, as a matter of fact, I have not once screamed “Jerry Falwell” when John McCain is mentioned, though since you bring it up I think it is a shame that McCain reversed his earlier criticism of Falwell and other agents of intolerance.
LOL…..oh yes, please go there. I love watching white liberals like you, Richard, argue how white people are “agents of intolerance” and how McCain is smeared by their presence, but how black Obama supporters who say the same thing are proof of Obama’s ability to “reach out”.
I certainly do not believe that Obama is always right; in fact, on these discussion boards I have lately noted my disagreement with Obama’s position on same-sex marriage.
Which you then state is right because Obama is a politician and getting elected is the most important thing.
Just as you explained Obama’s decades-long record of supporting, endorsing, and claiming as his “spiritual mentors” black racists as being “right” because he was trying to “change” them.
I would like to see ND30 provide evidence that Obama has claimed not to be a politician;
Sure you would.
And, after he was elected to the U.S. Senate, his wife, Michelle, told a reporter, “Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He’s a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change.” Recalling her remark in 2005, Obama wrote, “I take that observation as a compliment.”
Where is the basis for the claim that Obama has “a bedrock faith that everything he does is right because he’s a minority member, and that anyone who criticizes him is a racist.”
Do the words “Geraldine Ferraro” mean anything to you?
And as far as showing what he stands for, the list is rather extensive. He condemns slumlords while taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from them. He condemns banks while he himself is getting preferential treatment on loans. He condemns greedy overpaid healthcare executives while somehow overlooking the doubling of his hospital administrator’s wife’s salary upon his election. He claims to loathe lobbyists, then surrounds himself with them. He insists on public financing, only to jettison it when that would become inconvenient. He condemns racist attacks while he and his supporters state and insinuate that people who criticize him do so out of racism.
What that makes pretty obvious is that what Barack Obama stands for is that he never lets what he professes or claims to believe stand in the way of what he actually does.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RJR looks for cover and posits “MM, your rant against Obama not only repeats things that have already been refuted, but your tone is so vitriolic as to make it almost pointless to argue with you.”
No, RJR, those things have not been refuted except in the minds of those BarryO supporters who are willing to sell their gaybrethern down the proverbial rat-whole of Democrat politics. That’s why over 64% of likely voters in Nov think BarryO has a credibility problem with Rev Wright and over 55% of former HRClinton supporters won’t be voting for BarryO in November.
One point made above that can’t be refuted is that the gayLeft’s attempt to portray a once-famously BarryO supporter, mentor and family friend -aka, Rev Wright- is a racist, bigot and homophobe… just like Jesse Helms (who, by the way Spencer, I wasn’t defending -but that’s not a convenient truth for your spinFestival is it Mr PR?).
The gayDemocrats’ camp, and you included RJR, have used the “Rev Wright has an HIV/AIDS ministry” as some sort of proof that Rev Wright deserves the gayLeft and gayCenter’s empathy in the downward path of media-led implosion. Forget Meeks, you contend… afterall, RickGarcia saw BarryO upbraid Meeks. Right, fat story that. And ignore that the gayLeft can’t get BarryO to say that gay marriage is a good policy for America and he supports it. Nawh, it’s ok he won’t support the #1 gay agenda item of the gayLeft because it’s more important that gays help elect a Democrat… that’s what’s important to you.
As I point out, the Trintiy HIV/AIDS ministry isn’t anything more than an outreach effort to help blacks “infected by the govt” with HIV… it’s aimed at black youth, black female prostitutes, black substance abusers and black heterosexual men having associations with the former 2 groups. And, most importantly, it’s aimed at snatching lots and lots of federal monies to support faith-based groups.
And that’s where the gayLeft lie hits the roadway… it’s all about money for Rev Wright. It’s why the webpage on trinity’s HIV/AIDS ministry is frozen in time circa 1998 or 1999.
Now, you can claim anything you want. The truth is that when the gayLeft and gayDemocrats and gayBarryO’boys take a moment to trash Helms or other GOPers with a highly tarnished record (Spencer, read “highly tarnished” please) of bigotry and racially motivated hatred… it’s cheered by the mindless ones here on IGF. Yes, cluck, cluck those GOPers are terrible toward the gayLeft’s political allies.
But when BarryO’s politically motivated posturing toward the racist bigot and homophobe Rev Wright is explored, those Helms-batterers take a pass, grant absolution and seek the next media frenzy for diversion… as in, “Wait, wait… when McCain got shot down, did the US Govt sue him to get reparations for the downed jet because of his failure to perform?”
It’s easy to examine the truth, RJR. But first you need to put down the blinders you got at the “BarryO Gets Religion” meeting.
The real simple truth is that BarryO is not as gay-friendly and gay-supportive as the gayBarryO’boys here would like all gay voters to believe.
Is he better than McCain? I don’t think so since both men believe marriage is between a man/woman AND states ought to decide the issue of gay unions, marriage, et al.
Peddle those “Gays Love BarryO” pins at the next Democrat convention or Pride Parade, RJR. They aren’t selling all that well.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Finally RJR, your line “Your obsession about people allegedly close to Obama is largely irrelevant.”
My obsession? Wait, I thought it was the media who was uncovering all these little half-truths and lies of BarryO. “People allegedly close” is a way to describe the tight, hand-in-glove, 20+ year association of your boi BarryO with Rev Wright? BarryO called him a mentor.
You really can’t take the truth, even if it smacks you flat in the gayDemocrat face.
posted by DUMP on
You are bloviating, Matt. Should we take it from your continued unbalanced and completely unfounded (NO CITATIONS?) sliming of Mr. and Mrs. Obama and Reverend Wright that you are anti-truth and not to be trusted or listened to? All signs point to YES. Thanks for playing, sorry that you have been proven to be a liar. Try again next thread!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP-ster, nice try but it ain’t selling even in Hope, AK. Part of the gay media say you dont’ get it. Hillary Clinton says you don’t get it. Even BarryO says you don’t get it because you’re still on the old playbook, “defend Rev Wright” at all costs… BarryO tossed him under the bus already for his racist, bigoted, homophobic statements.
When a leading gay-left newservice like GayWired tells you or any reader that Rev Wright was once again out in public (while BarryO issues a collective sigh) to defend his earlier anti-gay remarks and then, apprising even your skill set at discernment, puts that fact in 18 pica headlines… you still don’t get it because you can’t get it… the gayDemocrat blinders are a little too tight.
Then, the leading pro-gay rights candidate (according to the gayLeft HRC) Mrs Bill Clinton comes forward and labels Rev Wright’s comments also anti-gay, you still don’t get it because you can’t get it and still sell your gaybrethern down the rat-hole. And she’s part of YOUR team… it isn’t Bill OReilly or KarlRove or ScotterLibby or Area51 aliens this time… it’s YOUR side, YOUR media telling you and you still don’t get it.
And then when your hero, BarryO, puts the bus in Drive and runs repeatedly over his former mentor, former friend, former spiritual advisor and marital counselor, aka Rev Wright, in part for telling the truth that BarryO is a political posturer run rampant… you still don’t get it.
Just like those who claim part of Wright’s gay-friendliness is evidenced in Trinity’s HIV/AIDS ministry while not disclosing the ministry was primarily directed toward non-gay and black populations, your effort to decry Wright’s entirely appropriate label as a “racist, bigoted and homophobe”… matching in part another BarryO advisor Rev Meeks’ well-earned label of homophobe… that effort fails, DUMP, on the overwhelming evidence apparent to all but you.
BarryO’s had a racist bigot and a pair of black minister homophobes for advisors… and you just don’t get it because you won’t be able to keep those gays voting BarryO if you don’t deny, dissuade and distract from the truth.
Now, what was that about BarryO believing that marriage is between a man and woman?
posted by DUMP on
What anti-gay comments? You keep mentioning them but, as of yet, haven’t shown what those comments were. WHAT HAS REVEREND WRIGHT SAID THAT IS ANTI-GAY? WHY ARE YOU UNABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? WHY ARE YOU LYING?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
MM, I have better things to do than spend much more time on you, but a couple of quick points. I do not dispute Obama’s longtime association with Jeremiah Wright. But those who relentlessly assert a close friendship with that guy from the Weather Underground must think that they themselves have thousands upon thousands of close friends, based on the thin connection between Obama and that guy. That is nonsense and somewhere in your fevered brain you must know it. BTW, is your insistence on using nothing but the monicker “Barry O” supposed to be terribly witty? As to Rev. Wright, his ego certainly got the better of him at that appearance at the National Press Club, and I have never cared for his style of preaching, but you have not yet provided any evidence of his being anti-gay, and there is evidence of his being gay-friendly in that his church is gay-welcoming (a separate point from the AIDS ministry, your dismissive characterization of which I don’t accept) and he himself (as I know through my ex) has close gay friends. Show us the evidence for your claim instead of just repeating it.
Obama is discernably better than McCain on gay issues in general (see McCain’s latest twisting of himself on the adoption issue, for example), and on marriage in particular Obama has explicitly opposed the ballot initiative in California and other such initiatives, whereas McCain taped two commercials in 2006 endorsing the Arizona anti-gay ballot initiative. Regarding your insults against Rick Garcia, I have reason to respect him, which is more than I can say for you.
As to your remark about gays-love-Obama pins not being popular, all I can say is that the Obama booth at DC’s Capital Pride last month drew large numbers of people all day long.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, you link to the New Yorker article on Obama as evidence that he has claimed not to be a politician, but I find no such claim in it. There is the quote from his wife that he is not a politician “first and foremost” but a community organizer, which I hope you realize (A) does not constitute a claim that he is not a politician, and (B) is not a statement by Barack Obama. What the article DOES contain is this 1995 quote from him, which proves my point: “What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer.” What’s the matter, ND30, does this more complex conception mess with your either/or brain?
I don’t recall seeing evidence that Obama called Geraldine Ferraro a racist, but she plainly IS a racist, unless every charge of racism ever made against a white person is by definition false and in bad faith, just because you say so. I have had the displeasure of watching Ms. Ferraro in several different interviews, and she practically radiates repulisiveness. Oh, and she’s such a victim! Surrogates on various sides notwithstanding, Obama during the primary season repeatedly exercised restraint in response to the undercurrent of racially based crap that was thrown at him by the Clintons. You won’t admit that, will you? Because once you’ve decided to oppose someone, he must be dreadful in every last respect, without the slightest redeeming quality from head to toe. By contrast, I can find nice things to say about both Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Correction: It was the New Republic article on Obama by Ryan Lizza to which ND30 linked, not the New Yorker piece. In any case, the Obama quote that I pulled has him referring to himself as a politician–a politician with a new approach, sure, but explicitly a politician nonetheless.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RJR offers: “MM, I have better things to do than spend much more time on you, but a couple of quick points.”
My suggestion is, Richard, go do them because you won’t listen to reason or embrace reality… and that’s ok for you because I see you as selling out our gaybrethern just because you want Democrats elected at any cost.
RJR opines: “But those who relentlessly assert a close friendship with that guy from the Weather Underground must think that they themselves have thousands upon thousands of close friends, based on the thin connection between Obama and that guy. That is nonsense and somewhere in your fevered brain you must know it”
BZZZZZZZZT, wrong again guy. I never said/wrote that, RJR. If you’re going to try to indict people here with baseless charges, try making them at least a tad accurate, ok? Truth seems to be a distant friend of yours these days.
As for you clarifying your position that Rev Wright’s HIV/AIDS ministry has utility for defending Wright as being somehow gay-friendly, well, like with many things proven here of late -with you or DUMP it doesn’t really matter what level of proof is provided, you’re just going to dismiss it as unsatisfactory because you’re intent on selling out our gay brethern and that is vitally needed in order for BarryO to move off “Stagant” and get to “Winning” in the polls. I thought this was the Democrats’ year of years and BarryO was supposed to be 10-15-20 points ahead of GeoBush3?
Nope, RJR, it seems your partisanship is too harsh to penetrate with reason, facts or rationality these days. I’m hoping you’ll improve in being open to debate at some point after November… when your self-inflicted wounds heal a bit.
posted by DUMP on
MM: “…it doesn’t really matter what level of proof is provided, you’re just going to dismiss it as unsatisfactory…”
You have never provided proof. Once again, YOU ARE LYING. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you can’t have an honest discussion. It is impossible to debate someone who has shown time and again that they are sociopathic liars. Sadly, that is the only conclusion one can draw from your comments Matt. You are a liar. You are anti-truth. You are not to be trusted or listened to. Thanks for playing, sorry that you are a horrible person with no ethics or morals.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, you link to the New Yorker article on Obama as evidence that he has claimed not to be a politician, but I find no such claim in it. There is the quote from his wife that he is not a politician “first and foremost” but a community organizer, which I hope you realize (A) does not constitute a claim that he is not a politician, and (B) is not a statement by Barack Obama.
To Matt’s point, it should surprise no one that you were unable to find such a claim when you insist that Michelle Obama saying that her husband is not a politician means that he IS a politician. Up is down, black is white, and Obama is always right, even when he’s wrong.
I don’t recall seeing evidence that Obama called Geraldine Ferraro a racist, but she plainly IS a racist, unless every charge of racism ever made against a white person is by definition false and in bad faith, just because you say so. I have had the displeasure of watching Ms. Ferraro in several different interviews, and she practically radiates repulisiveness.
Of course she does. She holds black people and other minorities accountable for their behavior and qualifications without giving them special consideration based on skin color or minority status. It surprises no one that you would find that repulsive; it runs contrary to the entire Obama campaign mentality and is a refreshing change from the usual Democrat orthodoxy.
Meanwhile, let’s again review Obama’s record. He condemns slumlords while taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from them. He condemns banks while he himself is getting preferential treatment on loans. He condemns greedy overpaid healthcare executives while somehow overlooking the doubling of his hospital administrator’s wife’s salary upon his election. He claims to loathe lobbyists, then surrounds himself with them. He insists on public financing, only to jettison it when that would become inconvenient. He condemns racist attacks while he and his supporters state and insinuate that people who criticize him do so out of racism.
And of course, his supporters like you claim that criticizing any of those is “racially-based crap”.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Thanks NDXXX for calling DUMP on his nonsense.
The simple truth is that we’ve pointed out to DUMP and his BarryO worship clutch that BarryO has not one problem in Rev Wright as a racist, bigot and homophobe but two problems because Rev Wright is only eclipsed by Rev Meeks in his hateful bigtory toward gays.
But that doesn’t matter to DUMP because his buds are charged with delivering the gayvote to Masta BarryO.
Like with others here, we provide credible proof and they clap their hands over their eyes, plug their ears and chant “Say it aint’ so, BarryO” in the Hope that Change will get here soon.
When gay, liberal editors over at GayWired draw attention to Rev Wright trying to “fix” his earlier anti-gay remarks with banner type headlines and DUMP misses it, it’s because he’s still in the padded chant room hoping…