Is it wrong for Democratic volunteers in a local Virginia legislative race to point out to Republican voters that the GOP candidate is openly gay (when his orientation isn’t stated in his campaign bio)? Patrick Forrest is running for the Virginia senate and (as reported in the Washington Blade) is “accusing his Democratic incumbent opponent of engaging in gay-baiting tactics, an assertion supported by an audio recording obtained by the Washington Blade of inflammatory remarks made by a Democratic volunteer.”
The Democrats argue that if Republicans were not homophobic bigots (and racist, and sexist, and all things morally inferior), it wouldn’t matter. But I tend to agree with A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch that what these Democrats are doing is more like reinforcing the hidebound attitudes of certain Republican voters for partisan advantage, and being disingenuous about it to boot.
Strategically, it’s good to have gay Republicans elected to office, where their presence serves to counter their party’s anti-gay sentiments. Democrats, of course, put the interest of their party first. But that doesn’t mean antics like this should get a free ride.
More. The president of the DC chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans weighs in.
63 Comments for “Who’s the Bigot?”
posted by daftpunkydavid on
i’m partial to your argument. i think that what the democrat in this race is doing is reprehensible. no doubt that if the political affiliations had been switched there probably would have been a bigger hoopla. HOWEVER, i don’t think it’s good to have gay republicans elected to office per se. i do think it’s great to have pro-equality republicans, straight or gay, willing to work within their caucus to change minds and political platforms. if that happens to be a gay person, great! as s/he will help de-mystify whatever preconceived notions people may have vis-à-vis the gays… too often, we’ve had gay republicans who were so eager to be accepted by the most radical in their party, that they won’t challenge anti-gay attitudes; and that i think is very damaging.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It is always wrong for anyone — Republican or Democrat — to use the fact that a candidate is gay or lesbian as a negative in an election. It is wrong when Republicans do it and it is equally wrong when Democrats do it. It is particularly wrong when it is done as a “whisper campaign”.
Although the extent to which the Democratic candidate, Janet Howell, or her campaign are involved, it certainly sounds as if a “whisper campaign” is going on in this race, and it is not right.
But I’m not sure that I am entirely sympathize with Forrest, either. It seems to me that he is playing both ends against the middle, at least to some extent.
Although Forrest doesn’t mention the fact of his sexual orientation on his website, Forrest is openly gay (per his quote in the Blade article), is a member of LCR, is endorsed by the Victory Fund, and his campaign is using his sexual orientation to raise funds among gays and lesbians. It is a little bit disingenuous to then complain that his sexual orientation shouldn’t be an issue.
BTW, does anyone know where Forrest stands on the issues relating to gays and lesbians in Virginia? The Blade article indicates that the Democrat, Janet Howell, supports SSM and has a strong pro-LGBT record of many years. I can’t find a single statement of Forrest’s that is relevant, although I can’t say that I’ve spent more than a few minutes looking.
If Forrest is raising money on the basis that (to quote a fundraising invitation) “When elected, Patrick will be the only openly gay Republican state senator in the country, providing an important voice for our community in Richmond.“, but hews the standard Virginia Republican line on the issues, he’s engaging in his own form of deception and dirty tricks, using his sexual orientation to garner support from gays and lesbians without supporting those whose support he seeks. I hope that’s not the case.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It is always wrong for anyone — Republican or Democrat — to use the fact that a candidate is gay or lesbian as a negative in an election. It is wrong when Republicans do it and it is equally wrong when Democrats do it.
Actually, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach, it’s MORE wrong when Obama Party members do it, because their doing it demonstrates blatant and obvious hypocrisy, given that they supposedly support gay “equality”.
What this demonstrates nicely is that Janet Howell is a fake and a liar: she doesn’t support “equality”, just an obedient plantation of gays and lesbians who do what Missus Janet says. She clearly sees gays as inferior, given how she smears and attacks any gay person who would dare challenge her.
The hilarious part is how you sit here and spin and make excuses when this tactic used by a Republican would have proven to you that they were a vicious homophobe who was completely unsuited for public office. But as we’re all aware by now, Tom Scharbach, Obama Party staffers like yourself can interpret “pro-equality” and “equal means equal” to support and endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Strategically, it’s good to have gay Republicans elected to office, where their presence serves to counter their party’s anti-gay sentiments.
I’m with DaftPunkyDavid on this one. I think that it is good to have pro-gay Democrats and Republicans elected to office, regardless of orientation. An gay or lesbian Republican who supports the “party’s anti-gay sentiments” (as you put it) would do more to validate and reinforce the sentiments than “counter” them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But of course, we should also remember that Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach defines “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” based solely on political affiliation.
Hence why he and his fellow Obama Party gays are systematically trashing Patrick Forrest as “anti-gay” while endorsing and supporting Obama Party candidates like Janet Howell who are running smear campaigns claiming that Forrest’s sexual orientation makes him unfit to serve, or demanding that Forrest kowtow to a website like “It Gets Better” whose founder has wished on national television that all Republicans were dead, or declaring that support of Federal marriage bans is anti-gay while insisting that giving money to such supporters is “pro-equality” and that they support “equal means equal”.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
we should also remember that Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach defines “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” based solely on political affiliation.
I have been very clear over the years about what what I think constitutes “pro-gay” — a politician’s position on the equal treatment under the law.
To my mind, a politician who is “pro-gay” will take the following positions on most of following issues:
The list is not a strict litmus test, of course. Not all issues are relevant at the federal level, for example, and not all issues are relevant in each state. In addition, reasonable men can differ on specific issues (e.g. employment non-discrimination), and details (e.g. the extent of rights that should be granted by limited domestic partnerships in states, like Wisconsin, where that is the only legally available option). But in general, I consider a politician “pro-gay” if he or she takes most of the positions on the list, and “anti-gay” if he or she does the opposite. What counts is the positions taken and the votes cast on specific issues.
Can you tell me where Forrest stands on any of the issues on the list that are relevant to Virginia?
By the way, where do you stand on those issues?
Hence why he and his fellow Obama Party gays are systematically trashing Patrick Forrest as “anti-gay” while endorsing and supporting Obama Party candidates like Janet Howell who are running smear campaigns claiming that Forrest’s sexual orientation makes him unfit to serve, or demanding that Forrest kowtow to a website like “It Gets Better” whose founder has wished on national television that all Republicans were dead, or declaring that support of Federal marriage bans is anti-gay while insisting that giving money to such supporters is “pro-equality” and that they support “equal means equal”.
I’ve taken none of those positions, nor indicated any agreement with any of those positions, and you know it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I can tell you exactly where Forrest stands on the issues that are relevant to Virginia.
And I can also tell you where Janet Howell and her Barack Obama Party stand: “He’s a homosexual. Why would you want to vote for someone who’s a homosexual and is going to push his agenda in your schools?”.
That’s telling, Tom Scharbach. Forrest is focusing on issues like businesses, education, and the economy; Obama Party staffers and candidates like yourself and your Janet Howell are focused on warning people about the “homosexual agenda”, stating that Patrick Forrest is unfit to serve in office because he’s gay, and insisting that gay and lesbian people rape and molest children.
After having previous meltdowns and insisting that any party, any candidate, who would say such a thing is homophobic to the core and is gay-baiting to win votes.
Granted, I don’t expect you to tell off an Obama Party candidate, because you’d be slitting your own throat financially and socially if you did it, and because your Wisconsin Obama Party supports and endorses physical violence against apostates, like the candidate whose campaigns you managed Fred Clark threatening to “smack around” a woman who dared question him. But I am becoming curious as to just how desperately low you will go to please your “progressive” massas — especially since you blame your utter helplessness, dependency, and hypocrisy on your sexual orientation.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I can tell you exactly where Forrest stands on the issues that are relevant to Virginia.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Nice try, Dan. But all to make my point — Forrest apparently takes no public stand whatsoever on the issues mentioned in my comment or any other of the current issues in Virginia relating to gays and lesbians and their legal status in the state.
On to your next comment:
And I can also tell you where Janet Howell and her Barack Obama Party stand: “He’s a homosexual. Why would you want to vote for someone who’s a homosexual and is going to push his agenda in your schools?”.
You should take the time to read the articles you cite. As usual, you’ve got it wrong. The article you cite contains a denial by the Howell campaign that her campaign was involved, and the facts in the article strongly suggests that the “whisper” campaign was conducted by and individual or individuals without any authorization from the campaign. The individual mentioned in the article was “clear intoxicated” while making the call.
After having previous meltdowns and insisting that any party, any candidate, who would say such a thing is homophobic to the core and is gay-baiting to win votes.
Want to say when and where I had these supposed “meltdowns”, citing the URL so that we can check your accuracy?
… slitting your own throat financially and socially …
I’ll say this once again, having said it twice before in recent months in response to your talking through your cowboy hat, to no effect. I am the Co-Chair of the LGBT Caucus of the DPW. The position is an elected position, the voters being members of the LGBT Caucus of the DPW. The position is unpaid. The position is not a DPW staff position and has no duties or power within the DPW, other than the power to persuade through reason and logic. I’ve never been paid for any work I’ve done in politics, period, ever.
The position has nothing to do with my social life, which revolves around my partner, family and friends, many of whom I’ve known my entire life. I don’t do political social events.
Now calm down. You are working yourself up again. Keep this up and pretty soon you’ll be back in your frenzy mode. Just stick with what you know. Don’t invent.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As usual, you’ve got it wrong. The article you cite contains a denial by the Howell campaign that her campaign was involved, and the facts in the article strongly suggests that the “whisper” campaign was conducted by and individual or individuals without any authorization from the campaign.
And had you read the other article, Tom Scharbach, you might have noticed this:
When Newland asks Imarti if the whispers are “coming from the campaign,” she responds with an emphatic “Yes!”
Again, no surprise; you’re not actually going to read or research any of the articles and sources you are presented. You are a staffer for the Obama Party, and your social and political position depends on defending and supporting everything that your Obama Party does. You have to somehow spin around the fact that your Obama Party’s staffers and candidates are going around saying the sort of things that Imarti does, and of course, the first place you start is by attacking and blaming other gays who would DARE disobey or criticize an Obama Party member.
This again is understandable. Obama Party members like your Fred Clark only like minority members who do as they say, and I have no doubt that you don’t want to end up “smacked around”, having calls made on Twitter for you to be punched, or having bomb threats sent to you like your Wisconsin Obama Party does to Republicans.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And I can also tell you where Janet Howell and her Barack Obama Party stand: “He’s a homosexual. Why would you want to vote for someone who’s a homosexual and is going to push his agenda in your schools?”.
That’s telling, Tom Scharbach. Forrest is focusing on issues like businesses, education, and the economy; Obama Party staffers and candidates like yourself and your Janet Howell are focused on warning people about the “homosexual agenda”, stating that Patrick Forrest is unfit to serve in office because he’s gay, and insisting that gay and lesbian people rape and molest children.
After having previous meltdowns and insisting that any party, any candidate, who would say such a thing is homophobic to the core and is gay-baiting to win votes.
Granted, I don’t expect you to tell off an Obama Party candidate, because you’d be slitting your own throat financially and socially if you did it, and because your Wisconsin Obama Party supports and endorses physical violence against apostates, like the candidate whose campaigns you managed Fred Clark threatening to “smack around” a woman who dared question him. But I am becoming curious as to just how desperately low you will go to please your “progressive” massas — especially since you blame your utter helplessness, dependency, and hypocrisy on your sexual orientation.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And finally:
I’ve taken none of those positions, nor indicated any agreement with any of those positions, and you know it.
Sorry. Barack Obama rule. Unless you specifically condemn it, you support and endorse it. Silence isn’t good enough.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You are a staffer for the Obama Party, and your social and political position depends on defending and supporting everything that your Obama Party does.
There you go again, Dan. Stick with what you know. Don’t invent.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Check. I’ll make a note of it.
BTW, where did President Obama say that again?
posted by Jorge on
Your list is heavily skewed toward demanding laundry list rights and omitting quality of life issues.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Quality of life is not relevant to grievance groups, Jorge.
The Obama Party is made up of grievance groups that all believe the same four things:
1) We should receive special treatment because of our (insert characteristic)
2) Everyone else should be forced to pay for our special treatment, regardless of cost
3) No one should ever be allowed to criticize our behavior for any reason
4) Government’s job is to make sure that numbers 1 – 3 are carried out.
Hence the problem. In education, for example, Tom Scharbach is beholden to the other members of the Obama Party coalition, the teachers’ unions, who believe that by virtue of being teachers, they are immune to criticism, exempt from performance criteria, and able to lie with impunity. Thus, he can’t reform or criticize education; he can only demand more money, more special treatment, and more exemptions, even as student performance and test scores plummet.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Your list is heavily skewed toward demanding laundry list rights and omitting quality of life issues.
My list is heavily skewed toward the legislative battles currently being fought at federal and state levels over equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians.
posted by BobN on
As far as quality of life, nothing, NOTHING affects my quality of life more than my lack of equality.
posted by Jorge on
As far as quality of life, nothing, NOTHING affects my quality of life more than my lack of equality.
Get help. Psychosomatic mathematics-induced distress is treatable.
My list is heavily skewed toward the legislative battles currently being fought at federal and state levels over equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians.
Equal treatment under the law? That presupposes the prerogative that the social position that homosexuality, however you define it, shall be equal to homosexuality, and that social position shall be enshrined into law and imposed upon the people. There’s no way around that, so stop trying to make it sound moderate. You are listing the prorogatives of the gay rights movement. By doing so you are saying that if you are not loyal to the goals of the gay rights movement as it frames them, you are not pro-gay.
There is another way. The gay rights movement does not represent the entirety of what is gay-affirming.
posted by Jorge on
That should read more like “homosexuality shall be equal to heterosexuality”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: “My list is heavily skewed toward the legislative battles currently being fought at federal and state levels over equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians.”
Jorge: Equal treatment under the law? That presupposes the prerogative that the social position that homosexuality, however you define it, shall be equal to homosexuality, and that social position shall be enshrined into law and imposed upon the people. There’s no way around that, so stop trying to make it sound moderate.
Jorge: “You are listing the prerogatives of the gay rights movement.”
I have listed issues relating to equal treatment under the law that are currently before federal and state legislatures, being decided in various jurisdictions as we speak.
The issues have been drawn by both sides, and you can as easily say that I am listing the goals of the social conservative movement.
For example:
(1) Social conservatives initiated and are pursing repeal of marriage equality in New Hampshire while “the gay rights movement” initiated and pursued marriage equality in New York. So which side’s agenda is reflected by my listing that issue?
(2) Social conservatives initiated and are pursuing bans on adoption by gay and lesbian individuals and couples in states where adoption is now permitted. So which side’s agenda is reflected by my listing that issue?
Which side’s agenda is driving legal defense of DOMA? Which side’s agenda is driving proposed constitutional amendments banning marriage equality in Minnesota and other states? Which side’s agenda is driving the pledges by Republican presidential candidates to reinstate DADT upon assuming office? Which side’s agenda is driving the FMA? Which side’s agenda is driving legal challenges to Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law?
Go though the list, Jorge, and look at the actual legislative bills under consideration in the various states. As often as not, I would suggest, you will find that the agenda pushing the issue is the social conservative agenda, not the “gay rights movement’s” agenda.
Jorge: “ By doing so you are saying that if you are not loyal to the goals of the gay rights movement as it frames them, you are not pro-gay.”
I don’t like the phrases “pro-gay” or “anti-gay”, as I’ve explained in other threads. I think that the phrase “pro-equality” and “anti-equality” are better descriptors. There is a difference.
I think that President Obama and Ambassador Huntsman are each, according to their own lights, “pro-gay”. Both seem to be free of animus and receptive to gays and lesbians in public and private life. I think that both of them think that they are “pro-equality”, too, although I think both are wrong. I do not believe, as they do, that “legally-equivalent” civil unions are legally or constitutionally equivalent in fact.
Similarly, as I explained in my comment with the list, I don’t that the list is a litmus test (“ … reasonable men can differ on specific issues (e.g. employment non-discrimination), and details (e.g. the extent of rights that should be granted by limited domestic partnerships in states, like Wisconsin, where that is the only legally available option) …”) and that people can and should be considered “anti-gay” simply because they don’t agree with everything on the list. But I do think that the list is a reasonable indicator of where someone stands on the “pro-equality” continuum in 2012.
Jorge: “There is another way. The gay rights movement does not represent the entirety of what is gay-affirming.”
I think that equality under the law is the battlefield. I don’t think that it is important whether or not people are “gay-affirming”. Some will be, some won’t be. That’s inevitable, and that won’t change. What counts to me is equal treatment under the law. I’ve dealt with the animus all my adult life. I don’t like it, but I don’t think that the law can do a thing to change it.
Now its your turn. You indicated in your previous comment that my list “omitted quality of life issues“. What do you think those issues are, and why do you consider them important?
I’ll probably agree with you on many or most of them, but that’s not where the battle is being fought right now.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That should read more like “homosexuality shall be equal to heterosexuality”
No, it should read “each and every citizen of the United States is equal under the law and should be treated equally under the law”.
posted by Jorge on
In other words I’m correcting a typo in my prior post. You will allow that.
I think “pro-equality” and “anti-equality” are irrelevant considerations compared to what is objectively right and wrong.
Tom, what you demand is not just opposition to social conservatives and support for pro-gay progressives, you support the narrative that it’s social conservatives vs. pro-gay progressives, implying an us vs. them, either you’re with us or you’re against us mindset. You suggest that allegiance to one or more battle lines is important, but that mindset is part of the problem that prevents people from working on what they see independently as serious issues and concerns. “But that’s not where the battle is being fought right now.” Well maybe that’s where some work can be done, then.
Quality of life issues? I’d say school bullying, hate crimes, social homophobia, and homeless and runaway youth
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think “pro-equality” and “anti-equality” are irrelevant considerations compared to what is objectively right and wrong.
Tom, what you demand is not just opposition to social conservatives and support for pro-gay progressives, you support the narrative that it’s social conservatives vs. pro-gay progressives, implying an us vs. them, either you’re with us or you’re against us mindset.
I support the narrative that there is a determined minority — far-right social conservatives and far-right conservative Christians — who are fighting any and all steps toward legal equality and fighting any and all steps toward social acceptance of gays and lesbians. I support the narrative because I believe it and because I think that the available evidence supports it. The two agendas (fighting legal equality and fighting social acceptance) go hand in hand, and of the two, the latter precedes the former, in my view. I think that gays and lesbians have been making strides toward legal acceptance largely because we’ve been winning the war toward social acceptance, as I’ve said often on this list. I may be wrong on all scores, but that’s what I think.
You suggest that allegiance to one or more battle lines is important, but that mindset is part of the problem that prevents people from working on what they see independently as serious issues and concerns. “But that’s not where the battle is being fought right now.” Well maybe that’s where some work can be done, then.
I think that’s probably right, Jorge. Focusing exclusively on legal issues probably does help create a mindset that diminish the focus on social issues. If that, in turn, “prevents people from working on what they see independently as serious issues and concerns“, then I think that we should encourage them to understand that it is possible to work on all fronts at once.
The two goals are not mutually exclusive. I work on issues other than the legal issues — cooperating with the local PFLAG in developing programs, pointing people interested in setting up a GSA to the right resources, encouraging people I know to speak out so that gay and lesbian kids hear something other than the drumbeat of negative messages, and so on. I assume that you do, too.
Conversely, a focus on the social issues does not stand in opposition to support for legal equality. The question, I understand, involves allocation of resources, and our resources are not unlimited. Time and money spent fighting off the Minnesota anti-marriage amendment is time and money not spent supporting homeless and runaway gay and lesbian teenagers. But in my view we must do the best we can, fighting forward on all fronts as best we can. We’ve been doing that, and it has been working.
Be that as it may, my focus is on the legal issues, and I don’t apologize for that, because I’m a lawyer and that’s the arena in which I’m involved. But my focus doesn’t mean that others don’t work on the other issues. We can, luckily, count on others (like Debbie, who is helping local kids set up a GSA, and Joan, who has spearheaded a very successful county PFLAG group, and Ray, who is working on setting up a Pink Pistols group) to work hard on other issues, each according to their own focus.
Quality of life issues? I’d say school bullying, hate crimes, social homophobia, and homeless and runaway youth.
All are important. I would point out, though, that these are social issues, not legal issues.
What can the law do about social homophobia, for example, when you get right down to it? The law has never been able to do anything about anti-semitism or racism, and (in my view, anyway) shouldn’t, because any attempt to use law to crack down on speech, however ugly, violates freedom of speech.
Social issues need to be solved or mediated by individuals and groups at the private level. I support those efforts.
School bullying? GSA’s have been reasonably effective in taking the edge off, if not stopping, high school bullying. Committed teachers and school administrators can do a lot. So can new media campaigns like “It Gets Better”. But legal mandates? I don’t think so.
Homeless and runaway kids? What can the law do about parents who pound the ant-gay drum so hard that their kids run away rather than deal with it another day? The government can step in, using the social safety net, and I believe that it should do more. But that is not going to stop the kids from running away, or change the parents. In my view, the most effective way to help these kids is through private efforts like the Howard Brown Health Center in Chicago and similar centers throughout the country.
And so on.
Let me return to an earlier observation — the question of social conservatives.
I think that we see the hand of the same determined minority of far-right social conservatives and far-right conservative Christians at work in opposition to progress on the social issues as we do on the legal issues. Who is making the false argument that GSA’s promote homosexuality in our schools? Who is making the argument that gays and lesbian adults recruit teenage runaways? Who is spreading the message that gays and lesbians are immoral, disease-ridden, die young, are unfit parents, prey upon the young, are anti-religious and so on? It is, in general, the same crowd that drives the opposition to legal equality.
posted by BobN on
Get help. Psychosomatic mathematics-induced distress is treatable.
I beg your fucking pardon? You have no knowledge of my life. How dare you?
posted by Jorge on
I beg your fucking pardon? You have no knowledge of my life. How dare you?
I know that you implied that your life experience and expertise of having legal inequality affect your quality of life are representative of important political ideas and public issues for the rest of us here to consider, and I know you made that claim abstractly, without claiming any sacred cows. You put yourself forward knowing the danger that you would be shot down abstractly.
If I just stabbed you in the back, I am sorry.
All are important. I would point out, though, that these are social issues, not legal issues.
(Yes, I do have a social conservative streak in me.)
I would reply to this as I think this touches on my main area of disagreement with you. I think it is an irreconcilable difference; but I am getting tired of talking about that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Who is making the false argument that GSA’s promote homosexuality in our schools? Who is making the argument that gays and lesbian adults recruit teenage runaways? Who is spreading the message that gays and lesbians are immoral, disease-ridden, die young, are unfit parents, prey upon the young, are anti-religious and so on?
Well, Tom Scharbach, according to this article, it appears to be the Obama Party, given what its volunteers, staffers, and candidates are saying:
“What my campaign is saying is here’s your Republican candidate. He’s a homosexual. Why would you want to vote for someone who’s a homosexual and is going to push his agenda in your schools?”.
But you have stated here that such statements are “pro-equality” and said that the candidate whose campaign is making them is “pro-equality”.
Since you fully endorse and support these statements as “pro-equality”, then what becomes immediately clear is that you are not acting on the basis of what people are saying, but on the basis of their religious beliefs and political affiliation.
In short, you are a bigot.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“What my campaign is saying is here’s your Republican candidate. He’s a homosexual. Why would you want to vote for someone who’s a homosexual and is going to push his agenda in your schools?”.
But you have stated here that such statements are “pro-equality” and said that the candidate whose campaign is making them is “pro-equality”.
Since you fully endorse and support these statements as “pro-equality”, then what becomes immediately clear is that you are not acting on the basis of what people are saying, but on the basis of their religious beliefs and political affiliation.
Oh, blow it off, Dan. What I said about that statement, as you full well know, is this:
In short, you are a bigot.
What has happened to you in the last several years, Dan? You used to write interesting, if edgy, comments about ideas. Now all you post are personal attacks, half-truths and lies.
You might want to take a few days off, consider what you wrote when you started blogging in 2005:
Think about it. It might help you find your bearings again. Continuing along the lines you’ve been following recently is a waste of your time, and everyone else’s time, too, as Jorge pointed out earlier in this thread.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, blow it off, Dan. What I said about that statement, as you full well know, is this:
You didn’t say anything about that statement being wrong, Tom Scharbach.
You blathered, as your kind do, but you never once said that this candidate, this volunteer, this Virginia Obama Party who were making that exact statement are wrong.
In fact, you later said the exact opposite — that this campaign, this party, and this tcandidate whose campaign was making these statements was “pro-equality”.
So yes, you are a bigot. You make lots of talk about how “wrong” something is, but when confronted with an example of your own party doing it, you won’t condemn it.
That also makes you a hypocrite, for those who are keeping score.
What has happened to you in the last several years, Dan? You used to write interesting, if edgy, comments about ideas.
Ah yes, the old Obama whining about civility trick.
I think Don Surber phrased best why that doesn’t work any more.
You’re a lawyer, Tom Scharbach, or at least you allege to be one. Contracts, treaties, and agreements bind all parties involved; when one party in a contract, agreement, or treaty breaks it, the others are no longer considered to be bound by the terms.
Since you and your Obama Party of Wisconsin want to send bomb threats to Republicans, tweet how people should “punch a Republican”, and threaten small businesses with your union thugs, you’ve broken the agreement. Since you and your fellow gays and lesbians want to sit here and whine about “gay-baiting” even as you endorse and support your Obama Party doing it, I no longer feel bound by it.
So not only are you a bigot and a hypocrite, Tom Scharbach, you’re a cheat. You and your Obama Party want other people to follow the rules when you won’t. You scream and cry and demand that others condemn behavior, resign, etc., but you won’t. You want the benefits, but you don’t want to have to change your behavior or take responsibility for your actions.
I tried being nice. Unfortunately, Tom Scharbach, you’re a worthless hypocrite, bigot, and moocher who only sees people who are nice as something to exploit.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, let’s show a few examples of what Tom Scharbach, LGBT and Obama Party staffer, is supporting and endorsing while he whines about others being uncivil.
Here’s a great one of what Tom Scharbach and the Obama Party of Wisconsin say about Republicans, in particular Paul Ryan.
Pretty interesting, isn’t it? Tom Scharbach’s own Obama Party says Republicans want to murder the elderly, but then he whines about civility.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And here’s one of civility crusader Tom Scharbach’s own boss in the Wisconsin Obama Party calling for people to “punch a Republican”.
Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Only REPUBLICANS would have to publicly repudiate and demand the resignation of someone like that. It’s standard operating procedure for Obama Party members to do that.
posted by Michael D on
North Dallas Thirty, I don’t think Tom is complaining about your lack of civility — it’s that you’ve gone from saying interesting things to things that are dishonest and misrepresent others.
Such as when he complains about your dishonesty and misrepresentation, and you misrepresent that as a comment on mere “civility.”
posted by pgbach on
If Forrest where open & out, then I would defend him. However, he’s running from within the closet. Sadly, “within the closet” is the only way he can seek office as a Republican. When Forrest posts his coming out & “It Gets Better” vids on youtube, then he is worthy of LGBT support.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why would a Republican post anything to a website such as “It Gets Better” which demands that gay and lesbian Republicans kill themselves and whose founder wants all Republicans dead?
Besides, the leaders of the gay and lesbian community, the largest gay and lesbian political group, and the DNC itself state publicly that supporting Federal constitutional amendments banning gay-sex marriage, for example, is pro-gay and worthy of LGBT support.
Do you think it does the LGBT community any good when you demonstrate your hypocrisy by insisting that Republicans jump through hoops that you won’t also impose on Obama Party members?
posted by Michael D on
So here’s an example of misrepresentation. Based on your link, one Democrat gives a person donation to an Democrat who favors a federal marriage amendment, and suddenly you claim that’s a public statement by “the DNC itself.”
That’s complete misrepresentation. Besides being simply the wrong thing to do, it’s also bad strategy on your part: if you need to resort to misrepresentation to make your point, then it seems likely your point is just plain wrong.
(Also, your link only speaks of a Tennessee marriage amendment, not a federal one, but I’ll chalk that up as a simple mistake.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You probably want to read through that link in its entirety, Michael.
One of the first people you’ll see in the comments is Andrew Tobias. Read and learn about him and for what organization he works and speaks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And as for this:
(Also, your link only speaks of a Tennessee marriage amendment, not a federal one, but I’ll chalk that up as a simple mistake.)
How condescending of you.
And completely unnecessary.
So Michael D, let’s consider this.
– You were more than capable of reading through the link I provided you in its entirety and seeing the statements being made there.
– You could have very easily checked why I was linking that particular situation to the DNC with a simple search on the comments
– You could have very easily checked Ford’s own history in regard to the FMA.
Instead, you chose to claim I was lying and go on a sanctimonious tear about how dishonest I have allegedly become.
That’s typical. Barack Obama supporters and the LGBT community at large don’t encourage actually evaluating anyone who disagrees with you. After all, anyone who disagrees with Barack Obama or dares criticize LGBT people is obviously a racist and a homophobe, and cannot possibly be telling the truth about anything. That’s what your Obama tells you, that’s what your Obama Party tells you, and that’s what your Obama Party calls you if you dare disagree with them.
posted by Michael D on
Typical, Dallas. You make an assertion, and when your evidence doesn’t back up the assertion, you offer differ evidence and ignore the fact that your initial evidence didn’t say what you want it to say? And neither does the follow-up? For instance:
1. Your initial evidence didn’t mention the federal marriage amendment, so that was just lousy substantiation on your part.
2. You still haven’t established that “the DNC itself state publicly that supporting Federal constitutional amendments banning gay-sex marriage, for example, is pro-gay and worthy of LGBT support.” Rather, you’ve shown a member of the DNC (NOT the DNC itself) stating that someone who favors the amendment might be the lesser of two evils (NOT that amendment itself is pro-gay and worthy of support).
Standard North Dallas Thirty behavior. Failing to substantiate a claim on his first try, he madly scrambles to find another chunk of evidence, but only by twisting its contents of all recognition can you make your point.
Two pieces of advice if you ever wish to be taken seriously:
1. Stop pretending that a statement by a member of a group is representative of that entire group.
2. Stop pretending that even the most meager, qualified statement that a person isn’t 100% awful is the same as fully and unreservedly supporting an endorsing everything that person does.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Testy, testy, Michael.
I understand the problem — someone you dislike just made a fool out of you with simple facts. And, as is typical for gays and lesbians, you blame other people for your failure to think and research.
But this became beyond hilarious:
Two pieces of advice if you ever wish to be taken seriously:
1. Stop pretending that a statement by a member of a group is representative of that entire group.
2. Stop pretending that even the most meager, qualified statement that a person isn’t 100% awful is the same as fully and unreservedly supporting an endorsing everything that person does.
So Barack Obama’s statement that all Republicans hate gay and lesbian people based on one person’s booing is wrong.
So Barack Obama’s insistence that failure to condemn said booing means you support it is wrong.
So Nancy Pelosi’s insistence that all Tea Party participants are Nazis based on one swastika she allegedly saw is wrong.
So Nancy Pelosi’s insistence that failing to condemn said swastika means you support it is wrong.
Except that you fully support and endorse all of these and take what they say seriously.
So that’s the point, Michael. Since you won’t apply your rules equally, it just shows you to be a hypocritical partisan bigot.
Meanwhile, I don’t expect you to take me seriously. You and your buddy Houndentenor just insisted in another thread that I was “insane” and “genuinely disturbed” — even though, as Tom Scharbach was forced to admit, quote:
As you have pointed out in response to similar comments, the people posting those comments don’t know you, do not have a sufficient professional background to make such an assessment, and if they did have a sufficient professional background to make such an assessment, would be violating the ethical boundaries of the profession.
In short, you’ve already made a fool out of yourself with your comments about my mental state, and demonstrated that you’re operating, not out of facts and ethics, but out of blind hatred and unethical bigotry.
posted by Michael D on
Excellent post, Dallas. Not only do you manage to completely avoid dealing with the logical flaws I pointed out, but you also assume, without evidence, that I support and endorse Nancy Pelosi’s general mischaracterization of Tea Party supporters, or the notion (so favored by you) that if you haven’t explicitly condemned something then we can assume you support it 100%.
More evasion, invention, and misrepresentation from Dallas.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nancy Pelosi AND Barack Obama, Michael D. Both suffice to demonstrate your hypocrisy.
Meanwhile, why don’t you share with us what you and Houndentenor are — bigots who are making judgments about peoples’ mental state that you are unqualified to make, or unethical mental health professionals making statements out of bigotry?
posted by Houndentenor on
Like everyone else here, I’m just a loudmouth jerk with internet access! I can’t imagine anyone took my referring to someone as crazy as a professional mental health assessment. However, I do call ’em as I see ’em. Always have; always will.
posted by Michael D on
Actually, Dallas, I’m bigoted against people who tell lie after deliberate lie after deliberate lie. But it was wrong of me to make the joke about you being crazy. It was callous toward people with genuine mental disturbances when in fact I think you’re simply a person who is happy to sacrifice the truth to make an ideologically-motivated hit.
posted by Houndentenor on
First of all, IS he gay? I don’t see how saying someone is gay is an insult or mean or nasty if they are actually gay. Would it be good to have openly gay Republicans in elective office? Sure. But we don’t need more closet cases. Those folks do the most harm because usually they go out of their way to be as anti-gay as possible. (see: Craig, Larry et al.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If Forrest where open & out, then I would defend him.
The Blade article says that Forrest is out, in the sense that he doesn’t hide is orientation. I take that as accurate, since he has accepted the endorsement of the Victory Fund and is fundraising among gays and lesbians.
What concerns me is where he stands on the issues affecting gays and lesbians in Virginia, a state in which the issues have been in the limelight for the last several years.
If Forrest hews to the standard Republican positions in the state (e.g. opposes SSM and marriage-equivalent CU’s, opposes DPB for state employees, and so on) and is keeping that quiet, he is, in a sense, duping the gays and lesbians from whom he is raising money by implying that he is pro-equality (“When elected, Patrick will be the only openly gay Republican state senator in the country, providing an important voice for our community in Richmond.“)
On the other hand, if Forrest stands in opposition to the standard Republican positions in the state (e.g. supports SSM or marriage-equivalent CU’s, supports DPB for state employees, and so on) and is keeping that quiet, he is, in a sense, duping the social conservatives from whom he is seeking votes.
It took me about two minutes to find out where Holland (the incumbent Democrat) stands on these issues (she’s staunchly pro-equality).
I still haven’t been able to find out where Forrest stands. The closest I’ve found is a nudge and a hint, in an interview that is part of a newspaper candidate profile: ““I consider myself someone who is fiscally conservative, but socially compassionate. Am I going to break from the party on certain positions? I imagine so if it’s not a pro-Northern Virginia position they’re taking. And that’s kind of my big beef right now. It’s become so hyper partisan, and my opponent is a leader in that hyper partisan environment. I want people in the General Assembly who are willing to break party lines and are willing to stand up for things even if their leadership in Richmond doesn’t agree with it.”
It is always wrong for anyone — Republican or Democrat — to use the fact that a candidate is gay or lesbian as a negative in an election. It is particularly wrong when it is done as a “whisper campaign”.
But it is not wrong to demand that politicians take public positions on the issues of the day, and equality issues are a hot ticket in Virginia.
Compounding the problem, the 32nd Senate District seems to be a district in which pro-equality positions are not a negative. So why is Forrest campaigning on the quiet, as he seems to be?
The folks behind the whisper campaign are playing off perceived anti-gay biases among social conservative voters. That’s ugly and its wrong. However, the whisper campaign would have no power whatsoever if Forrest where open about where he stands on the issues.
If Forrest were open about his positions on the issues, then his orientation would not be relevant except to two blocks of voters: (1) voters who believe that gays and lesbians are disqualified from public office ipso facto; and (2) voters who believe that all gays and lesbians are sleeper agents of a homosexual cabal that is bound and determined to destroy civilization as we know it, and will vote lockstep no matter what positions they take in public. In the 32nd Senate District, those folks can probably be counted on a couple of sets of hands and feet.
Voters have a right to know where politicians stand on issues. The press should be asking Forrest: “Where do you stand?” That is what will probably get lost in the mud-fight now going on, and that’s a shame.
posted by BobN on
Am I going to break from the party on certain positions? I imagine so if it’s not a pro-Northern Virginia position they’re taking.
Sure sounds to me like he’s laying one of those “I vote how my district feels” foundations.
This strikes me as a case of the Victory Fund wasting money. I assume they’re supporting both candidates, burning money against themselves. If they’re supporting him and not his opponent, then they really are bending waaaay too far backwards.
I can see the utility of pointing out that they will support pro-gay GOP candidates, but he doesn’t strike me as one of those… yet. The ball is in his court (and I don’t think he’s gonna play it).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It took me about two minutes to find out where Holland (the incumbent Democrat) stands on these issues (she’s staunchly pro-equality).
Of course. That’s why she’s running a smear campaign to tell people that gays and lesbians are not fit to serve in public office. She’s making it clear that gays and lesbians are inferior in the Obama Party’s eyes, and that they should just all shut up and stay on the plantation where they belong.
Sort of like how Tom Scharbach’s supposedly “pro-female” candidate whose campaign he managed screamed that he wanted to “smack around” and punish a woman who dared talk back to him and question him.
And given that the LGBT community’s leadership and LGBT DNC staffers are on record as saying that supporting Federal bans on gay-sex marriage is pro-“equality”, what becomes obvious very quickly is that Tom Scharbach will deem whatever Holland does as “pro-equality” simply because of her political affiliation.
But then again, Tom Scharbach is an Obama Party staffer whose position is contingent on his holding absolute fealty to Obama Party candidates, and thus is not capable of honestly evaluating a Republican’s qualifications.
posted by Jorge on
Must you post four volumnous indignations at once? To make matters worse, they all say the same thing.
One’s problematic enough as it is; you never post anything else. And they all tend to say the same thing, too.
posted by Jorge on
I think Tom raises a lot of the right questions.
To quote Linda Cahill’s famous last words of the Kerry campaign, I think it’s an acknowledged fact, he seems to be very proud and open about his sexuality. I think it’s fair game and I think he has been treated very respectfully.
Okay, I can’t honestly say the “very respectfully” part even in jest.
We have openly gay people in this country who supported DADT and opposed gay marriage. There are far more who oppose liberal laundry lists of protected classes in employment nondiscrimination and hate crime laws, the sexual liberation counterculture, and the transgender rights movement.
The real issue is whether or not Republican voters are bigots against gay people, period, in the same way some Republican voters are bigots against Mormons, period. The answer is the same.
posted by Lymis on
Please.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. The man is, at least in some circles, which include print interviews, openly gay.
The only reason that being known to be gay is an issue with Republican voters, all other stands being equal, is if they are anti-gay bigots themselves, so the only reason he would want to hide it from them is because he knows that.
Why Democrats are supposed to pander to Republican sensibilities about their own candidate on an issue that they don’t feel the same way is a pretty big mystery to me.
If he’s okay with being gay, he can’t have an issue with it being openly discussed. If he’s not okay with being gay, then he’s either withholding his pro-gay stance on issues from his potential constituents, or he is anti-gay, in which case people who might choose to vote for him because he is gay need to know that.
If this were one of those very rare situations where a closeted pro-gay Republican was running against an anti-gay Democrat, I could see the gay community quietly hiding it. In this case, not so much.
posted by another steve on
Please, yourself.
Why Democrats are supposed to pander to Republican sensibilities about their own candidate on an issue that they don’t feel the same way is a pretty big mystery to me. . . .If he’s okay with being gay, he can’t have an issue with it being openly discussed.
Just a bit disingenuous. The Washington Blade reports that the Howell campaign volunteer is heard exclaiming: “What my campaign is saying is here’s your Republican candidate. He’s a homosexual. Why would you want to vote for someone who’s a homosexual and is going to push his agenda in your schools?”
Is the accusation “a homosexual …push[ing] his agenda in your schools” just the Democrats being upfront about the GOP candidate being gay? I mean, what exactly would a Democrat need to do to get you to criticize the party of the left?
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. Yes, homophobia in a campaign is wrong (no party if its from a Democrat, Republican, Independent or third party candidate). I am not sure how one can seriously argue otherwise. However, their are a few other points that I would disagree (from the gay Republicans here). I would say a similar thing about racism, sexism, the ‘Birther’ issue being a more recent example.
1a. America is a ‘weak’ two-party system (some argue cartel, but that is a separate issue). It is a fair question to wonder if this is a endorsed reflection of most Democrats (or Republicans for that matter, if the situation was the reverse) in Virginia or just the acts of the candidate and or some of his staff.
1b. If a candidate is indeed openly gay, pointing it out is not automatically homophobic. I can agree that forced “outings” are generally cruel and counterproductive, but I also dislike (I am a wee bit younger then some people here, maybes its a generational thing) the double standard that exists when talking about celebrities or public figures “private life” (when they are gay or bisexual)…especially if the candidate is openly gay.
1c. It might be more interesting to look at whether or not openly gay candidates can win in Virginia. If this Republican the first openly gay legislative candidate in Virginia (major or minor party or Independent)? If not, what do some of the previous candidates have to say?
1d. My initial gut feeling is that both major parties in Virgina probably feel more pressure to run to the right on issues like gay rights, then say other States. Dude, if you only have two choices on the ballot this can really be a bummer.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If a candidate is indeed openly gay, pointing it out is not automatically homophobic. – ThomasJeffersonIII
If he’s okay with being gay, he can’t have an issue with it being openly discussed. If he’s not okay with being gay, then he’s either withholding his pro-gay stance on issues from his potential constituents, or he is anti-gay, in which case people who might choose to vote for him because he is gay need to know that. – Lymis
I don’t see how saying someone is gay is an insult or mean or nasty if they are actually gay. – Houndentenor
Now, the theme here is very clear: these three Obama Party supporters and endorsers are very clearly trying to shift the blame onto the Republican, claim that he’s anti-gay, closeted, etc.
Perhaps they ought to look at what their Obama Party and their Obama Party candidate are actually saying:
“What my campaign is saying is here’s your Republican candidate. He’s a homosexual. Why would you want to vote for someone who’s a homosexual and is going to push his agenda in your schools?”.
I leave to the reader’s imagination – or more precisely, to any reader who has had more than passing experience with these three commenters – the epic meltdown, cries of homophobia, demands for condemnation and denunciation, handwringing about irrelevant issues, and the like that would take place were the party affiliations reversed and that HAVE taken place in the past when the opportunity existed for these commenters to attack Republicans, Jews, and Christians over such words.
posted by Houndentenor on
Actually right now the mayor of Houston (who happens to be a lesbian) is running for re=election and the Christianists are having a hissy fit down here. Too bad for them they mostly live in the ‘burbs and don’t get to vote for mayor in the city where they work but don’t live. But they are pretty vocal about wanting to remove her from office only because she’s gay.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Which is totally fine, Houndentenor, because you are supporting and endorsing your Obama Party telling voters that they shouldn’t vote for someone because that person is gay.
You couldn’t be more hypocritical if you tried with that one. Perhaps if you weren’t such an anti-Christian bigot, you wouldn’t make that sort of dumb mistake.
posted by Houndentenor on
I never endorsed anything. If he’s gay, then that’s a fact. I suspect that in 2011 trying to make that into a smear is going to blow up in your face whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. It’s not doing much to hurt Annise Parker in Houston right now, in spite of dozens of fundamentalist churches preaching sermons against her this morning. I’m an anti-Christian bigot? That would come as a big surprise at the folks I went to church with this morning. What I am is critical of religious practices with which I disagree. Those churches have no problem criticizing other denominations and religions. Fair is fair.
posted by Jorge on
I cannot agree with that.
I’m perfectly uncomfortable with being openly gay at, for example, work. Yeah, I’m gay and so on and so forth. But I don’t want people to come to me about the strange whispers people are making about me–I don’t want to hear them at all. I don’t want to do an explain-fest to people I barely know or people who are opposite to me on the matter when I have to work with them every day, and it’s certainly nobody’s business to tell me that I should have to do so on demand to fit some alien notion of what it means to be out and proud.
So yes, I’ll accept your logical conclusion in all its insane-sounding glory: Democrats do need to pander Republican sensibilities about their own candidate on an issue they don’t feel the same way on. It’s about respecting how Republicans discuss and address matters within their own communities. It’s a matter of respect for something that is none of their business.
But since this is politics we’re talking about, it’s “fair game”.
posted by Jorge on
That was directed toward Lymis.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. I am not a member of “Obama Party”. I agree with what some of the Democrats and Republicans in office do and I disagree with some of the stuff in (both parties) do. Frankly, I do like a lot of what two GOP presidential candidates have said; only is openly gay and the other was the former NM Governor. But not everything.
2. Again, America operates under a “weak” party system, which means that that the actions by this particular Democratic Party candidate may or may not be a reflection of the party itself (at the local, state and federal level). In case you did not know, when I use the term “weak” I refer to level of major party (internal) discipline,
uniformity and cohesion. This is how it is possible for members of the same party (at different levels or with different people) to have very different policies with regards to gay rights.
In contrast, to say the UK (God, their is this hot London boy in my history class who has the sexist accent), the national party has much, much more control over all the candidates that run under its banner and all its party chapters.
3. I am not shifting “blame” (which implies that their is something wrong with being gay or a gay Republican. Honey, maybe, its because I am in college, but I had some…good times with some young Republicans.).
If a candidate is openly gay, then pointing it out is not necessarily homophobic. Anymore then pointing out that a candidate is heterosexual or bisexual. If the candidate is in the closet, then yeah it is probably homophobic. I do not like to out people before they are ready (unless they break my heart by sleeping with someone in a band….but I digress)
If the only thing that a candidate or his opponent (or opponents) can talk about is their sexual orientation or that of their opponent(s), then it may not be bigotry as much as being incredible lazy. Has the Democrat made may statements on gay rights, has the Republican candidate? What about the Independent or minor party candidates in this Virginia race?
posted by Hunter on
The reports seem to accept that Howell’s campaign, or at least some of its workers, are using Forrest’s sexual orientation as a scare tactic, which we’re more used to seeing from the other side. Either way, it’s reprehensible, and Howell should condemn it in the strongest possible terms. If she doesn’t, then she’s complicit. (Pretending it didn’t happen on the basis of — well, no evidence, really — isn’t going to cut it.)
On another note:
“Democrats, of course, put the interest of their party first.”
This is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen here. I’m not sure it was unintentional — can anyone be that clueless? If it’s satire, it’s brilliant.
posted by Stephen Chiller on
Wow, Stephen Miller!
How is it your writings always seem to bring out the freaks and geeks. What a hotbed of cruel and unusual psychiatric disorders you seem to bring out in people. No wonder this IGF site is limited to the same small band of posters, deriving twisted joy out of loving the hate. How so typical and banal. Now it’s off to mani-pedi to bathe in luxury. People, get over it and get a life.
posted by Jorge on
Methinks people shouldn’t pluck splinters out of other people’s eyes when they got wooden beams in their own.
posted by dc on
Well said Steve Chiller. I used to look at this site regularly, but it is now so stupid (and the people are so desperate) it’s unbearable.