• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « GNW 5: Pregnant trans man tells story | Main | Where's the 'sharp contrast'? »

    March 22, 2008

    The gay case for McCain

    Posted by: Chris

    Mccainfalwell Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic is making the case that John McCain wouldn't be "so bad" for gay voters, no matter who the Democrats nominate. I've known and respected Jamie for years and published his columns in the Blade when he was still a student at Yale, but he's trying way too hard here.

    Much of what he argues will sound familiar to those who remember the Log Cabin Republicans' spirited defense of the Arizona senator, especially his "courageous" opposition to a federal marriage amendment, Let's remember that McCain attacked the measure as "un-Republican" because it violated states' rights -- a principle with a dubious civil rights history -- and not because it wrote intolerance into the U.S. Constitution.

    Jamie tries papering over McCain's unprincipled flip-flop on Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" who had no place in the GOP. "Sure, McCain spoke at Falwell's Liberty University in 2006," he writes, "but he didn't pander." Oh really? Well it was certainly no random graduation appearance:

    McCain's appearance came eight months after the founder of the Moral Majority visited him at his Senate office in what both men said was an effort to put their contentious past behind them. This weekend, Falwell rolled out the red carpet for his old adversary, assembling about 150 church leaders from around the country for a Friday night reception and later hosting a small, private dinner for the senator.

    This was purely politics, breaking bread with the conservative leader he once called "evil." Asked on "Meet The Press" last year whether he still believed Falwell was an "agent of intolerance," McCain said: "No, I don’t. I think that Jerry Falwell can explain to you his views on this program when you have him on."

    Jamie imagines that McCain's supposed hostility toward the religious right -- certainly kept well-disguised in recent years -- means he won't "feel the need to appease the anti-gay wing of his party." And yet there he was in 2006, endorsing Arizona's draconian anti-gay ballot measure, which not only banned gay marriage but also civil unions and limited domestic partnerships.

    Kirchick tries to excuse McCain's support for the Arizona measure -- historic for being the only gay marriage initiative rejected by voters -- by reminding us that John Kerry had also backed state amendments banning gay marriage. Then again, Kerry was one of a handful of senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, supported civil unions including federal recognition, not to mention ENDA, hate crimes and repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." And last I checked, Kerry was the Democrats' nominee in 2004, not 2008, and both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on record opposing even limited state marriage amendments, much less Arizona's bigoted overreach.

    Kirchick cites several examples of McCain's personal comfort around gay people, and no doubt that's correct. But we've been here before, haven't we? Those who knew George W. Bush were universal in praising his comfort with gay people, in and out of politics, and yet look where it got us. Since when is the absence of personal discomfort in the presence of homosexuals somehow a qualification for the presidency?

    Whatever gay Republicans and libertarians may think of McCain's views outside the realm of civil rights, the unmistakable reality is this: McCain's hostility to absolutely any form of legal protection whatsoever for gay relationships is consistent with his opposition to absolutely any form of protection for gays individually. That includes workplace protection, service in the military and even hate crime laws.

    McCain's gay allies may be relieved that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee didn't win the GOP nomination, but McCain's political record remains one of ardent gay rights opposition -- worse even that George W. Bush when he ran in 2000. This is progress?

    (Photo of McCain and Falwell via New York Times)

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e5516751218833

    Comments

    1. Lucrece on Mar 22, 2008 1:02:21 PM:

      Alex Blaze made a similar evaluation.

      It's just amusing how people will put partisanship over their community.

    1. BB on Mar 22, 2008 3:11:50 PM:

      OH how I HATE how the gay Republicans DON'T LEARN. With McCain there will be 4 or 8 years of NO progress for the gay community, but there will be possible backtracking. He will NOT be advocating for us, from the White House, as Obama advocates for us now.

      The Congress will surely gain more Democrats this election, but who knows what may happen to cause the Republicans to gain power again, in 2010? People are fickle. THEN we will be back to the gay marriage amendment AGAIN. McCain, to get reelected, will not want to upset the so called "christian" wing nuts. He will sign if it is passed. Obama would veto, and Obama has promised to push to end Don't Ask, and to repeal DOMA. No such push will happen with McCain. On the contrary, If the Democratic controlled Congress gets the balls (on their own) to repeal Doma, McCain WILL veto.

      McCain will surely be appointing at least one more Supreme Court Judge, as well as make Judicial appointments throughout the land. That will NOT be good for the gay community, for he will pick to PLEASE the so called "christian" wing nuts, as Bush has. OR the Party will COME DOWN ON HIM, big time. As they did with Bush, over Harriet Miers. McCain's so called "Maverick days" will be OVER.

      When gay people have equal rights and equal protections, THEN vote Republican, if so inclined. Perhaps "Republican" will have then returned to being about "supposed" fiscal responsibility. How anyone could think McCain could be fiscally responsible, the way he has MISMANAGED money during this campaign, is beyond me. OR, "Republican" will perhaps return to being about "supposed" State rights, and small Govt. Right now "Republican" means antigay, for that is the glue that holds them together, and gets the votes from the so called "christian" wing nuts. AND, it is about BIG BROTHER Govt. And fiscal irresponsibility. And they are ONLY for States Rights, if they agree. For example, gay marriage in Mass (don't agree) and better emissions standards in CA (don't agree). AND they think they can stick their noses in marriages, (i.e. Terry Schiavo). While pretending to be wanting to SAVE the sanctity of marriage, as they whisper sweet nothings in their mistresses ears.

    1. Lucrece on Mar 22, 2008 5:52:47 PM:

      I wouldn't bother trying to argue with such lot, BB; they've rationalized it beyond return.

      The only thing that irks me is that the progress we make-- and we will-- they will enjoy, too. What I'd do to exclude this group of people from riding the coattails of Democratic gays doing all the grunt work for legal equality.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 22, 2008 11:43:41 PM:

      Such as this, Lucrece?

      What that makes clear is that gay Democrats and liberals have ZERO problem with supporting the FMA as long as someone is a Democrat.

      Nor do they have, as Jamie pointed out, any qualms about pumping millions of dollars to candidates like Kerry who support state constitutional amendments as long as they are Democrats.

      And amusingly enough, Lucrece's own statement reveals the reality:

      The only thing that irks me is that the progress we make-- and we will-- they will enjoy, too.

      In other words, despite millions of dollars and complete and utter servitude......they haven't made any progress.

      Probably because, as I pointed out, gay Democrats like Lucrece and BB don't have any problems with marriage amendments and whatnot; they just hate Republicans and Christians.

      A political philosophy that involves spewing hate at half the electorate because of their political affiliation and over three-quarters of it because of their religious affiliation is bound to failure -- and, as the existing marriage amendments and laws of the vast and overwhelming majority of states show, it has.

      Perhaps it's time for gay and lesbian Americans to start thinking like Americans, rather than pushing the argument that their sexual orientation requires them to vote Democrat regardless of what or how Democrats behave.

    1. Brian Miller on Mar 23, 2008 5:01:42 AM:

      Chris:

      Your guy Obama's affiliation with McClurkin mirrors Falwell's relationship with McCain almost to the letter -- you can hardly criticize McCain for accepting the endorsement of forces of homophobic religious intolerance when your own guy has pretty much done the same thing.

      As for support for the local state DOMA law, John Kerry was (need I remind you) an advocate for the Missouri DOMA law (as well as an opponent of marriage equality in Massachusetts) -- yet none of McCain's critics would have abided similar criticism of John Kerry in 2004.

      The reality is that there's not much difference between the old parties' three major candidates in this election when looking at the legislative record on LGBT issues. All three of them are triangulators and prevaricators on the issues that matter to gay people, and LGBT people should expect more of the same if any of those three take office in January of 2009.

    1. BB on Mar 23, 2008 10:07:34 AM:

      North Dallas and Brian, WTF? A gay person needs to look not at which Party is PERFECT for them, for that would be neither. BUT, which is MORE perfect for them? The DEMOCRATS prevented the gay marriage amendment. ONLY a handful of Republicans came on board with the Democrats. And ONLY a handful of Democrats went to the side of the Republicans. The DEMOCRATIC Presidential candidates ALL participated in the LOGO LGBT debate. NO Republicans. We go IGNORED, and spit upon by them. The need of a Republican Presidential candidate is to prove which is the MOST antigay. Obama has been speaking out on behalf of the gay community for YEARS, when it does not benefit him to. YES, at the event where McClurkin sang, Obama denounced homophobia. He again denounced it at a Black Church, on MLK's Day. Falwell said god allowed 9/11 to happen because god hated us gays being here in America. Other WHITE ministers said the same. I believe Pat Robertson was one. Has McCain denounced such HARMFUL stupidity?

      Al Gore has come out for gay marriage. the GRAND Elizabeth Edwards has come out for gay marriage. If John Edwards is chosen as Obama's VP, and they win, THEN Elizabeth will have the spot light on her to continue with her advocacy on our behalf. Advocacy for the gay community from a McCain Administration? Don't hold your breath.

      Tipper Gore has LONG been a GREAT friend to the gay community, and joyfully played the drums for us, in the gay Millennium concert. There are several Democratic Senators who support gay marriage. Kennedy and Feingold, to name two. Republicans? Don't think so. PROGRESSIVE thinkers are in the Democratic Party, thus moving the Party, as a whole, into progressiveness. The Republican Party is still having trouble acknowledging that global warming is an actuality, and some are still pouting that they can't impose Christianity upon children, in public schools, and decorate Federal Court houses with Christian paraphernalia. I'm assuming Huckabee thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, 'cause the bible tells him so.

      We can feel SAFE that the Democrats, as a whole, are much more understanding of the separation of Church and State, and of the ideal that ALL are equal in the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I can't feel safe that most Republicans understand those things to the degree that the less understanding Democrat does.


      Federal Supreme Court Judges, and other Judicial appointments are SO important to the gay community as they fight for equality throughout the land. The Supreme Court, 12 years ago or so, ENDED the ridiculous antigay Sodomy laws, and ruled that what goes on between 2 consenting adults is NOT the business of the Govt. Many Republicans are STILL pouting about that. We have experienced the ways in which Bush sought to make the Judiciary System an extension of HIM, and the radical Republicans. Will the gay community have better luck with judges appointed by Obama, or McCain? The answer, I believe, is self-evident. McCain MUST please the Republican Party, as Bush had to. And the goal of the Republican Party, as a whole, is antigay. NOT pro-gay.

      And KERRY? Is HE running for President? NO! Anti-Doma, anti-gay marriage amendment, anti-Don't ASK Obama is. Catch up.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 23, 2008 2:24:45 PM:

      Of course you go ignored, BB; why should the Republicans bother, when your hypocrisy is so painfully obvious?

      They know full well you endorse FMA supporters. They know full well you endorse and give millions of dollars to state constitutional amendment supporters. They know full well you endorse and support those who pander to the religious right ministers you claim to hate, both white (Howard Dean on The 700 Club) and black (Donnie McClurkin, Louis Farrakhan).

      Now, if you demonstrated that you hold people accountable for what they do, not for their party affiliation, you might have a point. But, simply put, you don't.

    1. BB on Mar 23, 2008 4:46:41 PM:

      North Dallas, YOU, who do not know me, have not met me, are telling ME who and what I support and give money to. INTERESTING! NONE of which is true. I will be sending money directly to the Obama campaign, if he is the one. NONE to Hillary, if she is the one. AND, Obama will use my money for his campaign. However bad or hypocritical you want to present the Democratic Party as being, I assure you the Republican Party is 10 times worse. BUT you don't call them out on THEIR hypocrisy and their behind the scenes shenanigans. I understand. You'd get carpal tunnel trying to list it all.

      I wrote that NEITHER Party is perfect, so it is INTERESTING that you responded as if I had written that the Democratic Party is perfect, and you are presenting why that is not so. ?? The Democratic Party is BETTER for the gay community. We have ADVOCATES for us, in the Party. Some I previously listed. There are more. That ONE thing puts the Democratic Party far out front of the Republicans, for us. Progress is happening more for the gays in States that are BLUE (Democratic). Not happening in those RED States. The gay community can feel SAFE with very pro-gay Pelosi at the helm, rather than HASTERT. We can feel SAFER with anti-marriage amendment Reid at the helm, rather than FRIST. The gay community can feel SAFE with Obama in the White House, rather than McCain.

      Pelosi, Reid and Obama will keep the religious crazies at bay. Some of those crazies, if they had their way, would build prisons for us. Some, I'm sure, appreciate how Iran deals with it's gays. The Republicans NEED the votes of the religious crazies. If Obama wins, and the Democrats retain control throughout his Presidency and beyond, the gay community can feel VERY VERY safe, as we proceed ahead. Public opinion is moving in the direction of fairness for the gay community. The Republicans know that, and many are DESPERATE to prevent that, however they can. Supreme Court judges being one way. The marriage amendment, another.

      REMEMBER, the REPUBLICAN Sally Kern referred to us as a cancer worse than terrorists. Do I believe she is the ONLY Republican who feels this way? LOL What must one do with cancer? Get rid of it, if they can. What must our Nation do with terrorists? KILL THEM. So the REPUBLICAN Sally just told people to get rid of and KILL gays. And then there is Hannity, and Limbaugh, and Buchanan (just to name 3 more REPUBLICANS) who are such outspoken supporters of the gay community...NOT. So PRETEND, if you must.

    1. Stephen H. Miller on Mar 23, 2008 5:04:13 PM:

      As Kirchik says, McCain is not a homophobe and at a gut level he's repelled by the intolerance of the religious right. But he's no supporter of gay legal equality, either. While the situation for gay Americans would continue to improve under a President McCain, progress would not be driven from the White House.

      If you have reason to believe that a President Obama would allow Iraq to become an Al-Qaeda base, strangle free trade, hike taxes up the gazoo for anyone earning over $31,000 (which will happen when the Bush tax cuts expire) while allowing a Democratic Congress to spend us into stagflation (ok, Bush has pretty much allowed that already, but it could get even worse, really), then it's not self-loathing for gays to support McCain.

      On the other hand, if you think rhetorical expressions of support for gays overrides all other issues, then clearly McCain is never going to please.

    1. Lucrece on Mar 23, 2008 6:11:23 PM:

      BB, ignoring NDT might save you some wasted time, especially when he keeps pulling his old link to Kerry's support of marriage amendments while completely overlooking the proportion of anti-gay legislation and sentiment initiatives between the GOP and Democrats, not to mention always keeping the discussion on a federal level, never on a state level. Really, he probably mocks Perez Hilton, but he's of the same vein in just a different manner; it's all about the shock value.

      An argument with him is an argument with a million and one strawmans. After all, here's a person who gloats in his own blog about being blocked from various liberal blogs.I have better sources of amusement; I'm sure you do, too.

    1. Lucrece on Mar 23, 2008 6:18:32 PM:

      Stephen- Will you ever get tired of this whole "Gay Democrats are single-issue voters" silly mantra?

      Furthermore, I'd like you to clarify. Where would this progress come from, if not from the White House? Would it be from a Democratic Congress getting enough votes to override his obvious veto for LGBT-pertinent legislation? I would find that highly unlikely. A main reason why we haven't made solid progress on a federal level is because we cannot face the sure veto from Bush; I'm pretty sure McCain won't be any different.

    1. BB on Mar 23, 2008 7:45:17 PM:

      Thanks Lucrece. It seems that some don't see that 1 + 1 = 2. North Dallas seems to see that 1 +1 = 0. To NOT see a difference between the general attitude of the Democrats towards the gay community, and the general attitude of the Republican towards the gay community, makes one wonder where the underground hole is that people like North Dallas have been living, and just emerged from.

      And Stephen with his FEAR mongering of how it could be with Obama as President. I'm surprised he did not predict war between England and France. The giving back of the American Lands to the Indians. And all the birds will begin to attack, like in the Hitchcock movie. But ALL will be rosy and well with McCain as President.

      The President does more than propose legislation, and veto, and make decisions. He sets the TONE of the Nation. He sets the tone as to whether homophobia and gay bashing (verbal or otherwise) is acceptable or not acceptable. Bush set the tone that it was acceptable, for we are not equal beings. We are these annoying, pesky THINGS daring for equality, and MUST be stopped. We are a "problem" that must be dealt with. Rather like a ROACH wanting to be treated as a human being. McCain will NOT change that tone, for it would be RISKY to do so, if he even wanted to, which I doubt. So it will continue on.

      Sally Kern, I believe, reflects the general attitude of the Republican Party towards the gay community, and I'm so glad that got recorded and released, for ALL to hear. It is reminiscent of Hitler telling Germany that the JEWS were the problem to their society.

      I am almost a one issue person, for I know that, generally speaking, people who are supportive of the gay community are just all around better people. More loving, and accepting, and inclusive. More open minded. More receptive. More embracing of humanity. AND that will show up in other areas of their lives in how they view things and make decisions. Those who are not supportive of the gay community are closed off, closed minded, rejecting, mentally and emotionally rigid, unreceptive, more judgmental in general. SO a gay supportive person will generally make for an all around better person for dealing with all other issues. AND, when you add to that the great INTELLIGENCE and thoughtfuflness of Obama. YES!!!!!!!!

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 24, 2008 1:24:11 AM:

      I have seen the attitude of the Democrats, BB, right here.

      And more importantly, I have seen the attitude of gay Democrats like yourself, who fully endorse and support this, no matter how hypocritical it makes them.

      Meanwhile, the irony of your last paragraph is the fact that, while you claim to be open-minded and tolerant, you are in fact stereotyping others. Add to that the amusing twist of your accusing Stephen Miller of being a "fear-monger" while your fellow gay Democrats insist that there are gay "internment camps" in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and it just makes matters better.

    1. David on Mar 24, 2008 9:23:18 AM:

      NDT is the equivalent of a gay Ann Coulter.

    1. Lucrece on Mar 24, 2008 9:56:02 AM:

      Shh, David, you might just give away your "gay Democrat attitude" away for Cleopatra to start ranting about again.

    1. Lucrece on Mar 24, 2008 9:57:37 AM:

      Ugh, talk about redundancy, where's my Edit button? *sadface*

    1. BB on Mar 24, 2008 2:51:12 PM:

      North Dallas, the article said that there were internment camps in those States being refurbished. The question was WHY? They were not called, in the article, "gay" internment camps. BUT a gay person, looking at what was going on around him, wondered WHY and for whom were they being refurbished. Sally Kern is one Republican who would like them to be for us. AND if we do not have protection from the Sally Kerns in this country, then what might they do if they could get away with it? What might Rev. Phelps do with us if he could get away with it?

      The BEST thing that happened to America during these horrid Bush years, is that his war in Iraq was such a FAILURE. If it had been a success, we would have been doomed. We, the gay people would have been doomed, and we, America. NOW there is hope for both. If it had been a success there would be MORE Republicans in Congress, rather than less. AND Heir Bush definitely could not be questioned or opposed. The FAILURE of the war caused many Americans, who were in a pseudo-patriotic stupor, to WAKE UP. Then it became okay to criticize and question the President. without being metaphorically stoned. Joe Wilson and the Dixie Chicks come to mind as being stoned. A couple were arrested for wearing a Kerry t-shirt, at a Bush rally. A woman was fired for having a kerry sticker on her car. Protesters were not allowed anywhere near a Bush rally. They were kept, out of sight. Away from the cameras. And on and on and on it went.

      9/11 gave great popularity to the President because so many people went into anger and fear. They wanted blood. They wanted us to go "get them", and if Bush said we needed to "get them" in Iraq, then, by gosh, let's go "get them". Now more people realize that you do not go to war, willy nilly. You go to war THOUGHTFULLY, reluctantly, and ONLY when you have to. But before sanity broke out in America, whoever questioned or disagreed with Heir Bush were targeted as being PRO-TERRORISTS. ANTI-AMERICAN. TRAITORS. It was a SCARY time. The public's fear and anger allowed Bush to take us into a war that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and all in the Bush Administration knew that. AND they knew that it was NOT certain that Iraq posed a threat. The U.N. Inspectors were finding nothing threatening. But those Countries who disagreed with Bush (France and Germany) were treated as irrelevant scum and Heir Bush had his Iraq war.

      During that war our civil liberties became chiseled away at. Habeas Corpus, the corner stone of a civilized Country, became not there when Heir Bush deemed that be so. The Republican Congress became owned by Bush. The Judiciary System became owned by Bush. WE became TORTURES. Big Brother Govt. greatly began taking over. AND, what next? When a horrid person gains the support of the majority, and all branches of the Govt. become under the will of that horrid person, (let's use HITLER as an example) then anything can happen. And those who try to stop anything from happening get squashed, like a bug. Putin is a modern example of that. Criticize him, and be jailed or poisoned. It was a SCARY time, in America. BUT thanks to the failure of his war, and the uncovering of Bush's deceptiveness, arrogance, untrustworthiness, ineptness and idiocy, it is a LESS scary time.

    1. Stephen H Miller on Mar 24, 2008 2:52:20 PM:

      A main reason why we haven't made solid progress on a federal level is because we cannot face the sure veto from Bush; I'm pretty sure McCain won't be any different.

      Oh, please. Under President Bill and a Democratic Congress, where was ENDA, immigration, etc.? Under the current Democratic Congress, where is the Senate version of ENDA? As for a Bush veto, if the Senate had passed ENDA last year of even in January, there is at least some possibility Bush might have signed it. By waiting to just before the election, when Bush has to worry about angering social conservative voters, there is no chance he'll sign it. So, who is playing politics here with gay rights?

      But I suppose you may have a point. Most gay activists are not single-issue advocates. It's also important to them that the whole bigger-government "progressive" agenda get passed (and in this, gay rights often takes a distinctly back seat). I should have clarified that.

    1. BB on Mar 24, 2008 6:06:58 PM:

      Stephen, during the Clinton years he made it unacceptable, on the federal level, to discriminate against gays in hiring. It was not a law, for it was a law the Republicans would not pass. BUT it was something Clinton could do, as President, on a Federal level. It is not something a President can DECREE on a National level. When Bush became President, he chose to let it be acceptable to discriminate against gays, on a Federal level. And, SO, you think that Bush would NOT veto such a law, if it were passed, at ANY time? REALLY? Stay away from the glue fumes.

      ENDA will pass when there are enough DEMOCRATS to pass it, keeping in mind that some Southern Democrats (in particular) are homophobic as well. Most Democrats are not, but some are. SO we can't count on them all. There are still TOO many Republicans in Congress, who are mostly ALL homophobic. BUT, that should change NICELY in November. THEN, with Obama OR Clinton, who DEFINITELY will not veto ENDA, the Democrats most likely will go for it. Times have changed. Public opinion about gays has changed, for the better, in many areas of the Country, but NOT all. BUT, overall, it is looking better. Most Democrats want to move with that change in public opinion. Most Republicans want to fight against that change, and reverse it.

      Now, what other Republican propaganda and SPIN did you post? Oh yeah, you used "progressive" as it is a ugly word. If you look in the dictionary you will find that both progressive and liberal are truly LOVELY words. I understand why Republicans particularly hate the word liberal though. It means to NOT be a bigot, and to be open minded. OH how most Republicans love being bigots and closed minded. Two of their favorite things. And If bigger government is a problem to you....OHHHHHH how you must hate Bush and the Republicans. Findings show that, NOT COUNTING his costly, yet paid for war and home land security, his Big Government grew more than during the past 30 years. A 33% increase during his first 4 years. I’m sure it has increased more during his second term. NOT counting, remember, his incredibly expensive, unpaid for FOLLY in Iraq. SO hypocrisy.....much?

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 24, 2008 8:21:03 PM:

      Stephen, during the Clinton years he made it unacceptable, on the federal level, to discriminate against gays in hiring. It was not a law, for it was a law the Republicans would not pass. BUT it was something Clinton could do, as President, on a Federal level. It is not something a President can DECREE on a National level. When Bush became President, he chose to let it be acceptable to discriminate against gays, on a Federal level.

      Oh really?

      The White House issued a statement on March 31 declaring that federal government policy “prohibits discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation” and President Bush “expects federal agencies to enforce this policy.”

      Going into the numerous Bush appointees who have been gay would be sticking the knife in and twisting.

      Meanwhile, I found this fascinating.

      North Dallas, the article said that there were internment camps in those States being refurbished. The question was WHY? They were not called, in the article, "gay" internment camps. BUT a gay person, looking at what was going on around him, wondered WHY and for whom were they being refurbished.

      Why he would be upset about things for which he could provide no evidence of their existence, I have no idea.

      And furthermore, what we should remember is that the Democrat Party is currently under a lawsuit itself for its blatant firing of individuals based on their sexual orientation, in which several DNC officials have been caught making false statements and covering up their general disdain towards gay and lesbian people. I can see why they would be pushing "internment camps" and comparisons to Hitler to their gullible gay donors and supporters.

    1. Lucrece on Mar 24, 2008 10:20:03 PM:

      "Oh, please. Under President Bill and a Democratic Congress, where was ENDA, immigration, etc.? Under the current Democratic Congress, where is the Senate version of ENDA? As for a Bush veto, if the Senate had passed ENDA last year of even in January, there is at least some possibility Bush might have signed it. By waiting to just before the election, when Bush has to worry about angering social conservative voters, there is no chance he'll sign it. So, who is playing politics here with gay rights?"

      How about we argue the current situation, where we DO have the votes to put the Matthew Sheppard bill in front of Bush, which he threatened to veto? We can dwell on the past all we want, about Clinton's piss poor efforts (if there were any) to live up to his promises. Let's not mention that at the time, these bills did not carry the support they currently see. It's obvious Bush won't sign the ENDA bill; he would surely have invoke the "threat" of limiting religious expression that he invoked for the hate crimes bill.

      Furthermore, I'm appalled to say the least as to how you give him a pass on not doing the right thing because of his fear of social conservatives. With that kind of attitude, I don't see the GOP taking the turn so many gay Republicans dream of in the near future. Clinton was a coward who sold us out for political expediency; why should we not hold Bush's actions to the same standard?

    1. BB on Mar 25, 2008 12:16:25 AM:

      North Dallas, you wrote (about the internment camps);

      "Why he would be upset about things for which he could provide no evidence of their existence, I have no idea."

      MILLIONS of Americans emotionally react with fear to a GOD that there is NO evidence of actually existing? And with that example of how people can be, you have NO idea why someone who heard of refurbished internment camps might go into FEAR as to WHY? REALLY? Little ol' you just can't imagine such a thing? Well, I do declare.

      I will not even bother to google around to see if there are or are not internment camps being refurbished. The gay people I know have NEVER spoken of such things, so it is not a gay mainstream sort of thing. It’s conversation in YOUR circles. BUT, there HAVE been internment camps in America. The Japanese Americans during WW2 can attest to that. Was Bush SECRETLY making ready, in case he decided to round up the Muslims in America? I have NO idea. All I know is that MILLIONS believe a god is gonna "get them" and "get America" if he becomes displeased, and Phelps (and others) are out hating gays, in the name of God, And there is NO evidence of a god (because there is no god). BUT, you get all sanctimonious and pretend that you just can not imagine someone reacting to something that they FEAR might be true, but have no evidence of. VERY interesting. Why does the politics of fear work? You TRULY have no understanding of the POWER of fear? We BELIEVE our fears, when we feel them.

      You are right about ONE thing. I did find that Bush DID keep it as Clinton had made it, concerning no discrimination in the hiring of gay people on a Federal Level. I remember a lot of speculation going on as to whether he would turn back the clock on that. I guess I never heard what his ultimate decision was, AND I WRONGLY assumed he ultimately did not keep it as Clinton had made it, based on the fact that he is, well, he is George “marriage amendment” Bush.

    1. jordan shoes on May 24, 2010 11:10:07 PM:

      Li is typical of Chinese professional women, with a very high opinion of herself and plenty of self-confidence. She told us she “always reaches whatever goals” she sets. In her interview she gave herself a rating of ten out of ten for whatever she does. After the interview, Li sent us a supplementary, unsolicited e-mail listing no fewer than 15 of her strengths.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad