 by Michael Jensen
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 19 members and 711 guests online.
|
McCain/Palin Ticket: No Laughing Matter For Gay Community
Over the weekend, Tina Fey did a hilarious send up of Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live. And SNL hasn't been the only one poking fun at the Alaska Governor who has foreign policy experience because she can "see Russia from Alaska." But Palin's nomination and McCain's campaign aren't very funny if you are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered.
Last week Palin was interviewed by ABC's Charlie Gibson and one of the questions Gibson asked touched on gay issues. Here was the exchange:
There are a whole litany of issues with that exchange starting with Gibson's question which is, frankly, stupid. This is the one question he asks her about gay issues? Nothing about same-sex marriage or gay adoption? Most legitimate scientists agree that being gay is at the very least significantly influenced by biology with some sociological components also possibly occurring. Call me crazy, but something tells me that a woman who is open to teaching creationism in public schools probably hasn't kept up on the latest scientific literature concerning homosexuality. Thanks for the wastd opportunity, Charlie.
Sarah Palin being interviewed by Charlie Gibson So what might Palin actually do when it comes to gay issues if she gained the top spot? Well, apparently she won't "judge", especially not those who believe that "homosexuality is genetic or a choice". Call me super cynical, but I can't help but notice she doesn't actually say she doesn't judge gays and lesbians. More importantly, what of Palin's actual actions while in office thus far? The folks over at gay rightwing blog GayPatriot tout the fact that as governor, Palin vetoed a bill that would have denied equal benefits to the same-sex partners of state workers, something the court said the state couldn't do. So did Palin veto the bill because she thinks gays should have benefits in the work place? Yeah, and I'm a moose. In fact, the only reason Palin signed the veto (on which her Republican predecessor Governor Frank Murkowski had refused to act after calling the court's ruling against discrimination "shameful") was because the state attorney general told her doing otherwise would be unconstitutional. Said Palin at the time, "Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office." In fact, Palin later issued a statement saying "The governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court. It is the governor's intention to work with the Legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue." Because that's what non-judgmental folks like Palin do -- put the rights of a minority up for a public vote. What? You were expecting something from her about wanting to treat those Alaskans of "many diverse backgrounds" with some semblance of equality. R-i-i-i-ght. And I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you. Indeed, Palin promptly signed a bill allowing state legislators to hold a special session just so they could craft a bill to get around the court's ruling. (But the GayPatriot folks say her actions show we should trust her because she follows the law. I call this "spinning" or simply delusional.)
Now we've learned that Palin also tried to ban books from the Wasilla Public Library when she was on the Wasilla city council. Apparently among those books was Daddy's Roommate which Palin grew upset at when she noticed it in the library. According to The New York Times, Palin told her colleagues that it didn't belong there. When it was suggested Palin read it before trying to ban it, Palin said she didn't read that stuff. So a woman potentially one heartbeat away from the U.S. Presidency believes in doing something as drastic as banning a book without even reading it. Seems to me like Palin can't just see Russia from her doorstep, but thinks an awfully like those communist rulers from days gone by. Then there is the matter of Palin's church which recently touted an ex-gay conference they plan on holding. I guess they won't "judge" you, however they certainly are interested in changing you. But according to the GayPatrioters, this is also okay because it shows Palin doesn't want to damn us; rather, she actually cares about us. I kid you not. Said one GayPatrioter:
The "left's buddy"? O-kay. And talk about nutty! I don't want people like Palin to care about me. I want them to leave me the hell alone and stop banning gay books, signing laws restricting my rights, and supporting constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. FYI, Palin supported Alaska's 1998 amendment banning gay marriage. What a shock. (BTW, here are the thoughts of someone gay who lived in Wasilla when Palin was mayor.)
John McCain But all we really need to know about Palin and gay rights is that she was picked by John McCain, a man who has definitely not been a friend of the gay community no matter how much he and the Log Cabin Republicans like to pretend otherwise. McCain is against almost all equal benefits for same-sex couples. He opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, expanding the hate crimes act to cover sexual orientation and he supports the military's discriminatory "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy. But gay rightwingers love to tout the fact that McCain was against the Federal Marriage Amendment that would've amended the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Well, don't get too excited over that because McCain is actually a hypocrite on the topic. At the time, McCain said he was against the FMA because he believes that it should be a state issue. But that isn't what McCain really believes. He supports states right when they do what he wants -- oppose gay rights. For example, McCain opposes the California Supreme Court's decision granting same-sex marriage rights citing activist judges and community values. But didn't he say he thought the issue to be a state's right issue and isn't the California Supreme Court, well, part of that state? Then why is he supporting Proposition 8 to ban gay marriages? The word hypocrite comes to mind. And McCain isn't just against same-sex marriage; he's also against civil unions and would support a constitutional amendment if state judges got too activist and forced decent Americans to change their values.FYI, McCain also opposes gay adoption and his presidential campaign website includes protecting marriage from adding same-sex couples next to overturning Roe v. Wade and, get this, protecting children from Internet pornography and online predators.But according to the GayPatrioters, that doesn't really matter because McCain has met two gay people and treated them nicely. Maybe it's just me, but I don't find anything about a McCain/Palin administration the least bit funny. Submitted by on Mon, 2008-09-15 17:04.  Come off your high horse, MichaelSubmitted by
duckiestoy (1395 points) (309 posts) on Mon, 2008-09-15 21:42.Most legitimate scientists agree that being gay is at the very least significantly influenced by biology with some sociological components also possibly occurring. Call me crazy, but something tells me that a woman who is open to teaching creationism in public schools probably hasn't kept up on the latest scientific literature concerning homosexuality. If this were so settled as you try to claim, would there have been a need for a program like "The Making of Me - John Barrowman" (**highly recommended**) which this very website covered? In it, he looks at possible biological contributors from genes, to hormones, to *you guessed it* his home environment as well. He can only draw inferences for himself because there's so much we do not know, and frankly, there's also too much political crap around the issue of how orientation comes about although there may be multiple ways! Even the Catholic church considers homosexuality "innate" but it also distinguishes between the innate and a persons choice in actions. A lot of political gays don't like that. Her view is perfectly reasonable for a public service of a society in where modern science offers no definitive answer (just watch that Barrowman program), where some gays reject the "out loud and proud" lifestyle, many reject George Michael's "culture" of cottaging, and choose to pursue celibacy or even (horror of horrors!) heteronormative relationships. Gasp! The gay "mainstream" talks a good game about diversity and tolerance but if you're someone in the second two groups? Look out! Hey, just look how Tim Gunn was teased and repeatedly prodded in an interview, shamefully I might add, because he doesn't date anymore. Sickening "mainstream" gay attitudes made even more frustrating by the statistics that the community hasn't learned the lessons of HIV/AIDS. The community needs to GROW UP.  This was muddled in more ways than oneSubmitted by
Distingué Traces (417 points) (92 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 01:30.This was muddled in more ways than one. First of all, Michael didn't criticize Palin for saying that the origin of homosexuality has not been certainly determined -- why on earth would he, when in fact the origin of homosexuality hasn't been certainly determined. Palin gave the obvious, easy answer to a softball question. And that is what Michael criticized. Rather than question Palin on her several homophobic actions over the course of a short political career, the reporter posed a simple theoretical question with no direct relevance to her positions on partner benefits, censorship, marriage, etc. etc. And then you went off on the peculiar non sequitur of cottaging vs celibacy, and the thread of your argument became so tangled that I'm not going to attempt to pick it apart, except to say that of course both cottaging and celibacy indicate a similar failure to integrate physical love into a balanced and fully functional emotional life. But no one ever said you had to be balanced or functional to be gay -- which is lucky for me! No, not "distant gay traces" -- it's distingué traces!  I love that you use a John Barrowman programSubmitted by
db (3565 points) (740 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 13:20.and an interview with Tim Gunn as your arguments.
I just wish I could figure out what your point is and how your weird arguments are an example of being grown up. I had about a month of hopefulnessSubmitted by
Distingué Traces (417 points) (92 posts) on Mon, 2008-09-15 21:38.I had about a month of hopefulness about this campaign and now I'm just frankly terrified. After five-plus years of disastrously wasteful and destructive war I don't think anything can now reverse the USA's decline from global pre-eminence. But under prudent management it could be a controlled slide -- I don't see McCain doing anything to slow or soften the present crash. Scary times. No, not "distant gay traces" -- it's distingué traces!  Palin is a gay rights opponentSubmitted by
Psionycx (8606 points) (1744 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 01:32.One should not mistake her evasions as signs of tolerance. She is extremely Right-wing. To a degree that makes even Dick Cheney look moderate. And given McCain's age, the wear and tear he endured as a POW and his prior cancer issues, she has a reasonable shot at attaining the presidency if McCain wins the election. There is no question that she pushes this ticket way to the Right. McCain, who is not a real friend of gays to begin with (he may oppose the FMA, but he supports state gay marriage bans) would be bringing a serious anti-gay element into the equation with Palin. People shouldn't be blinded by the whole "Hockey Mom" thing. She is a hardcore conservative, a Creationist, staunch Evangelical, anti-choice, pro-war Republican. The fact that she's a female should not lead people to mistake her for a Hillary substitute. They are so far apart in politics it's not even funny, and if Palin were a man with the exact same views and political background I don't think she'd be anywhere near so popular with moderates and women.  Origin of Homosexuality HAS been determined: The Natural WorldSubmitted by
GaySpouseDotCom (1191 points) (402 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 04:38.The Origin of Homosexuality HAS been determined. It is a documented, irrefutable fact that homosexuality has been observed in a wide range of species. These species do NOT have mythologies, religions or recorded history overwhelmingly produced by majority populations to prejudice or obscure their existence (i.e. heteros have mass-murdered gays for eons to maintain superstition, and to the victor goes the spoils of having only their view recorded in most of recorded human history). What these species DO have is homosexuality, pure and simple. Thus homosexuality finds its Origin in the Natural World, just as heterosexuality does. As far as science goes, science simply has yet to determine the exact mechanism by which homosexuality or heterosexuality find their way into the Natural World. Science has definitely confirmed that homosexuality originates in the Natural World, just like Gravity does - another element of the Natural World that science can observe and measure its existence, yet cannot explain the exact mechanism behind it. That giant particle accelerator/collider may help provide some insight into Gravity, but even without any additional insight, Gravity, like Homosexuality, remains an indisputable part of the Natural World from which it originates. Rightwingers keep trying to drag homosexuality from the natural world into the supernatural realm of religion. Like when heteros kept claiming Lightning and Thunder were the god Thor hurling his magical hammer about the heavens. Or when they said only human sacrifice would appease the Sun god, and cut out the hearts of enemies captured from hostile neighboring villages. Superstition has been the motivation for many atrocities throughout human history. And the rightwingers are still searching for a proverbial, and sadly often literal human sacrifice to their version of a god. But the animal and insect species on the planet show the truth that homosexuality originates in the Natural World.  Democrats are not perfectSubmitted by
joeyhegele (1237 points) (360 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 11:00.I am in no way disagreeing with the idea that McCain/Palin would be both bad for the GLBT community and the country in general, but I must say I was surprised neither Palin nor McCain mentioned any attacks on gays in their acceptance speeches at the convention. With TV audiences of about 40 million, both of these Republicans could have used their words to tear down gay people and gay families. However, they avoided the issue altogether, despite the California Supreme Court decision as fresh in people's minds as the Massachusetts decision was in 2004. I certainly do not give McCain or Palin any credit for being good people, but I do think they realized attacking gays is not go to be a winning strategy this election. Despite the Republican platform still being very homophobic, the exclusion of gay bashing from the convention was a nice sign of the times. I would also like to point out that we have now had three consecutive Democratic Presidential tickets where the VP candidate voted in favor of DOMA. They may all oppose it now, but they are the ones that gave it a veto proof vote. Of the past three Democratic Presidential candidates, Gore and Obama had no vote in the matter, though I am sure they insist they would have not followed along with the majority of cowardly and bigoted Democrats. Only John Kerry had the courage to vote against the act. I still think of the two major parties, the Democrats are superior on every issue, but let us not forget how quickly even they will throw us under the bus if they feel their power is threatened. I am happy to see the incremental change we have been accomplishing. The most populous state in the country will hopefully have full marriage equality, joining Massachusetts. New York has de facto marriage equality if the governor's order to recognize outside marriages holds. I just worry that the overturning of DOMA could undue all of our success. People in Alabama may be more worried about losing their home than about gays marrying in Massachusetts; but if the "full faith and credit" part of DOMA was struck down and every state had to recognize gay marriages performed in MA and CA we would probably see a strong push to pass a Federal anti-gay marriage amendment. Would the Democrats continue to stand up and fight for us? Would a President Obama stand up for us? Democrats are superior to Republicans, but let us not be as delusional as the Log Cabin Republicans. We must continue to be vigilante in watching out for politicians more interested in their own power than standing up for what is right.  HUNH?Submitted by
David Ehrenstein (7805 points) (1725 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 12:50." Most legitimate scientists agree that being gay is at the very least significantly influenced by biology with some sociological components also possibly occurring."
I'm really shocked to see you falling for suchmalarkly. It's premised on the notion that heterosexualiy is the "norm" and same-sexuality the "exception." Nature has a different story. There is nothing "unnatural" about same-sex attraction.
Why do you not ask these "legitimate scientists" about the "cause" of heterosexuality?
 Hey, I don't want to getSubmitted by
seanb (1479 points) (306 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 13:12.Hey, I don't want to get too serious here, but, biologically speaking, heterosexuality is indeed the "norm", if you want to use a loaded word like that. The biological "prime directive" is propagation of the species. Also, if 95-99% of sexuality in the animal kingdom is heterosexuality, then by definition that's the norm. But who the hell cares, and what difference does it possibly make? We're here, we're queer, and who cares whether it's the "norm" or not. There's nothing inherently good about being the "norm". And nothing inherently bad about being outside the norm. I don't have to twist reality to feel good about myself. Where are you guys getting this?Submitted by
Distingué Traces (417 points) (92 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 13:30.Michael's reference to the biology of sexual orientation was so general -- even vague -- that it's funny to me that first Duckie and now you have read into it these specific ideological stances -- and that the positions you each attributed to him are opposite to each other, allowing you both to defend your own opposed positions against Michael's imagined attack. The contrarian habit of mind is happy to create its own opponents! No, not "distant gay traces" -- it's distingué traces! Biology IS Ideology D.T.Submitted by
David Ehrenstein (7805 points) (1725 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 14:04.That's the way it's always been when it comes to us.
No one is seeking the CAUSE of Heterosexuality. Doncha think someone should? And once the find the cause, here's the cure! No it isn't.Submitted by
Distingué Traces (417 points) (92 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 16:44.It's certainly valuable to be on guard against ideological assumptions that may be embedded in our culture's practice of science. But the old/new pomo line -- that the scientific method is in itself just one more oppressive patriarchal institution -- is a harmful falsehood that has made it more difficult for clear-eyed empiricism to serve as a critique and check to those institutions that do try to privilege the myths of their own power over neutral fact. No, not "distant gay traces" -- it's distingué traces!  Come on, now. Heterosexuality is indeed the norm.Submitted by
the herald (1250 points) (324 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 15:08.and homosexuality is indeed the exception. Just as right-handedness is the norm and left handedness is the exception, That is not arguable. That is just numbers. There's nothing wrong with questioning why a minority of people are attracted to the same gender (or why a minority of people favor their left hand and scientists DO wonder about that as well), and we question that and not heterosexuality because most people are heterosexual. We ARE "abnormal". We ARE the variance. The mistake many people make is extrapolating some sort of moral conclusion or judgment out of these completely neutral statistics.
Actually Asexual Reproduction Vastly Outnumbers...Submitted by
GaySpouseDotCom (1191 points) (402 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 15:29.When it comes to sheer numbers on this planet, asexual reproduction vastly outnumbers heterosexual reproduction. So asexual reproduction is the "norm" while heterosexuality and homosexuality are both "non-norms" among life on Earth, by your definition of "norm." But all three are indeed natural. Just as single cell organisms are vastly the "norm" on Earth while multi-cellular lifeforms are the "non-norm" but both are natural.
SexualitySubmitted by
Psionycx (8606 points) (1744 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 16:53.It's also worth noting that monogamy is "unnatural" for the human species (and for most other animals) and that "traditional family values" are a cultural "norm" and not a biological/natural one. The only reason words like "unnatural" ever come up with regards to homosexuality is because some people like to try and create the false impression that the natural world conforms to Judeo-Christian social values. However, with the human population of Earth at 6.5 billion and climbing, there is no real merit to arguments that homosexuality is a threat to propagation of our species. Humanity is at greater risk of extinction due to catastrophic war than it is from a failure of our reproductive behaviors. "Norms" are mostly an illusion. Ironically, people who deride Muslims and Mormons for practices like polygamy are often willfully ignoring the fact that these were considered "normal" during Biblical times, as was concubinage. Likewise, the legal age at which children could be married off with parental consent was much lower in most U.S. states even just a few decades ago than it is now. In many points of Western history a female was considered old enough to marry as soon as she was old enough to bear children. Today that would be seen as pedophilia. "Norms" are subject to change based on cultural standards. In our modern world we have a lower tolerance for the marriage of minor children than people had throughout most of Judeo-Christian history. That is an example of a "norm" that has changed, and changed within fairly recent times. So allowing people to cite "norms" is a bit misleading. I guess I should've said "among people".Submitted by
the herald (1250 points) (324 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 18:31.But I kind of thought that was really obvious.
 WaitSubmitted by
netogeno (3346 points) (929 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 16:03.How did you jump from the use of the term "norm" or normal to "unnatural"? You are putting a lot of your views in the meaning of these words. Whether it be biological or behavioral (who cares), heterosexuality is the most common and therefore the norm. Nobody has implied its against nature. I know "normal" is loaded with a lot of baggage, but only if you add to it, the meaning of the word is quite clear. Thanks, yeah.Submitted by
the herald (1250 points) (324 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 18:25.I never said unnatural. I don't believe being gay is unnatural. I don't know how we jumped over like that.
ActuallySubmitted by
netogeno (3346 points) (929 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 18:45.My comment was directed to David. For some reason the reply button did not work, thats why I double posted. Sorry, I should have made that clearer before. But now I cant edit. I got your comment, did wonder about the way you put it, but I got it. I hope this actually replies to your message. Double postedSubmitted by
netogeno (3346 points) (929 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 16:08.Just so you know, from the outside, we are worried about you guys if this ticket makes it the White House. And quite worried for the rest of the world too.
 Worried as well...Submitted by
Dave (2098 points) (436 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-16 20:58.
Just so you know, from the outside, we are worried about you guys if this ticket makes it the White House.
Thanks, netogeno; can we all come live with you if it does? |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
I agree
I laugh...and then I realize that this is actually happening. She makes Bush look like a Rhodes scholar. Four more years of incompetence, cronyism and religious fundamentalism is nothing to laugh at.
And gay issues are honestly low on my list of concerns about McCain/Palin. The economic, environmental, scientific, and foreign policy issues are even more pressing.
Chickens For Colonel Sanders...
This ticket absolutely terrifies me
Nothing funny, indeed, Michael. These two are terrifying in so many ways that I can't begin to list them all.
We must do everything in our power to see to it that the ignorami in this country that affirmed Bush's 2000 coronation in the 2004 election do not succeed in putting two more bigots in the White House. Absolutely terrifying.
Terrifying? Sure, but you've got the wrong candidate!
I don't know how anyone can look at Obama with a serious eye and not wonder how the hell he got nominated. He has accomplished nothing noteworthy, run nothing (Jesus was a community organizer? Obama's run a large campaign?), he changes positions day to day (won't run for president because he wouldn't be ready in his first Senate term, no he' running after all; withdraw from Iraq now, no stay in Iraq until 2012; surge will fail, surge "exceeds beyond wildest dreams," and on and on and on!); position changes audience to audience (end Cuban embargo one day, must keep it the next); and he can't seem to talk coherently without a prompter. Last week's flub was "my Muslim faith" and this week (it's only Monday!) it was mixing up who has the most negative ads! He said he does. Both times ABC helpfully "corrected" what he meant to say. This slickly-packaged man is an embarrassment!
Now I see once again the Leftist gays are feeding themselves lies and this time they're screaming about McCain/Palin. Do the lies spread among themselves in 2000 and 2004 hold up? Are gays better off in 2008 than they were in 2000? What? That's a YES? But, what about that evil fundamentalist, rights-destroying creature known as George W Bush? You mean he didn't send the gays to Gitmo for reeducation? You mean there is no federal marriage amendment? You mean there IS more funding for HIV research? No overturned Roe vs Wade? No 3/5th vote for Blacks, Mr. Gore?
Those things you say Charlie should've asked about? Marriage? Adoption? They are state issues and that's where McCain has said they belong. You might not like it that we live in a federalist society but until you call a new constitutional convention to force the "red states" and "blue states" into one uniform, majority-rules tyranny of the urban centers, you'll have to live and work within the system we have and, you know, deal with that fact that about half the nation holds different values, views, faith and traditions.
I'm not happy about it but I'll vote for McCain because I know he will not turn back the clock. I know who he is, what he's made of, and seen his years of bipartisanship unlike a very green Senator from Illinois still looking for his identity and trying to start at the top.
Those who are not still bitter about 2000, ask yourselves this: if Obama were a Republican, would you think he was qualified?
A direct quote from the 2008 Republican Platform
Preserving Traditional Marriage
Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.
Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.
Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.
Seems to me this spells out clearly what a McCain/Palin administration would mean for the gay community.
Rant
Wow, that was a rather bitter rant. Everyone has the right to pick his own candidate, so I won't try to change your mind. But I do have to point out three things that would seem hard to argue with.
1. A President McCain will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe V. Wade, be unsupportive of gay rights issues, give the OK to torture and other violations of basic liberty, etc. He will probably be able to appoint two or more justices, and they will likely replace liberal judges.
2. The economy is going in the dumper, and has been heading that way since the Republicans took over. A budget surplus from Clinton has been turned into a $400-500 BILLION deficit. Everything's going in the toilet, and McCain knows almost nothing about economics, by his own admission. And the odds are he'll name Phil Gramm to be Treasury secretary. That's the guy who said we don't really have a recession, we just have whiny complainers.
3. The war in Iraq was completely unnecessary, and has made the country far less safe. It also has cost over 4000 American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. McCain supported the war, and has a world view that is based on being agressive and belligerent and militaristic.
And what's this fetish everyone has about experience? In the last 50 years who were the worst presidents? Nixon, Johnson, Ford and Dubya. And which had the most experience? Nixon, Johnson, Ford and Dubya. One of the best presidents in history was Lincoln, who was a state senator. Basic intelligence and understanding are far more important than experience. And Obama has FAR more intelligence and understanding than McCain. And my Mom has more of both than Palin.
Phil Gramm
THE most underreported story about McCain's economic advisor is that he is the author of the provision that deregulated sub-prime mortgage lending which led to the financial market crisis that we are currently in. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act deregulated the market in 1999 and we are paying for the consequences today. The major financial institutions on Wall Street are paying for the lack of regulation in this market, because they made bad investments in a market where had there been some sort of regulations it could have prevented the massive amount of economic damage that is being wrought right now.
That's your argument? Seriously?
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com Average (7 votes):
Seriously?
You seem to forget the campaigns of 2002-2006 where we were used as campaign tools to drive up support from conservatives by the Republican Party. Anyone who can vote for a party or a person that would degrade who they are as a person in order to drive up support for reelection doesn't have a firm grip on reality.
As for your arguments about George Bush, he was thwarted by Democrats and a few Republicans in his attempt to add a federal gay marriage ban to the US Constitution. Bush also knew that he couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade outright even with his Republican majorities in the House and Senate, so he appointed Justices to the Supreme Court that would do their best to weaken the law so much that it would become practically useless. HIV funding is something that is not a political issue anymore. It may have been a hot-button issue in the 1980s through some of the 1990s, but even the most conservative of conservatives realize that HIV is a major problem in Africa and something must be done to stop it.
I still don't understand why you don't think gay marriage is a national issue. As long as DOMA exists as law, gay marriage will be a national issue. Since you obviously have no idea what it is, let me explain it to you. The act says that the federal government will not recognize gay marriages even if they are recognized by the states where the couple lives. It also says that other states do not have to abide by the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution and recognize gay marriages that are legal in other states. This means that while gay marriage and civil unions may be legal in some states, they don't get the federal benefits that come along with regular marriage. They don't get to file their tax returns jointly or recieve Social Security benefits from their dead partners or any of the numerous benefits that straight people receive from the federal government when they get married.
Seeing as how John McCain has come out in favor of prop 8
extremely misleading to say the least
First the marriage amendment.
As this link shows http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00163
The GOP in the Senate voted 47 to 6 in favor. Which means the one and only reason it didn't pass were the Democratic votes in the Senate.
Second every single, solitary, gay victory in the last 7 plus years was at the state level. No federal ENDA, no federal Hate Crimes bill, and no end to DADT and almost every single one of those would have gone our way but for Bush being in office. Oh, and don't forget, under McCain we could lose the only federal victory we had (the Lawrence decision). In short, the GOP has stalled gay rights period.