More Democratic gay-bashing [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Captain Amazing

10-28-2002, 07:35 PM

Here's the complete quote, from the Charleston Post-Dispatch

http://www.charleston.net/pub/archive/news/26debate.htm

But Sanders pounced, saying he'd never met either Kennedy or Clinton and that Graham was the one associating with liberals, noting the TV ad help he received from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
"We all admire what he did during the 9/11 crisis, but he is an ultra-liberal," Sanders said. "He supports gay rights; he supports banning all handguns; he supports abortion. His wife kicked him out, and he moved in with two gay men and a shih tzu. Is that South Carolina values? I don't think so."

South Carolina is a pretty conservative state, and both candidates are trying to portray themselves as the heir to Strom Thurmond, and their opponent as some sort of wild eyed liberal. The fact is, for better or for worse, most South Carolinians don't support gay rights, banning handguns, or abortions, so if Sanders can link Graham with those views, Graham's going to suffer, and by saying that Guliani supports those things, and making a link, he hopes to do that.

samclem

10-28-2002, 07:54 PM

It's just an example of boogeyman politics (http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/10/28/build/political/boogeymen.php?nnn=2)

Yes, it was a statement that played on gay bashing. It was uttered by a "good ol' boy" from SC. So, what else is new? Would Ted Kennedy have said that in a debate? No. Would any Northern Democrat of National prominence? No.

But you can get away with it in the South. That's life. I don't approve of what he said, but don't try to make this out to be a Democratic Official Line type of thingy. Please?

Stoid

10-28-2002, 07:56 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Captain.

And I can now state that I don't see any gay-bashing going on anywhere.

Kirkland1244

10-28-2002, 08:20 PM

It sounds like gay-bashing, but what do you expect from South Carolina? Even the "liberals" there are intolerant sludge.

But that is definitely the last time I eat at one of Col. Sanders' restaurants...

Kirk

Kirkland1244

10-28-2002, 08:27 PM

Kirkland1244

10-28-2002, 08:37 PM

No! A double-post! Curse the hamsters! CURSE THEM!

Guinastasia

10-28-2002, 08:55 PM

They must be EVIL LIBERAL GAY ATHIEST HAMSTERS!!!

:D

Kyla

10-28-2002, 08:58 PM

Anyone else think that december is just doing all of this for shits and giggles? He's turning into a parody of himself.

And really, that's just sad.

Sterra

10-28-2002, 09:37 PM

Stuff like that is why I am trying to transfer to some college far far away from south carolina.

Our democrats think the republican party is too liberal.

David B

10-28-2002, 10:36 PM

OK, now that this discussion has gone on a little bit, I have a question:

december: Did you have a point?

El_Kabong

10-28-2002, 10:47 PM

For about the twentieth time in the past two months, december posts a veiled rant based on a press quote, and for about the twentieth time, within a few replies, he is shown to have either fabricated the quote entirely, or omitted key words which establish the context.

Good going, december. I've gleaned quite a lot of interesting information from the threads you start, all of it from posters other than yourself. From you...not so much.

Mtgman

10-28-2002, 10:57 PM

I also resent the use of the word "more" in the thread title. As I seem to recall the "homophobia" of the other Democratic campaign december recently trolled the board with was not established as a point of fact. Is this your style december take threads where your opponents concede that there is a possibility, not a certainty, for interpretation the way you are positing as a victory? Pathetic.

This seems to be a clear case of Democratic gay-bashing. I think it's slimy and I would gleefully vote "none of the above" were I a citizen of South Carolina. What I resent is your position that this is somehow another case of Democratic gay-bashing when your first case was on such pathetically shallow grounds.

Enjoy,
Steven

Mtgman

10-28-2002, 11:04 PM

Actually, I should clarify the above post. This seems to be A case of A Democratic candidate/campaign gay-bashing. This is not canon and should not be used as justification in any kind of assertion about the homophobic/non-homophobic tendencies of all Democrats. As I've pointed out before, the logical sequence
Some Democrat acted like a total jackass homophobe -> Democrats are jackass homophobes

is completely invalid. Sadly that seems to be the way logic works in december-land.

Enjoy,
Steven

Phoenix Dragon

10-28-2002, 11:25 PM

Okay, thanks Captain, for the more thorough source.

Ehh. It's kinda fringe gay-bashing, I guess. But it seems much more like liberal bashing, instead. He's trying to show that the other guy is "ultra-liberal," and linking him to behaviors typical of liberals, a pretty good tactic for a conservative state.

So kind of that annoying level of idiocy instead of flat-out offensive. And it's about time that you figure out that one or two members of a huge political party does not typify the entire party's stance on an issue, it's certainly not enough to condemn a whole party, especially one that generally campaigns for gay rights...

king of spain

10-28-2002, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Kirkland1244
It sounds like gay-bashing, but what do you expect from South Carolina? Even the "liberals" there are intolerant sludge.

But that is definitely the last time I eat at one of Col. Sanders' restaurants...

Kirk

Not to hijack a perfectly good self-parody from december, but tell me you didn't mean to actually refer to the entire population of South Carolina as "sludge."

squeegee

10-28-2002, 11:40 PM

Every time I see december's 'evil democrat' threads, I think about starting a parody 'evil republicans' thread, and it's just not jelling... 'More evidence of GOP gay bashing!' sounds like 'Pope wears funny hat again'. Why bother?

Kirkland1244

10-28-2002, 11:43 PM

No, no, King. Just the politico types there. The general population isn't all so bad. I mean, my brother lives there, so there's at least one decent guy there.

Kirk

I am Sparticus

10-29-2002, 12:23 AM

Yeah, the post is pretty despicable, and the politics of the poster are pretty despicable. I can't help who else is a registered Democrat, but it appears to me that this guy's politics are very close to most Republicans. I condmen the man's remarks.

But I also note that this is the umpteenth post from the december clown that seriously misquotes the original source, in this instance to eliminate the context that showed that the speaker was conservative, not liberal. I've seen others banned for much less.

december

10-29-2002, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by David B
OK, now that this discussion has gone on a little bit, I have a question:

december: Did you have a point? My point concerns the myth: Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people or Democrats are tolerant; Republicans are bigots. This idea is sometimes put forth to attack opponents of some government program such as affirmative action.

1. The myth isn't true. (Nor is the reverse true. Most Democrats are good people as are most Republicans.)

2. Some Democrats are so committed to the idea that their party is the "good guys" that they will deny the obvious. Some of the denial mechanisms include:

Scylla exaggerated my point in order to mock it.

Stoid observes the quote reflects poorly on South Carolina, not gay people, in her opinion. I agree with her, but that's not how the speaker intended it. I think all bigotry reflects poorly on the speaker, but that doesn't mean that bigotry doesn't exist.

Captain Amazing mis-characterizes the quote as being critical of gay rights," when it was actually implicitly critical of gay people]

El_Kabong pretends that the context excuses the quote in some unexplained way.

I am Sparticus blames me having eliminated the context that showed that the speaker was conservative, not liberal. This accusation is triply bizarre. First of all, I never claimed the speaker was liberal. Second, the quote in the OP implies that the speaker is conservative, since it criticizes someone for being "ultra-liberal." Third, is the idea of bringing banning into the discussion.

Mtgman points out that this particular instance should not be used as justification in any kind of assertion about the homophobic/non-homophobic tendencies of all Democrats. I fully agree. He also seems to imply that I claimed it did, which is a way of exaggerating the OP in order to refute it.

gex gex

10-29-2002, 08:19 AM

December: The context was important. It established that Sanders had a list of things that aren't 'South Carolina values.' Whilst living with a gay couple was one of them, there was a whole list of other attributes, each associated with a left-wing stance that were used to damn Graham. Hence, I believe it was an attack on liberals, and this attack included an anti-gay remark.

Sanders characterised his opponent as an ultra-liberal, and then effectively said "we don't want no ultra-liberals round here." His opponent is bad because he's a liberal (or more correctly, fraternises with liberals), rather than because he's a guy who lives with guys who like guys.

You seem very fond of simplifying issues, much to the detriment of your argument. You did it again with your percieved myth that:
Democrats are tolerant; Republicans are bigots.

I think most people who believe this would better state it as 'Democrats are more likely to be tolerant; Republicans are more likely to be bigots/less likely to be tolerant' (depending on how friendly they're feeling).

This is a more precise and I consider, a more accurate statement. Republican policy and legislative history reflect this statement, although both parties have been involved in the passing of laws that they should not be proud of in this regard. The Republican reputation of bigotry is also enhanced by the support they get in areas that are considered to have a higher proportion of bigoted individuals than the rest of the country and their popularity amongst bigoted individuals of any area.

And let us not ignore the fact that their leader, as opposed to some crackpot candidate in Carolina has made comments that are far more blatantly homophobic than all the ones you have managed to muster.

tomndebb

10-29-2002, 08:48 AM

My point concerns the myth: Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people or Democrats are tolerant; Republicans are bigots. This idea is sometimes put forth to attack opponents of some government program such as affirmative action. Do you mean to say that some people have gasp resorted to mudslingling in politics? (And, of course, no Republcan has ever resorted to mudslinging in a campaign, portraying Democrats as, say "opposed to 'family' values.")

That is supposed to be a discussion point?
sheeesh

december

10-29-2002, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by tomndebb
(And, of course, no Republcan has ever resorted to mudslinging in a campaign, portraying Democrats as, say "opposed to 'family' values.")

That is supposed to be a discussion point?
sheeesh Except that the norm was reversed in this case.

El_Kabong

10-29-2002, 08:55 AM

El_Kabong pretends that the context excuses the quote in some unexplained way.

Nonsense. I haven't yet discussed whether or not the quote is excusable (and of course it isn't, even in its correct form; you haven't, however, shown that all Democrats, or even many, are closet homophobes, which is what your OP seems to imply). I simply pointed out that you have edited the referenced quote in a clumsy attempt to bolster your position, and that you do this repeatedly in the threads you launch in this forum.

My point concerns the myth: Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people or Democrats are tolerant; Republicans are bigots. This idea is sometimes put forth to attack opponents of some government program such as affirmative action.

Please note that unlike you in your OP, I have repeated your quoted sentences in their entirety. I presume you consider yourself a Republican; how does your long history of misrepresentation of statements made by Democrats support your case?

It would serve your case far better if you could show instances where Democrats have actually characterized Republicans as bad people, then refute those claims with factual argument. 'Cause, right now, you seem mostly to be making the case that at least some Republicans have a remarkably hard time making truthful statements.

Scylla

10-29-2002, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by december

Scylla exaggerated my point in order to mock it.

Not true. Your point is self-mocking.

minty green

10-29-2002, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by december
My point concerns the myth: Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people or Democrats are tolerant; Republicans are bigots. Uh, yeah. And you're asserting that this is some sort of widespread belief on the SDMB? I mean, you can certainly find a handful of idiots who believe in those blanket statements, but you'll also notice that their idiocy is treated as such by the vast majority of posters around here.

Kinda like 95% of your OPs, come to think of it. Sheesh, you're like our current white supremacist, condemning entire peoples wholesale on the one hand, but demanding to be treated as an individual when it comes to identifying her own particular flavor of Nazism.

december

10-29-2002, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by El_Kabong you haven't, however, shown that all Democrats, or even many, are closet homophobes, which is what your OP seems to imply. That may be your mis-reading of the OP, but you cannot point to any words of mine which make that implication. I simply pointed out that you have edited the referenced quote in a clumsy attempt to bolster your position,I did no editing. The OP provided as much of the quote as I knew about from the cite I had. The remainder of the quote came from a cite provided later by Captain Amazing. Please note that unlike you in your OP, I have repeated your quoted sentences in their entirety. You didn't quote a partial sentence to justify your assertion that I called many, most or all Democrats "closet homophobes."

gex gex, you have made a good effort to show that context was important. Of course, the context was clear from the part of the quote included in the OP but let's set that aside. I will argue that the context is not important.

Which of these would objectionable:

1. "Giuliani is to be faulted for having lived with two African Americans."

2. "Giuliani is to be faulted for having lived with two African American men, because it's a sign of ultra-liberalism."

To me, they're equally offensive. Regardless of the "ultraliberalism" explanation, either of these statements means that there's something wrong with Guiliani living with African Americans, which means that there's something wrong or different about African Americans. Substitute "Jews" or "gay men" and I'd feel the same.

SuaSponte

10-29-2002, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by december
2. Some Democrats are so committed to the idea that their party is the "good guys" that they will deny the obvious. Some of the denial mechanisms include:

Scylla exaggerated my point in order to mock it.

december, Scylla's a Republican.

Explain his traitorous behavior.

Sua

december

10-29-2002, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by minty green Uh, yeah. And you're asserting that this [the myth about Republicans being bad people] is some sort of widespread belief on the SDMB?I never made such an assertion. Sheesh, you're like our current white supremacist, condemning entire peoples wholesale on the one hand, but demanding to be treated as an individual when it comes to identifying her own particular flavor of Nazism. Critizing homophobia is Nazism? :confused:

Oh, I get it, criticizing Democrats is Nazism.

minty green

10-29-2002, 10:07 AM

Sorry, I was less than clear. I meant you were like our current white supremacist (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=140823), in that--like Sionnach--you demand that you and your side be treated as individuals while routinely denouncing other groups without qualification.

I meant to imply you are a hypocrite, not that you are a Nazi.

december

10-29-2002, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by minty green
Sorry, I was less than clear. I meant you were like our current white supremacist (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=140823), in that--like Sionnach--you demand that you and your side be treated as individuals while routinely denouncing other groups without qualification.

I meant to imply you are a hypocrite, not that you are a Nazi. Comparing someone to a demonized group in terms of some non-essential aspect was a common technique used for red-baiting back in the 1950's E.g., Democratic politicians were often accused of being "soft on communism" because they agreed with the communists on some individual policy point.

If you accuse me of hypocricy, that's fair enough. But, it's below the belt to accuse me of being a hypocrite "like a White Supremicist." That wording improperly links me to White Supremacy.

It would be similarly unfair if I were to accuse you of being like Joseph McCarthy in your use of comparisons. Obviously, you are nothing like McCarthy in all essential respects.

minty green

10-29-2002, 11:39 AM

Vey well, you are like Joseph McCarthy. Feel better now?

El_Kabong

10-29-2002, 11:52 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by El_Kabong
you haven't, however, shown that all Democrats, or even many, are closet homophobes, which is what your OP seems to imply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may be your mis-reading of the OP, but you cannot point to any words of mine which make that implication.

From your thread title:

"More Democratic Gay Bashing"

Nowhere does your OP state that someone, anyone, thinks "Republicans are bad people", or provide evidence of such, yet you claim that your intent was to highlight this supposed behavior by, well, whoever it was that supposedly did it. Since numerous other posters apparently "mis-read" the intent of your OP as well, perhaps, just suggesting here, perhaps you may want to examine your posts a little more carefully to determine whether you are making your premise clear to most readers.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I simply pointed out that you have edited the referenced quote in a clumsy attempt to bolster your position,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did no editing. The OP provided as much of the quote as I knew about from the cite I had. The remainder of the quote came from a cite provided later by Captain Amazing.

OK, so the source of the misquote was the article you quoted. I take it you now withdraw the premise of your OP.

You didn't quote a partial sentence to justify your assertion that I called many, most or all Democrats "closet homophobes."

If you don't believe that "many, most or all Democrats are 'closet homophobes'", or alternatively that many, most or all Democrats will pose as homophobic when it serves their interests in an election campaign, then why have you tried to use this as a premise in two recent GD threads?

Answer or not, as you wish. I've said all I'm going to say about your evasions in this thread.

Mtgman

10-29-2002, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by december
Mtgman points out that this particular instance should not be used as justification in any kind of assertion about the homophobic/non-homophobic tendencies of all Democrats. I fully agree. He also seems to imply that I claimed it did, which is a way of exaggerating the OP in order to refute it. This is a damned lie. Your OP was a leading question which implied that Alex Sanders' actions were supported by Democrats, especially "Democratic apologists" on this board. You did the exact same thing in the thread about the Montana campaign. It was a damned lie in both cases. The world does not run on your stereotypes. It is pathetic that you seem to continually run up against this fact and be utterly incapable of understanding it.

All you've managed to do is show yet another example of your useless contributions to the fight against ignorance.

For the record, I am not a Democrat.

Enjoy,
Steven

Dr. Lao

10-29-2002, 12:14 PM

Did Giuliani actually move into a house with two gay men and a Shih Tzu? Is a Shih Tzu a more liberal breed of dog than, say, a German Sheperd?

SuaSponte

10-29-2002, 12:14 PM

OK, december, now two of the people you asserted were Democrats [who]are so committed to the idea that their party is the "good guys" they will deny the obvious, turn out not to be Democrats (to wit, Scylla and Mtgman).

Why do you supporse these non-Democrats are so committed to the idea that to the idea that the Democratic party is the "good guys"?

Perhaps they are not, and therefore your thesis is incorrect, hmm?

Sua

Polycarp

10-29-2002, 01:11 PM

There is a rule against posts accusing people of trollery, so I need to stress that the main text of this post is intended as ironic, not an intentional accusation, but....

Has it occurred to anyone else but me that the sorts of half-baked arguments in support of extremist Republican positions and strongly condemning any peccadillos attributable to Democrats, coupled with the sort of innuendo and slams-by-implication that turn most thoughtful people off, are actually among the strongest vehicles the Democratic Party could have in turning people against Republicans? Which would imply that December's avowed liberal past is actually not merely in the past, but that he has found a technique for advancing Democratic politics by creating mockeries of Republican stances that will cause thoughtful people to look with favor on the Democratic Party and its candidates?

Kind of like how Gus Hall used to endorse the candidates he hated back in the 50s, knowing that a Communist endorsement would cause people to vote against them?

Early Out

10-29-2002, 01:11 PM

Haven't y'all figured it out yet? december is working on his thesis: High School Debating Society Tactics: Practical Applications. His posts here are just field research. Discovering the truth, or even convincing others, is not the object: simply scoring "points" is.

december

10-29-2002, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Polycarp
strongly condemning any peccadillos attributable to Democrats Good for you, Polycarp. At least you noticed that the comment had some degree of offensiveness.

Now that I've praised Polycarp, his/her reputation on this Board is shot! ;)

photopat

10-29-2002, 01:24 PM

For the record, I'm a democrat (moderate liberal), and everybody else in my family is republican (moderate conservative). Do I think they're bad people? No. (Although my sister has a quite a temper) Do they think I'm a bad person? No. We disagree on some issues and agree on others. Just like virtually everybody else in the world.

Myth about dems and reps? Of course it's a myth. Why does it even come up around here? Perhaps because specific people in both parties have done stupid, offensive, irritating things? Well, fine. Maybe we can keep the arguments specific and not engage in the same sort of broad sweeping condemnations that are often found on some of the unsavory message boards.

Besides everybody knows that moderates are the only good people in the world. ;)

december

10-29-2002, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by photopat
Myth about dems and reps? Of course it's a myth. Why does it even come up around here? I agree that the posters here on this Board do not repeat the Republicans are evil myth. That's to your credit. However, the myth does get reiterated fairly often in the outside world. E.g., see this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=141761#newpost).

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-29-2002, 01:49 PM

Since I was so vociferous in the other thread in saying that Baucus displayed no homophobia, I want to chime in here and say, of course Sanders is using homophobic tactics to smear his opponent. No doubt.

December, if you're trying to use this to prove that some Democrats are bigots, bravo! Excellent proof! I wonder if you'd be so kind as to prove that some Web sites begin with http:// , or if you'd be willing to prove that some dogs like to eat cat poop.

A writing professor in college once told me that a paper's thesis should follow two rules:
1) Don't be stupid. (e.g., "A flyer showing a blue woman wearing a pink boa is clearly a sign that the flyer's creator is a homophobe.")
2) Don't be obvious. (e.g., "Some Democrats are bigots.")

You might consider following these rules in your OPs.

Daniel

Guinastasia

10-29-2002, 01:54 PM

ONE cartoon. ONE FREAKING EDITORIAL CARTOON!!!

I assume you're unfamiliar with the unfunniness that is Mallard Fillmore?

:rolleyes:

SuaSponte

10-29-2002, 01:58 PM

Republican Scylla, Republican Scylla, Republican Scylla.

Scylla

10-29-2002, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Republican Scylla, Republican Scylla, Republican Scylla.

WHO DARES SUMMON ME!!??!!

december

10-29-2002, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
I want to chime in here and say, of course Sanders is using homophobic tactics to smear his opponent. No doubt.You and I agree on this point. However, note that the homophobia of Sanders's comment was not perceived by some other posters.

photopat

10-29-2002, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by december
I agree that the posters here on this Board do not repeat the Republicans are evil myth. That's to your credit. However, the myth does get reiterated fairly often in the outside world.

Agreed. As does the "liberals are evil" myth.

JDM

10-29-2002, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by december
You and I agree on this point. However, note that the homophobia of Sanders's comment was not perceived by some other posters.

The context, even in the article, still was not complete. I will readily admit that the statement might have been an appeal to South Carolina homophobia, but with only the quoted section and not the full context, I think that it is possible that Sanders was pointing out how Graham's actions do not match his words.

BUT- this thread actually ended when december said: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tomndebb
(And, of course, no Republcan has ever resorted to mudslinging in a campaign, portraying Democrats as, say "opposed to 'family' values.")

That is supposed to be a discussion point?
sheeesh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except that the norm was reversed in this case.

The norm was reversed. I couldn't have said it better.
JDM

JDM

10-29-2002, 03:11 PM

Liberal

10-29-2002, 03:36 PM

Kirkland wrote:

Even the "liberals" there are intolerant sludge.That is the single most stupid assertion I've ever seen in Great Debates. Congratulations.

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-29-2002, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by december
You and I agree on this point. However, note that the homophobia of Sanders's comment was not perceived by some other posters.

Noted. If I found someone on these forums with whom I agreed 100%, I'd be very worried.

Daniel

Mtgman

10-29-2002, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by december
note that the homophobia of Sanders's comment was not perceived by some other posters.Aside from Stoid(whom, with respect, I don't think should be considered representative of the SDMB as a whole) I've not seen that. The closest I've seen is people saying that it's dirty politics, as per the status quo. Putting it in context isn't the same as refusing to acknowledge it. It was part of a string of slurs intended to evoke many of the prejudices of the voter against Sanders' opponent. Simply because they didn't address it as specifically as you did, and instead condemmed the entire statement as mud-slinging, that means they are ignoring/endorsing it the piece of it which was homophobic?

I'm also hurt that you buddy up with DanielWithrow when he acknowledges the homophobic nature of the comment but I said the exact same thing "This seems to be a clear case of Democratic gay-bashing. I think it's slimy and I would gleefully vote "none of the above" were I a citizen of South Carolina." and I get ignored. What's he got that I don't?

*cry*

Enjoy,
Steven

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-29-2002, 04:38 PM

Aww, Mtgman, if it makes you feel better, I almost posted, "What Mtgman said." I agree with your posts (including the context in which the sleazy homophobia appears) entirely.

Daniel

Spavined Gelding

10-29-2002, 05:12 PM

If it makes anyone feel any better, the Iowa Republican Party (a bunch of moss-backs and reactionaries if there ever was one) has formally and publicly withdrawn support from a candidate for the state legislature from Marion, a town adjacent to Cedar Rapids. The candidate's misstep was to claim that her opponent was not worthy of representing the district because she was born in India and had no been an Iowan for the first six or eight years of her life. The attack was in some sort of semi-private message board but the Cedar Rapids newspaper broke the story on Sunday and the state party jumped on it on Tuesday. The candidate’s behavior and her response to the loss of party sanction were both pretty outrageous (but I’m afraid not all that rare) and the party apparatus’s response was praiseworthy.

I’d like to know if there has been any reaction, public or private, by the good old boys who run the party machinery in South Carolina.

wring

10-29-2002, 05:38 PM

SG ?? really? The lt. Guv of MI who's running against the atty General of MI for the gov' s spot originally aired ads that pointed out the Jennifer Granholm (the atty gen) had been

born in Canada (gasps arrise from the audience), had lived in California (women faint). He continues to run ads that pump up his 'Michigan values'.

On the OP, I find it more interesting to note the moderator's question to the OP.

Jackmannii

10-29-2002, 06:28 PM

The issue raised by Dr. Lao needs to be addressed.

It seems obvious to me that the Shih Tzu reference was part of the appeal to gay-bashing. These are little foofy dogs. The voters are supposed to think that only foolish women and those of Unnatural Sexual Orientation would own such animals. It would have been worse if Sanders had made reference to his opponent moving in with a German Shepherd, given the mental pictures certain perverse individuals might have developed

Other than that, I feel confident that all dogs are basically conservative. As are certain other animals. As Paul Simon* said, "Orangutans are skeptical of changes in their cages."

I am thinking about changing my username here to Democratic Apologist.

*the singer, not the Senator from Illinois.

David B

10-29-2002, 07:16 PM

When I asked december what his point was, he said:
My point concerns the myth: Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people or Democrats are tolerant; Republicans are bigots. This idea is sometimes put forth to attack opponents of some government program such as affirmative action.
Has anybody here on the SDMB actually said anything like this? Or are you just arguing against your own straw man?
1. The myth isn't true. (Nor is the reverse true. Most Democrats are good people as are most Republicans.)
Wait! You're kidding me! The myth isn't true?! Could that be why it's called a myth?!
2. Some Democrats are so committed to the idea that their party is the "good guys" that they will deny the obvious.
And so will some Republicans, and some Libertarians, and some Communists, and some Greens, and...

So again I ask, what is your point?

jshore

10-29-2002, 08:06 PM

...Seriously, december, in this thread you have helped illustrate a variety of different points:

(1) That among many people, at least in South Carolina, "liberal" is considered a dirty word. And, people who attack liberalism often engage in slimey attacks to do so.

(2) That said "ultra-liberalism" is associated with such things as tolerance and acceptance of gay people (in the mind of Sanders, at any rate, but I think it is pretty clear that this association is quite widespread).

(3) That the Democratic party as a whole is far from "liberal"...It is only "liberal" by comparison to the Republican Party (which is extremely conservative overall).

What you have not established by any means is that the Democratic Party is, on the whole, much less friendly to gays and gay rights issues than the Republican Party. And you won't be able to establish that because it is extremely far from being true.

Yes, I will readily admit that I (usually) vote for Democrats because they are the only current alternatives to the extremely conservative Republicans, not because they are any great shakes. [Note, however, that the Democratic leadership seems to be reasonably "left" of Sanders at least on social issues.]

So, december, perhaps together you and I can join forces and work for the day when "liberalism" is a respected word around the entire nation and when tolerance of gays as an example of "ultra-liberalism" in a positive rather than a negative light?!? A day when all Democrats will proudly declare themselves as liberals rather than trying to play a "I'm less liberal than he is" game!

Hell, december, I think I'm really beginning to like you! ;)

samclem

10-29-2002, 08:33 PM

David YOu have asked twice, and I can't see where you have been given any reason to keep this open.

If my dog was dying as horrible a death as this thread , I would have pulled out my .44 and shot him/her. That is, if I had a gun. But being a liberal democrat, I don't.

Please!

december

10-29-2002, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by David B Has anybody here on the SDMB actually said anything like this ["Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people"]? Or are you just arguing against your own straw man?At the risk of gently mocking a mod, I note that there is a world outside of the Straight Dope Message Boards. If it makes you feel any better, I also sometimes forget. Anyhow, in the big wide world, this myth is alive and well.

Here's an example (http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021029.asp#6) I just ran across, where Leslie Stahl's assumption seemed to follow the myth.Republican Ahead of Democrat on Race Astounds Stahl

During a 60 Minutes piece on Thurmond’s legacy and the effort by Republican Lindsay Graham and Democrat Alex Sanders to succeed him, when informed of how the Republican Thurmond hired a black person before any [South Carolina] Democrat did, Stahl acted shocked: “No Democrat did it before he did?” When her interviewee confirmed, Stahl’s mouth fell open in astonishment.David B
Wait! You're kidding me! The myth isn't true?! Could that be why it's called a myth?!That's why I called it a myth, and I'm glad you agree. Unfortunately, to many non-Dopers, it's not a myth at all.And so will some Republicans [deny the obvious], and some Libertarians, and some Communists, and some Greens, and ...That's an interesting point. Would Democrats be more apt to deny an instance of bigotry by one of their own than Republicans would? ISTM that on this message board the answer is yes. YMMV.

samclem

10-29-2002, 10:13 PM

During a 60 Minutes piece on Thurmond’s legacy and the effort by Republican Lindsay Graham and Democrat Alex Sanders to succeed him, when informed of how the Republican Thurmond hired a black person before any [South Carolina] Democrat did, Stahl acted shocked: “No Democrat did it before he did?” When her interviewee confirmed, Stahl’s mouth fell open in astonishment.

Easy answer---When Thurmond was young, there weren't any Democrats. They were called anti-federalists in those days. :D

Guinastasia

10-29-2002, 10:17 PM

Of course, back in the day, when Thurmond was young he was a DEMOCRAT, IIRC.

tomndebb

10-29-2002, 10:50 PM

My point concerns the myth: Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people or Democrats are tolerant; Republicans are bigots. This idea is sometimes put forth to attack opponents of some government program such as affirmative action. mmm-hmmm

And, of course, no one on the political Right would ever demonize the Democratic Party with comments such as:

It is increasingly obvious that Democrats do not care about children, in fact, one can see that they despise children and simply use them for political leverage. One could even make the presumption that many Democrats see children as sex objects. If Democrats did care about the children, they would sever funding for this hideous organization. (http://www.coradpress.com/editorial12_26_99.htm) (The organization being the American Psychological Association.)

How Democrats Destroy a Democracy (http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/howD.htm)

Socialist Democrats and liberals throughout our government, more recently led by Bill Clinton and Al Gore, have made it clear that the foundations, the roots that have undergirded this nation are no longer valid (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/TrashingAmerica/)

Democratic Party, as a whole, and their leaders, embrace liberalism completely.
I don't know why you cling to a party that is downright evil.
I've not seen a Democratic leader who knows right from wrong.
If you vote Democrat, you should repent, ask God to forgive you, and tell your neighbors that you're sorry. The Democrats have aggressively led the effort to destroy the morality and law that was the foundation of this nation. The Democrats celebrate the most despicable perversions known to man. Better than 98% of all Democratic leaders are destructive.
The Democratic party is a moral failure. Whatever Jesus Christ stands for, the Democratic Party opposes. They say really stupid things like, "I'm a Democrat but I'm a Satanist." "I like Jesus but I'm a Satanist."
If you vote Democrat, you are supporting the greatest destructive influence that the American family and the American church has ever seen. (http://www.enyart.com/features/quotes/democrats.shtml)

DMC

10-29-2002, 11:54 PM

december,

You can rest comfortably in the knowledge that Graham would likely agree with his opponent's position regarding someone living with homosexuals. As a rookie representative in S.C., the very first bill he sponsored was H. 3569, banning homosexuals and bisexuals from the National Guard and removing ones currently in service.

Now that we've established that both parties have idiots in them, you can return to the good ol' days of Sharon worshipping or Clinton bashing.

And as for your statement (bolding mine):
Comparing someone to a demonized group in terms of some non-essential aspect was a common technique used for red-baiting back in the 1950's E.g., Democratic politicians were often accused of being "soft on communism" because they agreed with the communists on some individual policy point.

If you accuse me of hypocricy, that's fair enough. But, it's below the belt to accuse me of being a hypocrite "like a White Supremicist." That wording improperly links me to White Supremacy.

It would be similarly unfair if I were to accuse you of being like Joseph McCarthy in your use of comparisons. Obviously, you are nothing like McCarthy in all essential respects.

Is that something like this tactic?
What puzzles me is this: Why do many posters here routinely take the side of the oppressive bigots against Israel? Are they militarists? Homophobes? Anti-Christian? Do they want women to be oppressed? Do they prefer a corrupt dictatorship, rather than democracy? Do they feel threatened by freedom of speech?

december

10-30-2002, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by DMC december,

You can rest comfortably in the knowledge that Graham would likely agree with his opponent's position regarding someone living with homosexuals. As a rookie representative in S.C., the very first bill he sponsored was H. 3569, banning homosexuals and bisexuals from the National Guard and removing ones currently in service.Thank you for that information. That's disgusting. I presume Graham's rookie year was some time ago. Do you know how long ago it was? Do you know whether Graham's views have moderated since then?Now that we've established that both parties have idiots in them,I strongly disgree with your use of the word "idiots." First of all, there's nothing stupid about a politician reflecting the bigotry of his constituents. Secondly, bigotry and discrimination are an evil that must be opposed. It's worse than stupidity. And as for your statement...Is that something like this tactic?You didn't provide a link. IIRC I went on to say that the answer was "No, these people are not bigot."

Furthermore, that quote wasn't some sort of casual smear. It was the point of the thread -- the assertion that many supporters of the Palestinians are in denial about the Palestinians' failure to meet the supporters' ethical principles. In particular it goes back to what I wrote above: bigotry and discrimination are a evil that must be opposed.

tomndebb, you get an E for effort. Yes, there are right wing extremists who call Democrats evil, just as left-wing extremists do to Repubcans. If I went to The Nation or Democratic Underground, I could find solme juicy examples.

But, the idea of Republicans being evil is main steam. My example above was from 60 Minutes. A recent web ad that showed the President pushing a lady in a wheelchair over a cliff was run by the Democratic Party, who declined to apologize for it. I well remember Clinton and Carville accusing the Republicans of wanting to starve children, to let the elderly eat dog food, and having no concern about the environment.

tomndebb

10-30-2002, 06:24 AM

But, the idea of Republicans being evil is main steam. Well, if the shoe fits. . . . ;)

Currently, there is a campaign to amend the Ohio law so as to provide funds for drug rehabilitation for first time offenders. While it is ostensibly non-partisan, the backers are generally Democrats and the opponents are generally Republicans. The current ad of the opponents claims that attempting to rehabilitate first-time drug users will allow violent criminals to become doctors, etc.
I would say that 'Pubs simply do a better job of masking their "hate" rhetoric with code words. A search on James Dobson's web site (and you cannot claim that Dobson is anything but mainstream) will bear this out. He rarely uses the word "Democrat" in his invective, but frequently portrays individual Democrats as being anti-family while contrasting them to purportedly "pro-family" Republicans, so while he never says "Democrats are evil," his whole message is that "These guys (who happen to be Republican) are good while those (obviously Democrat) guys are bad."

It all boils down to the areas where each group has staked out its territory. The Republicans have chosen to portray themselves as hard-headed realists fighting the foolish fuzzy thinking of Democrats, so they tend to denigrate Democratic intelligence. The Democrats have chosen to portray themselves as the defenders of the poor against the hard-headed (and hard-hearted) "banker types" so they tend to denigrate Republican compassion. These images arose during the Depression and have long since passed into American mythology.

Spamming this board with whining complaints that you don't like the way that the parties have chosen to portray themselves since even before you were born seems to be a waste of time and bandwidth.

SuaSponte

10-30-2002, 08:35 AM

by december
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so will some Republicans [deny the obvious], and some Libertarians, and some Communists, and some Greens, and ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's an interesting point. Would Democrats be more apt to deny an instance of bigotry by one of their own than Republicans would? ISTM that on this message board the answer is yes. YMMV.

Where's your sample pool? ISTM that the only poster on these Boards who start these idiotic threads daring people of particular political affiliations to affirm or deny alleged bigotry is you - and you only start them about alleged Democratic bigotry.

God, for an actuary, you appear to know very little about stats.

And for those of you listening at home ...

David B.'s back and there's gonna be trouble
Hey la, hey la, David B.'s back!!

minty green

10-30-2002, 09:12 AM

David B is SuaSponte's boyfriend? I swear, nobody tells me anything.

:p

december

10-30-2002, 09:18 AM

Here's a third instance of the use of homophbia by 2002 Democratic campaigns. Some Democrats are willing to do anything to win, even if it violates the principles they claim to hold.Attacks Build on Lingle's Gubernatorial Camp

Yesterday, Hawaii Reporter talked to a handful of people outside the Republican Party who had direct knowledge of a new secret whispering campaign against Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Linda Lingle. Apparently a woman claiming to be the former lover of Lingle is calling targeted Republicans as a part of a smear campaign against Lingle. Lingle says she is not gay and in fact has been married twice.

Lingle supporters says smear mongers are hoping to distract voters from the real issues like the fact that the state has hit rock bottom in almost every category -– education, business, social problems, importation of drugs, domestic violence, theft -- because of poor political leadership.

Democrats tried this same smear in 1998 against Lingle when she ran for governor against incumbent Benjamin Cayetano and against some of their own candidates in years prior who weren't the "chosen" party candidates, including a Democrat candidate for mayor and a Democrat candidate for governor. Lingle addresses this rumor on her Web site, http://www.LindaLingle.com, and has discussed it openly at forums. http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?05b27c8a-2579-402b-a969-598837f46c74

As Auric Goldfinger said to James Bond,

" Once is Happenstance. Twice is Coincidence. The third time is Enemy Action."

minty green

10-30-2002, 09:43 AM

Oh, well that proves it then. Whatever "it" is, that definitely proves it.

tomndebb

10-30-2002, 09:44 AM

Some Democrats are willing to do anything to win, even if it violates the principles they claim to hold. So when Republicans engage in these tactics it is in support of principles they hold?

Scylla

10-30-2002, 11:04 AM

tomndeb:

So when Republicans engage in these tactics it is in support of principles they hold?

Of course not. We only do it to counterbalance the Democratic scourge.

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-30-2002, 11:19 AM

"Enemy Action", December? Have you checked under your bed for Communists lately?

Maybe if you'd researched a little bit more, you would find out that Mazie Hirono has denounced any such smear campaign (http://66.91.134.218/pressrelease/HonestCampaigning.htm), has distanced herself from them.

Given that your cite is a few people who claim "direct knowledge" of a smear campaign against Lingle, without names or facts to speak of, it does look to me like this smear campaign is going the opposite way: it looks like Lingle's campaign is trying to paint Hirono as a homophobe in order to alienate Democratic voters from her.

I do expect to see a denunciation from you of such untoward tactics -- we know, after all, that you're not the kind of hypocrite who would "deny the obvious" when it's about your own party.

Daniel

december

10-30-2002, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by DanielWithrow Mazie Hirono has denounced any such smear campaign (http://66.91.134.218/pressrelease/HonestCampaigning.htm), has distanced herself from them. Naturally. Both candidates might be making self-serving statements.

However, the Hawaii Reporter cites as its source: a handful of people outside the Republican Party who had direct knowledge of a new secret whispering campaign. (emphasis added)

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-30-2002, 11:54 AM

A handful of people isn't a great cite. And you need to do MUCH better than that to convince me that Hirono is behind this campaign, or even that the Democratic Party is behind this campaign. For all we know, some crazy lady who used to be Lingle's neighbor is behind this campaign.

If Hirono is behind this campaign, she's an idiot. Hawaii is famous for being progressive on gay rights; the only thing such a smear campaign would accomplish would be to alienate Democratic voters from her. In other words, look who would benefit from such a campaign: in this case, the only beneficiary I can see would be Lingle herself, who might see fewer Dems coming out to the polls.

Goldfinger didn't say, "Once is crazy paranoia. Twice is an actual case of homophobia from a Democrat. Three times is just crazy paranoia again." That leads me to believe that he was talking about something else.

Daniel

december

10-30-2002, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
A handful of people isn't a great cite. It isn't? IANAR, but I thought that two sources were sufficient to print a story. Hawaii is famous for being progressive on gay rights; the only thing such a smear campaign would accomplish would be to alienate Democratic voters from her. But, the article said that the rumor was being spread to specific individuals. in this case, the only beneficiary I can see would be Lingle herself, who might see fewer Dems coming out to the polls.Possibly, but trying to get elected by denying a false cay-baiting campaign would be pretty Macchivellian. Furthermore, I don't think it would help a candidate to do that. The homophobes would assume she really was gay; others wouldn't pay much attention. They'd find ways to overlook it, just as you have.

Mtgman

10-30-2002, 12:33 PM

I raise my objection again. Originally posted by december
Here's a third instance of the use of homophbia by 2002 Democratic campaigns. You are not allowed to use the word "third" without some type of qualifier. You can say this it the third instance of what you believe to be the use of homophobia. But, as per my count you have ONE instance of homophobia being part of a smear campaign orchestrated by an element of the Democratic party. Your latest piece, the one about Lingle, is hearsay. Reveal the source, talk to the alleged "former lover" and show evidence that the local Democratic campaign put her up to it and you've got instance number two. Right now they stand accused, and convicted by you, on the evidence of a handful of anonymous people outside the Republican Party(Hey! That group includes me! And minty, and Libertarian. And about 90% of the POPULATION OF THE ENTIRE PLANET) who CLAIM they have "direct knowledge" of this "whispering campaign". This is flimsier evidence than you had of homophobia in the Montana campaign.

Personally I find the revelation that some members of the Democratic party are hypocrites, especially during an election year, entirely unremarkable. Even if we were willing to concede the instances of homophobia exactly as you claim they exist, what does it prove? Some Democrats are hypocrites? Or do you continue to assert that SDMB members will ignore the facts, when they are genuine facts instead of vague assertions or individual interpretations, and defend the Democrats unfailingly? In the one instance you DO seem to have concrete evidence of I've not seen this defense. Everyone who has weighed in with an opinion on the comments by Alex Sanders(aside from our beloved Stoid) seems to agree he was wrong to use such tactics.

I'm willing to bet you could be matched, case by case, with cites of Republican party members who are hypocrites, especially during an election year. Is this what you're driving for? An admission that there are Democratic hypocrites? Is this the ignorance you're trying to fight? MY SIX YEAR OLD KNOWS THIS! Politicians, of every stripe, LIE. This is NOT NEWS. It certainly isn't one of the "great questions of our time."

PS: Daniel Thanks, :) I feel better now.

Enjoy,
Steven

Avalonian

10-30-2002, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by december
Some Democrats are willing to do anything to win, even if it violates the principles they claim to hold.

You mean all Democrats think alike? All of them hold to exactly the same principles? Wow, now I have a problem with them too! I had no idea they were so insidious!

december, perhaps if you thought about people in individual terms rather than victims of some form of horrible GroupThink, you'd be less likely to make posts like this, and less likely to create topic after topic in search of a defendable, logical OP.

Some Democrats are bigoted jerks. Some Republicans are bigoted jerks. Does anyone disagree? Good. That's the game, kids. Mystery solved. Not that there ever was a mystery in the first place.

SuaSponte

10-30-2002, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by december
Here's a third instance of the use of homophbia by 2002 Democratic campaigns. Some Democrats are willing to do anything to win, even if it violates the principles they claim to hold.

I strongly doubt that Democrat Alex Sanders, for one, claims to hold to the principle of gay rights. So he ain't violating dick. He's a homophobic asshole, but he ain't a hypocrite.

And that's the point you can't seem to understand - unlike in a parliamentary system, there is no such thing as party discipline in America. Alex Sanders can be a homophobe, but still be a Democrat. Bob Casey can be opposed to abortion, but still be a Democrat. And Connie Morella can vote against the party line on just about every issue, and still be a Republican.

What would you like us poor, benighted Democrats to do about Mr. Sanders? I don't give any money to him already, so I can't threaten to cut off the teat. I can't vote against him, since I don't live in South Carolina. I could denounce him - well I just did that above. And according to the instant tracking polls, my denunciation did not affect Sanders' poll ratings.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by David B
Has anybody here on the SDMB actually said anything like this ["Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people"]? Or are you just arguing against your own straw man?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the risk of gently mocking a mod, I note that there is a world outside of the Straight Dope Message Boards.

But you are not speaking to that outside world when you post here. You are speaking to the Straight Dope Message Boards. If you want to spread the Gospel that Republicans aren't bad people to the outside world, speak to them. Why are you wasting our time, since we already know this?

" Once is Happenstance. Twice is Coincidence. The third time is Enemy Action."
I would wager that we're probably up to hundreds of times that Democratic candidates have tried to smear their Republican opponents by spreading rumors he/she was homosexual.

Sua

Stoid

10-30-2002, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by december
Here's a third instance of the use of homophbia by 2002 Democratic campaigns. [/i] [/B]

The part of this that you keep skipping right past is this: in all three instances of supposed "democratic homophobia", the real homophobes are the Republicans...or shall we say perceived or assumed.

What has been done, or seems to have been done (two of the three "examples" are subjective and/or questionable in their intent), is skanky in its own right, which has been to "appeal to" the perceived homophobia of the Republican constituents. Not by in any way bashing gay people, but by implying close personal ties with gay people on the other side, or actual gayness in the most recent example.

That's the safest strategy to use, by the way, since it walks the line. With voters like me, for instance, you get a big shrug and a "yeah, so?" but you get the good recoil from voters of a more truly homophobic bent.

You can definitely point a finger at the tactics and make your case for how icky they are, but your attempt to stretch them into cases of "democratic homophobia" falls far short of the mark. Try "Democrats exploit Republican Homophobia For Political Gain". Argue the problems with that, and you are on much firmer ground.

SuaSponte

10-30-2002, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Stoid
What has been done, or seems to have been done (two of the three "examples" are subjective and/or questionable in their intent), is skanky in its own right, which has been to "appeal to" the perceived homophobia of the Republican constituents. Not by in any way bashing gay people, but by implying close personal ties with gay people on the other side, or actual gayness in the most recent example.

That's the safest strategy to use, by the way, since it walks the line. With voters like me, for instance, you get a big shrug and a "yeah, so?"

I find it extremely disheartening that you would merely shrug when a candidate engaged in gay-bashing. Methinks you let your partisanship get in the way of your decency.

Sua

Stoid

10-30-2002, 03:17 PM

Sua, you missed the point entirely! There is no gay bashing occuring! Wher is the gay person who is being bashed? The only thing that MAY be going on is that one person may be pointing at another and saying "he likes gay people" or "He IS a gay person". And to that, I respond, "Yeah, so?"

However, I understand that the reason the finger pointing is going on is because the person doing the pointing is assuming that there are other people out there whose response would be "Ew! He likes gay people? Gay people suck! I wont' vote for him!", which, as I stated, is skanky.

Are you suggesting I should get het up about skanky campaign tactics? I'd spend every election season in a perpetual froth.

Now, show me a Democrat who is reviling gay people as evil, worthless, wrong, bad, what the fuck ever, I will have a big problem with that.

Stoid

10-30-2002, 03:43 PM

Jackmannii

10-30-2002, 03:45 PM

SuaSponte

10-30-2002, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Stoid
Sua, you missed the point entirely! There is no gay bashing occuring! Wher is the gay person who is being bashed? The only thing that MAY be going on is that one person may be pointing at another and saying "he likes gay people" or "He IS a gay person". And to that, I respond, "Yeah, so?"
[snip]
Now, show me a Democrat who is reviling gay people as evil, worthless, wrong, bad, what the fuck ever, I will have a big problem with that.

Oh puh-leaze. That's exactly what Mr. Sanders was saying about his opponent.

"Don't vote for my opponent. He lives with gay people."

Why would this be presented as a reason not to vote for Mr. Sander's opponent unless Mr. Sanders was taking the position that living with gay people was bad?

Would we even be having this conversation if Mr. Sanders had said, "you shouldn't vote for my opponent, he lives with black folk"? rolleyes:

Stoid, you had been doing good for a while, but you are once again giving liberals a bad name.

Sua

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-30-2002, 04:38 PM

I see the distinction Stoid is creating. I think it's a matter of semantics, and I think that Sanders is doing something worse than being a homophobe if you use Stoid's definitions, but it is a valid distinction.

Imagine a slightly different situation. I know a local animal-rights person who is avowedly atheist. However, he often, in promoting veganism, quotes Bible verses at people.

He doesn't believe in the veracity of the Bible himself, but he knows that his audience does. So he cynically uses arguments that he himself doesn't believe.

He's quoting the Bible. Does that make him a Christian?

I'd argue it doesn't. Similarly, there's a possibility that Sanders is parroting homophobic arguments, but isn't a homophobe himself.

Frankly, I'd need to see evidence that that's the case: I think that, given what we know now, it's safe to say that Sanders is a homophobe. But there is the possibility that he's a big ugly hypocrite and not a big ugly homophobe.

I don't, however, think he can be both. At least, not about this issue. And if you define homophobe as "someone who makes homophobic arguments," instead of as "someone who dislikes homosexuals as a class," then he's definitely a homophobe.

But I think Stoid is using the second, not the first, definition.

Daniel

Captain Amazing

10-30-2002, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte

Oh puh-leaze. That's exactly what Mr. Sanders was saying about his opponent.

"Don't vote for my opponent. He lives with gay people."

Actually, it's even stupider than that. He was saying

"Don't vote for my opponent. He was endorsed by someone who lives with gay people."

SuaSponte

10-30-2002, 04:55 PM

Daniel, you may be right about "homophobia," but we were discussing "gay bashing." So the question is whether what Mr. Sanders said was intolerable, not what he thinks.

And what he said was intolerable. And Stoid pretends that it wasn't because his words didn't inspire hatred of gays in herself.
That's irrelevant. If a guy tells me that Jews are evil money grubbers, the fact that I'm not inspired to paint swastikas on my car doesn't mean that the guy didn't make an anti-Semetic remark.

Sua

Stoid

10-30-2002, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte
And what he said was intolerable. And Stoid pretends that it wasn't because his words didn't inspire hatred of gays in herself.
That's irrelevant. If a guy tells me that Jews are evil money grubbers, the fact that I'm not inspired to paint swastikas on my car doesn't mean that the guy didn't make an anti-Semetic remark.

No, No, no!

Where is the equivalent anti-homosexual statement by anyone, anywhere in these discussions to "Jews are evil money-grubbers"? Show me, please, because I sure ain't seen it. The equivalent using Jews would be almost identical: "He's a liberal! He lives with Jews!" Blacks? Same: "He's an ultra liberal! He moved in with a black family!" He is appealing to the assumed bigotry of his audience, by stating an otherwise neutral fact. He is not saying a single thing which would inspire anti-gay feeling in a person in the audience, he's making a statement that pre-existing gay-haters will react to. To tell me that someone lives with gay people or is gay themselves is a completely neutral fact of their existence, and nothing more. Yes, it tells me that they are probably liberal-minded people, and if anything, that is positive.

I am not defending his statements as a nice way to act, because Daniel nailed it exactly. It may be hypocrisy, it may be dirty-dealing, but it is NOT evidence of "Democratic Homophobia", which is what december has been arguing.

My beef is with sloppy arguments and sloppy thinking. Precision is important if you are going to debate. In the OP example, there was a scent of homophobia in the air, but it was not the Democrat's. The Democrat stank of hypocrisy.

As for me, Sua , you can refrain from giving me report cards about how well I'm representing liberals everywhere, because I'm not representing anyone but myself, thanks.

stoid

jshore

10-30-2002, 07:11 PM

december:

I take it from your lack of response that you agree with me (from yesterday's post) on the points you have demonstrated in this thread?

december

10-30-2002, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by jshore
december:

I take it from your lack of response that you agree with me (from yesterday's post) on the points you have demonstrated in this thread? I do agree with you that the Democratic Party tends to be more friendly to gays than the Republican Party. I don't want to go into your other points here, because they are deep and complex. Some of your points are worth a thread in themselves.

JDM

10-31-2002, 01:53 AM

Just for fun (and to get around all the misdirection in this thread):
here (http://www.scgop.com/documents/platform_III.asp) is the section of the South Carolina GOP platforn regarding homosexuality. The specific plank is as follows:
Morally and pragmatically, the Party considers homosexuality a lifestyle detrimental to the health and well-being of individuals and therefore opposes its promotion as simply “an alternate lifestyle.” We applaud the state for prohibiting same sex marriage and adoptions, and consider such as detrimental to the peace and tranquility or our state.
The South Carolina Democratic Party platform (http://www.scdp.org/DP/platform.htm) has no such plank.
The national GOP platform has this plank: We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law. while the national Democratic party platform says this: We support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of the nation. This would include an equitable alignment of benefits. from here, (http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html) in the section entitled "Building One America."
I had happened to be looking at the North Carolina GOP platform today, and it says: We believe homosexuality is not normal and should not be made an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle either in public education or in public policy. We oppose special treatment by law based on nothing other than homosexual behavior or identity. We therefore oppose actions, such as “marriage” or the adoption of children by same-sex couples, which attempt to legitimize and normalize homosexual relationships. We support the Defense of Marriage Act. We also stand united with private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, who defend moral decency and freedom according to their own long held and well established traditions and beliefs.
The NC Democratic Party platform has no such plank.
So we have 3 cases of perceived (by some) anti-gay statements or ads by Democrats. Whopee. JDM

SuaSponte

10-31-2002, 07:37 AM

I'll make this real simple, Stoid: would you vote for anyone who presented his/her opponent's friendships and associations with homosexuals as a reason to vote against the opponent?

If yes, how can you live with yourself?

Sua

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-31-2002, 08:31 AM

Sua, as long as I'm hairsplitting, I'll agree with you: you make a fine distinction between homophobia and gaybashing. I'll agree with you (and disagree with Stoid) that Sanders' comments constituted gaybashing: the man made a statement that amounted to, "Living with gay men doesn't constitute South Carolina values."

He may have made this statement through rhetorical questions; he may have slithered around the actual question; but that was the essence of what he was saying. Even if this statement rolls off Stoid's ears, it's calculated to make people think that homosexuality is incompatible with SouthCaroliniality, with decency.

He may have been bashing gays for cynical reasons, but he was doing it nonetheless.

(My only reservation about this is that I wish there were a word for what Sanders was doing: "gaybashing" to me means physically assaulting a person because the assailant believes the victim is homosexual, and what Sanders did, while despicable, wasn't that despicable. Gaybashers should face prison for their acts; Sanders shouldn't).

Daniel

Stoid

10-31-2002, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte
I'll make this real simple, Stoid: would you vote for anyone who presented his/her opponent's friendships and associations with homosexuals as a reason to vote against the opponent?

If yes, how can you live with yourself?

Sua

First, I doubt I'd ever be facing such a decision. I have never yet voted for a Republican, and any Democrat pulling crap like that in California would obviously be politically suicidal.

But I'll pretend for the moment that I moved to South Carolina for the beauty of it. (The south is gorgeous, that's for sure.)

I would not make my decisions about a vote based on this. I've already explained what I think this was. Skanky campaigning. Hypocrisy. Bad, bad, bad. If the candidate who did this had a voting record that I liked, had a resume I liked, and had demonstrated a commitment to a majority of issues that was in line with my own, and the opposing candidate was less skanky in his campaigning but made all the wrong votes and decisions, then yeah, I'd vote for the skanky campaigner with the right ideas, and hope he cleans up his act or someone with the right ideas and more integrity comes along soon.

And I'd feel fine about it.

That's what's wrong with the way people vote, Sua, they vote based on moments in time. Politicians are so afraid of saying one wrong word that they have to script every moment they are being heard by anyone, and as a result, what we see doesn't end up having that much to do with the truth. We are a soundbite political culture, people making important voting decisions based on tiny little bits of evidence, and that's a travesty.

stoid

SuaSponte

10-31-2002, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Stoid
I would not make my decisions about a vote based on this. I've already explained what I think this was. Skanky campaigning. Hypocrisy. Bad, bad, bad. If the candidate who did this had a voting record that I liked, had a resume I liked, and had demonstrated a commitment to a majority of issues that was in line with my own, and the opposing candidate was less skanky in his campaigning but made all the wrong votes and decisions, then yeah, I'd vote for the skanky campaigner with the right ideas, and hope he cleans up his act or someone with the right ideas and more integrity comes along soon.

And I'd feel fine about it.

That's what's wrong with the way people vote, Sua, they vote based on moments in time. Politicians are so afraid of saying one wrong word that they have to script every moment they are being heard by anyone, and as a result, what we see doesn't end up having that much to do with the truth. We are a soundbite political culture, people making important voting decisions based on tiny little bits of evidence, and that's a travesty.

No, it is not voting based on "moments in time," nor is it a result of a "soundbite political culture." It is voting based on principles. A candidate may agree with 99% of my positions, but if they take even one position that is antithetical to my principles, I will not vote for them.

And you are foolish to think that a combination of right ideas and bad integrity works for you. The only thing that a politician sells is promises. If they promise that they will work for the "right ideas," but don't have any integrity, it's pretty dumb to believe that they will lie, cheat and steal about everything else except for those precious ideas.

Sua

december

10-31-2002, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Stoid
any Democrat pulling crap like that in California would obviously be politically suicidal.Stoid, this phrase seems almost to concede Sua's point.

Stoid

10-31-2002, 03:28 PM

Sua, I think you are deliberately ignoring the modifications I stated to my position.

Each campaign is not born anew out of nowhere. I quite specifically used the words "demonstrated a commitment" - this indicates action, not mere promises. If the guy who said what Sanders had said, in that situation, but had shown by his actions in the past that he was the candidate who was going to do what I wanted to see done, then I would be disappointed in his words, but I would vote his actions.

And how nice for you that you always find candidates who are 100% in line with every single principle you hold.

By the way, do you just refrain from voting altogther with someone who is 1% different from you in his principles, or do you give your vote to the guy who is 85% different from your principles? (The effect is the same, you know)

Mtgman

11-01-2002, 11:59 AM

Stoid I don't think Sua is arguing for the case of voting against a candidate who is some percentage different on their opinions of the issues than yourself. I think he's arguing against the candidate who would betray his stated ideals to win an election. It's not the issues themselves, it's the integrity of the candidate in supporting the issues. If they'll turn traitor to an issue they previously supported whole-heartedly, they've proven themselves a faithless representative to anyone who supported them due to their position on the issue they betrayed. Let's look at a hypothetical candidate. Candidate A supports abortion and the second ammendment and makes them part of his platform. He gets some votes from supporters of abortion and some votes from supporters of gun ownership. He supports both those issues well during his first term, and both groups of voters are happy with him. Now he's up for re-election and he doesn't change his platform, and he's never taken action against abortion or gun ownership, but he demonizes, during his campaign, another candidate who also supports abortion. He demonizes the other candidate BECAUSE they support abortion. He betrayed his stated position of supporting abortion. Now the pro-abortion voter has to make a decision. Given that Candidate A has already shown he will suspend his support for an issue in one circumstance, dare the voter put Candidate A back in office? What if he betrays his support for abortion again?

This also puts the pro-gun voter in a bind. His candidate has shown to be faithless on something he was previously faithful for. The pro-gun voter's issue falls into the category of something the candidate was faithful to as well. Dare he take the risk of Candidate A proving faithless on gun control as well?

It's about integrity. This is THE single most important quality in a representative of the voters. The ability to fairly represent your constitutants. If you prove faithless, without one DAMN GOOD REASON, then you should not be a representative, IMHO.

Enjoy,
Steven

SuaSponte

11-01-2002, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Stoid
Sua, I think you are deliberately ignoring the modifications I stated to my position.
Actually, no. I was deliberately dismissing them, as pathetic attempts to justify your desire to vote for anyone bearing the Democrat label, regardless of what kind of person he/she is.

Each campaign is not born anew out of nowhere. I quite specifically used the words "demonstrated a commitment" - this indicates action, not mere promises. If the guy who said what Sanders had said, in that situation, but had shown by his actions in the past that he was the candidate who was going to do what I wanted to see done, then I would be disappointed in his words, but I would vote his actions.
And "what you wanted to see done" was pandering to bigotry?

And how nice for you that you always find candidates who are 100% in line with every single principle you hold.
Actually, it's remarkably common. My principles are simple:
1. Don't engage in bigotry or pandering to bigotry;
2. Support freedom of speech, press, religion, and civil liberties in general; and
3. Don't commit fraud, theft, or violent crimes.

Everything else are positions, not principles.

By the way, do you just refrain from voting altogther with someone who is 1% different from you in his principles, or do you give your vote to the guy who is 85% different from your principles? (The effect is the same, you know)

It's really simple: anyone who is a bigot, advocates the deprivation of civil liberties, or who has committed one of the enumerated crimes is eliminated from consideration.

Of the remaining candidates, I examine their positions and determine which one's positions on issues most agree with my own.

I then pull that person's lever.

That's my system. I like it better than yours, which appears to be voting for a bigot if he/she supported national health care, opposes welfare reform, etc.

Sua

Stoid

11-01-2002, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte

Actually, no. I was deliberately dismissing them, as pathetic attempts to justify your desire to vote for anyone bearing the Democrat label, regardless of what kind of person he/she is.

Golly, good thing I have you around to figure out what I really mean and what I'm really thinking. Thought for a minute there I was actually able to communicate my thoughts and intentions...whew!

And "what you wanted to see done" was pandering to bigotry?

Why yes, of course!

That's my system. I like it better than yours

Damn good thing. Be a shame if you liked mine better and stuck with yours anyway.

which appears to be voting for a bigot if he/she supported national health care, opposes welfare reform, etc.

These matters aren't the ones that would pop into my mind immediately, but sure, someone can be all kinds of bigot, so long as they job they do is unaffected by it, and the job they do is the job I want to see done. That does pretty much sum up my considerations.

See, I look at elections as folks applying for a job. I really don't give a flying fuck how they really think or how they conduct their private lives. It's not germane to the gig. If they live exemplary lives and radiate goodness, that is certainly a great bonus that I'm happy exists, but no, it's not the core issue. I'm much too interested in practical results. (Hey, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, something I find deeply repugnant. But he was a helluva politician and leader.)

What I care about is how they are going to do the job they are applying for. If they are going to do it the way I want to see it done, that's really the only important thing.

And as hard as you try to shame me for that, I just don't feel ashamed.

Oh well :D

stoid

Mtgman

11-01-2002, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Stoid
If they are going to do it the way I want to see it done, that's really the only important thing.That's exactly the problem when a candidate betrays their ideals. As I'm sure you're aware, the US has no strict party discipline. You want to be sure your candidate will continue to support the values you elected them for, and will carry through with their platform once they are in office? Selecting a candidate with great personal integrity is the best way to make up for the lack of party discipline.

A candidate who reveals a lack of integrity during their campaign does not deserve to be a representative of the people, IMHO. I think we agree on this point because of the statement I quoted above. Now the distinction seems to be what qualifies as proof of lack of integrity. Sua and some others in this thread think Mr. Sanders demonstrated a lack of integrity. It seems you think differently. Fine, but both sides agree that integrity is important, they just say it differently.

Enjoy,
Steven

jshore

11-01-2002, 11:04 PM

Sua:

Who the hell do you find to vote for? Hell, even Paul Wellstone, about the closest one comes to a completely principled politician voted for the "defense of marriage act" which I think qualifies for at least mild pandering to bigotry.

SuaSponte

11-02-2002, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by jshore
Sua:

Who the hell do you find to vote for? Hell, even Paul Wellstone, about the closest one comes to a completely principled politician voted for the "defense of marriage act" which I think qualifies for at least mild pandering to bigotry.

That's what third parties are for, IMO; when you cannot in good conscience vote for either of the major party candidates.

Of course, jshore, you bring a good point up: you approach voting the way Stoid does, and the result is monstrosities like DOMA, voted for by all those Democrats brimming with "integrity" and signed by yet another one.

Sua

SuaSponte

11-02-2002, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Stoid
See, I look at elections as folks applying for a job. I really don't give a flying fuck how they really think or how they conduct their private lives. It's not germane to the gig.

Well, if you're looking for an employee, consider that the only product politicians produce are their thoughts. So it's highly germane to the gig.

Sua

Stoid

11-02-2002, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte

Well, if you're looking for an employee, consider that the only product politicians produce are their thoughts. So it's highly germane to the gig.

Not at all, or if it is said of politicians, the same can be said of any non-manufacturing job.

And even if it is true, I say again: So? If a politician is secretly thinking to himself that all homosexuals should be caged and sent to Iceland, but he votes AGAINST the DOMA, then that's all that concerns me. Why should I care what is in his head, so long as I get what want from him or her? We ain't gettin' married.

Originally posted by Mtgman
Now the distinction seems to be what qualifies as proof of lack of integrity. Sua and some others in this thread think Mr. Sanders demonstrated a lack of integrity. It seems you think differently. Fine, but both sides agree that integrity is important, they just say it differently.

Both sides also agree that he demonstrated a lack of integrity. To refresh, my point was that he was not gay-bashing, but he was doing something lacking integrity, no question.

Originally posted by Sua
That's what third parties are for, IMO; when you cannot in good conscience vote for either of the major party candidates.

And it is people like you, so wedded to your principles that you will sacrifice results, that are responsible for putting Koko in the White House.

We each make our choices. Yours is to stick to your own principles, no matter what the cost. Mine is to make the most effective choice I can, given the reality of political life in the United States.

stoid

Sterra

11-02-2002, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte
That's what third parties are for, IMO; when you cannot in good conscience vote for either of the major party candidates.

Do you think you could find a third party in South Carolina that wasn't bigoted?

jshore

11-02-2002, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte

That's what third parties are for, IMO; when you cannot in good conscience vote for either of the major party candidates.

Yeah, I can understand that, having voted for Nader in the last election. But, then again, I live in New York State...If I had lived in a competitive state, I would have gritted my teeth and voted for Gore no question.

I agree with Stoid that at some point one has to be able to compromise one's principles to some degree for effectiveness or one gets stuck where we are now!

David B

11-02-2002, 02:16 PM

A few days ago, I had asked december:
Has anybody here on the SDMB actually said anything like this ["Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people"]? Or are you just arguing against your own straw man?
He responded:
At the risk of gently mocking a mod, I note that there is a world outside of the Straight Dope Message Boards. ... in the big wide world, this myth is alive and well.
Where? I mean, you quoted one instance that might be interpreted this way. I want to know where this myth is and how exactly you are fighting it by posting a thread to the SDMB where you have tacitly admitted that the myth is not alive.

ElvisL1ves

11-02-2002, 02:20 PM

Sua, you surprise me - I didn't think you were naive. It's certainly not the same as deciding that none of the applicants for the job meet your standards, so you'll just do without for awhile until one you like comes along. Someone is going to get the job and will take actions he thinks are best and meet the desires of the people who hire him. If you prissily decide not to vote at all, why should he take that as a sign of disapproval instead of apathy?

Nope, gotta pick the candidate, from among those who have a chance of winning, that you think will come closest to doing the job the way you want it done (so what about his thoughts? Actions are what count). Nobody will meet every standard you might like to put in place, so your responsibility is to put that aside and vote for what you think is best.

Hell, I don't always agree with myself. How can I demand that someone else always agree with me?

december

11-02-2002, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by David B Where Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people? I mean, you quoted one instance that might be interpreted this way. I want to know where this myth is and how exactly you are fighting it by posting a thread to the SDMB where you have tacitly admitted that the myth is not alive.David B, I'm happy to respond to your questions. However, if you want to go into detail, perhaps we should consider a separate thread.

Taking your three points in reverse order, David B, I agreed that that myth is seldom alleged on SDMB. However, there may be people at this site who believe the myth, even though they don't post here. Furthermore, there are some posters who do seem to buy into the myth, such as AceOSpades.

I am fighting the myth by pointing out examples to show that Democrats aren't all always morally perfect. I know this seems obvious. But, some who accuse the Republicans in general of being bad people think their case is proved by finding a few examples. When I do the same for Democrats, it destroys their argument.

As for where the myth is, all I can do is offer some examples or statements by those who believe in it or those who promote it.

We, as gay Democrats, are [often seen as] the good guys, and gay Republicans are the bad guys. (http://bartlet4america.org/news/po111500.html)

It can be seen on the news, read in political columns, and heard in conversation: it is the belief that the Republicans are doing what they are doing because they want to hurt you. Their actions, say this attitude, have objectively negative effects, and they know this and like it.

They are reducing environmental regulations because they want the water to be dirtier and the air to be smellier. They are lowering the annual increase in Medicare funding because they want old people to die slow, painful deaths. They are ruthlessly slashing PBS because they want children to grow up without Sesame Street. And they know, deep down in their hearts, that cutting welfare will hurl the poor into an even deeper abyss of hopeless poverty, and that this effect will trickle upward, making us all a little worse off. (http://lou.jeansonne.com/republicans.html)

Katie Couric (http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/projects/KatieCouric10thAnniversary.htm): "Then the fallout from the death of Matthew Shepard. The tragic beating of the college student in Wyoming has some activists in this country saying there is a climate of anti-gay hate that’s been fostered by a provocative advertising campaign by the political right in this country. We’re going to get into that debate after news and weather." — October 13, 1998 show.

"Let’s talk a little bit more about the right wing because I know that’s something you feel very strongly about. But this is actually not necessarily about the right wing, but perhaps a climate that some say has been established by religious zealots or Christian conservatives. There have been two recent incidents in the news, I think, that upset most people in this country, that is the dragging death of James Byrd Junior and the beating death of Matthew Shepard." -- To former Texas Governor Ann Richards as she hosted a 92nd Street Y appearance in New York City on March 3 shown by C-SPAN on April 3, 1999.

Stoid

11-02-2002, 05:28 PM

At the risk to myself of bringing up a thread that nearly got me lynched, I’m going to step in to clarify something.

Originally posted by december

It can be seen on the news, read in political columns, and heard in conversation: it is the belief that the Republicans are doing what they are doing because they want to hurt you. Their actions, say this attitude, have objectively negative effects, and they know this and like it.

They are reducing environmental regulations because they want the water to be dirtier and the air to be smellier. They are lowering the annual increase in Medicare funding because they want old people to die slow, painful deaths. They are ruthlessly slashing PBS because they want children to grow up without Sesame Street. And they know, deep down in their hearts, that cutting welfare will hurl the poor into an even deeper abyss of hopeless poverty, and that this effect will trickle upward, making us all a little worse off. (http://lou.jeansonne.com/republicans.html)[/b]

That is not the belief at all. That is what Republicans who feel unjustly picked on characterize the belief as.

While certainly some liberals believe some Republicans are evil, the "myth" you speak of is not that. The beef with Republicans as a party is that (some believe) the underlying philosophy that drives the decisions and positions of the Republican party is a selfish one, which naturally leads to the pain and suffering of others, and that, rather than actively desire the pain and suffering of others, Republicans will work hard to convince themselves that their (selfish, self-serving) desires and goals are not, wrong and will not cause harm, and will actually do the reverse. (Kinda the way Creationists will fight like hell to justify their beliefs) In other words, it is not a belief that Republicans willingly signed up with Satan, it’s that they made it a point not to read what they were signing because they didn’t want to know. (Because of course, being fundamentally decent people, they couldn't in good conscience embrace Republicanism if they looked it right in the eye and saw what it was.)

Whether this is a true statement about Republicans and Republican philosphy or not is not what I am saying, and not what I’m going to discuss (been there, done that, have the scars to prove it). I just felt the need to see to it that the liberal viewpoint is properly presented. (And I grant that I am not all liberals, but I will say that 9 out of 10 liberals I know, and I know alot, would pretty much agree with me on this.)

Carry on.

Stoid

elucidator

11-02-2002, 05:41 PM

So, then, come the Revolution, they don't all go to the wall? Gosh, Natasha, that rather complicates things, don't you think? On what basis will we make these exemptions? OK, SDMB membership, but how would we document this?

Oh, I suppose, we could just enroll them all in minimum wage jobs, flipping burgers, that sort of thing. But you have to admit it lacks the drama. That's the trouble with you liberals. Wishy-washy.

jshore

11-02-2002, 07:43 PM

december:

As Stoid pointed out, the characterization that you linked to is not how Democrats / liberals characterize Republicans but how one Republican characterizes how she belleves Democrats / liberals characterize Republicans. "They want the water to be dirtier and the air to be smellier"...Give me a break!!

Stoid has about the strongest views on the SDMB on the subject of Republicans' motives and even she notes here that she is not close to thinking what was said there. I personally would give most Republicans (though not all) more of the benefit of the doubt in regards to motives than Stoid would.

And, I have no idea what this whole thing with Katie Couric is about. Do you deny that there are Christian rights groups that have stirred up anti-gay feelings? [That web site devoted to her is amusing just to see what these people see as evidence of horrible liberal bias!!!]

JDM

11-06-2002, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by SuaSponte

That's what third parties are for, IMO; when you cannot in good conscience vote for either of the major party candidates.

Of course, jshore, you bring a good point up: you approach voting the way Stoid does, and the result is monstrosities like DOMA, voted for by all those Democrats brimming with "integrity" and signed by yet another one.

Sua
So congrats to you, Sua, Sanders has lost, and now it looks like the party whose state platform says:
Morally and pragmatically, the Party considers homosexuality a lifestyle detrimental to the health and well-being of individuals and therefore opposes its promotion as simply “an alternate lifestyle.” We applaud the state for prohibiting same sex marriage and adoptions, and consider such as detrimental to the peace and tranquility or our state. is going to be able to confirm GWB's judges and justices. Great. A bunch of people with considerable power, appointed for life, and picked by the party whose national platform says:
We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law. JDM

SuaSponte

11-06-2002, 09:12 AM

JDM,

And how, exactly, is that different than the result had Sanders won? From his statement, it appears that he holds the same position on homosexuality.
Are your arguing that, had Sanders won, the Democrats would have had the majority in the Senate, and the justices confirmed would have supported gay rights or same-sex marriage?

My rebuttal: DOMA - passed by Democrats, signed into law by a Democrat.

JDM, say you have Strom Thurmond (having moved and returned to the Democratic Party) running against Jesse Helms. Do you argue that I should vote for Strom simply because voting for Strom will strengthen the Democratic Party?

by Elvis
Sua, you surprise me - I didn't think you were naive. It's certainly not the same as deciding that none of the applicants for the job meet your standards, so you'll just do without for awhile until one you like comes along. Someone is going to get the job and will take actions he thinks are best and meet the desires of the people who hire him. If you prissily decide not to vote at all, why should he take that as a sign of disapproval instead of apathy?

Nope, gotta pick the candidate, from among those who have a chance of winning, that you think will come closest to doing the job the way you want it done (so what about his thoughts? Actions are what count). Nobody will meet every standard you might like to put in place, so your responsibility is to put that aside and vote for what you think is best.
Where'd this "prissily deciding not to vote" come from? I'll get back to the third-party issue.

I'm befuddled by your response. I only have three negative criterion - I won't vote for bigots, I won't vote for those who advocate the deprivation of civil liberties, and I won't vote for those who have committed fraud, theft, or violent crimes.

How in God's name is that "naive"? Are you arguing that I should vote for Joe Smith, liberal Democrat, who thinks that "darkies" are dumber than whites, so long has he supports generous welfare payments to support those poor dumb darkies?

Am I support to vote for Jane Doe, who advocates constitutional amendments barring flag burning and pornography, because she'll vote for a higher minimum wage?

I think what is truly naive here is your belief that, with politicians, there is a difference between thoughts and actions. All politicians produce are thoughts; that's their raison d'etre.
As for the "third-party" issue, how exactly do you think we've gotten into a position where Democratic candidates say things like what Sanders said, where we have to hold our noses while voting for a Democrat? Because people like you and Stoid will hold your noses and vote for that Dem. If I vote for a third-party candidate instead, perhaps the Dems will get the message and not nominate a bigot the next time. Maybe they won't, but either way I win; I haven't voted for a bigot.

Sua

JDM

11-06-2002, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by SuaSponte
JDM, Are your arguing that, had Sanders won, the Democrats would have had the majority in the Senate, and the justices confirmed would have supported gay rights or same-sex marriage?
My rebuttal: DOMA - passed by Democrats, signed into law by a Democrat.
JDM, say you have Strom Thurmond (having moved and returned to the Democratic Party) running against Jesse Helms. Do you argue that I should vote for Strom simply because voting for Strom will strengthen the Democratic Party?

Much as it disgusts me, if control of the senate is up for grabs, I would. You know as well as I that the majority party has significant control not only in voting but in procedure- look at how the GOP blocked Clinton's judicial appointments. Now they have free rein. When they were obstructing Clinton, the moderate wing of the party was not much in evidence. I don't think a Dem bigot would be that much more in evidence. Maybe the Judges confirmed would not have actively supported equal rights, but at least the more egregious of GWB's appointments would have been blocked. Half a loaf, and all that. But now, the party that is the avowed, open enemy of gays is in control.
Look at it this way- I am 100% against the death penalty. I still voted for Clinton and Gore (although Clinton's use of it during the 1992 campaign disgusted me).
I think that we are in much worse shape than if we had the Dems, even with a bigot in their ranks, in control.

Now if you want to talk about the two party system being bad, I'm right with you.

Maybe they won't, but either way I win; I haven't voted for a bigot.
Sua
I guess I am just getting old- idealism isn't its own reward any longer. Obviously I have standards, but I can't help but think that in the end we would have been better off if the Senate were in Dem hands, and then we could put pressure on them to use their power correctly. JDM

ElvisL1ves

11-06-2002, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte
[b]JDM,
How in God's name is that "naive"? Are you arguing that I should vote for Joe Smith, liberal Democrat, who thinks that "darkies" are dumber than whites, so long has he supports generous welfare payments to support those poor dumb darkies?
Hardly. I was responding to your statement, which I may have misinterpreted, that there are times you'd choose to sit out an election and take whatever others choose for you. If that isn't what you meant, I take it back.

Yes, you do have to pick the person who comes closest to doing the job the way you want it done, or things can be even worse. Ideals are fine, but the real world is where we have to live. Let's deal with the real world. Call it "voting the lesser evil" or "holding your nose" if you like, but also recognize that every candidate is human, too.

I think what is truly naive here is your belief that, with politicians, there is a difference between thoughts and actions. All politicians produce are thoughts; that's their raison d'etre.
No, try again - what affects us individually and the world in general is their actions, not their thoughts. The finest philosopher in the world is unlikely to be a good statesman or even manager, and the most effective leaders are often fairly shallow people.

Third parties are fine if they approach their work with a sense of responsibility - the realization that the single issue they're promoting (and they're all basically single-issue operations) is worth implementing in the real world, in a form fairly unchanged once one of the majors co-opts it. If advocacy for a single issue that you think is being ignored by the parties who actually have the power to do something about it is more important than the identity of the office's occupant for the next term, then that's fine - it's simply taking a longer view, in the expectation that it will someday be a reality you can and want to live with. But simply sitting it out is never effective.

I have a suspicion we still don't understand each other, but I don't think it's entirely my fault.

SuaSponte

11-07-2002, 09:15 AM

originally posted by JDM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe they won't, but either way I win; I haven't voted for a bigot.
Sua
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess I am just getting old- idealism isn't its own reward any longer. Obviously I have standards, but I can't help but think that in the end we would have been better off if the Senate were in Dem hands, and then we could put pressure on them to use their power correctly. JDM

I am the farthest thing from an idealist. I only have three criteria, and they seem extremely pragmatic to me - pragmatically speaking, bigots, those for deprivation of civil liberties, and those who have committed the crimes I mentioned, would make bad representatives/leaders.

And I am a pragmatist in another way. Your, Elvis' and Stoid's attitude leads to Democratic defeat. Democrats tend to apathy when confronted with the need to vote for a distasteful candidate.

Sua

Stoid

11-07-2002, 12:21 PM

Bzzzzzzzzzz. Overreach overreach! We are not promoting distasteful candidates. If we were, you might have a point.

SuaSponte

11-07-2002, 01:19 PM

Sure you are, Stoid. You are voting for them.

Sua

Mtgman

11-07-2002, 03:26 PM

Quick question for anyone still following this thread. december posted something a couple of pages back that seems to be ambigious. Can I get a quick show of hands as to what this means? Originally posted by december
Would Democrats be more apt to deny an instance of bigotry by one of their own than Republicans would? Does it mean Would Democrats be more apt to deny an instance of bigotry by one of their own than Republicans would [be to deny bigotry by a Democrat]?
Would Democrats be more apt to deny an instance of bigotry by one of their own than Republicans would [be to deny bigotry by a Republican]?
Anyone? Everyone?

Enjoy,
Steven

december

11-07-2002, 07:14 PM

It means #2. That's why I used the phrase "one of their own."

ElvisL1ves

11-08-2002, 11:57 AM

Sua, even if you call it voting for the lesser evil, that is not the same as supporting evil as you suggest. In the short run, it's upholding our responsibility as citizens to make the best of things - and before we are political animals, we are citizens with all the responsibilities that the term entails. Some persons have different views - those who ignore the fact that we're all one society in their zeal to push narrow agendas, and those who would rather run away than hold their noses and dig into whatever pile needs digging. I'm not sure which of those you are, perhaps both, but you're not in any way convincing me that you're actually advancing any useful cause at all with the course you choose.

In the long run, it's maintaining our stake in the game, one which cannot be opted out of. By making candidates beholden to us as voters, we have leverage to make them behave the way we want them to.