All you Democrats who defended the acceptance of gifts from crooks are invited to excuse this homophobic ad run by the Montana Democratic Party. Do you buy the Democratic response?
So, you’re feeling hurt and annoyed that nobody wanted to debate the Evilness of the Clintons–indeed, everybody just laughed at you–so you start another thread with a deliberately provocative title and OP?
<< sigh >>
Let the pileon begin. :rolleyes:
Haven’t seen the ad, but if it’s appealing to homophobic sentiments among the citizenry, then, yes, it’s vile. I’m not sure how you’ll connect a state race in Montana to the General Vileness of All Democrats, but I feel confident you’ll find a way.
Pony, your one trick is getting stale. It’s time to learn a new one or be put out to pasture.
I heard that it was the accounting irregularities that sank Taylor’s campaign. Maybe the montana republicans would do better if they stopped nominating scam artists and crooks for public office.
I think this says more about the good people of Montana than it does about the Democratic party, but perhaps that’s just me.
I am outraged! Those evil Republicans are talking about replacing that guy with another Republican. Why, that just means that all the Democrats’ negative advertising will have been wasted. How will democracy survive?
:rolleyes:
Oh, to be gay and in Montana!
Oh man that article cracked me up!
Believe me if I was running for office and I found some goofy-ass film my opponent did in the early 80s where my opponent is:
it would be running in heavy rotation too.
It sounds to me that the film just makes the guy look like a goof not a homosexual. Making your opponent look goofy, is enough when you’re running for office.
I suppose anyone can read anything into it, but nowhere does the ad say anything about the sexuality of the candidate.
It sound to me like he’s pulling a Trafficant here. He’s losing his ass because of a financial scandal and doesn’t want to run anymore. Seems familiar enough to me.
things I think are interesting:
here in Montana, the Rep. guy is pulling out in mid October for a race that will be held in early November, vs. the Rep. stance (acknolwedging the specific Jersey law), in the other state “but we’ve run a campaign against so and so”.
the ad, according to the link, was about the Rep. guy’s problems with student loans, (since resolved w/o admission of wrong doing), for a time when he got student loans in order to be a hair dresser. So now, apparently, it’s homophobic to run the ad w/an accompanying picture of him actually doing what his student loan taught him? IOW – the inclusion of the clip showing him as a hairdresser wasn’t totally out of the blue - it was directly related to the issue it was attempting to present. Now, do I think some ad about a (since resolved) student loan issue is relevant to the campaign? Nope. But then, silly me, I didn’t think that the fact that one candidate for MI gov. having been born in Canada and lived in CA after college, attempting a film career, was relevant either. W/O being able to see the actual ad, I don’t see a clear case for it being homophobic vs. being a typical unrelated whatever we can find semi suspicious about their background (possible student loan abuse) tactic.
the article also notes that the current numbers are 54- 35 (dem/rep), and that ad has only run since last Friday. I tend to doubt (unless some one can supply evidence ) that a 19 point spread suddenly happened in less than a week. (so, if he’s blaming that spread on the ad, we’d hope to find evidence that the race was neck and neck up til last Friday)
things I don’t find interesting:
yet another democrat bashing half hearted OP by december
No, the ad is not homophobic, and it’s not vile. Patience, Grasshopper. 
So, Taylor was a hairdresser, and did some TV spots way back when, and the Dems have dug up those old film clips showing him wearing his goofy late-1970s Saturday Night Live getup, and are airing them–and Taylor claims this means they’re trying to say he’s gay?
Sounds like a desperate ploy for attention to me.
According to this analyst, the Dems aren’t playing the “homophobic” card–they’re playing the “He’s a silly man” card.
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/10/04/build/elections/beautyimage.php?nnn=5
And last Saturday, after the TV ad began airing, it evidently hadn’t occurred to Taylor yet that he could be the one to yell “homophobic!” and get some media attention. From the Montana Forum article:
And actually, Taylor’s numbers were already bad for a long time before the TV ad campaign started. The ad began running last Friday, October 4.
A poll taken September 24-26 shows him way behind.
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/09/30/build/elections/baucuslead.php?nnn=5
So yeah, I hear “Oh, no, I’m gonna lose, what can I do to make people feel sorry for me, hey, it’s not my fauullllt…” whining, real loud.
It actually looks to me like the “heinous” Democratic TV ad campaign ain’t done diddly for them and they might as well have saved their money.
Not exactly OT, but seeing as how it’s just another partisan december screed, I’ll not worry about it too much…
Here in Oregon, Gordon Smith, the Republican governor incumbent, is running ads touting his record in protecting gay rights. Even has Matt Sheppard’s mom on them.
No real point here, I just found it encouraging. (You listening, MrVisible? Looks like maybe you were right.)
Looks to me like Taylor’s trying to play the Homphobe card against the Dems in a disingenuous fashion.
I’m trying to understand when John Travolta’s character in “Saturday Night Fever” became not only gay, but “stereotypical.” ISTR he was an agressively straight boy.
I’m also trying to understand when it became improper to rebroadcast footage that your opponent knowingly created and put out on the airwaves.
I’m also trying to understand how anyone can assert that this was homophobic without saying what the ad said.
If the ad consisted of showing the old footage of Taylor and his goofy clothes, then a voiceover saying “We really want this idiot representing us?” - not homophobic (not substantive either, but that’s not the point).
OTOH, if the ad consisted of showing the old footage of Taylor, then a voiceover saying, “Mike Taylor. Our thspecial thenator.” - homophobic.
Which one was it? Enquiring minds want to know - and responsible OPers find out before they start the OP.
Sua
Sua: All I can find out about what the ad actually says is that it’s apparently nothing about gays at all, no insinuations other than that of fiscal irresponsibility. Apparently the voiceover is talking about the “student loan thing”.
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/10/09/build/elections/taylorlist.php?nnn=4
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/10/09/build/elections/taylorswife.php?nnn=4
So it just occurred to Taylor last night, evidently, that he could play the “homophobic!” card, and not only win a lot of support from people who wouldn’t bother to investigate the ad itself, but also skillfully deflect talk away from the unpleasant subject of the student loan thing.
I don’t know december, do you have one shred of shame in you?
You haven’t let me down! Look at this wonderful list of excuses.
Duck Duck Goose says homophobia is less important as piling on december. She also thinks Taylor is “playing the homophobic card” even though Taylor is dropping out of the race. (Riddle: Which card is the homophbic card?)
Squink says the homophobic ad isn’t important, because Taylor would have lost anyway, due to (alleged) accounting irregularities.
Maeglin says the Democrats only use homophobic ads in a homophobic area like Montana, rather than, say, Provincetown. (Dems may be ruthless about winning elections, but they’re not stupid!)
minty green says a homophobic ad isn’t as important as hoisting Republicans on their own petard regarding candidate switching.
wring, like Squink, says the ad isn’t homophobic because Taylor was losing anyhow.
Scylla doesn’t criticize the ad but has a problem with gay man being upset by it. (Would Scylla say that MLK whined too much?)
Sua points out that the ad focuses on “only two” of the main gay stereotypes: hairdressers and flamboyant dressing. But, if it also included lisping, then it really would be homphobic, he says.
Collounsbury finds yours truly to be shameless, but has no complaint about the ad.
Thank you, gobear for a reasonable reaction to the ad. I forgive your obligatory smearing of yours truly. I understand it’s required in the contract.
How are you going to go about demonstrating that it appeals to homophobic stereotypes, december? I wasn’t all that old in the early 80s, but what I do remember, reinforced by pictures, etc, seems to confirm that a great many people dressed in that manner before it became a homosexual stereotype.
Now, it just looks quaint and silly. But to call it gay-baiting seems to be wrenching it out of context.
what utter bunk.
I said, among other things, that it’s not clear that simply showing footage of a hairstylist is in itself homophobic. that the message of the ad was in reference to a former student loan for when he **learned ** to be a hair stylist, so footage of him being a hair stylist was relevent to the ad. that the ad itself was not necessarily relevant, but no different than any other irrelevant to the issues ad typically run by any party.
the only evidence that its’ “homophobic” is that the REp. guy says he thinks it is 'cause he shows him being a hair stylist.
and you boil it down to ‘but he was loosing anyhow, so…’.
knock it off.
stop misrepresenting my arguments. Now.
bah. why waste any further time?
The offending spot can be found on thesmokinggun.com.
Hey, what do Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and december have in common?