# Are homophobic ads OK if they're run by Democrats? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2002, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719 "2002-10-10T19:26:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/1 "2002-10-10T19:26:07Z")
> [@](#): > > State Sen. Mike Taylor, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, will withdraw from the race this afternoon, saying a Montana Democratic Party television ad has destroyed his campaign. > > Taylor…said the ad, which he said insinuated that he was a gay hairdresser… > > What incensed Taylor was the film clip accompanying the ad. Taylor had a twice weekly segment in the early 1980s on a Denver television station. The clip shows Taylor applying lotions to the face of a man siting in the barber chair and discussing techniques. The ad shows Taylor, then slender, sporting a full beard. He is wearing a tight-fitting, three piece suit, with a big-collared open shirt ala John Travolta in “Saturday Night Fever.” Taylor’s top two or three shirt buttons are unbuttoned, exposing some bare chest and a number of gold chains… > > State Sen. Ken Toole, D-Helena, and program director for the Montana Human Rights Network, said Thursday morning the ad “is an overt and obvious appeal to the homophobic (voter) that is playing to that stereotypic imagery.” > > Toole, who has fought for homosexual rights for years in the Montana Legislature, said he had complained to the state Democratic Party. > > Toole said the Democratic response was that the image was not intended to imply that Taylor was gay. [http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?tts=1&display=rednews/2002/10/10/build/local/50-taylor-bails.inc](http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?tts=1&display=rednews/2002/10/10/build/local/50-taylor-bails.inc) 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? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/2 "2002-10-10T19:31:12Z")
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: ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/3 "2002-10-10T19:39:29Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/4 "2002-10-10T19:47:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/5 "2002-10-10T19:52:11Z")
I think this says more about the good people of Montana than it does about the Democratic party, but perhaps that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/6 "2002-10-10T20:04:04Z")
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: ---
**Author:** ![japatlgt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df705f/32.png) [@japatlgt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/japatlgt)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/7 "2002-10-10T20:04:17Z")
Oh, to be gay and in Montana! ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/8 "2002-10-10T20:14:11Z")
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: > [@](#): > > …wearing a tight-fitting, three piece suit, with a big-collared open shirt ala John Travolta in “Saturday Night Fever.” Taylor’s top two or three shirt buttons are unbuttoned, exposing some bare chest and a number of gold chains. 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. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/9 "2002-10-10T20:16:39Z")
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** ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/10 "2002-10-10T20:18:12Z")
No, the ad is not homophobic, and it’s not vile. Patience, Grasshopper. 😃 > [@](#): > > Taylor owned and operated a chain of hair care salons and beauty products sales that he has since sold. 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](http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/10/04/build/elections/beautyimage.php?nnn=5) > [@](#): > > October 5, 2002 > TV ads show ‘barber-beautician’ Taylor > By CHARLES S. JOHNSON > Lee State Bureau > > \< snip \> > > The television ad shows footage of Taylor appearing on his daily noontime television program. “Beauty Corner,” in Denver in the early 1980s. Taylor is shown applying lotions to the face of a man sitting in a barber chair and discussing the various techniques. > > Taylor doesn’t look much like he does today. The ad shows Taylor, then slender, sporting a full beard. He now wears a mustache. > > In the ad, Taylor is wearing a tight-fitting three-piece suit, with a big-collared open shirt, like the one John Travolta wore in “Saturday Night Fever.” Taylor’s top two or three shirt buttons are unbuttoned exposing some bare chest and a number of gold chains. > > The Democratic tactic may be similar to what happened in Baucus’ first Senate campaign in 1978 when his Republican opponent was Larry Williams, a Kalispell investment adviser. > > The Montana AFL-CIO obtained an unflattering picture of Williams that had run in Forbes magazine years earlier. Williams was wearing love beads and sported a wild hairdo that contrasted with his trim, buttoned down businessman’s image in 1978. Williams said the photo was snapped after he had been on a long flight. > > The AFL-CIO distributed several hundred thousands of these photos of Williams around the state. At the time, some election observers credited the move as a factor in helping Baucus win the tight race. 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: > [@](#): > > After seeing the Democratic advertisement Friday, Taylor said, “I think I was a little trimmer in 1980.” > > “We all looked a little different when we were younger,” he said. “I guess what they’re saying is anyone who comes from the hair-care cosmetology field is not qualified to be a U.S. senator.” 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](http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/09/30/build/elections/baucuslead.php?nnn=5) > [@](#): > > **September 30, 2002** > > Poll shows Baucus in lead > By CHARLES S. JOHNSON > Lee State Bureau > > HELENA – U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., has mounted a wide lead over his Republican challenger, state Sen. Mike Taylor, a new Lee State Bureau poll of Montana voters shows. > > The poll showed Baucus, who is seeking his fifth Senate term, topping Taylor by a 54 percent to 35 percent margin, with 10 percent of the voters undecided. Green Party candidate Robert Kelleher was at 1 percent, while Libertarian Stan Jones had zero. > > Taken Tuesday through Thursday [**Note: this would have been Sept. 24-26**] by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., of Washington, D.C., the poll surveyed 626 Montana registered voters who said they intended to vote in the general election. This poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. > > “Baucus is running over 50 percent,” said Brad Coker, managing director of the polling company. “There’s not enough undecided voters now to swing it to Taylor.” > > Baucus’ lead in the latest poll is nearly identical to what it was in a Lee State Bureau poll taken Dec. 14-17, 2001. In December, the poll, which also had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, showed Baucus topping Taylor 54 percent to 34 percent, with 13 percent undecided. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/11 "2002-10-10T20:18:24Z")
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.) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/12 "2002-10-10T20:21:54Z")
Looks to me like Taylor’s trying to play the Homphobe card against the Dems in a disingenuous fashion. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/13 "2002-10-10T20:22:01Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/14 "2002-10-10T20:51:09Z")
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/taylorlist.php?nnn=4) > [@](#): > > Wednesday, October 9, 2002 > > Taylor said the Montana Democratic Party’s ad accusing him of running “a student loan scam” and “lining his own pockets” is not true and is “based on innuendo, not substantiated facts.” > > “What bothers me,” Taylor said, “is they are using a picture to assassinate my character. Why use that picture? Are they saying someone from my field in not qualified to be senator?” > > The Montana Democratic Party is running a $100,000 television ad campaign accusing Taylor of abusing student loan programs. It began Friday and will continue for a week. > > Taylor signed settlements with the U.S. Department of Education and the Colorado Student Loan Program and paid $27,250 to cover audit allegations. Both sides agreed that the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing. The audit and settlement involved a hair design school in Colorado. [http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/10/09/build/elections/taylorswife.php?nnn=4](http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/10/09/build/elections/taylorswife.php?nnn=4) > [@](#): > > Wednesday, October 9, 2002 > Taylor’s wife takes blame for woes > By BOB ANEZ > Associated Press > > HELENA (AP) – Janna Taylor, wife of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike Taylor, took responsibility Tuesday for clerical errors that she said led to problems her husband’s former beauty school had in handling student loans. > > “The paperwork errors were mostly mine, or else they were those of the company we hired to help with our paperwork,” she said in statement, four days after Democrats began airing a TV ad accusing Taylor of a student loan scam when he operated the Michael Taylor Institute for Hair Design in the 1990s. > > Janna Taylor, who said she was administrator of the school at the time, called it “absolutely slanderous” for the commercial to claim that Taylor illegally profited from student loan money. > > \< snip \> > > The Montana Democratic Party ad was prepared using reports from the U.S. Department of Education. The reports concluded that Taylor’s school provided loans to students enrolled in a program ineligible for financial assistance and failed to properly refund student loan money when they left school. > > \< snip \> > > The records also said the school gave loans to students no longer attending classes or failed to meet academic standards and failed to verify loan eligibility of some students. > > \< snip \> > > Taylor’s campaign branded the ad libelous and slanderous, and pondered legal action. But manager Alan Mikkelsen said Tuesday that a lawsuit that could not be resolved until long after the Nov. 5 election will not be pursued. 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. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/15 "2002-10-10T21:03:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* [http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?tts=1&display=rednews/2002/10/10/build/local/50-taylor-bails.inc](http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?tts=1&display=rednews/2002/10/10/build/local/50-taylor-bails.inc) > > 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? \*\* I don’t know **december** , do you have one shred of shame in you? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/16 "2002-10-10T21:13:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/17 "2002-10-10T21:22:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/18 "2002-10-10T21:23:28Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![CLedet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b487fb/32.png) [@CLedet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CLedet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/19 "2002-10-10T21:38:06Z")
The offending spot can be found on [thesmokinggun.com](http://thesmokinggun.com). [http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/taylorad1.html](http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/taylorad1.html) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719/20 "2002-10-10T21:58:17Z")
Hey, what do Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and december have in common? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-homophobic-ads-ok-if-theyre-run-by-democrats/131719.md?page=2)