December, I want to call you on this, because this is dishonest. My full quote said that the woman in the ad looked like a drag queen, and then went on to mention several women who share characteristics with drag queens, and then went on to mention that the woman’s bad 'do was my guess as to why she appeared in the ad.
By truncating my quote, you make it look as if I’m agreeing with you that there’s homophobia in the ad. I did no such thing, and it’s dishonest of you to suggest that I did.
I’m starting to see why you get people’s knickers in such a twist.
Here’s the explanation, and a perfectly simple and logical one it is, too, containing not the slightest hint of homophobia or Democratic character assassination.
Clearly, so far nobody has said that the ads make Taylor look gay.
[li] On Thursday, October 10, Taylor officially drops out of the race, saying that the ad makes him look gay. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6950-2002Oct10.html[/li][/ul]
I repeat my earlier assertion that it only occurred to Taylor sometime during the week that this was a heaven-sent excuse for him to drop out of a race that he was already losing–blame it on the Democrats and their “homophobic” ad.
It looks to me as if, by December-standards, this ad is accusing Ryan of pedophilia. Where’s the outrage, December? Where’s the new thread about them evil Republicans?
Luckily we don’t have to convince december. We just have to be sure that anyone who stumbles across this thread understands this is not a clear case of attacking someone based upon a, false as far as I can tell, perception of their sexual orientation. The two extremes are, THEY SAID HE’S GAY!, and THEY MEANT NOTHING BY IT, ANY CONCLUSIONS DRAWN ABOUT HIS SEXUALITY ARE ARTIFACTS OF YOUR OWN PREJUDICES!
I think we’ve done a good enough job showing this ad as open to interpretation so that a reasonably intelligent casual reader will understand the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle instead of at the extreme end december occupies or at the other extreme end.
And now for something completely different: Homophobia!
BTW, doesn’t anybody here want to point out the subtle homophilic message of Mike Taylor’s search for Rough Riders? The guy’s obviously subtly trying to get the gay Montana voting bloc on his side.
And what about John Berlau’s defense of Mike Taylor, where he calls Taylor “manly.” Now I don’t know about you, and I certainly can’t speak for all Montanans, but I hear in that “manly” a clear reference to John Belushi’s gay sea captain, looking for “manly men,” from the “Miles Cowperthwaite” sketches with Michael Palin on SNL, timeless clessics that were surely uppermost in Berlau’s mind when he wrote his oh-so-very butch defense.
This is not, of course, to in any way excuse Taylor’s opponent’s awful ad. I would expound upon that issue, but I find that there isn’t anything to say that has not been said better by Bob Boudelang:
Of course. It’s what I said I was talking about. WAEFRTD. That cite also said
The Slime Machine was up and running; it wasn’t turned off promptly after Taylor announed his withdrawal. Duck Duck Goose’s cite offers an explanation (or excuse) for the delay.
Nonsense, I made it look as if you thought the woman looked like a drag queen, which is what you said. So what if certain other women look like drag queens? There was no reason for the flyer to show a woman with a bad hairdo. What purpose would it serve? There was a reason to insinuate that Taylor was gay – it would make him unpopular with homophobes. Adding this picture to the earlier video seems to me conclusive that the Baucus campaign intentionally sought out suggestive pictures. You are free to see it differently.
DDG, I appreciate the cite. However, I have a couple of differences in its interpretaton. I think the article more-or-less supports the drag queen interpretation. It described a “clownish looking person of indeterminate gender with flaming red hair, a blue-tinted face and pink boa.” The key is the phrase, “of uncertain gender.”. In other words, according to the article, the picture might represent “A clownish looking man with flaming red hair, a blue-tinted face and pink boa.” That description sure sounds like a drag queen.
Second, I appreciate your time line. However, you haven’t validated your statement: “Clearly, so far [as of Oct. 6] nobody has said that the ads make Taylor look gay.” You haven’t addressed the date when Montana Democrat Ken Toole first first complained that the video ad was offensive. This affair is not just a dispute between Republicans and Democrats. It’s a dispute between principled Democrats, like Ken Toole, and ruthless Democrats.
According to the article cited in the OP,
Since the article appeared on Thursday, Oct. 10, and since it mentions the response of the Democratic Party to Toole (a brush-off), it seems that Toole must have objected to the video ad at least as early as Thursday, Oct. 3.
This date is puzzling if the ad only began running on Oct. 4, as you state. It may be that Toole saw the ad before it ran. However, are you certain that the ad didn’t run earlier than Oct. 4? Your cite for that comment doesn’t give the date. Maybe the ad actually began running earlier than Oct. 4.
State Sen. Mike Taylor shouldn’t be so thinned skinned the political race do that The name of the game is to discredit their opponent so they can get their votes and win the game. Republicans are not saint either.
He doubted anyone would be interested, given the timing and the tone of the race. “The negative atmosphere created by the Democrats doesn’t make it appealing for someone else to get into the campaign.”
Now republicans want to take the high road of being fair? The negative atmosphere created by the Democrats is a joke. . Look what happened with President Clinton for 8 years that was a negative atmosphere too.
The Democratic Party’s $100,000 television ad campaign accused Taylor of abusing student loan programs. 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 by either party. The audit and settlement involved a hair design school in Colorado.
Taylor owned and operated a chain of hair care salons and beauty products sales that he has since sold.
The ad accused Taylor of abusing student loan program that was the intention of the ad. And wow did Taylor take it to a whole new level, it is laughable. If Taylor quits because of this ad you do not want him in office of any kind cause it show he is not a fighter for his cause.
My opponent has blanketed the airwaves with loathsome distortions of the truth and called it a campaign. I talked - always - about votes, about plans for the future and about ideas. I thought it would be enough. I was wrong.
Rush Limbaug does this to for the republicans distorts truth.
Claim: Hillary Clinton played a significant role in defending Black Panthers accused of torturing and murdering Alex Rackley.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1999]
And there is many more like this distortion about Democrats. And do you hear them crying about it? As for Taylor quitting if you dig deep you will find out there is another reason.
He was losing anyway so Taylor is a sore loser and being a brat and quits cause things are not going his way. And he can cry for years to come I did not loss the race I quit cause the Democrats made me look bad.
Thank you duck duck goose.
The only people who are saying that it’s homophobic are Mike Taylor and the few people he can get to agree with him
Nonsense. What DanielWithrow said was that there are lots of women who look like silly stereotypes of drag queens. This woman happens to look like one of those stereotypes, she also looks like an example of the stereotypical person who got a bad “do”. In and of itself, this means nothing. It takes the viewers own prejudices and assumptions to interpret it as “This is a picture of a drag queen.” The wording on the flyer, and yes I’ve seen it, does nothing to help draw this inference.
This is really grasping at straws. Why not go after real dirty politics instead of inventing it? There’s plenty of it, on both sides of the isle.
Okay, December, I’m gonna limit myself to your half-truths that address my posts – other folks can handle themselves.
You said, when I asked if the flyer was sent out after Taylor withdrew,
What your cite actually said was that the flyer
Note that “several days later” doesn’t appear in that cite, and that the cite is incorrect if it suggests that the flyer was sent out after Taylor withdrew. As DDG points out, they sent the flyer to the bulk mail centers before Taylor withdrew. So you lied about your cite, and your cite was itself incorrect.
Now you say
When I actually said,
These are two different thoughts entirely. I don’t think Marilyn Monroe looks like a drag queen, but I can see how Monroe looks similar to some drag queens. Same case here: if you mention drag queens, and then show me this picture, I can see that it’s possible this is a man dressed as a woman. But that’s not what I would think if I saw the picture without your suggestion. You’re distorting what I say for your own ends. That’s slimy, and you should be ashamed.
Considering that the article in question was last modified October 11 at 4:44 pm, that puts the ad’s starting run on October 4. Either Toole commented earlier on Thursday, October 11 (that’s what they mean when they say that he made his comment “Thursday morning”), or else the Billings-Gazette doesn’t understand how to give dates of events more than one week prior and Toole is psychic.
So we have our timeline:
-Ad runs on October 4
-Taylor disputes the ad’s facts October 6
-Toole claims the ad is homophobic October 10
-Taylor withdraws from race, October 10
-Dore Schwinden tries to stop the flyer’s mailing October 10, too late to stop many of the mailings.
At least, December, if you have any integrity at all, admit that they didn’t have a chance to change the flyer once the TV ad was accused of homophobia.
December, had they chosen a picture of Marilyn Monroe for that flyer, they also have chosen a woman who happens to look like one of the stereotypes of drag queens. Would you have concluded from a picture of Marilyn Monroe that they were questioning Taylor’s sexuality?
For the love of all that’s holy, admit that you’ve stepped out too far on a limb and it’s cracked beneath you. You distorted what I said, misstated the timeline, mischaracterized your own cites, and attacked a nonexistent sin in a case that has plenty of existent sins.
I’ve seen fighting pit bulls who leave a losing fight quicker.
How about this. Because the ad agency they contracted to produce the flyer turned the request for “a picture of a woman with a bad hairdo” into this picture. The cite in DDG’s post clearly indicates the flyer was produced by an ad agency, not by campaign officials. They gave the agency the text and a request for a picture of someone with a bad hairdo.
Jeezum crow, December, are you, like, totally not paying attention, or what? Or do you just not believe in reading links to see what they say, or what? The date when the ads began running has only been mentioned twice. I would think that once would have been sufficient.
[ol][li] My post, above, on the page, right up there. My cite doesn’t NEED to have the date given in the cite, because if you could have brought yourself to click on the link and check to see where I got my data, you would have seen it, right away. Here, I’ll copy and paste it for you, save you the trouble of scrolling up and clicking on the link.[/li] http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=20280
So, THEREFORE, (logic–I know it’s difficult, but do try, dear), the reference to “last Friday” MUST mean the “previous Friday”, or “Friday October 4”.
Okay, more logic here. (Let me know if it starts to hurt.) The article was written on Thursday, October 10, and therefore the reference to “last Friday” must mean “Friday October 4”, as it could hardly refer to “Friday October 11”, which would have been “tomorrow”.[/ol]Okay, so, how could Toole have objected to the ad before it was even released? The Billings Gazette article (YOUR Billings Gazette article) is dated “October 10, 2002” and it adds, “Last modified October 10, 2002 - 4:44 pm”.
The very first sentence says, “State Sen. Mike Taylor, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, will withdraw from the race this afternoon…” “This afternoon” (logic!) must mean “the afternoon of Thursday, October 10.”
Then the article says, “State Sen. Ken Toole, D-Helena, and program director for the Montana Human Rights Network, said Thursday morning…” Clearly, English language construction being what it is, this refers to this present Thursday morning, the morning of the afternoon of the Thursday that the article was written, which was Thursday, October 10. Otherwise, if they were in fact referring to October 3, the article would have said, “State Sen. Ken Toole, D-Helena, and program director for the Montana Human Rights Network, said last Thursday morning…”
And Toole’s “brushoff” by the “ruthless Democrats” in his own party couldn’t have taken place before the ad was released to the TV stations, because–follow me closely here–he would hardly have kept his mouth shut about it for an entire everlovin’ week, would he? I mean, geez, December, reality check, ya know? I mean, what–he gets an advanced viewing of this ad on Thursday, October 3, decides it’s clearly homophobic, complains to his own party about it, is told briskly to tend to his knitting–and then he just goes home and says nothing?? He’s that loyal to the Democratic Party of Montana, and he’s that disloyal to his Montana Human Rights Network, that he would just keep his mouth shut about this “clearly homophobic” ad? You said he was a “principled Democrat”–would a “principled Democrat” just go home and not say anything about what he perceived as a homophobic ad campaign?
And then when Taylor announces on October 10 that the ad is clearly homophobic and he’s outta there, this principled Democrat jumps on the bandwagon and says, “Hey, I agree with Mike”, but somehow not mentioning that he actually knew about it for a week? Oh, yeah, that’s real principled… :rolleyes:
**Yes, I have. In addition to the fact that the article I just cited, which was dated October 6, didn’t say anything about the ad being homophobic, which one would have supposed it would, if the feeling was around town that it was homophobic, I posted a link back on Page 1, to an article that interviewed Taylor on the Saturday, October 5, and he didn’t say a single word about the ad being homophobic.
Here, I’ll repeat it, since you evidently didn’t read it the first time around.
DDG, you may be right about the dates. I had assumed that a newspaper dated on Oct. 10 could hardly report something that occurred on Oct. 10. However, it is possible that the web version was updated later in the day and reported something that occurred that morning.
Mtgman, you have invoked Occam’s Razor. Let’s try the two scenarios:[ol][li]The Democrats told the advertising agency to select a picture of someone with a bad hairdo for no reason. The quality of the do had nothing to do with the point of the flyer. A bad hairdo wouldn’t help them portray Taylor negatively as a Senator. The flyer didn’t even say that Taylor was the person’s hairdresser. Even if he was, doing a bad job on a woman’s hair doesn’t mean anything to anyone (except maybe someone looking for a haircut.)The Dems told the advertising agency to select a picture suggestive of gayness, because they believed that Montana had a number of homophobic voters, and because their suggestive video had already been effective at harming Taylor’s reputation.[/ol]Under #1, the Dems acted pointlessly. Under #2 they had good reason for what they did, and it followed past practice. I think Occam would favor #2[/li] DanielWithrow, normally when the largest gay and lesbian organization in America complains about a homophobic attack, I would expect you to suport them. In this debate, you ignored their statement and mocked the position they took. I suggest that you are unwilling to acknowledge the use of homophobia by the Democratic Party, as the OP suggests.
Are you a freakin’ Newbie? Bumping your own post? :
Daniel obviously has enough integrity to disagree with a national organization who didn’t make a strong case. Unlike another poster in this thread, he apparently doesn’t fear thinking, and coming to a different conclusion than that arrived at by only reading a pundit and then copying his ideas into a thread.
