I don’t know where you get the “liars” part. I would rephrase it: “he really implied was that we could choose between being hypocrites and tolerant of homophobes and weasels OR of agreeing that the Democratic Party is not pure when it comes to gay rights.”
I thought it applies to someone expressing views that they are not prepared to defend or don’t actually support and are doing with the sole intention of irritating. In this case, he is expressing views that he actually holds and is prepared to defend, but his formulation is needlessly provocative. (IOW, he thinks Democrats will be apt to find excuses for other Democrats’ transgressions. As do I - I also think Republicans will do likewise for their guys - it’s human nature. I personally don’t think there is anything productive to be gained by expressing this in a taunting manner - you just get people riled up and accomplish nothing. But the underlying point is a valid - if pointless - one).
But I could be wrong - this is subject to administrative interpretation. If the SDMB bosses make clear that this type of provocation is considered trolling (and enforce it evenhandedly), that’s also fine with me.
Hey, I’m always forgiving - not here to attack anyone. “All are beloved, all are pure…”. Just expressing my opinion, that’s all…
Incidentally, I do not object to Spavined Gelding’s type of post. This sort of hyperbole has valid literary purpose, in terms of humor and style. It’s fun to read.
from terrorizing the populace by actually holding office can’t be all bad, but I’d have to say that nobody should be excused for promoting homophobia.
But first you must prove that him dressing as he did constitutes presenting a gay image. THEN you must simply show reasonable cause why showing those old clips of him are meant to play up the homosexual angle.
In that case, I can only think of one excuse: he is a rabid homophobe, and they are pointing out his hypocrisy. This would seem a bit of a stretch, though.
I do not know if he is, nor have I watched the ad in question. But the Democrat-hating question was simply whether or not homophobic ads are acceptable when Democrats do them, as opposed to the usual Republican-sponsored hate ads.
Unequivocally, the answer is no. Homophobic ads are not acceptable.
Here’s a cite about a flyer sent out by the Baucus campaign. You can get the flyer itself by clicking on the picture of the person with flamboyant red hair and pink boa. This picture is the quintessential stereotype of a drag queen. Doesn’t this flyer confirm what the Baucus campaign was aiming at with their TV spot?
First of all, what does the picture have to do with Taylor’s qualifications as a Senator? Why did the Democrats select this picture for their flyer?
Second, the flyer gives no indication of whether the person is a woman or a man.
Third, regardless of the sex of the person, the picture is the quintessential stereotype of a drag queen. Don’t you think homophobic voters may have reacted to it as such?
Fourth, if the Republicans had done this to a Democrat, you would be up in arms, and rightfully so.
No, it confirms your basic lack of rationality. Upon first sight, my thought was Mid-Western Matron victimized by bad fashion. Of course, your stereotypes about drag queens may differ radically from mine.
This is in bold, font size =+1, at the top of the front page. At the bottom of the page, in font size =-1, beneath two other asterisked notes, appears the following quote:
Note that, although this is the third and final asterisked note on the page, the quote it refers to is the first sentence on the page. The first and second footnotes refer to places lower down on the page.
My computer’s ironymeter just blew up. Hey, December, where did you get yours from? Cuz either it’s a lot hardier than mine, or it’s defective.
We need to save this thread for the next time december starts one of his rants… I mean “debates” about over-sensitivity of X “Liberal/Minority/Group December has An Issue With”.
I agree with your criticism of the web site. However, are you disputing that the Baucus campaign usesd that brochure? If not what’s your reaction to it? Does the unfairness of the criticism excuse the wrongness of the campaign material?
I’m not disputing that they made this flyer: given the disparity between the spelling and grammar on the Web site and the spelling and grammar on the flyer, they couldn’t have been written by the same person.
There are two possible explanations for the picture on the flyer:
Cartoonishly funny picture of a person with terrible hair, used to illustrate a flyer about shady dealings at a hair-care school.
Drag queen, used to insinuate that Mike Taylor is gay.
I still find the whole “Mike Taylor is gay” thing utterly bizarre – if you’re attacking your opponent’s unethical business practices, why dilute the message with an easily falsifiable and offensive attack on his sexuality?
On the other hand, if your opponent is accurately attacking your unethical business practices, why not pretend instead that he’s attacking your sexuality, so that you can easily defend yourself against this made-up charge and make your opponent look bad, all the while distracting people from your real ethical shortcomings?
Given that the only “evidence” that Baucus is playing on homophobic themes is also easily explicable as Baucus deriding and caricaturing his opponent, and given that it’d be a damnfool move on Baucus’ part, and given that it’d be a savvy move on Taylor’s part to distort the issue, I’m inclined to believe that this tempest is brewing from Taylor’s teapot.
Again, show me some evidence consisting of internal memos, of polls showing that a significant number of Montanans took the ad as homophobic, or the like. These pictures that make fun of hair-care-schools just don’t cut it.
For one thing, the attack on Taylor’s business practices was pretty feeble. Twenty years earlier, he signed a consent decree admitting no wrongdoing, but paying money to the government. That’s not much of a scandal.
I’m really amazed by the reaction here. I am a liberal Democrat from one of the most left wing places on earth, and I can draw no other conclusion than the ad was clearly designed to appeal to homophobes. Is there any other legitimate reason for running an ad like that? It amazes me to see how easily people will compromise their priciples for political gain.
There will never be any conclusive proof that this ad was designed to flame the fire of homophobia short of a complete confession by those who produced it, so those who demand proof are just trying to avoid answering the question. I can’t believe for a second that if the ad were run by a Democrat against a Republican that there would be this sort of defense put up.
So, to answer the original question, no, it’s wrong to run homophobic ads if you’re a Democrat, just as if they were run by Republicans.
Nonsense. It may be wise for a business to pay money, rather than conduct a long, expensive battle. The government didn’t have to agree to this form of settlement. They chose not to go to court. “Not admitting wrongdoing” is not admitting wrongdoing.
It’s informative to compare Baucus’s video and flyer with the Willie Horton ad.[ol][li]The WH ad involved a decision made by Dukakis in his governmental capacity; Baucus’s ads involved Taylor’s private businss. []The WH ad involved a recent action; the Taylor ad went back 20 years.[]The WH ad involved a Dukakis action which resulted in rape and murder; the Baucus ad involved a minor consent decree.[]The WH ad accurately stated what Dukakis had done; the Baucus ad exaggerated what Taylor had done.[]Willie Horton was a central character in the Dukakis decision; he was the one who committed rape and murder. OTOH the people and actions shown in the Taylor ad had nothing to do with his alleged wrongdoing.The Willie Horton picture simply showed a likeness of the man; the people shown in the Taylor ads were garish.[/ol]These are six good reasons to find the Taylor ads more clearly offensive than the WH ad. [/li]
Anyone who disapproves of the WH ad but gives a pass to the Taylor ads has a double standard.
