They weren’t too busy to get the word out.
Detroit Free Press article. Looks like there are dirty tricks on both sides, too.
I don’t think so. Both candidates, according to their statements, have exactly the same opinion on gay marriage, and it’s a shitty, bigoted opinion. Do I think John Kerry’s really any better than that in his heart? Well, he hasn’t given me any reason to do so. I’ll just have to treat this as one issue that I don’t share with much of the public at present, and acknowledge that Kerry has other qualities that make him worthwhile.
John Kerry. He has voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, and has been on record as opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. The fact that he is not actively working to prevent it is what makes him “liberal” by many peoples standards. I have a gut feeling that John Kerry wants to see full equality for gays, but this is the most he can do in the 2004 United States political atmosphere and still have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected. The spark that he showed in 1972 as an idealistic young man is still there, but decades of having to deal with political reality have diminished this somewhat. But at least its there somewhere. At least he feels guilty about it. Bush doesn’t give a shit.
I am glad to see that you qualified your statements obout what Mr. Kerry thinks with the lable “gut feeling”, but I am curious as to how you know exactly what Bush thinks.
**Please note, I personally don’t think that Bush is a strong supporter of gay rights at all, and I bet he’d be happy if it was an issue that he didn’t have to address at all-for him out of sight and out of mind would likely be preferable on this issue-and that’s my opinion of how I believe Bush thinks. I just wanted to point out another example of people stating Bush does XXXXX, where XXXXX is usually the absolute worst thing imaginable, even when XXXXX is different from what Bush has said or what his official position is, and then condeming Bush for XXXXX. Is this any way to decide who to vote for?
****Please also note that you can substitute “Kerry” for “Bush” in that last paragraph (even my opinion on how he feels about gay rights) and it’s equally true. Does no one else think this is a shitty way to run a country?
Whichever candidate has the platform that supports that voter’s opinions on every other issue in the election. Because neither of the two candidates has a platform of standing up for gay marriage and moving it towards legality. However, one of the candidates (John Kerry) opposes it slightly less than the other.
That’s part of the reason the message in the OP is so offensive. It implies that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for gay marriage. It’s not, at all. For the homophobes receiving the message, it’s a smear against the Democrats. For the people who support gay rights but aren’t up on what the candidates have really said, it’s giving them false hope. And the issue itself is forgotten, and homosexuals are just used as a pawn in a sleazy political mudslinging battle.
Probably not, but I wish that there were. Lying to get elected is far, far less reprehensible than being a bigot. I think those that say Kerry is secretly pro-gay marriage are just giving him the benefit of the doubt on the issue.
And, in answer to your later question, a voter concerned about gay rights would be best served voting for Kerry. Kerry, essentially, supports the status quo: leave the decision up to the states. Bush, of course, would gladly shoot a homosexual in the face if he thought it would earn him one more vote tomorrow.
Okay, I might be hyperbolizing a little in that last sentence.
But only a little.
And according to this news story, the calls have been pretty widespread, with of course neither party claiming responsibility. I hadn’t heard about the false-Schwartzkopf endorsement.
Did you notice that most of the Republican dirty tricks (like this one) have to rely on the incredible stupidity of voters in order to work. The utter contempt with which they hold the intelligence of the American people is truly breathtaking.
Well, yes, Frost, this was pretty ham-handed – the continued repetition of “gay marriage,” the lack of attribution, and the odd diction were all give-aways, even if the subject matter itself wasn’t. However, I think it’s a little more insidious than you might, because it is targeting a hot issue, and not everyone would have recorded it for later study, and not everyone is politically savvy enough to know Kerry’s position on the issue off the cuff.
And I dunno if it’s a “Republican” dirty trick, per se – I’d stake money that the perpetrators are Republican supporters, but not officially connected to the party. However, I’d like to point out that this phone message seems to be targeted to city voters, Detroit in particular. And that resonates with Republican state senator John Pappageorge’s remaks earlier this year, never adequately explained, about the need to “suppress the Detroit vote.” So congratulations, John; looks like you inspired some of the rank-and-file.
And, an update: I got a recorded message yesterday (actually, the missus got it; I was off teaching) from the Kerry campaign outlining his actual position on gay marriage.
I think an equivalent situation would be be a message saying to vote for Bush in order to reinstate the draft. I think you, Bricker, would consider that dirty pool.
In response, I might say, “Of the two candidates, which one should get the vote of a voter who wants to see the country begin drafting young mena and women into out military?”
How would you respond?
“When you vote today, remember to endorse an all-gay army by supporting John Kerry. We need John Kerry in order to make a gay lifestyle mandatory for our military. Gay armies are a right we all want. It’s a basic Democrat principle. It’s time to move forward and be progressive. Without John Kerry, George Bush will stop lesbian legions. That’s why we need Kerry. So today, stand up for queer forces by supporting John Kerry.”
::sigh:: One stinkin’ letter. Changes the meaning of the whole thing, doesn’t it?
Thanks, Larry. I needed that. 
Only in a swing state, though.
Except that the draft is a bad thing that would kill people. Gay marriage doesn’t, you know, kill people.
It kills your soul though, or so I’ve heard.
I’d say “Neither.” Not only have both candidates explicitly disavowed any interest in the draft, but both candidates understand that it would be political suicide to attempt.
The only bill to be introduced this Congress that sought to introduce the draft was introduced by a Democrat. Of course, he did so, I’m sure, lacking any real intent to make it so.
There is absolutely no reason to assume either candidate fits this description.
No, gay dating kills your soul.
For that matter, having everything you are and everything you do reduced to what you do sexually kills your soul. Being told for your entire life that because you’re different, you’re lesser, kills your soul. Being constantly ashamed of yourself kills your soul. And being able to get past all that, and get to the point where you’re finally comfortable with yourself and believe that you deserve to be just as happy as everyone else, and still being told by your “community” that you’re lesser, that you’re different, that you don’t deserve what everyone else has, and it’s all just part of democracy and you should shut up and stop your whining, that kills your soul, too.
I can imagine that finding the right person and falling in love and having everyone just be happy and get over themselves enough to acknowledge that happiness, would be pretty good for your soul.
And yeah, Lord Ashtar, I assumed that you were being sarcastic, I’m just in a really, really foul mood right now.
OK. Same response, then, to your propositin. I say that both candidates have explicitly stated that they do not support gay marriage, and understand that it is political suicide to attempt its full implementation.
Do you agree that these are analagous situations?
Huh? I’m not saying that gay marriage and the draft are morally equivalent. I’m saying that they are issues that both candidates are publicly against, and a vote for one candidate over another is not going to bring about change in either area. Voting for Bush will not result in a draft, and implying such is dirty pool. Likewise, a vote for Kerry will not legalize gay marriage, and implying it is disingenous.
Bricker seemed to be of the opinion that the message in the OP was intellectually honest. I was trying to provide a counter-example.