Not to mention Goldwater’s stunning victory in '64.
I don’t understand what you mean by this. It never existed to begin with. How can you read a politician’s statement of that obviousness and not realize that?
You have to go back 50 years to find an example where it didn’t work, eh?
Okay, let’s look at that. Unemployment in 1964 was 5.1%, a full point lower than it was in 1960.
We were at peace, we were posting nearly balanced budgets despite the Great Society, and an expensive space program and massive Cold War spending. Still, JFK had cut taxes before he died. (Wow, a Democrat being for letting the producers keep what they produce. What was the world coming to back then.)
Not to mention LBJ was running on the mantle of a martyred president.
On top of that, LBJ was a vastly more experienced politician than Goldwater was, and you still had lots of Southern Democrats.
So essentially, just about everything had to be going right for the liberal democrat for the formula to NOT work.
:shrug: It sounded pretty straightforward to me and not your usual hemming and hawing. Of course, he appears to have backtracked on it so, anyway.
First of all, Barney Frank won reelection in 2010 by 55-43%, so even if every single gay man or woman in his district had voted for Bielat, Frank would have still won reelection. Gays didn’t “put in” Frank, the people of his district did.
Secondly, if you’re trying to convince gays that you’re not homophobes, not using the term “butt buddies” to refer to the professional relationship a prominent gay politician has with somebody is a good way to start.
You misspelled “country”. 
Sorry, guy, I have a lot of professional relationships, and none of them involve Anal Sex. The same cannot be said of Barnie and his good buddy, Herb Moses, whom he got a job at Fannie and then insisted that Fannie was sound when it is clear that it wasn’t.
I guess that’s better than the “professional relationship” Barney had with the male prostitute who was running an escort service out of his apartment. So there’s that.
I didn’t realize you were talking about Herb Moses, or even that Moses worked at Fannie Mae. I thought you were talking about his relationship with Franklin Raines, Fannie’s CEO, who oversaw policies that helped contribute to the subprime crisis.
But what’s your point? Is your objection to Frank that he’s corrupt or is your objection to Frank that he’s gay? Or do you think there’s some connection between the two traits? Because frankly, guy, I don’t see where you’re going with this argument.
All I said is that if the Republicans or conservatives want gays to vote for them, they need to cut it off with the “gays are evil perverts who don’t deserve to fight in the military or get married or teach in schools” stuff. Maybe the Republicans have decided they have to make a choice between the gay vote and the Religious Right vote, and have chosen the latter. If that’s the case, more power to them. It makes sense strategically, and from a strictly political standpoint, I don’t have a problem with it. But it seems to me that if you do that; if you constantly demonize a group and fight to deny them civil rights, you can’t be surprised when they support your opponents.
Yeah. But the mayor of the largest city in the “country” of Texas is Annise Parker–whose partner is Kathy Hubbard; they’ve adopted three kids. Why the Hell did has Perry chosen to bring his merry gang of homophobes to *this *city?
The cities of Texas tend to vote Democratic, anyway.
Since you’re insisting you have no dog in this fight and then gaybaiting like this, I’m forced to conclude you’re trolling. This is a formal warning, and not your first.
Or that your side lost the argument…
Come on, guy, if Barney were straight, and Herb was a chick with big ta-tas, there wouldn’t be a question here. Barney would be forced to resign. Straight Politicians have been forced to for far smaller “infractions”.
But you want the gay to be treated as a special protected class, and we dare don’t criticize it.
For the record, I’m posting here less for a reason. There’s really no good reason to. this isn’t a place for debate. Liberals can say all sorts of vulgar stuff about Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin, and that’s just peachy with you. But point out Barney Frank is a corrupt gay dude, and suddenly, it’s a big honking infraction.
I’m perfectly willing to concede that Barney Frank is a corrupt gay dude. If he got Moses a job at Fannie Mae, that sounds like a pretty big conflict of interest to me. What I don’t understand is how that’s at all relevant to anything that’s been discussed in this thread.
I had said "Secondly, you really want to break gays free from the liberal coalition, then have the Republican party and the conservative movement come out strongly for gay rights. "
and your response to that seemed to be, “Well, gays gave us Barney Frank.” Am I misunderstanding the crux of your argument? Because it’s not true. Barney Frank is gay, but gays didn’t give you Barney Frank. The people of Newton, Mass. gave you Barney Frank.
Because “Tee hee, Barney Frank is a fag!” is the only thing that the sector of the populace RR represents considers a more convincing argument than “Tee hee, Ted Kennedy killed a girl driving drunk!” and “Tee hee, Al Gore said he invented the Internet and now he thinks the climate is warming!”
Incidentally, it seems that Herb Moses and Barney Frank ended their relationship in 1998, the same year that Moses left Fannie Mae, while Barney Frank declared that Fannie and Freddie were not facing any kind of crisis in 2003. The extent to which this is a total non-scandal is underscored by the fact that the people bringing it up have to use ridiculous and highly loaded terms like “butt-buddies” to get any traction.
Don’t forget, “Tee hee, Clinton got a blowjob!”.
This is absolutely true. Provided you define “real conservative” as “won the election.”
I’m mildly curious, when gay marriage gets “imposed” on America, how America suffers.
as a TEXAN I have to say…Rick Perry is the ANTICHRIST. that is all
Am I misunderstanding what he’s talking about, or is he saying that federally forcing all states to ban gay marriages is promoting states’ rights ? Cause if so, that’s some crookedy ass-backwards statement there.
No, no, see, states have a right to ban gay marriage, but they don’t have a right to allow it. Sort of like how states had a right to allow slavery, but didn’t have a right to ban it.