*"Campaign 2000 took an aggressive turn this week after Gore campaign operatives began questioning Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader’s sex life, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
“Look, he’s never been married,” one Gore operative whispered to stunned reporters earlier this week. “Who is going to be sleeping in his bed at the White House if he’s elected president? I‘m interested. Aren‘t you?”*
It would appear, however, that it is not coming from the highest levels of the Gore campaign.
"A senior Gore official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, blasted the whispering campaign. “If anyone is caught doing this, they will be fired immediately!” the official told the DRUDGE REPORT from Tennessee. “Who’s ever doing this should knock it off – and knock it off now!”
As you have no doubt been ignoring the Drudge Report for some time already, you are likely unaware of the fact that it is about as reliable as most other media sources. Certainly alot more reliable than most of what gets posted to this message board in the name of “fighting ignorance”. You would do well do pay it more attention, as it might possibly broaden your mind a bit. But yes, if you insist on ignoring it, I will forgive you.
Well, Gore ran his first campaign for congress with two principles.
Homosexuality is abonormal.
He will always fight against abortion.
I be they probably are twisting his old beliefs and campaign to attack him now. And no, I’m not some wild Gore supporter.**
And people’s attitudes can change. George Wallace, the man who declared “Segregation Forever!” was apologizing to black churches in the years before his death.
Just because a politician declares his position once and then changes it after some epiphany or experience teaches him/her otherwise, is this a bad thing?
“Just because a politician declares his position once and then changes it after some epiphany or experience teaches him/her otherwise, is this a bad thing?”
Do you have a link to the site or whatever that you got your information on about Gore’s first campaign?
I’m not questioning it’s credibility, I’ve just never heard that before and it’s kinda interesting.
Of course if this statement is 100% accurate, I would wager that he either has since had an ‘epiphany’ or was selling out then, rather then selling out to the polls now.
I couldn’t help but feel let down by Al when he didn’t stand up for gay marriage, (or was that the vp debate? i don’t even remember), but if Gore thinks that gays are unnatural and less deserving that won’t really change my vote, the other guy is just as bad.
Posted by IzzyR: As you have no doubt been ignoring the Drudge Report for some time already, you are likely unaware of the fact that it is about as reliable as most other media sources.
The Drudge Report? As reliable as most other media sources? Gotcha. And a Happy Meal™ is balanced nutrition.
You know, if you had asked me the same questions ten years ago, I would’ve said abortion was a sin, and that being gay was “icky.” I was 12.
Now, however, my opinions have changed. I believe in a woman having the right to choose, and that there is NOTHING wrong or remotely disgusting about being gay. People are who they are.
“Just because a politician declares his position once and then changes it after some epiphany or experience teaches him/her otherwise, is this a bad thing?”
Asmodean: << epiphany being the polls changing. >>
Interestin, innit, how slight changes in phrasing and emphasis can make a positive statement or a negative one, saying the same thing?
Another way to phrase it, Asmodean, would be that the epiphany or experience is a recognition of changing public opinion and standards, and a re-evaluation of one’s own positions accordingly.
I candidly admit that I felt homosexuality was “abnormal” and “perverse” until the last decade or so, when the public airing of discussion and attendant information caused me to do a rethink of my position. I can’t say that I would look harshly on a politician who was similarly placed.
I would look far more harshly on a politician who did NOT change his opinion, and still held 1950s views of topics like human rights, abortion, homosexuality, the Russian menace, the role of government, etc.
> [Quoting from The Drudge Report]:
>
> "Campaign 2000 took an aggressive turn this week after
> Gore campaign operatives began questioning Green Party
> presidential candidate Ralph Nader’s sex life, the DRUDGE
> REPORT has learned.
>
> “Look, he’s never been married,” one Gore operative
> whispered to stunned reporters earlier this week. “Who is
> going to be sleeping in his bed at the White House if
> he’s elected president? I‘m interested. Aren‘t you?”
>
> It would appear, however, that it is not coming from the
> highest levels of the Gore campaign.
>
> "A senior Gore official, who spoke on the condition of
> anonymity, blasted the whispering campaign. “If anyone is
> caught doing this, they will be fired immediately!” the
> official told the DRUDGE REPORT from Tennessee. “Who’s
> ever doing this should knock it off – and knock it off
> now!”
>
> But let’s see some righteous indignation anyway.
Let’s think for just a moment about how unlikely this is. Do think that people in the Gore campaign were sitting around last week discussing how they can get likely Nader voters to instead vote for Gore. Someone says, “Hey, I know. Let’s spread the rumor that he’s gay. It’s well known that many Nader fans are raging homophobes. If we plant a seed of doubt in their minds about his sexual preferences, they’ll immediately switch their vote to Gore.” Does that make even the slightest bit of sense to you? Nader voters are about the least likely people in existence to be bothered about someone’s sexual preferences. They all know that Nader is a life-long bachelor. If that bothered them, they would never have even considered voting for him. Also, why would they even be thinking about who will “be sleeping in his bed at the
White House if he’s elected president”? Even the most rabid Nader supporter knows there’s not a snowflake’s chance in hell that he’s going to get elected.
On the other hand, think what a Republican might want to do to pull some pro-tolerance-of-homosexuality votes away from Gore. How about spreading the rumor that Gore campaign staff are spreading homophobic rumors about Nader? In sum, if there’s anything substantial to this stupid rumor outside of Drudge’s twisted mind, it’s a Republican attempt to paint Gore as homophobic.
Mahaloth writes:
> Well, Gore ran his first campaign for congress with two
> principles.
>
> 1. Homosexuality is abonormal
>
> 2. He will always fight against abortion.
>
> I be they probably are twisting his old beliefs and
> campaign to attack him now. And no, I’m not some wild
> Gore supporter.
This makes it sound like the entire basis of Gore’s first campaign for Congress (in 1976, I think) was that he was against homosexuality and abortion. If I recall correctly, his opponent was just as much (if not more) against homosexuality and abortion. It wasn’t a significant issue in the campaign. I suspect that to get elected in Tennessee in 1976 it was necessary to make at least a token statement against homosexuality and abortion. Whether Gore didn’t believe what he was saying then and now is talking about his real beliefs or he doesn’t believe what he is saying now and was then giving his real beliefs or he has changed his opinion in the meantime isn’t something you or I can make a definitive statement about. In any case, from the statements on record this year it’s easy to see that Gore is more tolerant of homosexuality and more willing to keep abortion legal than Bush is.
That second sentence in my first non-quoted paragraph should be “Do you seriously think that people in the Gore campaign were sitting around last week discussing how they can get likely Nader voters to instead vote for Gore?”
I heard a radio commercial today for Bush talking about how inclusive he is, even going so far as to say that they had representatives from the latino and gay communities speak at the Republican National Convention.
Puh-lease.
First of all, the Latino was his nephew; and second of all, the gay person didn’t even speak on gay issues (and, IIRC, some delegates walked out in protest). Yeah, the Republicans are so inclusive. :rolleyes: And how pathetic is it that they have to advertise it?
Didn’t someone mention something about a Shiny Gay Republican? slight hijack, but kinda funny
Anyone see the episode of the Simpsons, where there is a group of Gay Republicans and they’re trying to find a symbol for themselves that say, “We’re gay, and we’re Republican?”
Maggie’s Pink Elephant balloon floats in the window…and they’re like, “A bit obvious!”
It’s the one where Moe gets his facelift?
I heard a radio commercial today for Bush talking about how inclusive he is, even going so far as to say that they had representatives from the latino and gay communities speak at the Republican National Convention.
Puh-lease.
First of all, the Latino was his nephew; and second of all, the gay person didn’t even speak on gay issues (and, IIRC, some delegates walked out in protest). Yeah, the Republicans are so inclusive. And how pathetic is it that they have to advertise it?**
IIRC, they didn’t walk out, but did hold a silent prayer vigil as he spoke. What’s even more interesting, is that it was the TEXAS delegation that did this, Bush’s own state. :rolleyes: What’s VERY interesting is that the speaker (I think it’s Steve Kobe) never mentioned his homosexuality, he spoke on free trade. Heaven forbid he’d even talk about homosexuality!
And Bush’s own record on homosexuality is deplorable at best. He refused to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans (the gay branch of the GOP). Instead, after much prodding his meet with an informal group of gay Republicans, none of which was a member of Log Cabin Republicans.
Here in Texas, they won’t even let the Log Cabin people in at the state-wide convention. Each time the Log Cabineers have applied for a booth permit, they’ve been denied.
One of Nader’s constituencies that Gore is going after is the union vote who is mad at Gore because of free trade. While the tree hugging portion of Nader’s supporters are unlikely to care about his sexuality, I think that the key union vote in states such as Michigan could be the ones being targeted by the gay smear.
From Brill’s Content:
FEATURES: Town Crier for the New Age
by David McClintick
(with additional research by assistant editor Bridget Samburg)
Issue Date: November 1998
I myself have my doubts about the Drudge Report. IMHO, his “exclusive” news items are not very accurate, and his news coverage is often more biased or slanted than are the norm amongst mainstream media such as my newspaper (the Los Angeles Times) or my habitual radio station (NPR).
From San Francisco Bay gaurdian regarding carole Midgen “She also demonstrated questionable judgment this summer when Ð in a clear effort to help Al Gore Ð she told a magazine that Ralph Nader is gay (which he denies).”
Couldn’t find the exact quote, but I recall it being something like “If you look under the green, you’ll find a shade of pink” Ahhh, gay-baiting, the great american passtime.
Regarding the Drudge Report, see this article in The New Republic.
Also, in the sentence following the ones excerpted by Arnold Winkelried, Brill’s Content writes this:
I don’t think there is any indication that anyone associated with the Gore campaign is homophobic - the suggestion is that they are cynically trying to profit from what they assume are the biases of voters.