Aww, Mtgman, if it makes you feel better, I almost posted, “What Mtgman said.” I agree with your posts (including the context in which the sleazy homophobia appears) entirely.
Daniel
If it makes anyone feel any better, the Iowa Republican Party (a bunch of moss-backs and reactionaries if there ever was one) has formally and publicly withdrawn support from a candidate for the state legislature from Marion, a town adjacent to Cedar Rapids. The candidate’s misstep was to claim that her opponent was not worthy of representing the district because she was born in India and had no been an Iowan for the first six or eight years of her life. The attack was in some sort of semi-private message board but the Cedar Rapids newspaper broke the story on Sunday and the state party jumped on it on Tuesday. The candidate’s behavior and her response to the loss of party sanction were both pretty outrageous (but I’m afraid not all that rare) and the party apparatus’s response was praiseworthy.
I’d like to know if there has been any reaction, public or private, by the good old boys who run the party machinery in South Carolina.
SG ?? really? The lt. Guv of MI who’s running against the atty General of MI for the gov’ s spot originally aired ads that pointed out the Jennifer Granholm (the atty gen) had been
born in Canada (gasps arrise from the audience), had lived in California (women faint). He continues to run ads that pump up his ‘Michigan values’.
On the OP, I find it more interesting to note the moderator’s question to the OP.
The issue raised by Dr. Lao needs to be addressed.
It seems obvious to me that the Shih Tzu reference was part of the appeal to gay-bashing. These are little foofy dogs. The voters are supposed to think that only foolish women and those of Unnatural Sexual Orientation would own such animals. It would have been worse if Sanders had made reference to his opponent moving in with a German Shepherd, given the mental pictures certain perverse individuals might have developed
Other than that, I feel confident that all dogs are basically conservative. As are certain other animals. As Paul Simon* said, “Orangutans are skeptical of changes in their cages.”
I am thinking about changing my username here to Democratic Apologist.
*the singer, not the Senator from Illinois.
When I asked december what his point was, he said:
Has anybody here on the SDMB actually said anything like this? Or are you just arguing against your own straw man?
Wait! You’re kidding me! The myth isn’t true?! Could that be why it’s called a myth?!
And so will some Republicans, and some Libertarians, and some Communists, and some Greens, and…
So again I ask, what is your point?
…Seriously, december, in this thread you have helped illustrate a variety of different points:
(1) That among many people, at least in South Carolina, “liberal” is considered a dirty word. And, people who attack liberalism often engage in slimey attacks to do so.
(2) That said “ultra-liberalism” is associated with such things as tolerance and acceptance of gay people (in the mind of Sanders, at any rate, but I think it is pretty clear that this association is quite widespread).
(3) That the Democratic party as a whole is far from “liberal”…It is only “liberal” by comparison to the Republican Party (which is extremely conservative overall).
What you have not established by any means is that the Democratic Party is, on the whole, much less friendly to gays and gay rights issues than the Republican Party. And you won’t be able to establish that because it is extremely far from being true.
Yes, I will readily admit that I (usually) vote for Democrats because they are the only current alternatives to the extremely conservative Republicans, not because they are any great shakes. [Note, however, that the Democratic leadership seems to be reasonably “left” of Sanders at least on social issues.]
So, december, perhaps together you and I can join forces and work for the day when “liberalism” is a respected word around the entire nation and when tolerance of gays as an example of “ultra-liberalism” in a positive rather than a negative light?!? A day when all Democrats will proudly declare themselves as liberals rather than trying to play a “I’m less liberal than he is” game!
Hell, december, I think I’m really beginning to like you! 
David YOu have asked twice, and I can’t see where you have been given any reason to keep this open.
If my dog was dying as horrible a death as this thread , I would have pulled out my .44 and shot him/her. That is, if I had a gun. But being a liberal democrat, I don’t.
Please!
At the risk of gently mocking a mod, I note that there is a world outside of the Straight Dope Message Boards. If it makes you feel any better, I also sometimes forget. Anyhow, in the big wide world, this myth is alive and well.
Here’s an example I just ran across, where Leslie Stahl’s assumption seemed to follow the myth.
That’s why I called it a myth, and I’m glad you agree. Unfortunately, to many non-Dopers, it’s not a myth at all.
That’s an interesting point. Would Democrats be more apt to deny an instance of bigotry by one of their own than Republicans would? ISTM that on this message board the answer is yes. YMMV.
Easy answer—When Thurmond was young, there weren’t any Democrats. They were called anti-federalists in those days. 
Of course, back in the day, when Thurmond was young he was a DEMOCRAT, IIRC.
mmm-hmmm
And, of course, no one on the political Right would ever demonize the Democratic Party with comments such as:
It is increasingly obvious that Democrats do not care about children, in fact, one can see that they despise children and simply use them for political leverage. One could even make the presumption that many Democrats see children as sex objects. If Democrats did care about the children, they would sever funding for this hideous organization. (The organization being the American Psychological Association.)
december,
You can rest comfortably in the knowledge that Graham would likely agree with his opponent’s position regarding someone living with homosexuals. As a rookie representative in S.C., the very first bill he sponsored was H. 3569, banning homosexuals and bisexuals from the National Guard and removing ones currently in service.
Now that we’ve established that both parties have idiots in them, you can return to the good ol’ days of Sharon worshipping or Clinton bashing.
And as for your statement (bolding mine):
Is that something like this tactic?
Thank you for that information. That’s disgusting. I presume Graham’s rookie year was some time ago. Do you know how long ago it was? Do you know whether Graham’s views have moderated since then?
I strongly disgree with your use of the word “idiots.” First of all, there’s nothing stupid about a politician reflecting the bigotry of his constituents. Secondly, bigotry and discrimination are an evil that must be opposed. It’s worse than stupidity.
You didn’t provide a link. IIRC I went on to say that the answer was “No, these people are not bigot.”
Furthermore, that quote wasn’t some sort of casual smear. It was the point of the thread – the assertion that many supporters of the Palestinians are in denial about the Palestinians’ failure to meet the supporters’ ethical principles. In particular it goes back to what I wrote above: bigotry and discrimination are a evil that must be opposed.
tomndebb, you get an E for effort. Yes, there are right wing extremists who call Democrats evil, just as left-wing extremists do to Repubcans. If I went to The Nation or Democratic Underground, I could find solme juicy examples.
But, the idea of Republicans being evil is main steam. My example above was from 60 Minutes. A recent web ad that showed the President pushing a lady in a wheelchair over a cliff was run by the Democratic Party, who declined to apologize for it. I well remember Clinton and Carville accusing the Republicans of wanting to starve children, to let the elderly eat dog food, and having no concern about the environment.
Well, if the shoe fits. . . .
Currently, there is a campaign to amend the Ohio law so as to provide funds for drug rehabilitation for first time offenders. While it is ostensibly non-partisan, the backers are generally Democrats and the opponents are generally Republicans. The current ad of the opponents claims that attempting to rehabilitate first-time drug users will allow violent criminals to become doctors, etc.
I would say that 'Pubs simply do a better job of masking their “hate” rhetoric with code words. A search on James Dobson’s web site (and you cannot claim that Dobson is anything but mainstream) will bear this out. He rarely uses the word “Democrat” in his invective, but frequently portrays individual Democrats as being anti-family while contrasting them to purportedly “pro-family” Republicans, so while he never says “Democrats are evil,” his whole message is that “These guys (who happen to be Republican) are good while those (obviously Democrat) guys are bad.”
It all boils down to the areas where each group has staked out its territory. The Republicans have chosen to portray themselves as hard-headed realists fighting the foolish fuzzy thinking of Democrats, so they tend to denigrate Democratic intelligence. The Democrats have chosen to portray themselves as the defenders of the poor against the hard-headed (and hard-hearted) “banker types” so they tend to denigrate Republican compassion. These images arose during the Depression and have long since passed into American mythology.
Spamming this board with whining complaints that you don’t like the way that the parties have chosen to portray themselves since even before you were born seems to be a waste of time and bandwidth.
Where’s your sample pool? ISTM that the only poster on these Boards who start these idiotic threads daring people of particular political affiliations to affirm or deny alleged bigotry is you - and you only start them about alleged Democratic bigotry.
God, for an actuary, you appear to know very little about stats.
And for those of you listening at home …
David B.'s back and there’s gonna be trouble
Hey la, hey la, David B.'s back!!
David B is SuaSponte’s boyfriend? I swear, nobody tells me anything.
Here’s a third instance of the use of homophbia by 2002 Democratic campaigns. Some Democrats are willing to do anything to win, even if it violates the principles they claim to hold.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?05b27c8a-2579-402b-a969-598837f46c74
As Auric Goldfinger said to James Bond,
***" Once is Happenstance. Twice is Coincidence. The third time is Enemy Action." ***
Oh, well that proves it then. Whatever “it” is, that definitely proves it.
So when Republicans engage in these tactics it is in support of principles they hold?
tomndeb:
Of course not. We only do it to counterbalance the Democratic scourge.