Except in Texas, where (as I’ve heard) the Lt. Gov has all the real power.
Heh, speaking of that… I was listening to the Michael Reagan show this afternoon, and he just couldn’t understand what that phrase meant.
“Gay American? How can you be a Gay American? What’s that supposed to mean? It’s an oxymoron! Do they do it differently in other countries? Are there Gay Cubans too? Gay Spanish? Gay Italians?”
(Hint to Mike Reagan: Yes. There sure are.)
Not to hijack, but: oxymoron? What is that all about? Does he not understand what “oxymoron” means, or is there something un-American about being gay?
You seem to think this resignation is somehow owed to the people of New Jersey. The fact is that he doesn’t have to resign at all. Would it be shittier or less shitty of him to serve out his term like nothing had happened? Your concern for our freedom of choice warms my heart, but the people of NJ did decide for themselves - they elected him to a four-year term. And there’s nothing in our constitution that says he can’t resign whenever he wants, for political reasons, personal reasons, or for no reason at all.
I think it’s a case of the word not meaning what he thinks it means. If anything, the criticism would be that adding “American” was unnecessary.
I’m listening to some morning radio show here, and they’re completely and absolutely not getting the point at all. But then again what do I expect.
I wanna know what that wife of his had taken (Valium, maybe?) before the press conference that enabled her to stand there by her man.
They would have had to pry my clenched hands off of his balls if it were me.
I’m sure you would react that way if you were surprised. From what I’ve heard, and I’ve been hearing it for years, she knew about his orientation long before they got married. He was living a lie not because he was confused but because of political expediancy. He didn’t think he could be governor if he was openly gay. We will never know because he never gave the voters a chance.
Question: Is there a reason why he resigns then gives a two plus month future date as the day of his resignation? I mean if he resigns shouldn’t it go into effect, like NOW or in a couple WEEKS not months? :dubious:
Because if he resigned now, there’d be a special election to fill the vacancy, and the voters might choose a republican. If the resignation takes effect after a certain point in the future, the vacancy is filled by another Democrat.
Bada-bump.
Thought people might want to see McGreevey’s Op-Ed piece in the Times today.
Let it not be said that we Irish don’t understand the word ‘chutzpah’. :rolleyes: Not a word about the corruption scandals, the boyfriend-hiring, Kushner, etc. It’s all about Jim’s Self-Realization. Oy.
I’m glad the gay folks on the SDMB saw right through him, too, at the time. matt_mcl nailed it:
Mais oui, my Canadian friend.
Y’know, there’s something interesting about this:
Gay liberal pol proves himself to be a lying sack, and even the gay liberal SDMB posters have the moral and ethical fortitude to acknowledge that this guy is a crook. No special interests. No “circling the wagons”. Despite what would seem to be obvious pototential for the mind-clouding effects of political loyalties, the SDMB liberals saw right through it, rightfully condemned McGreevey’s deplorable behavior, expressed disgust at his playing the “velvet card” in an attempt to ingratiate himself to the far left, etc., etc., etc.
It really is a stunning display of political and social ethics and integrity, and I applaud all of you. Really, I’m not kidding. It’s moving, and makes me think there’s some hope for this fucked up nation, when seeming partisans can recognize the criminals in their midst. Wrong is wrong, no matter who you are.
Contrast this with the conservatives on this board, the blind eye turned to the unforgivable betrayals of the Bush administration, especially its core constituency, which accepts the lies with a credulity I can only liken to religious fever, and it’s enough to make anyone with a conscious brain cell in their body shake with fear.
Why fear? It would seem that the liberals, given their honesty and integrity, are the only partisans capable of voting one of their own out of office for abusing power. They suppor the deserving. Hence, they’re more likely to lose. Frightening.
With all due respect, Loopydude, you’re treading on very dangerous ground here. Surely you recognize that saying, “Only liberals are capable of thinking outside the terms of partisan politics, unlike those single-minded conservatives,” is more than a little hypocritical?
What’s frightening to me is seeing so many people reducing each other to political shorthand, and so willing to line themselves up on one side or the other of an issue. It’s an “Us vs Them” mentality that’s killing this country, IMO. There’s a separate thread about “social conservatives” in Great Debates – to me, that’s what’s scary. Seeing so many people nonchalantly declaring themselves “for” or “against” something with no explanation. That’s not discourse, that’s saying, “I’m against this, you’re wrong, the end.” You can’t make progress in that environment.
People need to remember that “gay” is not a political term. It just means that someone is homosexual. Nothing more, nothing less. You can assume that someone who’s openly gay would tend to be more liberal, because just in order to function he has to question what traditionalists have been beating into his head for years is “wrong.” But as soon as you start inferring political viewpoints or even social viewpoints based on that one factor, you’re stereotyping, which is part of the whole problem. When someone starts seeing my right to even exist, and my right to love someone else, as a political issue on which there can be two opposing but equally valid viewpoints, that’s what I consider frightening.
I guess it would be if I could see evidence to the contrary.
As for assuming a political affiliation: You’re right, it is an assumption, and there may be some stereotyping there. However, Log Cabin Republicans notwithstanding, I don’t personally know a single homosexual who votes Republican, basically for the reasons you mentioned: Social conservatives, who have major sway over Republican politics despite their relatively small numbers, hold views that deny a minority of Americans their basic civil rights. I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to bet your average homosexual feels compelled to vote Democrat, given the options. And I’ve yet to encounter a Log Cabin Republican here. I do want to apologize if I offended you because of this stereotyping. Maybe I need to reevaluate my assumptions. Having said that, I didn’t consider my assumptions on par with saying only gay men can do window treatments or prepare a proper souffle.
No, of course it’s not, and I wasn’t offended. I worded it poorly if I suggested that it were an offensive stereotype.
My point is that it’s counter-productive to treat anyone as a homogenous group and assume that they all think in lock-step. On the one hand you get people who just say that “gay rights is one of those liberal issues” or “of course you would think that, because you’re a liberal” and dismiss it without thinking and without conscience, as easily as they’d dismiss every other point of the Liberal Agenda. And then on the other hand, you get opportunistic tools like McGreevy who’ll hitch a ride on the “gay rights movement” and use it as a smokescreen for their indiscretions. It reduces it all to politics, which keeps people from thinking. And allows people to rationalize injustice as just another political debating point.
And that’s hijacking this thread enough, probably.
That was a thoughtful, reasonable, even kind reply, which tells me you’re probably a better man than me.
I’m getting a little depressed, I suppose. I can’t help it. I think what has caused me the most worry is my views don’t seem to me to be based so much on assumptions; they’re based on what I observe, every day. And so, you know, many of my fellow countryment actually frighten me. They don’t just tick me off, or make me roll my eyes; they make me want to flee. If it weren’t for my family, I would.
I see McGreevey go down, and I think: That’s appropriate. He did wrong, and now it’s time to face the consequences.
Yet there are so many people, all the way up to the top…when these guys lie and cheat, more than taxpayer money gets wasted; human lives get wasted. And people cheer. It’s just…horrifying. There’s no justice. None.
It’s little consolation, but some all the same, that the liberals here didn’t respond to McGreevey’s sordid story by saying “well if your asshat gets to be a mendacious criminal and get away with it, ours should too!” (I know no one is claiming McGreevey as “ours” just because he’s a gay Democrat, but you see what I mean, I hope.) It’s a beam of hope piercing an otherwise dark and forbidding sky.
One in four gay votes went for George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election.
Well, geez, according to this article, not even the Log Cabin Republicans are going to endorse the president this time around (which I didn’t know until now).
Also quite a surprise: One if four? Wow. I mean…wow.
You have to think back and remember that, in November 2000, George W. Bush was considered to be a bit dull, intellectually, but not terribly out of step with relatively moderate thought, although hindsight does note that there were signs even then. But the Anti-Gay Amendment and Iraq and all the other neocon/religious right bullshit were still in the future. And we had Gore, doing his level best to distance himself from Clinton like a respectable pillar of the community distances himself from the $20 crackwhore he just paid for sex, as the alternative.