I have no idea. I made no claim about who will and won’t get elected.
Edited to add: I don’t think Clinton will be the next president.
Yes, but that’s just because most of us don’t feel like the FDA is the best means for achieving the oversights you and we all want. It’s almost always bad when government politicians and business tycoons partner together.
I’ll bite, why should I want politicians to decide questions of morality?
CMC fnord!
Oh, is that what they’re calling it these days?
Assuming you’re using the word morality to mean something like a system of right and wrong conduct, politics and morality are inextricably intertwined. You can’t make policy decisions without making morality judgments because value judgments are implicit in every decision.
I would also have accepted as a respectable answer:“I personally do not think that homosexual acts are moral. They go against my own personal religious beliefs. But my personal religious beliefs are just that - my own. I respect that others have their own beliefs that are different and it is not for me, or for General Pace, to impose our personal religious beliefs on others…” I could believe that. It could seg into emphasizing how she, (like Obama) is against legalizing gay marriage but for civil unions with the legal status of marriage. It would show that she has the spine to be a leader.
Edwards is courting a more liberal constituency than Hillary is, but a lot of this is excuse-making. The woman is running for president and, leaving aside my opposition to a number of her positions and actions (Miller gave a nice rundown of those), why does this kind of dishonesty get a free pass?
Bigger fish to fry? How can Mccain be afraid to comment on whether or not condoms help prevent STDs without a before-hand briefing by one of his staff?
-Joe
To be fair, Edwards did decline to give his blessing to gay marriage further into that interview.
What would you rather have? Lipservice or action? If her actions support gay rights, be happy about that.
Nobody in this country is going to get elected by arguing with the military and the far Right. it just wont happen. Is that Hilary’s fault? She knows the game, as do the others. I dont support it, but for me actions do speak louder than words, so I take her non-comment with a grain of salt and trust she would just continue doing what she was doing before.
Your position doesn’t really make much sense, here. You’re saying that Hillary can’t say she doesn’t think homosexuality is immoral because of the political ramifications, but that we can tell that she’s okay with us by her actions. How does this not apply to the people who would react negatively to her if she stated that she doesn’t think homosexuality is immoral? It’s comforting to think that homophobes are that stupid, but for the most part, they really aren’t. If Hillary’s actions so clearly communicate her beliefs, then the anti-gay voting bloc is going to be able to read that just as well as the pro-gay voting bloc. So why not just say, “I don’t think homosexuality is immoral?”
Fair enough, although I don’t know if any of us is so busy that he can only criticize one of the two bumblers. Has there been a thread about McCain’s screwup, by the way? I read about it last week and was surprised not to see one.
So, her actions aren’t “arguing” with the military and the far right? Only words count against her with those people?
As for no one being electable who argues with the far right, when are we ever going to be not in an election cycle? If she got elected once, well, she can’t argue because she needs to get reelected. If she got elected twice, well, she can’t argue because think of her party!
If you (the general you) excuse things for the sake of electability, you excuse them forever.
Fair point.
I still think HRC doesn’t believe that homosexuality is immoral, its just not the climate now she can say that. Does that make her a coward? Yes. But that is the political reality we live in here… Getting elected is not so much about making people like you, but about making them hate you less than the other guy. Sad, but true.
Because those that dont think it immoral are a minority and a quiet one at that. At least compared to whackos we hear about!
I don’t think you understood my post. Let me try it this way:
We have two groups of voters in the US: those that think homosexuality is okay, and those that think it’s immoral.
You say that Clinton shouldn’t just come out and say that homosexuality is okay, because it will piss off the people who think it’s immoral. However, you also say that people who think homosexuality is okay, should not be pissed off at Clinton because we can tell by her actions that she think homosexuality is okay, even if she won’t say it.
So my question is, why are those of us who think homosexuality is okay going to be the only ones who look at Clinton’s actions to determine her feelings about gays, and not her words? What’s stopping people who think homosexuality is sinful from looking at Clinton’s actions, and judging her based on that, instead of her words? If we’re supposed to judge her on her actions, and not her words, what’s the point of the words in the first place? Why didn’t she just say, “I don’t think homosexuality is immoral,” when everyone can just look at her actions and use that to figure out what she really thinks about gays?
Is it political reality or self-fulfilling prophecy? How much do these people reflect the climate and how much do they create it?
I think that’s a great (and well worded) question that gets to the heart of all this. Typical politicians (like Hillary) respond to political expediency, and so they are usually behind the social curve. Congress gets too much credit for leadership in civil rights, for example. All they did in 1964 was respond to almost a decade of upheaval and social demand, starting with Rosa Parks in 1955.
Ah, you’re right, I didn’t get what you were saying in your first post. But to answer this; supporting legaslation doesn’t make headlines. Hilary saying “Homosexuality is not immoral” would. And every yahoo would read that.
Good question. You should think of opening a GD on that one, might be a good debate there. My answer is; I just dont know. Please dont think I support HRC in her choice to not make a statement, I dont. I just dont think if wanna pit someone for doing what the nature of our system makes them do, dont be choosy. Pit em all!
:dubious: That’s a pretty weak answer. It’s nice to think that everyone on the gay rights side is smart and shiny and knows all the right answers, and everyone on the other side are inbred, illiterate sheep, but that’s just not the case. Even if you assume the popular base for the homophobe movement is made up of “yahoos,” the people* leading *the movement are still smart enough to use Clinton’s actions on gay rights to attack her, and those are the headlines that are going to make the biggest impression on their base.
Just a quick note on the Dob/Miller sidebar: There’s also a third group of people, which am seeing posting on Christian Forums, largely younger people (teens and 20s) but also a smattering of older people, who have the attitude: “Homosexuality is immoral by my religious beliefs, but it’s also none of my businesss.” Personally in the present climate I see the emergence of that group as a sign for optimism.