Good As You

The choice of a jackass as the Democratic Party’s emblem can't have been an accident.

It was Jackass Party leaders Bill and Hillary Clinton who enacted used bigoted laws like DOMA and DADT to shove GLBT folk into second class citizenship and appeal to bigots. Gay basher Pelosi and quisling Frank did the same when they eliminated transsexuals from federal civil rights protections to appeal to the bosses who make money discriminating against us. ENDA as it stands is at best a symbolic, toothless bill to mollify naive or rightwing GLBT folk and placate bigots.

All major candidates in the twin parties either oppose samesex marriage or take the cowards way out to mollify bigots, a carry-over of their decade long support for the federal DOMA which passed by lopsided bipartisan majorities of 85-24 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House . Bill Clinton hastily singed it into law in September 1996 to as a draw for bigoted voters in the Congressional elections that year.

Now the Jackass Party’s Obama has adopted Hillary Clintons’ tactic of ‘dialoging’ and appearing with bigots like ex-gay piglet McClurkin. The road the Democrats have chosen is leading them and their supporters’ inescapably to the right. Their superficial distinctions from the Republicans t will diminish even further as questions like support for Bush’s oil war in the Mideast, a common anti-labor program and their attempts to appease bigots’ leads to more and more shake-ups and splintering in US politics as a whole.

I will admit it: I love Donnie McClurkin's music. I bought all of his CDs until I saw a documentary on him on TV. I will never buy another one of his CDs again. It just makes me sad when people use their celebrity status to promote the wrong (read: narrow-minded) agenda.

Some right-wingers were loudly proclaiming that Obama doesn't go to church (and of course then speculating he's an atheist).

It's a smear. But the reaction demonstrates political cowardice, and poorer judgment than we want from someone planning to sit in the Oval Office.

This isn't only about South Carolina's primary. This is a rightward move by Barack Obama: desperate to do something, anything to beat back Hillary in the polls.

He hopes he can pick up the votes of Democrats who hate gays, yet not lose the gay vote (thus his denunciation of McClurkin's hateful rhetoric, difficult to reconcile with his decision not to cancel McClurkin's appearance).

The result will likely be that he'll lose nearly all the votes from both blocs.

He'll certainly lose his image as idealistic and principled.

Donnie McClurkin is of course best known for performing at the Republican convention in 2004, helping Bush maintain the right-wing vote and thus the Presidency.

Seems McClurkin's not the only one willing to sign a nonaggression pact if he thinks there might be some benefit.

cwm - I don't have any disagreement with what you say I just want to reiterate that the Clintons have done the same thing for the better part of two years, including appearing with McClurkin. They're just as sleazy as Obama, who after all is from the "machine" in Chicago. He's got to be 'connected." On the whole though I think Hillary’s fundraising dinner sponsored by the Faux New’s Rupert Murdoch trump all of Obama’s sleaze and then some.

After I posted, I realized I might have given the (incorrect) impression I'm more satisfied with the Senator from NY. Not my intent; just that the conventional wisdom is she's way ahead of Obama. No one's voted yet, not that this has ever deterred the media from anointing a nominee anyway.

With friends like Hillary... Remember how she dodged the question, "Is homosexuality immoral?" saying she didn't want to denigrate anyone's moral views. Or that she supports gay rights but "can't promise anything" if elected. No, I'm not feeling enthusiastic.

All 3 of the "serious" Democratic candidates--i.e. those receiving media attention other than ridicule--refuse to rule out staying in Iraq for at least 4 more years. I understand the desire not to be the one blamed for our inevitable defeat in this misguided slaughter (to which I refuse to lend credence by calling it a "war"). Inexcusable nonetheless.

The Dems strategy seems to be: give Dubya enough rope with which to hang himself, play not to lose, and waltz into the White House in 2008 with no real agenda.

Worst of all is the failure to challenge the expansion of executive power: including holding suspects without charge, due process or trial -- massive spying on Americans -- secret prisons, rendition & torture -- "signing statements" which reduce Congress to a meaningless debating society -- etc., etc. Thuggery has grown so ubiquitous, the mind reels. I can barely remember last month's atrocities, so quickly are they pushed off the front page by the latest outrages.

Pelosi's insistence that impeachment is "off the table": my jaw drops, finding so little concern for America to remain a Constitutional republic with checks and balances. Most of her fellow legislators seem equally content to concede the game without even the semblance of an effort. Could the betrayal of the people's mandate of 2006 be more complete?

Given how far public opinion has turned against Commander Bunnypants, I wonder whether the inaction is due merely to political cowardice. Or does the Democratic Party hope for similarly dictatorial powers still in effect, once they assume the Presidency themselves?

Kucinich is the only candidate who offers change from corporate politics-as-usual. But (as in 2004) I expect he'll fail to win a single state, then throw his support behind the Democratic nominee no matter how vile.

Rather than succumb to despair, I begin to find persuasive the arguments of those (see Joel S. Hirschborn's recent essay on counterpunch.org) who favor a voter boycott. Should turnout drop to 25% or less, everyone must agree the two-party system is broken.

We need a pro-democracy movement.

"...when any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it." -- Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence

First of all, I guess “strongly urging” to have Donnie dropped didn’t work. I think it was a bias request because it says gays want to be accepted for their belief (OK to be gay), but don’t want others to be accepted despite their beliefs (Not OK to be gay).

I also think challenging African-American religious leaders is misleading. Gays ONLY challenge the Christian religion, because Muslims and Jews don’t accept them PERIOD. You would think that gays would appreciate Christianity for embracing them when the others don’t. Not going to happen though. You give a person an inch, you know the rest.

People will have to be legally blind to believe that a person’s skin color can be compared to two people of the same gender having sex. Do you see how stupid that sounds? Oh, and FYI, what is even more stupid, it’s always compared to black skin, no other color. The trick is this—It’s like being black, why we would want the controversy? Good question.

When it comes to God, he doesn’t approve of sex out of wedlock. Is there a such thing as a gay virgin? I’ll wait for the answer. Time’s up. I didn’t think so either. Homosexuality is about sex and that’s it. You can love people of the same gender, but CAN’T YOU KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOTHES? I hope no one does to your children what was done to Donnie as child.

This is my conclusion, if all people want to bring their sexual issues to church, you have to accept the following 3 rules and warning.

1. All adulterers, fornicators, masturbators, child molesters and homosexuals will have equal say, without being shut out.
2. All of the issues must be brought up in the Mosques, Temples and Churches everywhere.
3. You must also accept bestiality, because some people say they were born that way. It’s happening in Europe --> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/may/25/broadcasting.radio

Warning - Do not tell God that the religious people said “you can be gay.” Remember religious people don’t have a Heaven or Hell for you.

Majic: If you're going to post such ridiculousness, at least be original. You have been posting the exact same comment on various gay sites (including on other posts here at G-A-Y).

The only thing we will say about your thoughts is that it's sad that student from a school as rich on diversity as Medgar Evers College would hold such gay-antipathetic views.