Tapper on Dems at HRC debate: "They came, they saw, they pandered"
SUMMARY: On Good Morning America, Jake Tapper said that Democratic presidential candidates at the August 9 Human Rights Campaign forum "treated the group as with any other interest group: They came, they saw, they pandered." In fact, Tapper himself later noted that four candidates reiterated their opposition to same-sex marriage.
On the August 10 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper said that the six Democratic presidential candidates who attended the August 9 forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) "treated the group as with any other interest group: They came, they saw, they pandered." But as Tapper went on to note, four of the six candidates reiterated their opposition to same-sex marriage. Also contrary to Tapper's suggestion that the candidates merely said what their audience wanted to hear, the candidates' statements regarding civil unions and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy were not new, reflecting views they have repeatedly articulated.
During the event, former Sen. John Edwards (NC), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and Sens. Barack Obama (IL) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) all reiterated their opposition to federal recognition of same-sex civil marriage. Immediately following the forum, HRC President Joe Solmonese released a statement criticizing those candidates opposed to same-sex marriage:
From repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," supporting equal employment rights, providing full funding for the HIV/AIDS epidemic, to eliminating the Defense of Marriage Act, these candidates went on record and committed to fighting for equality in all sectors of our society. Unfortunately, we have more work to do. The overwhelming majority of the candidates do not support marriage equality. While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil marriage tonight became even less clear. ... The next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also what's right.
Moreover, the four candidates who stated their support for civil unions were reiterating long-held positions. Support for civil unions was a consensus position in the last presidential primary as well, as The Boston Globe reported on April 26, 2003: "Almost all of the Democratic presidential candidates favor allowing gay couples to enter into civil unions."
The HRC forum was also not the first time that the two candidates who spoke in favor of legal recognition of same-sex marriage -- former Sen. Mike Gravel (AK) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) -- had articulated this view.
In addition, those who expressed support for repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -- Edwards, Clinton, and Richardson -- have all done so in the past. The New York Times noted on June 8 that this is also a consensus position for Democratic presidential candidates: "In back-to-back debates in New Hampshire this week, every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand in support of repealing that policy ["Don't Ask, Don't Tell"], while not a single Republican embraced the idea."
Following are examples of the candidates' previous statements regarding same-sex marriage, civil unions, and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," each of which is consistent with the positions they took during the HRC forum:
Obama
In a statement printed in the March 7, 2004, edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Obama said, "I support civil unions to guarantee basic rights to same-sex couples. I do not believe that federal recognition of same-sex marriage is practical because of strong political and religious resistance."
On March 6, the Associated Press reported that Clinton's "chief rivals for the Democratic nomination, John Edwards and Barack Obama, also favor repealing" the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Edwards
On the December 31, 2006, edition of ABC's This Week, Edwards said: "I think from my perspective it's very easy for me to say, gay civil unions, yes, partnership benefits, yes, but it is something that I struggle with."
Edwards also addressed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on the February 4 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
TIM RUSSERT (host): Do you believe that openly gay men and women should be able to serve in the military.
EDWARDS: Yes.
RUSSERT: And you would do that as president?
EDWARDS: Absolutely.
Richardson
A December 4, 2003, Boston Globe article reported: "Richardson and the front-running Democratic presidential contenders oppose gay marriage. Instead, they have voiced support for civil unions to give same-sex couples many of the same rights and benefits that are available through marriage."
On March 16, the AP reported that Richardson said "he would push Congress to repeal military's 'don't ask, don't tell policy' in which gay service members are required to keep their sexual orientation private."
Clinton
A July 27, 2000, AP article reported that Clinton's bid for U.S. Senate had been endorsed by the Empire State Pride Agenda and the HRC. According to the article, the two organizations "cited for her support of civil unions providing legal recognition for gay couples; for favoring homosexuals being allowed to serve openly in the military; for supporting laws against hate-crimes; and for backing abortion rights."
Kucinich
At the July 15, 2003, Human Rights Campaign forum, moderator Sam Donaldson asked Kucinich, "Congressman, you support same-sex marriage?" Kucinich responded, "Yes."
Gravel
In a July 12 Huffington Post blog entry, Gravel wrote, "This week The Advocate praised me for being 'unabashedly pro-gay marriage.' "
From the August 10 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
TAPPER: Well, supporters of gay rights had to have been pleased. The politicians treated the group as any with other interest group: They came, they saw, they pandered.
[begin video clip]
TAPPER: The first task for the candidates speaking to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender crowd was to try to relate.
CLINTON: I come to these issues as a friend of a lot of members of the LGBT community.
OBAMA: When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside.
RICHARDSON: I'm Hispanic. I felt the sting as a kid of being stereotyped.
TAPPER: Former Senator John Edwards even reminded folks of his fight with conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who once referred to him using an anti-gay slur.
EDWARDS: I think that what Ann Coulter does is the worst kind of public discourse.
TAPPER: But there was friction. Some of it caused by panelist and musician Melissa Etheridge.
ETHERIDGE: I am not a professional politician. I'm not even a journalist. I'm an incredibly privileged rock star.
TAPPER: Candidates were asked why all but two of them opposed same-sex marriage even though they all support civil unions.
OBAMA: What I'm interested in is making sure that those legal rights are available to people.
RICHARDSON: I'm not there yet. And the country isn't there yet.
TAPPER: And a major theme was disappointment with actions taken by President Clinton.
EDWARDS: "Don't ask, don't tell" is not just wrong now. It was wrong when it began.
ETHERIDGE: We were very, very hopeful. And in the years that followed, our hearts were broken.
CLINTON: If I were sitting where you're sitting, I'm sure I would feel exactly the same way. But I believe there was a lot of honest effort going on.
[end video clip]
TAPPER: It did not seem to be a great night for front-runner Hillary Clinton, who spent much of the night defending actions taken by her husband as the best that could be achieved for gay rights at the time. But, Diane, if anything indicates how much these issues have changed since the 1990s, it's the very fact that this forum was held at all, televised, with all these Democratic heavy hitters showing up.
But Tapper's theme has such a nice ring to it - almost a bumper-sticker slogan. And everybody knows Dems are panderers, so this idea shouldn't be too hard to sell to the FoxLies crowd, at least. Consider GMA an audition?
I don't think we can take Tapper's comments too seriously. After all, he was just pandering to his audience.
It was indeed a pander-fest. The only Democrat candidates who didn't surrender to this special interest group were Richardson and Kucinich. The biggest joker in the pack (predictably) was the "Poverty Champion."
There is no such thing as a Democrat candidate there are DemocratIC candidates and ReNAMBLAcan candidates
Just by being there, it seems to me the Democratic candidates are pandering.
But then it is similar to Republicans showing up at someplace like Liberty University.
Let me say right off the bat that I have no animus toward anyone except people who purposely do harm to others. I do not sit in judgment of anyone's sexual preferences.
Having said that I don't pay much attention to gay rights advocacy groups, so when I saw Human Rights Campaign, I clicked on the link and saw that it an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the United States.
The first thought upon seeing the link is that the name HRC seems to me to be a bit misleading. But there is nothing that says any name has to explicitly identify it's group. I just thought on the face of it, that it might be concerned about Darfur, or be like Amnesty International. Oh well... it's not quite. :-)
The second thought I had was what civil rights are bi-sexual people denied? What about trans-gendered?
Other questions that I have now:
In layman terms what exactly constitutes a trans-gendered person?
Does anyone know the percentage of the population who are gay? Lesbian? bi? transgendered?
Is gay the preferred term or politically correct term for homosexual? I thought gay referred to both homosexuals and lesbians.
Thanks for any clarification. My hope is I did not offend anyone by asking these questions.
AA, I don't think there is anything offensive in what you asked. to answer one of your questions though, if you are known to be gay you can't serve in the military. Look how many arabic speaking translators lost their jobs because of that rule?
AA,
I agree with your statement. Anytime a politician appears before any group that identifies itself as such, they run the risk of being accused of pandering, and for good reason. Normally they tailor their remarks and responses to what that particular group wants to hear, or expects to hear, to try and get their support and votes.
However, I did catch Obama's portion of this at the gym last night, and I was frankly, impressed. He was bombarded with the same sex marriage question, the end all for many gay people apparently - and he answered honestly and did not seem to pander. He even got a little irritated at the "separate but equal" argument. He explained that all citizens should be afforded equal rights by our government, but that the term marriage should be a religious one - I absolutely agree.
I understand even Clinton explained her opposition to the gay marriage term, by saying it was personal......good enough for me.
The HRC is a gay advocacy group, but they are exclusively a left wing political organization, from what I understand. Even their fund raising has been questioned of late. They promote Democrats.
That being said, it would be nice if we didn't subdivide ourselves into these groups and look for politicians that "work on gay issues", but rather politicians that look out for all Americans and work on all our issues.
I too feel one issue voting is a bad idea. However I actually would like to see one issue debates. It was good to delve deep into an issue beyond 90 seconds and 30 second follow ups. I think we would get a much better understanding of the candidates and their position on the issues.
AA, I may be all wet, but my understanding is that a TransGendered person is one who is "born in the wrong body". That is, a man who feels that he should be a woman or vice versa. They sometimes have surgery and take hormones to correct the situation. I don't know how many there are, but they are different from "transvestites" who just dress up as the opposite sex.
If this is wrong, maybe someone will correct me.
“The second thought I had was what civil rights are bi-sexual people denied?”
If they are with someone of the same gender then they are denied certain rights.
What about trans-gendered?
I don’t know.
“In layman terms what exactly constitutes a trans-gendered person?”
I thought they were men trapped in a woman’s body or women trapped in a man’s body. I tried to find out more by reading the Wikipedia entry but it just confused me more. But the entry did say transgender encompasses “transsexual; cross-dresser; transvestite; androgynies; gender queer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens.”
“Does anyone know the percentage of the population who are gay? Lesbian? bi? transgendered?”
It’s difficult to find solid numbers at this point. As tolerance for gays increases, we will be able to get an accurate number. If the numbers are higher than the current estimates, the Christian Right will say that that tolerance is causing people to turn gay.
“Is gay the preferred term or politically correct term for homosexual? I thought gay referred to both homosexuals and lesbians.”
I was reading an article on another blog and it seems that a growing number of gays find the term “homosexual” offensive. They prefer the term “absolutely fabulous” (just kidding). They prefer the term “gay”.
AA I'd check with Dan Savage, he doses a sex advice column called Savage Love for The Stranger, a weeky news print magazine. He's very good.
He can be reached at: mail@savagelove.net
Well that was surprising, if it works as a link that'll be a first for me.
There are more sexual identies than those listed: Intersexual, their identity is mixed male and female, psychological and/or physical and some seem to prefer staying that way. Asexuallity is becoming more popular. One fairly, recently out of the closet, furrysexual.
I don't claim to be an expert on all of the sexual identity categories. I really don't have any personal interest in assigning people to those categories.
But, AnotherAmerican/Deputy Fife, with that list of questions regarding sexual orientation, I'd say you qualify as, at least, Bi-Curious.
Be sure to check that box from now on. ;0)
Ding-dong Tapper's World
The real pandering takes place in the Con party. Mutt Romney flip-flops on abortion and gay rights.
But is not found in Tapper's World.
I'm not up on whatever was the forum or debate or sponsoring group that is alluded to in this item... no joke, when I saw the headline to the item, and it's reference to the...
HRC debate
...my first thought was HRC means Hillary Rodham Clinton.
True... I thought "get out! One of the candidates is sponsoring a debate? Get out!"
I didn't know HRC stood for Humans Rights Campaign... I'm not as up to speed on the latest stuff as I should be.
But I think the idea of the candidates themselves, sponsoring the debates, is maybe a good one... the sponsoring candidate chooses the moderator, and the questions, and packs the house with all their friends and supporters... and decides just how the other candidates are seated or stand... and how they're lighted on the stage, variously spot-lighted, or in complete darkness... and how they're photographed, at strange angles and tilted, through strange distorting lenses, and out-of-focus fuzzy...
It's what they try to do anyway, whoever it is that's sponsoring the debate; they might as well just take turns being the sponsors themselves, and do all that I just listed, and more (or worse, however you see it)...
It would be funny at least; I'd watch... was the debate last night on tv? I missed it if it was; otherwise I'd have known what HRC stood for, instead of thinking it was somebody's monogram.
I watched this debatelast night and Tapper's analysis does not jive with the reaction during the post debate analysis that included reaction from the audience. I was personally pleased to see the candidates stop ducking this issue in an election. It was a good debate and at times some rather uncomfortable questions were asked of those that don't support gay marriage. Edwards really bombed his answer because he couldn't explain why he was for civil unions but against marriage. Obama did a better job but he didn't fully comit to his explaination. Richardson impressed me initially because he appeared very honest in saying that it was an issue of what could reasonably be accomplished but he somehow started to derail and was actually asked some tough questions that he just botched. He actually had the audience groaning in reaction. Hillary came out bringing alot of baggage from Bill Clinton's time in office...she did a decent job explaining why the comprimises were made. She also answered the question about not pursuing gay marriage and had a similar explanation to Richardson but she did a much better job of explaining it and connecting to the crowd. If I was a one issue voter (which I am not) Kucinich on this issue is the winner. However, his overly flowery speech was a little off-putting to me. Gravel was pretty blunt and I thought his delving into leagalizing ALL drugs was a little odd. All in all I got the impression that the audience thought this was progress and they also expressed dissapointment that the republicans would not appear in their own debate to discuss the issues.
Lost, Good summary.
I am just very uncomfortable when politicians sit there and tell ME what they are going to do for ME......all I want is for them to explain their positions on issues clearly and decidedly, and tell me if I don't agree or can't support them, fine. I should vote elsewhere. (like that is ever going to happen......)
Pandering is when politicians tell me what I want to hear, because they think I will vote for them......not me.
I think that is what the candidates did...there was no pandering when it came down to what they would do. You could probaly say that the speechy parts may appear to some as pandering but the substantial parts of everyones answers was anything but...they didn't pull their punches they said what they believed and what they would pursue on this issue.
I said I only saw Obama's portion, and I don't believe he specifically pandered. But in a forum such as this, not pandering to a group who is subdividing themselves, is virtually impossible.
Tapper's Tune...
Tapper awoke, Tapper spoke, and the sewage dribbled down his chin.
Interesting that Kucinich and Gravel openly support Gay Marriage, since they have little chance of winning anyway. The front runners have to be more careful, however. There are still plenty of bigots in the Democratic party, particularly in the South. No serious candidate can admit support for Gay Marriage, even if they know that there's no logical reason to oppose it.
I am not sure if I am reading your post wrong but I got the impression you were implying that Gravel and Kucinich were only openly supporting gay marriage because they really had nothing to lose based on their electablility. If this is what you mean I couldn't disagree more...I think they sincerley feel the oposition is stupid and see no reason not to support equality. I also have a problem with those that say they support civil unions but resist gay marriage...doen't make much sence to me. However, listening to Richardson and Clinton discussing what they can reasonably get done and why they only support civil unions at this time and in this climate did give me a level of comfort with their lack of support.
Sanctioning civil unions should be a state issue with all the same rights afforded to same sex couples as non-same sex couples.
Marriage should be taken out it, it is a religious term and each individual denomination can determine who they will marry.
I disagree that marriage is a religious issue. I am married and I was married in a civil ceremony...no church involved. I could be wrong but as one person pointed out marriage predates the religious aspect. I am not sure it is a good idea to leave equality issues up to individual states. I don't think it is ok for a state to deny equal rights for all. I think a church sanctifying a marriage is a different issue and I do believe that is a church issue and the government has no business getting involved. But as far a civil marriage that should be equal.
The term marriage should be taken out of the state's role altogether. The state should be performing civil unions, and churches and religious institutions can perform marriages as they see fit.
This may be just a semantic argument, but an important one.....and a definite unnecessary stumbling block for those that want and deserve equality in this area.
Hey Lost I agree with this sentiment 100% percent. If Houses of Worship don't want to perform religious marriage ceremonies for Gays so be it, but Gays should have the right to go to City Hall and get married if they want to.
LL, that's not quite what I was driving at...maybe I expressed it poorly. What I mean is that Kucinich and Gravel are willing to be honest, since honesty can't hurt them. On the other hand, the front runners have to tread carefully on this issue. Hillary may in fact have no problem with Gay Marriage, but she can't admit it, since it could kill her chances of carrying any Southern States. Keep in mind that about half of Tennessee Democrats voted in favor of a "Protection of Marriage" amendment in the 2006 election.
Thanks for explaining. I agree. It is not politically a smart move to push the marriage issue right now. It bothers me but I am a practical person and I do recognize that there are limits to what can be accomplished. I actually think Richardson and Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama were admitting to just that during the debate. I wondered how they would answer the issue and as I said their answers did give me personally a level of comfort.
Hillary does not support gay marriage. She has said so many times. She has also said her thinking on this issue is evolving over time.
It's funny how when someone from "our" side says something we disagree with, we rationalize it by saying"well, they just can't sperak the way they truly believe". But when someone from the "other" side says something we do agree with, we think, "They are just saying that, they don't really believe it".
Human beings can convince themselves of anything.....I'm convinced of it ;-)
Maybe you're right...but it won't stop the Conservative Liars from accusing her of embracing the "Gay Agenda" anyway, since she supports civil unions. Hide and watch.
I don't have any problem with the analysis that the candidates were pandering...they were pandering to the AFL-CIO, and candidates from both sides will continue to "pander" to whichever groups sponsor the forums. What was more telling were two matters: the Human Rights Campaign also invited all Republican candidates to a similar forum, and all declined.
The second matter is that Etheridge managed to ask two questions which broadened the scope of the conversation beyond the gay community. She asked Edwards about health care and universal coverage, acknowledging that her own struggle with cancer was made less onerous because she could afford her treatments, while many Americans cannot. And she also asked Kucinich about federal legalization of medical marijuana-an issue that cuts across many "focus groups" and into the hearts and homes of suffering Americans.
Conservatives don't pander
They're simply too cowardly to even show up.
Okay, if this is pandering, what do you call it when Mitt Romney gives the commencement speech at Pat Robertson's phony law school?
Pandering.
Mitt Romney gives John Edwards a run for his money in the world of pandering.
It's called:
"Doing a McCain"
It is true, that who knows why anybody thinks that homosexuality is anything important in the upcoming presidential election... that is, anybody other than the Republican candidates, and their "strategists" and their many hacks in the "media" and elsewhere... to them, anything and everything "gay" is to be referenced to the Democratic candidates; and the issues they bring to this election, are to be painted as "gay" as possible, in all the colors of the rainbow ... as a matter of fact, this stuff about homosexuality as a political issue (homosexuality as a political issue?), it's one of really just two issues left to Republicans, to try and "wedge" themselves between Democrats and much of what we call "Red State America", and pry any support of the Democratic candidates in those states, away from Democrats and back to whatever party remains by default, once "gayness" has suffiently alienated as many voters away from Democrats, in Red State America.
It works too.
Which is why Republicans have made homosexuality a political issue, which is why they keep initiating "gay marriage" as a political issue... because it works. It prys voters in Red State America (who are at present in the Democratic camp, thanks to George W. Bush and his crooked minions in Congress, the GOP leadership), "gay marriage" prys Red State voters away from Democrats, and back to Republicans...
Although who could ever say it was for an important reason, over an important political issue (homosexuality?)
Anyway, it works very well for Republicans... they get a lot of mileage out of it... it's one of two issues that have this effect in Red State America... the other issue presently standing by, waiting to rear it ugly head.
Triple Funding for Planned Parenthood
All the Democrats have to do is triple funding for birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the Cons other wedge issue is history.
That's very good, I'm impressed: You identified the issue I was referring to, and you stated its solution (or prevention), and pointed out that solution as a political issue (as a matter of funding)... and did all that without saying the ugly word.
If you were running for president, I'd seriously consider you, for your ability to do all that... and you'd probably win, or at least you wouldn't have alienated (unnecessarily) Red State America, in campaigning... which is such an important thing to not do.
I hope the Democratic field gets it right, this time.
You've identified one of our greatest problems... voters like my sister-in-law. She just started her own small business, but her husband can't help her run the business because he had to take a low-paying factory job so that they can have health insurance. She'll walk into the voting booth and think...Health Care? 100,000 dead Iraqis? GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!! and pull the Republican lever...again. She told me in 2004 that she supported George Bush because "At least he has values!"
How can we overcome such abject stupidity?
I'm not sure the best strategy is to try to overcome those too far gone to reason with. I think the best strategy is to wake up those too apathetic to get off the couch to cast their vote. We need to get out the vote better. I think the Republicans did so well with the issue because they were able to get the homophobic crowd to get off the couch for fear gay marriage may have them turning gay...(or something along those lines (-; Fear gets people to the voting booth and you can't deny the Republicans excel at fear mongering.
It is a serious problem in our elections...
...not for any particular party, but for all of us; that problem being, the use of highly charged emotional issues in politics, the kind of stuff where, upon a more reasoned examination, you realize they have nothing whatsoever to do with Law, or with the Administration of our Government... yet craven conniving base politicians, invoke these gut-level issues anyway, in spite of them being for the most part of no concern or importance, to Law and Government... and they of course do this, so as to divide and conquer the electorate; playing fear anger and hatred, all against reason and civility.
Religion, sexuality, xenophobia (fear of foreigners), and race: Just some of the cards in that deck, stacked against us, like suckers, who think we'll be dealt competent and conscientious Lawmakers and Administrators...
...and instead we're dealt something more like nazis; or least folks who happily used the same methods, that nazis used to capture the hearts and minds (by way of fear and anger) of the German people.
OK, enough of that.
In the case of your sis-in-law, this is how I work... take it if it sounds right, discard it if it doesn't... anyway:
You catch more flies with honey, and children won't take their medicine when it tastes bitter, and a soft answer turneth away wrath [Proverbs 15:1]...
"You betcha sis, I can't hardly believe it myself...
Gays, gettin married? What will Democrats think of next.
But you know what sis? This whole "gay marriage" thing, it seems kind of way down the list of things that plague us American People right now, no?
I mean, it doesn't exactly seem a high priority to me, sis... not with Iraq, and terror, and the U.S. Army being critically short, and the DOD out of control owned by Defense Contractors, and the Department of Justice being in need of some... JUSTICE!
You see what I mean, sis, about gays wanting to get married: it seems like not so great a concern to me right now sis, not in the context of those other things...
It almost seems funny, or sweet even, those gays wanting to exchange "I Do's" with one another... funny maybe, sweet maybe not, but an important election issue just now?
Nope... not to my way of thinking sis... but I do agree, it does sound strange, what will Democrats think of next?
Hey sis, you know what else I think?
I think the whole "gay marriage" thing is just a way of playing Good People like me and you; it's a way of playing on the emotions of Good GOD fearing folks like me and you... I think we're being played; I think someone's actually trying to distract us from the more important and relevant issues of National Policy, and Law and Government...
I'm not buying it sis.
I'm right tired and awful sick, of politicians playing race cards, and xenophobic cards (you know what that word means, right sis?), homophobic cards and religion cards... I'm right tired of being played, by liars and Treasury thieves who get our Brothers and Sisters killed in Iraq, for no reason of National Security whatsoever sis.
So I'm paying no attention to it sis... the next time I hear a politician start in on gays and foreigners and blacks and those Godless liberals, I'm going to hoot and holler and shout, and say:
What about JUSTICE?
What about NATIONAL SECURITY?
What about the DOD, and the U.S. ARMY?
WHAT ABOUT IRAQ?
You do what you want to do sis, but me I got more important things on my mind than gays exchanging sweet nuptials on Cape Cod or in San Francisco or wherever they want to do that...
But I hear you Sister: Gays, getting married... what will Democrats think of next?
[And Brother, I for sure as heck would at least smile, and even laugh, everytime I said that.]
What have the Democrats ever done for gays, to be honest....other than allowing them to get blown up in the Imperial Legions like the rest of us? Really, what have they done? Have they stood behind AIDS patients with good affordable health care and medical marijuana reform? Hell no. They pumped the money into arms deals and busted the doctors prescribing. No state has a working tax base anymore and all the money is being siphoned off to DC to waste. We hear total silence from the Dems on this glorious health care they keep promising us. A few more millions to "the kids" and a few more tens of billions into arms, right? We know that game, we're used to it, the Cold War con has long worn off.
Democrats and Human Rights...another sick joke. A party that gives the illegal occupation and brutal oppression of three million Palestinians total support. Human rights in the DNC? Where?
Just say No to war parties. Vote Peace. Save America.
Well, you find a third party candidate that has a snowball's chance in hell...then we'll talk. Otherwise, voting for the Greens or any other Independent is all but a guarantee that the Troglodytes will hold on to the White House. Thanks, but no thanks.
I watched this forum last night and John Edwards was the only one who pandered. He came across as smug. Gov Richardson came across as hompohobic.
Yeah, Edwards did come pretty close to the line with his agreeing with their feelings about gay marriage...but he still didn't support it. I don't know if Richardson came off as homophobic neccessarily but he certainly has issues. He seemed to struggle with "understanding" being gay. Although, you can't deny he has supported gay rights as governor...would a homophobe do that?
I do not think Richardson is homphobic, but I am sure some watching it see it that way based on that response. All Melissa Ethridge and her rolling of the eyes was a clear indication he was the big loser last night.
Yeah, don't think he won any votes...the groaning may be a tip off. He really dodged the choice question. Sad really, he does have a record on the issues to run on and he started off strong but he just crumbled as the questioning went on and totally combusted on Etheridge's choice question. It was amusing (in a sad sorta way) when everyone kept trying to give him another chance to change his answer. Etheridge was so shocked she actually told him he must have misunderstood her question...this was about the point when my husband and I dropped our heads into our hands and joined the groaning./-:
Of course many of them pandered, the LGBT community is now become the number one community in America that the politicians "Throw Under the Bus". As Melissa said last night to Hillary regarding how she felt after 8 years of Clinton. They way we treat our fellow Americans is disgusting.
I think a lot of you are missing the big point. How many gays are going to vote for any of the likely Repub candidate? Pretty small number eh? So, the democratic candidates can safely count on that block and need only appear to not be rabidly anti gay marriage, lock up those few million votes and move on to something that matters!! Like health care, balance of trade yada yada yada. I'm sorry gay people, but we are not in a place right now where protecting your right to marry is anywhere near the top 10 problems that need immediate, drastic corrective action. It's like the idiots in Florida that voted for Nader because they were opposed to off shore drilling. How did that work out? Unless I'm mistaken them derricks are up and pumping right now. What the gay movement needs to be working on is where will they be in 2018, 2028. There have been huge advancements in this country in accepting homosexuality, but to make further progress is going to take a long term education based strategy. The biggest hurdle is the core fundy belief that sexual orientation is a choice. Crack that nut and all the homophobes except for the most extreme haters will gradually come around. For this reason, the gay movement needs to align with the get science back into policy and big issues movement. This trend of making public policy based on politics and ideology instead of scientific research is extremely dangerous.
First off you make a rather condesending mistake that gay people are one issue voters. They are not. There are gay republicans too. Second who are you to say that the denial of rights and discrimination faced by the gay community is insignificant. I think getting fired from your job, losing death benefits, not having insurance, losing custody of your children, and the list goes on are pretty serious issues. I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking you can take any block of votes for granted...more then likely if you do so turn out will go down. We need to get out the vote and taking voters for granted ain't gonna do the job.
I agree with Tapper. The AFL-CIO debate and the LOGO debate were profiles in pandering. I was struck by the irony of these candidates speaking out against the "special interests" and lobbyists while they were hat in hand in front of some of the party's biggest special interest groups.
Hey, I understand it. People define Special interests as powerful groups who want something different than you. But a little honesty would have been appreciated.
I just hope Tapper was there for the Evangelical primary and various other candidate get-togethers by pro-Republican groups. Fair is fair.
I'm always impressed with the level of debate on this site but I'd like to offer my own take, which might be a little different in spots.
Before I begin, was that considered pandering by some of you? I flattered you and tried to relate to you. If I were insincere in my comment, perhaps it would be pandering, but I wasn't. There is a good discussion on this site. So, in my view, I was simply expressing real respect. Thus is pandering really in the eye of the beholder.
The Dems actually support much of the labor and gay community's agendas. That's why they say nice things to them. Real pandering would be to tell them something they otherwise wouldn't say before other groups. That would truly be insincere.
As to the key issues, here we go.
First, I was disappointed when Edwards first said that his opposition to Gay marriage was based upon his religion. I think he was grasping for a reason. He regretted that though and has since said that his religious views shouldn't be imposed on the nation via public policy. That has left him with the same non-answer that Obama and Clinton have to explain why they won't support it.
Still, give Obama, Clinton and Richardson credit for honesty. They all said that the primary issue is that the nation isn't ready to accept it so, they implied, why should they jeopardize their chance to win the general election to support it. If elected they can help in many other ways that the Republican would never do.
to be continued...
Personally, I don't have a problem with Gay marriage. I don't see why our nation shouldn't encourage the creation of families. Families stabilize society. On the other hand, I also agree with the person on this thread who said that states should stop using the word marriage entirely and leave that word for religious unions. That way, everyone in society would be equal. No one who doesn't get united in a religious ceremony would be technically married. They would all be united by a civil union.
Of course, people can say they are married. There would be no crime in using the word. The federal government should simply pass a law that makes anyone united by state government entitled to all the rights of someone who, in the past, was considered married but it would ban the use of the word marriage on all future state licenses.
The reality is that GLBT people, of which I don't happen to be one, are people to and should be given the same rights as non GLBT people. Is that such a groundbreaking statement?
As to Richardson, he got in trouble because he didn't agree that people are born a certain way and don't choose it. Why is that so important? Well, if you have no choice in being who you are, no one can blame you for being different and they can understand how fairness requires that we treat them the same as others. If it is a choice, then some may argue that they should choose differently if they don't have the civil rights they desire. I was surprised Richardson didn't understand that given his broad experience passing laws on behalf of equality in his state but there is always the chance that he felt taking sides in that debate would undermine his effectiveness in his attempt to pass laws related to that subject in his state. At least, I hope that was why.
Also, it is generally accepted that about 10% of the population is GBLT but, as many are hidden, there is no way to be certain.
Finally, why is there anything wrong with people who have a special interest in certain aspects of our laws holding an event to delve into those issues with candidates for an office that will impact them? Farmers want to know about subsidies. Doctors want to know about health care. Football fans may want to know about whether a politician will support spending tax dollars on a new stadium. We are all Americans but we all have special interests. My only concern with special interests are those that are able to spend thousands or more for campaign funds that will help them put their message on TV or take them on vacations. That kind of support is hard to ignore when voting on their interests, especially when no one is looking at that vote.
If I missed something or someone would like to discuss anything here, I'll stick around for a bit because I really think this is an important conversation.
One last thing, here's what the dictionary says pandering is. I think it needs to be updated.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) --> pan·der (pān'dər) Pronunciation Key <!--BOF_HEAD--> intr.v. <!--EOF_HEAD--> <!--BOF_SUBHEAD--> pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders <!--EOF_SUBHEAD--> <!--BOF_DEF-->
I wonder how many torture sessions it took to change the bright, probing journalist I got to like at Salon back in the day to this shattered, cynical hulk we see today. Jake Tapper needs an emergency operation to have his snark removed, at least. How many times did he have to be waterboarded by Rove to get him-- What, you mean he did it all to himself? Scary.
Huh. And never a mention, after all this "pandering," that the OTHER party thinks they should roast in hell, or get converted by Ted Haggard to be straight-- What's that you say? You're kidding. Ted?
The American public needs its head examined, of course. Say this to yourself: we have civil marriages and religious marriages. The way we talk about it, people think you can only be married in the Bible Love Church in the Woods.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Jake Tapper is a smarmy little prick.