Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by LadyEagle, May 15, 2004.
Not surprising, not surprising at all.
Wasn't it Bush who insisted on having a homosexual activist as the keynote speaker in the last Reoublican convention?
Does the Democrat party has a homosexual group as effective as the Log Cabin Republicans?
None of them dems have a pro-homosexual appointments record like the current resident of the White House.
The Dems have to court them back.
(What happened to the standard CP impeachment of Focus on the Family?)
One doubts that these quotas will stand the sunshine of the publicity. Nevertheless, it is true that like African-Americans and Jews, gays and lesbians are over 90% Democrat. They are sometimes called yellow dog Democrats because they would vote for a yellow dog if nominated.
The GOP inroads into gay and lesbian money began with Dole. It is hard to see how the CP can say that it does not take money from gays and lesbians since no party can monitor every donor. With the current Vice-President's one daughter being a lesbian activist and Rumsfeld's close friend being a gay activist, the GOP has turned its back on Christians on this issue.
However, it is silly to compare Bush to Clinton. Clinton made up the rule of don't ask and don't tell to put gays and lesbians in the military. Also, he appointed a HHS Secretary that was a lesbian as well as an Attorney General that was a lesbian.
When is all is said and done, perhaps Peroutka will be Mons. Kerry's running mate.
Thanks for an interesting story, Lady Eagle!
Yes, after Bush's enthusiastic endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans, the Democrats are going to have to work to win the homosexual vote this year.
And, as some gay papers have pointed out, Bush has nominated more openly gay people to office than any democratic president.
Yep, Bush has certainly done more to advance gays in politics than Clinton did. The CP does not in any way cater to the gays; the Republicans, and to a lesser degree the Democrats, do. Any assertions to the contrary with regard to the CP are simply a dishonest and desperate attempt to covert up the sins of the Republicans.
The Constitution Party has taken money from gays and lesbians in all probability. They usually make it a point to donate in an attempt to corrupt a party.
As General Booth, founder of The Salvation Army, said when accused of accepting money from prostitutes who donated at his meetings--the trouble with tainted money is taint enough of it.
Gays and lesbians hate Bush. It was Clinton who opened the door for gays and lesbians in the military by changing a long-standing policy against them to "don't ask; don't tell." Also, Clinton appointed Donna Shalala to HHS Secretary and Janet Reno to Attorney General.
The CP is attempting to win the election by parting gays and lesbians from their traditional 90% support for the Democrat Party. Wait till Barney Frank finds out about this when he gets back from the Boston weddings today. The King of Sodom will be unhappy....
We don't have to worry about "probably" with the two major parties. They took the money proudly.
If so, they have the GOP and the democrats well in hand.
Booth was a rather practical guy. If he could save another soul, he'd do whatever it took.
Log Cabin Republicans sure seem to love him. Why not? He's put an unprecedented of openly gay people in public office.
That was George Washington. He started it.
"As General Booth, founder of The Salvation Army, said when accused of accepting money from prostitutes who donated at his meetings--the trouble with tainted money is taint enough of it."
To quote another great man (allthough a far more evil one): "Pecunia non olet".
One of Bush's closest allies in Congress, and also a close personal friend, is Congressman Jim Kolbe, of Arizona. Kolbe is a staunch Republican who is openly gay, and whose relatively conservative constituency has re-elected him to congress at least four times since he came "out of the closet."
I don't think GW Bush is anywhere close to a "conservative Christian" position on issues related to gays and lesbians. He has continued with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, to the point of actually blocking inquiries that were on the table when he took office. He and his wife, Laura, still hold their church membership in a United Methodist church in Dallas that is openly supportive of ordaining gays and lesbians and has opposed policies in the United Methodist Church designed to prevent them from serving. The church they occasionally attend in Washington, DC is also quite liberal in this regard.
As far as Presidential appointments go, I think the current Bush administration holds the record for the number of gays and lesbians holding White House staff positions.
I'm not sure there'll be much from the Bush administration about abortion either. If he makes it to a second term, he doesn't have to follow through on his predictable and lame promise that "he'd get around" to abortion legislation in the second term. If it were a priority, then he should have taken advantage of his party's majority in Congress from the beginning, and in the senate from mid-term. He didn't.
It isn't likely that many of those on his judicial appointments list would be activist enough from a pro-life perspective to wade in and overturn Roe v. Wade. Most Republicans want to keep it quiet that the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, in January of 2000, just before the election, unanimously overturned the state's Parental Consent law (with his tacit approval).
GW Bush and the Republicans are interested in whatever will benefit corporate America at the expense of the working class. If they have to keep up some kind of a social front to attract right wing Evangelicals to vote for them without giving them anything in return, they'll do that as long as the Evangelicals will give them the votes without expecting anything in return. And they'll get nothing in return.
Why not take money from them? I would have no problem with it. Use it to inform people about abortion alternatives and why homosexuality is wrong and an unhealthy lifestyle choice.
From the RNC website, the President's agenda:
There you have it.
Nothing about Marriage or Traditional Family Values,
Nothing about Abortion or Protecting the Unborn,
Nothing about Immigration and Securing our Borders,
Nothing about all the Jobs that have gone overseas.
I expect in this election year, this will be his talking points from now on out. This is the "conservative" message the GOP has for us. There is very little difference between the elephant and the donkey anymore except the donkey comes right out and says what the GOP knows would offend it's conservative evangelical Christian base.
So that's why I will vote for Michael Peroutka come November.
Yes, that pretty well sums it up. Today's evangelical conservatives are treated as suckers, and richly deserve it, because they keep coming back for more.
Lady Eagle has it right, you can see the agenda on both the RNC website, and on Bush's own website. The blood of 3800 innocent people per day isn't even on the radar screen. They simply don't seem to care, as long as they can hold on to enough votes from the suckers. How long will Christians continue to enable this?
Lady Eagle, are you sure the CP is the right party for you?
I can think of a few reasons why you don't belong. First, you are kind and fair-minded and interested in current events. Secondly, you probably support the war against terror and are not into obsecure legal reasoning that was disproved during the Viet Nam War if not during the Korean War. Thirdly, you are not a Jimmy Carter type who would go overseas and denounce your President and your country and thereby ignore the old adage that politics ended at the edge of the water no matter how beloved that might make you in places like France (or Ireland), for example. And, finally, you are not given to overblown rhetoric that says that George W. Bush is as pro-homosexual as the man who appointed Donna Shalala and Janet Reno to Cabinet positions. In short, you just are not willing to endorse a win-at-the-cost-of-the-truth method, are you?
Yeah, the old "Bush isn't as bad a Clinton" routine. Big deal, a broken back isn't as bad as a brain tumor, either.
Your untruthful characterizations of the CP are not amusing.
As a regular Republican, I have experienced the tactics of the CP firsthand. They are quick to be injured at the slightest little thing and they are nowhere to be found when the members of the CP start calling people liars.
Lady Eagle, do you give people the benefit of the doubt? If so, the CP is not for you!
Who's injured? I just pointed out that your assertions about thte CP are not truthful.
It's good to give people the benefit of the doubt. But lots of time there is no doubt.
There is no doubt that the deficit is staggering, due to massive spending by the Republicans.
There is no doubt that the "No Child Left Behind" program further consolidated centralized control over education.
There is no doubt that abortion continues unabated.
There is no doubt that the Republican Party has a homosexual group called "Log Cabin Republicans".
There is no doubt that the CP stands against all these things.
Nevertheless, most religious conservatives will line up and vote as they are told.
My sister has a co-worker who has "terrible luck" with men. They always seem nice at first, but end up being abusive to her.
If she insisted on being treated with respect from the start, she'd get more respect from them.
So would conservative Christians.
CMG, you are too kind. You are getting to know me too well, LOL.
And all this time I was trying to remain mysterious, LOL.