View Full Version : Favorite homo in politics


ravenguy2000
08-14-2004, 10:20 AM
Pick.

dreamsofdali
08-14-2004, 10:44 AM
I find it ironic that Cheney has a gay daughter.

Jen

tsp gatmog
08-14-2004, 11:10 AM
Dick has a ghey daughter? He's done a good job of keeping that on the hush.

Debaser
08-14-2004, 12:19 PM
i find it ironic that cheney found somebody to procreate with.

dreamsofdali
08-14-2004, 12:37 PM
i find it ironic that cheney found somebody to procreate with.

LOL

Jen

Nimrod's Son
08-14-2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by dreamsofdali


LOL

Jen So I take it your name is Jen.

dreamsofdali
08-14-2004, 07:24 PM
So I take it your name is Jen.

correct, signing a post is a habbit from signing e-mails

jen

Ghetto_Squirrel
08-14-2004, 11:28 PM
I don't know who Gephardt's gay daughter is, but I don't especially like any of those people. Cheney's daughter is campaigning for her marriage amendment-backing dad, and Barney Frank condemned gay marriages in San Francisco. Neither of them are helping very much.

Marginalia
08-15-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by dreamsofdali


correct, signing a post is a habbit from signing e-mails

jen

It sort of sounds like you're either responding to someone named Jen with every statement you make, or that you're constantly starting and then aborting a sentence beginning with Jen.

Or that you're obsessive compulsive.

dreamsofdali
08-15-2004, 12:32 AM
It sort of sounds like you're either responding to someone named Jen with every statement you make, or that you're constantly starting and then aborting a sentence beginning with Jen.

Or that you're obsessive compulsive.


It's the latter of the three....But out of curiosity, how does it sound like I'm responding to someone when it's at the end of my post?

jen

Hillzy
08-15-2004, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
i find it ironic that cheney found somebody to procreate with.

How is that ironic exactly?

spa ced
08-15-2004, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel
and Barney Frank condemned gay marriages in San Francisco.

Yeah but his reasoning was that it was the wrong way to go about getting gay marriage legalized and it might hurt the outcome at the time of pending litigation concerning gay marriage in Massachusettes.
In a way he was right after all, the Supreme Court did rule against Mayor Newsom's actions which one some would see as a setback to the cause.

tsp gatmog
08-15-2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Hillzy


How is that ironic exactly?

it isnt, they are just trying to sound sm@rt.

Ghetto_Squirrel
08-15-2004, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by spa ced


Yeah but his reasoning was that it was the wrong way to go about getting gay marriage legalized and it might hurt the outcome at the time of pending litigation concerning gay marriage in Massachusettes.

I know what his reasoning was behind it, but I disagree with it.

Even if they were to get to overruled later (which happened), they still hugely energised gay rights movements all over the country. In Chicago, large demonstrations were staged numerous times as a response. In one case, our people staged a sit-in at the county clerks office, and they had to shut it down for the day.

spa ced
08-15-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


I know what his reasoning was behind it, but I disagree with it.

Even if they were to get to overruled later (which happened), they still hugely energised gay rights movements all over the country. In Chicago, large demonstrations were staged numerous times as a response. In one case, our people staged a sit-in at the county clerks office, and they had to shut it down for the day.

I agree with you and I also disagreed with him.
I just found it necessary to share his reasoning with this board so that they wouldn't think he was against gay marriage in general.

meow
08-15-2004, 10:22 PM
sven robinson

DeadSwan
08-31-2004, 08:32 PM
eleanor roosevelt

spa ced
08-31-2004, 11:14 PM
None of the above.

David Catania from D.C.

The GOP's raw deal
by Chris Bull, senior political correspondent

After his election to the District of Columbia city council in 1997, David Catania emerged as a rising Republican star -- a politician with the passion, pragmatism and popularity to become the first openly gay mayor of a major American city.

But if Catania does run for mayor of Washington in 2006 -- as is widely speculated -- it won't be as a Republican, thanks to President Bush's endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).

After Catania announced he would oppose Bush's reelection, a party official stripped his delegate status to the Republican National Convention. Catania has been a Republican since his Wisconsin youth, but in his next political race, he says he will run as an independent.

On the eve of the New York convention, Bull's Eye spoke to Catania about the FMA, the politics of betrayal and how the GOP turned its back on Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal.

You've compared the Log Cabin Republicans' "party-unity plank" -- a bid to strike anti-gay attacks from the party platform -- to "smearing lipstick on a pig."

I'm not critical of Log Cabin and abortion rights advocates for suggesting a unity platform. But they are talking about a different party, not one that exists today. My "lipstick" comment was not directed at these folks, but at the political reality, which is that the platform is disgraceful. The average American doesn't care about platforms, and that's the way it should be. But when you start writing in specific support for a discriminatory amendment, that's where I draw the line.

Will you skip this convention?

I would have gone had my delegate election been certified. I wanted to go there and speak the truth and issue a wakeup call. You can't build a party through subtraction. The party has chosen short-term gain over long-term growth. We should be thinking about a 40-year strategy, not a four-year one.

Why should President Bush and his chief strategist, Karl Rove, care about 40 years? They only care about the next four months.

My point exactly.

Seriously, if reelection is their only goal, isn't it a smart strategy? They are jettisoning a few hundred thousand gay Republican votes for potentially millions more. Just look at the polls in their favor.

That's the bet. But political parties must have discipline. In 1960, 23 percent of African-American voters identified as Republican and voted for Nixon. In 1964, that vote slipped to 12 percent after [GOP presidential nominee] Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act. The Republican Party became a pariah.

The parallel here is obvious. About a quarter of the gay vote identified as Republican in 2000. This time around, it will be closer to the African-American vote. There are major differences between the two communities, of course, but we will see a major realignment. The GOP will not be easily forgiven. They are taking a chance that they will win more unenlightened evangelicals. They are sowing the seeds of their own destruction by failing to acknowledge the civil rights of minority groups.

How so?

Southern white men now dominate the leadership of the Republican Party. They fill nearly every leadership position in the House and Senate. That's why they have such a myopic view of the lives of ordinary Americans. That's why they are so out of touch with the nation.

You were one of the so-called "Austin 12," gay Republicans who traveled to Texas to meet with Bush during the 2000 campaign. It's easy to criticize Bush now, post-FMA.

He portrayed himself as a compassionate conservative. He committed to having an openly gay speaker at the convention, appointments to his administration and maintaining President Clinton's ban on workplace discrimination in the federal government. He met all three. We were all optimistic at the time.

Did you ask him about marriage?

We never could have predicted marriage would come up in such a big way. It's important to remember the context. The last Republican nominee, Bob Dole, had returned a Log Cabin check. This was progress.

But he'd based his campaign on the religious right, his base of support as Texas governor. There were warning signs.

The previous president with a very solid record on gay issues was a gentleman by the name of Bill Clinton. He'd had a spotty record as governor of a conservative state. What were our options? We were trying to take advantage of an opening. Clearly, in hindsight, I would have done things differently, but not at the time.

Is the president's support for FMA tantamount to betrayal?

It's political betrayal, not personal. The president is comfortable around gays and lesbians. He has met my partner, Brian Kearney, on a couple of occasions. At his ranch in Crawford last year, he personally thanked me for bringing Brian. He joked around with Brian and it was a sincere, respectful interaction.

So how do you explain his strategy?

It is a cold, calculated, cynical move to throw gays and lesbians to the wolves for political gain. He's become a divider, not a uniter. Frankly, it's been a profoundly disillusioning journey for me. I'd really invested in making the party a more tolerant place and in creating a special relationship between the federal government and the district. Now it feels like that's all out the window.

A lot of gay Republicans are going to protest by sitting out this election, at least on the presidential level.

I'm voting for John Kerry. I'm not wild about the choice, but when it comes to specifically gay and lesbian issues, he's the best choice by far.

Does that mean you are abandoning your party?

People say, "David, don't go. Hang in there a little longer. We can still bring the party back." But I don't see how I can maintain a place there. My option is to become an independent.

I feel a little like Teddy Roosevelt in 1910, two years after giving up the presidency to [William Howard] Taft, who took the party radically to the right. Roosevelt went on the road to try to bring his party back to where he left it. He gave a speech about the Midwestern notion of a square deal, where every side is equal, where no one group is privileged over another. He wanted to construct a population of good citizens, where everyone worked hard but also had time to participate in the community. He understood a kind of balance that's totally lacking in this administration. This White House has no square deal for the working poor, for gays and lesbians, for African Americans.

Why did this White House veer to the right?

I think it happened right around the 2002 midterm election. They had so much success that it went to their heads. They thought they were invincible. They started to talk about their own legacy when they hadn't achieved anything yet.

So tell us, are you running for mayor of the nation's capital?

I told myself I wouldn't decide anything about 2006 until this election is over. There are just two many variables.

Come on, David, you can do better than that.

Well, let me just say I'm not ruling it out. I love politics; I'm a true policy wonk. These last few months have been wrenching -- to be told by your own party that your community doesn't matter is a little hard to take. But it would be the greatest honor of my life to serve that community and this city.

http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package.html?sernum=942