Give me a break.
Howard Dean Says He’s Sorry – Advocate.com
Q. At a time when your opponents have perfected the art of mobilizing their base to win close elections, what’s the chairman of the DNC doing on The 700 Club?
Dean: We’re also trying to mobilize our base. We have people in all 50 states knocking on doors, and we’re doing specific [organizing] with the LGBT community for the first time. We’re paying for these organizers in every state—there’s 200 of them around the country—and when we train them, among all the other things they have to [learn], specifically, is how to empower our friends and family in the LGBT community. We talk to them about how to talk about LGBT issues, with the straight community and with the LGBT community. We also have an arrangement with Stonewall Democrats—they were very active in our million-household canvass two weeks ago. We’re really trying to integrate the LGBT community so they don’t just talk to each other, they also speak to the straight community—because ultimately, I think, that’s how we’re going to start converting folks to understand that gay Americans are Americans first, who happen to be gay.
Never…answers…the…question…
Okay, let’s try again…
Q. Gay voters supported your presidential campaign [in 2003 and early 2004] because they saw you as cutting through the bullshit and speaking your mind. Now you appear to be pandering to the antigay far right. Why should gay voters trust you with their issues when you’re on The 700 Club?
Dean: Well, to be honest with you, I was hurt a little bit by the reaction, because I certainly made a mistake in misstating the party’s platform.
Wow, he has certainly figured out the whole “gay victimhood complex”, hasn’t he? He blamed all of YOU for his appearing on The 700 Club.
I just made a mistake, and it was a bad mistake, but if you look at what else I said on [the Christian Broadcasting Network]—and it’s not the last time I’m going to go on CBN—I went on and I said gay people need to be included. We stand up for equal rights for every American and the belief that everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect. That wasn’t sent around in all those e-mails, but that was part of the transcript too. Look, I don’t defend the mistake I made—I made a mistake and I misstated the party’s platform, but I also stood up for gay and lesbian Americans on that show. Look, with my history, there’s no way I’m going to back away from the LGBT community.
So there ya have it gay liberals. Howard Dean’s “big tent” will now include the Christian Coalition and LGBT. Can you live with that? Kinda self-loathing, huh?
UPDATE: I was just thinking…. Dean’s comments and his tone reinforce the fact there is little difference these days on gay issues at the national level between Republicans and Democrats.
Oh… one difference, the Dems have tricked the gays into believing they actually do care. I forgot that part. You’d think in their decades of absolute power between Stonewall and 2001, the Democrats would have actually moved gay rights forward not backward….(*cough* DOMA, DADT, Christian leader pandering, no Hate Crimes laws passed, no Non-Discrimination laws passed *cough*)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
It sounds like when Howie was on the 700 Club, he really used it as a chance to “speak truth to power”.
my Great Grandfather used to say “there are two things on this earth to be wary of a rattlesnake and a democrat”
What I’m wondering isn’t why Dean was on the 700 club but why the 700 club had Dean as a guest.
The complexity of outcome is nearly…. Rovian. 😉
“Rovian” indeed, Synova.
I’m just paranoid enough to think that what he said on the show was perhaps not a mistake at all — that he might have said it in a deliberate attempt to mislead the less astute of the show’s viewers. How many of them are going to read or hear about his lukewarm apologies and retractions?
Thus we have a raft of not-so-well-informed viewers who saw his appearance and who now therefrom have a false impression of what the Democratic platform is. This sneaky faux faux pas may tip some wafflers or people with only a vague political awareness to vote Democrat instead of Republican.
So just who is it, again, that’s using gay marriage as a wedge issue?
I’m a staunch democrat, yet I think the choice of Dean to run the democratic party was a huge mistake and (unfortunately) his actions in the last few months show it. Like I don’t acribe rascism and homophobia to all republicans, I don’t ascribe liberal perfection to all democrats.
of course, the way the original posting was written, you seem to think that organized Republicans have some sort of better score card on gay equal rights than democrats. Sorry, but it ain’t so. Leaders of Republican efforts in the last few years have done more to work on stopping and trying to reverse our equal rights than any democrat.
On your logic, then, Republicans are pro-choice.
Thanks for more Sunday funnies.
PS. 10 Republicans against 8 Democrats. What a trick!!
Here’s a tip for future writing, Kevin; don’t create two paragraphs that contradict each other.
Like I don’t acribe rascism and homophobia to all republicans, I don’t ascribe liberal perfection to all democrats.
Followed by:
Leaders of Republican efforts in the last few years have done more to work on stopping and trying to reverse our equal rights than any democrat.
This is why your “mistake” talk about Dean is such a crock. He isn’t saying anything different than he was in 2004, when you and yours threw him and his homophobic ilk tens of millions of dollars, your unqualified endorsements, and your screams of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” as he and other Democrats endorsed the FMA and state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights.
The time for you to speak up was two years ago. Now, you and your fellow cheap-trick Democrats are being treated exactly as you deserve. And you’ll go crawling back to Dean, begging to be forgiven.
PS. 10 Republicans against 8 Democrats. What a trick!!
Bill Clinton, who pushed Federal legislation stripping gays of rights, and John Kerry, who promoted state constitutional amendments to block and roll back gay rights, being called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and being given tens of millions of dollars and unqualified endorsements by gay Democrats and “gay rights” groups.
What an even better trick!
#9. Did gay people have the right to marry and then Clinton stripped us of that right? Did gay soldiers have a right to military service and then Clinton stripped us of that right? No and no.
Check out what DOMA and DADT really say. Then recall the overwhelming support for both pieces of legislation on the part of Republicans. You love to say that Presidents make legislation by signing, but you fail to recognize who pens and pushes that legislation.
Oh, and, yeah: 10-8. Love the amendment!
Love,
The Stupid Slutty Whore
Hey, when is one of the Bush administration going to be interviewed by the Advocate and talk about gay inclusion in the Republican platform? Now that would be big news, wouldn’t it?
Why would the President of the United States stoop to doing an interview with that trashy rag?
Oh GayPatriot. You slay me.
It was the Democrats who banned gay bias in federal hiring and the issue of security clearances. It was the Democrats who first began to appoint openly gay high-ranking administration officials. It was a Democrat president who first stood at his bully pulpit and told America and the world that gay people had value, were patriotic and deserved respect and inclusion.
Did Bill Clinton eradicate all anti-gay laws and sentiment in 8 years? No. But for the first time in history he gave cover to leery politicians from shore to shore to come out as supportive of gays and lesbians. And now we have a president who doesn’t say the word “gay” in public and has never been photographed with an openly gay official.
The difference is sharp and telling.
Meanwhile, back-on-topic DCposter, the post was about your feckless and fearless leader HowieDean –the guy who dismantled the DNC’s gay office and staff… the guy who axed the only informed voice in that office because the staffer’s partner dared to speak out against Dean’s deceptions… the the guy who excised the most visible office for gay advocacy within the Party to “cut costs” ’cause he was wasting scarce resources on his personal, one-man-show, image makeover campaign… the guy who shut off gay advocacy at the DNC and replaced it with a “profit-center” mentality and justification for continued existence under the great HowieDean.
Right, to parody all the Uncle Toms in the last century, “Yas sir, Mr Dean sir, we gots all da rights we needs. Tank ya, Mr Dean sir. Tank ya from da bestest seat on da Democrat Plantation. You da best, Mr Dean. But could ya loosen da chain dats around my throat, sir, so we can kindly swallows some air?”
DCposter, your 15 minutes of worship in front of the altar of SlickWilly-the-Gay-Prez is over. We can all get up now, even if you want to remain prostrate.
Did gay people have the right to marry and then Clinton stripped us of that right? Did gay soldiers have a right to military service and then Clinton stripped us of that right? No and no.
So you a) don’t think gays have the right to marriage or military service and b) don’t think it’s homophobic to ban either of those.
In that case, why are you complaining about the FMA OR DADT?
That explains something, though; I was wondering why you opposed “rolling back” gay rights, but considered it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when John Kerry endorsed stripping gays of existing rights in Massachusetts. According to your logic, those rights don’t exist; therefore, banning and removing them isn’t homophobic.
Now for DCposter:
But for the first time in history he gave cover to leery politicians from shore to shore to come out as supportive of gays and lesbians.
Oh, I think Matt covered you nicely.
I’ll just add that we don’t need any more “support” like DOMA, DADT, FMA, or the state constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights that you and your fellow Democrats endorsed and called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, DCposter.
Very good point. In Massachusetts, gays have the right to marry, and JOHN KERRY (bringing the discussion into 2006) supported, or still supports, stripping them of that right.
And Bill Clinton would as well. I mean, in 2004, Clinton urged Kerry to be more open / public in support of the State anti-gay-marriage initiatives.
It amazes me how I leave for months from reading this site and when I return, its as if I have never left. Democrats arguing that even though Clinton didn’t set us free, Dems are still better on gay rights than Reps. And the Reps here bitching about the Democratic leadership using gays for money but not really supporting their cause. Can’t you guys find something else to bitch about? You’re never going to agree and though frankly I think republicans on here are trying desperately to convince themselves the DNC is somehow as antigay as the RNC, it’s stupid to continue to fight over it. If anyone has any doubt whatsoever that the members of congress who will overwhelmingly vote AGAINST FMA have a (D) behind their names, then they are idiots. In fact, FMA would not even be a topic if it weren’t for those with an (R) behind their names. And that goes for nearly all of the people who proposed and supported the state legislation/amendments banning gay marriage. You can point fingers at Dean and Kerry and Clinton, but the voting records across this country show that far more antigay legislation is created and supported by Republicans than by Democrats. So why even engage in these arguments? I don’t give money to the DNC because I loathe Howard Dean. I prefer my money go directly to the causes I support and the politicians I support. When gaypatriot, et. al., decide to finger point at one asinine Democratic leader’s remarks (which he admitted were inaccurate) in an attempt to paint the entire party antigay, they are grasping at straws to be able to say “we told you so.” No, you’ve told me nothing but that you will come up with any half ass argument to justify the fact you don’t vote Democratic. There’s plenty of reasons not to vote for Dems, but them being a party of antigay politicians when it isn’t true is an ignorant reason. To fingerpoint and apparent pandering is the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.
Next, let’s deal with another problem: the fact that the Democrats on this board have such low expectations.
It was a Democrat president who first stood at his bully pulpit and told America and the world that gay people had value, were patriotic and deserved respect and inclusion.
Which was that?
Was it DADT?
Was it DOMA?
Was it when he ran the radio ads stating proudly that, by supporting and signing both, he was defending “American values” — making it obvious that gays were not part of that?
Now, to another:
Hey, when is one of the Bush administration going to be interviewed by the Advocate and talk about gay inclusion in the Republican platform? Now that would be big news, wouldn’t it?
Or the corollary:
And now we have a president who doesn’t say the word “gay” in public and has never been photographed with an openly gay official.
And doing those would make everything better, right?
Don’t make me laugh.
Bush knows that the “gay community”‘s hatred of him isn’t based on his actions; John Kerry and Clinton proved that gays will pump tens of millions of dollars and unqualified endorsements to homophobic Democrats, even calling it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” as they endorse laws and amendments stripping gays of rights. The hatred is based on the fact that he’s a Republican.
Since he’s not going to change the fact that he’s a Republican, why waste time on pandering? Stick with what you have and let the Democrats abuse the gay community by milking them dry, spitting on them on national TV, and then wasting a few hours at some HRC dinner or on a meaningless interview to buy back their affections.
You’re never going to agree and though frankly I think republicans on here are trying desperately to convince themselves the DNC is somehow as antigay as the RNC, it’s stupid to continue to fight over it.
That’s because, Thomas, you aren’t capable of recognizing antigay activities when Democrats carry them out.
Stripping gays of rights? DADT? Firing gay people from their jobs in retaliation for their partners speaking out against homophobia? Saying gays should be legally discriminated against because they were born gay? All “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to you when Democrats say them, and all worth tens of millions of dollars in support and unqualified endorsements.
“Loathe Howard Dean”, my foot.
I do loathe Howard Dean. And as I said, I would not give money to anyone who made comments as he has made. I don’t blindly give money to people who say asinine things like Dean does. End of story. While I will freely admit that most money I give does go directly to Democratic politicians, it does not go to ones that make statements like that.
In any case, DADT while falling very far from the goal of lifting a ban on gays serving in the military, it is still an improvement on the previous policy that banned them altogether and allowed the military to probe into their private lives and kick them out if they were suspected of being homosexual. It’s not a win, but its certainly a step in the right direction. And I think you and I both know what Clinton wanted wasn’t what he got and you and I both know why. Don’t play stupid with me, please.
And why do you Republicans always bring up John Kerry saying that he thought gay marriage in MA should be overturned when he is simply agreeing with the stand you all take that gay marriage should not be forced on the people by judicial fiat but should be voted on by the people? Isn’t that how you all feel? Yet somehow he is antigay for saying the same thing? I don’t like John Kerry, never did. And wouldn’t give him a dime to have him elected to city council of Poughkeepsie.
In any case, we all know FMA will not pass. So it’s hard to not see it as just a tool being used by Bill Frist and Rick Santorum to try to drum up support from their base so that they can be reelected. And this is the party YOU support?
You know as well as I do that the Republicans that are in control of that party will never overturn DADT, they will never support gay marriage or civil unions for gay couples and they will certainly never view homosexuality as anything but a tool to have their bible beating base think they matter. It’s absurd that in 2006 we’re even arguing over a federal amendment to define marriage. It’s embarrassing.
In any case, DADT while falling very far from the goal of lifting a ban on gays serving in the military, it is still an improvement on the previous policy that banned them altogether and allowed the military to probe into their private lives and kick them out if they were suspected of being homosexual.
Are you aware of the statistics that Dale Carpenter once pointed out?
The result is the most easily quantifiable harm done to actual gay people during the Clinton years. According to figures from the Defense Department, discharges for homosexuality declined every year between the first full year of the Reagan administration (1982) and the first full year of the Clinton administration (1994), for a net decline during the period of more than 70 percent. But in 1994 the number of antigay discharges began to rise and has risen every year since. On an annual basis, such discharges have more than doubled since 1994. In 1998, they climbed above 1,000 for the first time in 10 years.
Next:
And I think you and I both know what Clinton wanted wasn’t what he got and you and I both know why.
Hardly. I think the man was a rotten, lying homophobe who had no intention whatsoever of carrying through on his campaign promises. He got exactly what he wanted, which is gay money and unqualified endorsements while simultaneously kicking and spitting on them.
And why do you Republicans always bring up John Kerry saying that he thought gay marriage in MA should be overturned when he is simply agreeing with the stand you all take that gay marriage should not be forced on the people by judicial fiat but should be voted on by the people? Isn’t that how you all feel? Yet somehow he is antigay for saying the same thing?
LOL….gay leftist Democrats like you, Thomas, are the ones constantly shrieking that voting on these matters is “immoral”. But when Kerry does it, you call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, give him your unqualified endorsements, and channel tens of millions of dollars to him.
Explain to us your hypocrisy. Why do you and your fellow leftists call it antigay and “immoral” except when Democrats do it?
You know as well as I do that the Republicans that are in control of that party will never overturn DADT, they will never support gay marriage or civil unions for gay couples and they will certainly never view homosexuality as anything but a tool to have their bible beating base think they matter.
You forgot the concentration camps that you and your fellow Democrats insist exist. If we’re spinning fantasies, you might as well include them too.
There is a third part to the DADT policy called Don’t Pursue. Now you might think that DP means that the government can’t pursue or investigate a soldier solely because he is gay. Nope! DP means that the gay soldier can’t pursue a gay lifestyle while serving in the military. My blog-friend Corey over at OPIEblue describes his experience of getting discharged via the DADTDP policy.
I’m a staunch democrat,….Like I don’t acribe rascism and homophobia to all republicans, I don’t ascribe liberal perfection to all democrats.
The DUmmies will be stopping by later to revoke your membership card and kick your teeth in.
NDXXX, keep the beam focused on that which Democrats (like ThomasJ) would prefer to ignore, or find a comfortable distance from, or rather break into a prismatic experience that bathes the problem in a rainbow of diversity.
The simple truth is that most gays support the Democrat Party –irrespective of the crap that their leadership dispenses– because they share more in common with the political philosophies of victimhood, centralized govt powers, and BIG GOVT than do even Black Americans, eco-terrorists, voting felons, or illegal immigrants.
The GayLeft groups are fronts for Democrat grassroots action centers –just like Big Labor, the NAACP, the ACLU, and the tax&spend liberals.
The GayLeft groups are secondarily gay advocacy groups.
Kind of like the ReligiousRight –which tries to be primarily about the worship of God but seems to spend an increasingly high amount of resources and time on political advocacy, organizing, and voter mobilization for GOPers.
#22 North Dallas Thirty — May 22, 2006 @ 7:02 pm – May 22, 2006
Are you aware of the statistics that Dale Carpenter once pointed out?
Actually, yes, I am.
Let’s investigate. Carpenter says that
(i) discharges for homosexuality declined every year between 1982 (the first year of St. Reagan’s administration) and 1994 (the first year of the Devil Clinton’s administration), for a net decline of 70%, and
(ii) beginning in 1994, the discharges increased, and, by 1998, they climbed above 1000 for the first time in 10 years.
Let’s take point (ii) first. Ten years before 1998 was 1988, and Carpenter acknowledges the fact that, in 1988 (the midpoint of the 1982-1994 time frame), the number of discharges was over 1000. So the decline of discharges 1982-1988 still left the number of discharges in 1988 above 1000. Carpenter doesn’t say how much above, but, still, above.
Let’s combine that with point (i). This will be an exercise in “how to lie with statistics”–some people (including me) call it “chosing your window in time carefully to support a point you want to make.” There was a little battle that went on sometime between 1988 and 1994, called the Gulf War I. It is fairly evident that the military, when gearing up for the first Saddam War in 1990-91, reduced the number of witch-hunts–and hence discharges–for homosexuality, because they would probably need the bodies for the upcoming conflict. Indeed, such was reported at the time in the Advocate. That may have been a significant reason for the reduction in discharges in the early 1990s.
BTW, although I find Carpenter a useful fool, I don’t take him too seriously. Shortly before the 2002 election, he published a column in the Texas Triangle–which, for some reason, is not archived at IndeGayForum–entitled “What is a gay Republican to do?” In the column, he sincerely lamented the Republican party’s stance on a number of equal-rights-for-gay-people issues, and–wonder of wonders!–he concluded: vote Republican, of course! Carpenter had been (at least until recently) blogging at Volohk.com, and his analyses are seriously lacking.
Oh God, raj and Michael the Archangel of Truth visiting us on different threads in the same day.
“What did WE do God to deserve that? Do you hate us that much?”
Of course, Raj, what you neatly leave out is that discharges were declining for eight years prior to the Gulf War in 1990 — which neatly makes hash of your argument that the reason for the decline was solely the Gulf War.
As for your smear of Carpenter, we consider the source.
#28 North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2006 @ 2:42 pm – May 24, 2006
Of course, Raj, what you neatly leave out is that discharges were declining for eight years prior to the Gulf War in 1990 — which neatly makes hash of your argument that the reason for the decline was solely the Gulf War.
Your comment makes no sense. Saddam did not invade Kuwait until August 1990. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that discharges had been declining prior to 1990. That would be nice, but the question remains, at what rate were they declining? And, what rate of change were they declining subsequent to August 1990, versus before? The useful fool Carpenter doesn’t tell us that. He merely spouts a bunch of “statistics”–numbers without source, by the way, for his arbitrary window–which he wants to use to persuade us of his thesis.
Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.
It’s nice that the good professor Carpenter has got a gig with the Volohk group. I could relate an experience I had with Eugene, but I’ll refrain. I’ll also refrain from discussing my opinions regarding law professors. Having taught in law school, I do have a background on the issue.
And, BTW, what is a gay Republican to do? Vote Republican, of course!
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that discharges had been declining prior to 1990.
You need not assume; Carpenter clearly points it out.
According to figures from the Defense Department, discharges for homosexuality declined every year between the first full year of the Reagan administration (1982) and the first full year of the Clinton administration (1994), for a net decline during the period of more than 70 percent.
You clearly did not read Carpenter’s statement, or you willfully denied what was clearly written there.
As for your background, one cannot say whether you actually did what you claim; however, based on your demonstrated duplicity, failure to read and comprehend, and willful neglect of facts, it is easy to explain why you are no longer doing it.
How the law is enforced and what the law actually says are two different things. DADT was still less restrictive to gays in the military than the previous ban.
As for me being a leftist gay democratic liberal blah blah blah, I don’t even consider myself a Democrat and in a heck of a lot of issues, tend to lean more republican than anything. However, this administration is not very reflective of any sort of republican ideals I hold to be true. I don’t label myself in any case because as I stated earlier, I support financially those politicians who I agree with on most issues. It’d be hard to find many I agree with everything so you have to weigh what is important to you. In most cases, regardless of how “republican” you are and how much I might agree with you on so many issues, I will not support a politician (D or R) who supports FMA. Feel free to pain gay leftist democrats as generally as you want (though the generalizations are trite), but don’t throw me in the mix just because I refuse to support a failure of a President just to tow the party line.
#30 North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2006 @ 4:03 am – May 25, 2006
You clearly did not read Carpenter’s statement, or you willfully denied what was clearly written there.
Given that I was using Carpenter’s “statistics” in my comment, anyone with even half a brain would know that I did read Carpenter’s statement, since I used them in my comment.
And, yes, I intentionally denigrated Carpenter’s “statistics.” So? Carpenter did not present a year-by-year indication (1984-1994) of the number of discharges based on homosexuality. Nor did he present a year-by-year indication of the number of discharges for other reasons–a statistic that would also have been of interest. And he ignored the fact of the Gulf War I in 1990-92 (or so)–it would have been interesting to see the discharge curve during that time frame–something that Carpenter studiously ignored providing.
The relevance of statistics such as those presented by Carpenter assumes a constant, which did not exist. There were a few little incidents–most notably Gulf War I–which may very well have skewed the numbers post 1988. Carpenter, the useful fool, appears to have ignored that.
BTW, reports are that military discharges of homos were reduced almost every year since 2001. One might seriously ask why. Was it because of the impending wars in Afghanistan and on Iraq? Curious minds want to know. But, rest assured, the Bushies’ malAdministration has finally set things straight. Homo discharges 2004-2005 increased by 11%, from 653 (2004) to 726 (2005). It’s nice to know that, given the demands that the Bushies have placed on the military, that the military will be more homo-free than before.
Then prove that gay discharges rose every year between 1982 and 1994, Raj.
You say that Carpenter is lying and that discharges did not go down. Prove it.
I already know what your answer will be, because you’re a coward who likes to smear people anonymously. You’re going to go off and spin about how you “can’t be bothered”.
Doesn’t this Dallas guy have a blog of his own?
Don’t you have an explanation for Raj’s lies, jimmy?