Gay Patriot Header Image

Advocate: “Poor loser challenges lesbian primary win in Ala.”

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:19 am - August 2, 2006.
Filed under: Advocate Watch,Gay Politics,Post 9-11 America

Here’s yet another reason I’m going to let my Advocate subscription expire (again…. yeah, I’m such a fool). 

The subject of their news alert was:  Poor loser challenges lesbian primary win in Alabama.   Honestly, the first question that popped into my mind was “when did Al Gore campaign against a lesbian in Alabama??”

I was wrong…

The mother-in-law of a defeated legislative candidate challenged the outcome of a Democratic runoff election, claiming that the winner timed the filing of a campaign finance report to keep voters from learning she was supported by a pro-gay campaign fund. Retired beautician Mattie Childress asked the Democratic Party to review Patricia Todd’s slim victory over Gaynell Hendricks, who is married to Childress’s son.

Todd, who would be the first openly gay member of the Alabama legislature if elected, did not immediately return a telephone message Monday seeking comment. The challenge was filed late Thursday.

Todd led Hendricks by 59 votes in the July 18 Democratic runoff for house district 54, which includes much of Birmingham. Winning the runoff was tantamount to election since no Republican ran for the seat.

Now what prompted the editorial judgment of the Almighty Advocate to declare Hendricks a “poor loser.”  Perhaps because Ms. Hendricks isn’t the Advocate’s candidate of choice?  Hmmm, the MadLibDemLeft would never have a double standard would they?

I mean AlGore lost Florida by close to 400 votes (over 10,000 if CBS hadn’t jumped the gun in 2000) and he wasn’t a sore loser to the Advocate?  For crying out loud, Gore caused a near Consitutional Crisis because of his sore loserism!

But a 59-vote margin should go uncontested??  Especially given some serious allegations of campaign finance fraud that at the least should be investigated.

In the election challenge, Childress claimed that the release of a campaign finance report by Todd was timed to prevent voters from knowing that Todd received a $25,000 contribution from the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. Voters also didn’t know that Todd made payments of $12,750 to two primary opponents who endorsed her, according to the challenge.

Now I’m all for more gays and lesbians getting elected to office, but not through cuteness, trickery and concealing campaign finance documents.  In fact, there is probably a higher standard for gay and lesbian public officials that was similar to women in the 1970s, for example.

It will be interesting to see how this ends up.  For now, it is another item for the Advocate Watch.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

10 Comments

  1. It looks like they changed the headline.

    The person who filed this claim does go a bit overboard – if there are illegal votes then fine, make the accusation. If they think some of the people who lost to her in the primary were paid off, then make that accusation. But saying she deliberately kept quiet about her Victory Fund endorsement – what does that have to do with the issue?

    Comment by Carl — August 2, 2006 @ 10:32 am - August 2, 2006

  2. hmmmm…..perhaps you could have intelligent discourse if you stopped using the term madlibsdemocrat in every other post. But then, that’s not what you really want, is it?

    Comment by Kevin — August 3, 2006 @ 12:32 am - August 3, 2006

  3. And thank goodness Al Gore did “lose.” Just imagine how bad things would be for the gay community with two new progressive Supreme Court justices, including a new progressive Democrat as Chief Justice!

    Comment by Steve — August 3, 2006 @ 11:54 am - August 3, 2006

  4. You’re right about the headline but wrong about the substance of this story. It’s gay baiting, and you can’t bring yourself to condemn it.

    Comment by DCposter — August 3, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - August 3, 2006

  5. #3 – Steve, you obviously don’t know how your government works, or you just fail to do anything but repeat useless Kossack talking points.

    There is no such thing as a “Republican” or “Democrat” federal judge. They may LEAN a certain way, i.e. original intent vs interpretation, but federal judges from district to circuit to SCOTUS are not supposed to have any political affiliation.

    Therefore, there will NEVER be a “Democrat” chief justice, just as right now there is not a “Republican” one. Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg may be as red as they come, but her political affiliation is non-existant (as is her judicial reasoning, for that matter).

    Also, just FYI – political parties are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Neither are the words “right to privacy” or “separation of church and state.” Those are the interpretations of specific Amendments to the Constitution.

    Match, set, game. Try again.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 4, 2006 @ 4:13 pm - August 4, 2006

  6. I guess I must have missed the entry for “Supreme Court Justice” on the Republican primary ballot last year.

    Comment by Frank IBC — August 4, 2006 @ 6:45 pm - August 4, 2006

  7. #6 Frank IBC — August 4, 2006 @ 6:45 pm – August 4, 2006

    I guess I must have missed the entry for “Supreme Court Justice” on the Republican primary ballot last year.

    If you lived in a state in which the members of the judiciary were elected–and there are more than a few–you might have seen such an entry.

    Comment by raj — August 6, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - August 6, 2006

  8. Steve was obviously referring to FEDERAL judges, none of which are ever elected. Ever. They are all APPOINTED. Game over.

    And as for state elected judges (and yes, my home state of Texas also has elected state judges as provided by the state constitution), they can run under any political label they wish = dem, GOP, libertarian, green, socialist et al.

    State judges can only make rulings with respect to state laws. If a state votes to define marriage, a state judge will rule based upon the validity of that law. If it comes into conflict with the U.S. Constitution, it would then be under the jurisdiction of a federal district judge.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    [Comment edited.]

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 6, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - August 6, 2006

  9. #8 Peter Hughes — August 6, 2006 @ 3:25 pm – August 6, 2006

    State judges can only make rulings with respect to state laws.

    Thank you for telling me that. I guess I missed the portion of the US Constitution that declared the US Constitution and valid federal laws, treaties, etc., passed thereunder to be the supreme law of the land–you know, the “Supremacy Clause.”

    Given that the US Constitution, valid federal laws, treaties, etc., are the supreme law of the land, they are also the applicable laws of the various states. As such, a state court judge has to take the US Constitution, valid federal laws, treaties, etc., into account when deciding cases that are brought in his court room.

    I had believed that that would be obvious, but I guess not.

    If a state court judge decides a case on the basis of state law, which is not contravened by the US Constitution, a valid federal law, a treaty, etc., then there might not be a federal issue–that is, an reason for a federal court to take up the case on appeal. But that is a very different issue.

    Comment by raj — August 7, 2006 @ 7:51 am - August 7, 2006

  10. You completely missed the point, raj. There is something called the Tenth Amendment which states that any powers not reserved by the federal government are reserved for the states and for the people respectively. This is the basis of FEDERALISM, which is something most liberals and foreigners seem to forget.

    Federalism is a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central government and state or local governments. I could go into the more detailed explanation of horizontal vs vertical federalism, but this is not the forum to do so.

    The only time when federalism was in decline was when liberal attorneys and justices used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to state laws that they knew they could not overturn either at the ballot box or by constitutional amendment.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 8, 2006 @ 11:07 am - August 8, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.