But I’m sure you don’t consider yourself a close-minded bigot.

‘Seems liberal to me for black conservatives to assume that whites, men, the rich, etc. are too smart to figure out life on their own. And of course the racists would say that I’m a liberal for knowing that they are.’

Seems to make about the same amount of sense, actually. Binary thinking is really one of America’s greatest weaknesses, in a world full of color and confusion, not black and white.

‘All of that assumes that blacks are incapable of doing for themselves.’ You of course are familar with separate but equal in education, right? The fact that blacks were forbidden from attending whites only schools? That at least in Virginia, in the time of Massive Resistance, public schools were actually closed instead of allowing racial mixing? Of course, if it makes you feel better when confronting the facts of American history, the racists of that time proudly themselves called Democrats, then please, feel comforted. As long as you recognize how ugly the racists were, regardless of the political party they claimed to be in. Read about Massive Resistance first - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Resistance You might be surprised that not a single black person seems to have been involved in it, except in the role of the ones being resisted against.

Also: Hypocrisy per se is not the issue. The issue is that people like Craig advocate legally mandated policies that punish gay people for their sex lives. They take a position that they cannot even uphold themselves and, instead of asking whether the position might not need to be changed, they simply deny their own inability to live the policy, obey the law, themselves.

Yes, of course, they have a right to advocate laws that they can’t even follow themselves, but at some point, it might be wiser to ask exactly what function is served by a law that its most rabid supporters can’t follow.

This, continuing to support laws that are insupportable by their own loudest advocates, is the issue — not hypocrisy itself, which is just an annoying byproduct of the failure to uphold their own philosophy.

How about telling people that if they vote for Bush, they support black churches being burned or dragging black ment to their deaths? Seems to me that the purveyor’s of those lies believed that black people are too damn stupid to know any better and think for themselves.

Then there’s integration, bussing and Affirmative Action. All of that assumes that blacks are incapable of doing for themselves. Nevermind that many didn’t want it because the liberals knew what was best for them. Nevermind that there’s been no evidence to suggest that integration has been a positive as far as education goes. Don’t look at the results of liberal actions, only look at their intentions.

Seems racist to me for white liberals to assume that blacks, Hispanics, Asians etc. are too stupid to figure out life on their own. And of course the liberals would say that I’m a racist for knowing that they are.

uh_uh, Nixon was not a racist. He may well have acceeded to the southern strategy to win. Look at the times, the Kennedy assassination was still fresh in peoples´minds. In 1964 Goldwater never had a chance, The Dems could´ve won with an oragutan on top of the ticket. So there was some logic to the southern strategy. Nixon campaigned on black capitalism. He stated ¨Blacks do not want a hand out, they want a hand up¨It is through his efforts that the SBA helped many balck entreprenuers get started and they are the backbone of Black Republican clubs throughout the USA, such as the Frederck Douglas East Side West Side Repubican Club, in Los Angeles. Racism is not an appropriate label for Republicans, Edmund Brooke a Republican Senator long before Carol Mosely Brown. Then there is Alan Keyes in 2000 the first serious candidate for President , an African American man before Obama. The Secretary of Education during the first term of George W. and has anybody noticed our Secretaries of State since 2001, Colin Powell and Condi Rice both qualified to be President. Shelby Steele , Lt Gov of Maryland and on and on. Also, George W. appointed several openly gay men (nost from Log Cabin clubs to posts as well. He might
have said some things that the gay7 Dems may not like but our President is no homophobe.

‘Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling down to statewide offices, the Senate and House, as legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. The strategy suffered a brief apparent reversal following Watergate, with broad support for the racially progressive Southern Democrat, Jimmy Carter in 1976. But with Ronald Reagan kicking off his 1980 presidential campaign proclaiming support for “states’ rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964’s Freedom Summer, the Southern Strategy was back to stay. Although another Southern Democrat, Bill Clinton, would twice be elected President, winning a handful of Southern states, he did better outside the South, and would have won without carrying any Southern State.’

Strangely, I have yet to hear Republicans denigrate Reagan as someone from 1968, or Democrats claim Clinton was so last century.

And to continue -
‘Recently, the term has been used in a more general sense, in which cultural themes are used in an election — primarily but not exclusively in the American South. In the past, phrases such as “busing” or “law and order” or “states’ rights” were used as code words. Today, appeals largely focus on cultural issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and religion. Yet, the use of the term, and its meaning and implication, are still hotly disputed.’

Such a dispute being seen here, it seems. And yet, strangely, those from the South seem completely clear on the concept. Must be another one of those things which you either get or don’t - and as you pointed out, a lot of old sourthern Democrats were very comfortable in their clannish surroundings, which is why most of those illiberal Democrats seem to changed party affiliation over a generation.

And to get back to the point about outing - a lot of those ‘reformed’ former Democrats claimed they aren’t any more racist than Craig admits he is gay. To a certain extent, homophobia is what has replaced racism, even as the rhetoric remains strikingly similar - read the Loving v. Virginia state court opinion, which includes ‘Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.’ to get a feeling for how such rhetoric can be easily adapted. ‘Adam and Steve’ anyone?

I will admit, along with Andrew Sullivan, watching supporters of state rights attempt to pass a constitutional amendment preventing states from exercising their rights is a wonderful public display of the sort of hypocrisy which does actually lend credence to the idea that outing is a necessary weapon in a political battle where the opponents seems to change their beliefs without any regard to anything but the consistency of retaining power.

Nothing new of course, it is a fact of political life which has always transcended any political party or philosophy. And it is always amusing to see people who identify with one perspective argue that only their opponents sink to such depths.

Ironically, the only person in high government office who ever burned a cross on anyone’s front yard is the senior Democrat senator from West Virginia.

No - the people doing the association of state rights with your list can be summed up more accurately like this - ‘The States’ Rights Democratic Party was a segregationist, populist, socially conservative splinter-party of the Democratic Party in the mid-20th century who were determined to protect what they saw as the Southern “way of life” against an oppressive federal government.’ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat )

If it makes you feel better, they were ‘Democrats’ - unfortunately, they left the ‘liberal’ Democrats a long time ago, having been successfully wooed by Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy.’

A bit more text -
‘Although the phrase Southern strategy is often attributed to Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it[1], but merely popularized it[2]. In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that… but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”[3] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Strategy )

Strange how when Republicans successfully pursue an electoral strategy stretching over my entire life (to give an idea of my age, when I was born, it was illegal for a white and a black to marry in Virginia), ‘liberals’ are blamed. Intriguingly, in the quote above from Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he was counting on the liberals to make this strategy succeed, to wit - ‘Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans.’

I think drawing the parallel to homophobes shouldn’t be that hard for a gay conservative to see in practice in American electoral politics over the last couple of decades.

Rewriting history to fit a script seems to be an increasingly frightening American obsession. At least for Southerners, black and white, the meaning of ’state’s rights’ has always been abundantly clear, though more subtle than a burning cross.

If you took the religious word out of government, where it doesn’t belong anyway, you could come much closer to equal rights for both gays without an amount of the opposition.

Strike that! Reverse it. The federal government should be taken out. They don’t belong there anyway. As it is not their job constitutionally, it should be left to the states to decide.

But then the liberals have trained everyone to believe that state’s rights = racism, sexism, bigotry and homophobia.

As far as I know, only my partner and I have expressed outrage at the corruption. Actually, I haven’t read much since I saw the article in the Star Ledger, but did a quickie google search and saw that there is “outrage.” It looks more like political posturing to me. Yes, the Republicans are the ones that are calling for the resignations, while the Democrats have not, only expressing disappointment and waiting for due process, etc.. I would like to think that the Republicans would also try to get rid of their corrupt members. But I personally know of one Republican who had been jailed and only ousted after being caught, now working his way back into party leadership. I applaud Christie for his work, and hope he continues catching these scumbags. Maybe catching about 12 of these crooks a year will help politicians take corruption seriously and stop engaging in it. On a side note, I just cannot believe how stupid and arrogant these persons who are making 6 digit salaries with their posts feel the need to take a $5000 bribe.

78, Um, isnt this entire thread about “outing” because in reaction to being caught Senator Craig was widely accused of being a hypocrite not because he was caught in a bathroom, but because being caught in a bathroom seemingly proves that HES GAY and voting against the gay agenda?

Will, I’m sure Craig’s opponents (old and new) have their own motives. But I was speaking about Craig’s.

How on Earth could you possibly form that opinion? Yes, it appears he has a sexual attraction to other men, but how could you possibly think you have enough information to determine his precise orientation? Do you know something the rest of the world doesnt? Do you have a special gateway into his mind? Are you perhaps psychic?

Take a deep breath there. Okay. Now reread the part you quoted. I think it’s clear that I’m giving an opinion (I “believe”) and not making a definitive determination of Craig’s orientation. But since you asked how I came by my opinion, here goes. Craig got caught in a men’s room apparently seeking sex from a male. Before this event, there have been several rumors and allegations that Craig has done this several times before. My understanding is that Craig grew up in an environment in which homosexuality was frowned upon, so he did not have a viable option of living openly as a gay man. Craig continued publicly to be opposed to homosexuality and gay rights. Craig apparently sought sexual outlets other than his wife. In all these cases, despite his public stance, the sex of the person was always a male to my knowledge. Putting the pieces together, I came to my opinion. Others could come with a different opinion and obviously, I could be wrong. Dan stated an opinion in his post that there is dissociation on Craig’s part. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see the same concern for Dan’s opinion that you had of mine.

67, V the K, again, I am not talking about just the issue of gay marriage. Certainly, we can both cite examples of politicians who were outed and the harm it caused. I cannot cite specific examples of what you ask. So for that, I concede defeat. It is still my opinion that the virulently hateful and anti-gay rhetoric of some politicians have been hurtful to young gay people growing up in the constituencies of these politicians. No, that’s not the only factor. Many of these individuals also grow up hearing this crap from their families, peers, and their local institutions. But these politicians, who should know better, reinforce the hate these young gay people hear. Ironically, I do believe that Craig himself is an example of one who has been harmed by the type of rhetoric he spewed, by other politicians before him. No, this does not mean that Craig is not responsible for his actions. Just because I am not ignoring the other factors that contributed to his actions does not mean I firmly believe he is responsible, and he should pay the consequences no matter what led him to the point to seek bathroom sex.

But even if you could come up with examples of any of those individuals stating that they hated gay people, much less inciting others to cause harm to gay people, most of us learned by, oh say, kindergarten, a little rhyme that began “sticks and stones…”

The same could be said for the politicians that were outed and their families then. Politicians know that hypocrisy, weakness, etc., will always be pointed out by opponents, like it or not. So when it happens, why don’t they just shrug it off? We can certainly debate which is worse…a wife being told in public that her husband cheated on her, or a young gay person being essentially told he is a worthless piece of garbage if he tries to seek the same happiness as his straight counterparts. They both seem pretty bad to me, and I condemn both actions.

No, Will, he’s just a liberal. They always know what’s best for everyone.

Careful, if Will is fair, he will ask you if you know what the rest of the world doesn’t know about me? Do you have a special gateway into my mind? Are you perhaps psychic?
Funny though, I sometimes feel the same way about conservatives knowing what’s best for everybody. In any case, I’m not sure why my opinion on Craig’s sexual orientation means that as a liberal, I apparently know what’s best for everybody. Others here, liberals, conservatives have also provided their best guess as to Craig’s orientation.

Do you know something the rest of the world doesnt? Do you have a special gateway into his mind? Are you perhaps psychic?

No, Will, he’s just a liberal. They always know what’s best for everyone.

Look at Craig. He made the issue more about his not being gay, as opposed to seeking sex in a bathroom, as if being gay was worse

Um, isnt this entire thread about “outing” because in reaction to being caught Senator Craig was widely accused of being a hypocrite not because he was caught in a bathroom, but because being caught in a bathroom seemingly proves that HES GAY and voting against the gay agenda?

Yes, I understand he could be bisexual (although I personally believe his orientation is gay, or perhaps bisexual with a strong leaning on the gay side)

How on Earth could you possibly form that opinion? Yes, it appears he has a sexual attraction to other men, but how could you possibly think you have enough information to determine his precise orientation? Do you know something the rest of the world doesnt? Do you have a special gateway into his mind? Are you perhaps psychic?

Humans, as opposed to animals, have or should have standards and principles by which to live… We are animals… but we have the unique human ability to perceive, understand, change and discipline our behavior. We cannot change our nature (something the left does not understand) but we can change our behavior.

Agreed.

What I am saying is it is perfectly possible to be a married, closeted gay or bi person (someone like Craig) and NOT act on such urges in a public restroom… He is a… person of terrible judgment and totally lacking in impulse control… For those reasons he should leave office. Republican or Democrat makes no difference…

Agreed.

…the left would prefer to reduce us to our animal nature completely. Generally speaking it is the right that believes for religious or other reasons that we can and must rise above our animalistic natures… Free choice is not an option for animals. We are not simply animals or we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

Agreed.

With so much agreement between us, what was my point, then? You saw it as “a bit of a distinction without a difference”.

My point was/is simply this. I like precise concepts. As you have described, we have two large tendencies to our nature: an animal heritage, and the qualities that make us distinctively human - be they Reason, free will, morality, a divine spark, or however you look at it. The committed Left wants to make people forget it and drag everyone to the lowest common denominator; at which point they can be the top people, or “most equal” as Orwell would put it. One of their little tricks, that they have gotten a remarkable number of people to go along with, is that they look at error and weakness and degradation – in other words, at anything to do with giving in to one’s animal impulses – and call that “human”. And people like them who will call degradation “human”, are called people of remarkable “humanity”. I do not go along with that program.

P.S. Thanks for the understanding and fairness of your reply, Peg. On other occasions when I’ve dared to suggest that reason, morality, etc. are our true and actual “human” nature, I’ve seen some real dunderheads on this blog flip out. And unfortunately, not all of them were (or understood themselves to be) leftists