Anyone watch tonight's Daily Show? It disgusted me.

[Athelwulf]

The Daily Show had one of its correspondents (I forget his name) go to a speech Hillary Clinton gave in some auditorium, I believe on Tuesday. The correspondent interviewed attendants about Clinton. One guy described himself as liberal as they come and as gay as the day is long. And if my ears don't need a check-up, he also said he would vote for McCain if Clinton wasn't nominated.

Being gay myself, I felt dirty by association. I really don't understand how a liberal can consider voting for McCain if his or her favorite didn't win. My absolute favorites were Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich before they both dropped out. I shifted support to Obama subsequently. But I was always certain I would rather vote for whoever the Democratic Party nominated rather than the Republican, because all of the Democratic candidates were better even than the best Republican candidate (not that it says much), Ron Paul. Even if Clinton, who I feel is not liberal enough, had won, I would have voted for her looooong before even considering McCain.

Guys, I don't understand it. But I know it disgusts me.

[Asider23]

1. Sorry I disagree

I take a uncorrupt Republican (Paul) over a corrupt Democrat (Clinton) any day.

[Maddy McCall]

3. Keating 5 ring a bell?

[Occam Bandage]

5. Uncorrupt? Yeah, sure. Never mind that his record-breaking donations went right

into the pockets of his family and cronies. Nepotism's all right if you're an anti-war Republican.

Not to mention the fact that he's an outright racist, that his domestic policy ideas are straight out of the mid-1800s--as is his attitude towards women's rights, gay rights, and race relations--and that he has never shown the slightest ability to do anything in Congress but cast "no" votes.

No, he has a bunch of idiot high schoolers and obese unemployed basement dwellers spamming "RON PAUL IS UNCORRUPT" all over the Internet, so you'd prefer him to a solid Democrat like Sen. Clinton.

In short, you're an idiot.

[msallied]

15. Damn straight. I'll admit that I do like a lot of Libertarian policies.

And have always considered myself something of a left-leaning Libertarian due to my preference for a moderate social safety net. But Ron Paul is the wrong guy to represent those who would call themselves grassroots conservatives or Libertarian. I support small government, not zero government. That and he's out of line on abortion and all of the other rights you've mentioned. I'm a fiscal moderate and a social anarchist. Where is the candidate for me? Sigh... I'm a civil liberties voter more than anything and that's why I'll always be a Democrat.

[Athelwulf]

17. Speaking of his (in)ability to do anything in Congress,

remember that Violent Homegrown Terrorism etc. bill? The one that all but six House members voted yes on? Kucinich voted no, and Paul was absent!

[msallied]

18. Didn't he also theorize that the US government created the AIDS virus

or some other kinda whacked out conspiracy theory?

Granted, I have some theories of my own, but they're a little more well-thought out. LOL

[Athelwulf]

22. I've never heard before that he did.

If I can find evidence, or if you can point me to it, then I'll certainly gobble it up. :D

[msallied]

26. This article here is compelling.

I think I had the basis of his conspiracy theory wrong, but he was the author/namesake for a pretty wacky "newsletter" that went out awhile back that espoused all sorts of loony stuff.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Athelwulf]

12. Paul is against universal health care, abortion, same-sex marriage, church-state separation, and...

... the teaching of evolutionary biology in biology class. I believe he's also skeptical of global warming.

I agree that Clinton is corrupt. She's also proven herself to be opportunistic and a sore loser. But it would be nearly impossible for me to stomach shifting my support away from her to Paul when she's pushing for a slightly better health care system (even though it's not single-payer) and withdrawal from Iraq (even though she had authorized it), and when she's against a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage (even though she's not supportive of marital equality). And even though she'd ban violent video games and amend the Constitution to ban flag-burning if she had the chance, both of which I abhor as a civil libertarian, I absolutely dread a Paul administration.

I respect the principle of supporting an uncorrupt Republican over a corrupt Democrat, but I also want a conscience. I have a very low opinion of right-wing conservatives, no matter how uncorrupt they are. Show me an uncorrupt liberal Republican, however, and I'll happily consider it.

[msallied]

16. Who's that guy out of R.I.? Chaffe? Yeah, I think that's about as close as you'll get.

[Athelwulf]

20. I didn't mind Chafee.

At least, I never heard any bad things about him. I did hear he voted with Democrats on quite a few key issues. I do realize he was probably Republican for a good reason, but I haven't found much reason so far to believe he was all that bad.

And I realize it's not likely we'll see another remotely liberal Republican anytime soon, but who knows what the future has in store?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Youphemism]

27. There is no such thing...

...as an uncorrupt presidential candidate. It's all a matter of degree. I think that's one big advantage Obama has. Look enough at any candidate and you'll find something you don't like. But Obama has had, by far, the least amount of time to be corrupted, bought, and influenced. McCain owes people from several wars ago, though he probably has to be reminded every day by hundreds of Post-It notes stuck around his bed.

[Youphemism]

29. Come to think of it...

What was that movie about the guy who had lost his memory and had to remind himself of everything each day? Didn't he do that with Post-Its?

Someone ought to do an overlay of a McCain presidency on that movie.

[sandnsea]

2. If the supers gave Hillary the election today

I'd have abstained. But never in a brazillion years would I vote for McCain. Makes absolutely no sense.

[saracat]

11. Ah so you would excercise my current option! LOL!

:hi:

[sandnsea]

14. Uh, nobody stole the election from Hillary

If Hillary had won fair and square, I'd have voted for her. I would only abstain if she had stolen it.

[saracat]

28. Ahh! It is a matter of perception rather than who. Okay!

[sandnsea]

31. It's a matter of not rewarding election theft n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Unfortunately,

the poisonous campaign tactics Hillary employed intentionally portrayed McCain as a better second choice than Obama. It was and is a completely shameful action.

[Occam Bandage]

6. "I have the experience. Sen. McCain has the experience. Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

Thanks Hillary!

[Cha]

13. hilary never did fully appreciate

the impact behind that "SPEECH" of Obama's on Oct2, 2002~

[boppers]

7. You miss out on the McClurkin drama?

Long story short:
1. "Ex-gay" (Really a Bi guy who decided to stop sleeping around on his wife) singer/minister speaks at an Obama event.
2. Blogosphere lights up with accusations that Obama is really a homophobe, or supports the "Ex-gay" movement, etc.
3. People who are strongly emotionally affected by the issue react negatively towards Obama as a result.

We have more than a few GLBT folks floating around who can go into greater detail if you wish. Their anger is palpable and not easily dismissed.

Oh, and welcome to DU, from another Oregonian!

[ccharles000]

8. McClurkin was what made my support for Hillary stronger.

Over time I have forgiven Obama and I pray he never makes that mistake again.

[boppers]

19. I am fairly certain he will "make that mistake" again.

He will also "make the mistake" of having talks with Cuba and Iran.
He will also "make the mistake" of inviting fundamentalist bible thumpers to the White House.
(Seeing a pattern?)

It's part of how he works, how he thinks, to let voices from the sublime, to the deplorable, be heard. He will freely sit down and interact with many people that others would completely marginalize off-hand, for whatever reason.

In terms of political image, he's suffered for that kind of thinking on a lot of fronts already. It was pretty much a standard attack to go after Obama in the primary for 'associating with the wrong people'... Think about the attack roster: Rezko, Wright, Farrakhan, McClurkin, Ayers, (etc. etc. etc.). Always 'the wrong kind of people', for whatever reason, and yet Obama himself doesn't seem to have become a racist-bomb-throwing-fundamentalist-terrorist himself.

I thoroughly expect this pattern to continue: Both Obama talking with people that others would prefer silenced (or denied a microphone), and Obama taking subsequent heat for choosing to let these people be heard, or even for simply meeting with them.

McCain's already attacking him for it, as are the usual talking heads.

[ccharles000]

23. Fine let him talk with people in the "ex gay"movement.

If he ever lets McClurkin do any more rallies for him he is going to lose support from many GLBT people.

[dsc]

33. I'll buy that when I see racists on that list

but somehow that doesn't happen. That fact is he does consider certain behaviors beyond the pale.

[Athelwulf]

25. I've been here a while now, but thank you. :) Also...

... you're the first person to tell me about this "McClurkin drama". I really don't buy such a claim about Obama. However, I suppose it's worth investigating. Thanks for letting me know.

[dsc]

35. It isn't accusations

The man did speak at the rally and did say hateful things about gays at the rally. This was after Obama was warned the man was a homophobe and we were repeatedly told he would "just sing". Instead he emceed the event and gave a sermon at the end. He is the nominee, I will vote for him (barring his naming Nunn), but I don't trust him on gay rights and won't until I see some actions from him making me trust him.

[Athelwulf]

38. I don't doubt what happened,

but I meant I didn't believe accusations that Obama is against gay people for allowing it. Although it might be reasonable to say he simply doesn't pay much mind to gay rights.

Now that I think about it, I might have indeed heard about this incident before. Was the rally in South Carolina? And was the speaker a black religious leader? If so, then I do know about it. I just forgot all about it. This was, I believe, back when both Kucinich and Gravel were still in the race and I was lamenting their not having any chance. Now that I remember this incident, I have concerns that need to be quelled, or confirmed. I'll research.

[dsc]

40. it is that incident

[msallied]

9. I'm just glad you saw it on the Daily Show.

They have a way of putting the spotlight on the crazies and making us laugh at them. lol

[Robeson]

10. I saw it, but that individual was so caught up into the cult of personality, ....

...that once their "leader" endorses someone else, they will fall in-line, because there's no way their leader could be wrong. As soon as Hillary endorses Obama, many followers of hers will fall in line with the Democratic ticket. Many in her campaign already have.

[Athelwulf]

24. I hope so.

I wouldn't want to bump into this or any other gay guy and find out he voted for an anti-gay politician.

[cbc5g]

21. Paul is only cool cause hes anti-war and pro-legalization, positions I agree with BUT..

He would roll back democratic reforms that are vital to millions in this nation. He would can the Endangered Species Act meaning extinctions of animals we love INCLUDING the bald eagle our nations symbol. He thinks the free market will take care of endangered animals. LOL The free market would slaughter them and sell their carcases.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/ron_paul_at_seattle_university

"“I’ve been reading the Constitution now and then,” he told the crowd. “I can’t find endangered species written in the Constitution.”

He quickly added that his comments shouldn’t be interpreted as meaning he’s opposed to protecting endangered species. “It’s the bureaucratic approach vs. the free market approach,” he said—and he wants the job of protecting endangered species to be left to the free market."


There is plenty to agree about on why Ron Paul should not be President but he is NOT a racist and I really think people should stop saying that shit. It diminishes the impact on those that actually are racist.

[Athelwulf]

30. Wow. What a ridiculous statement from Paul. Also, I agree he's not racist.

I haven't seen any evidence that unequivocally says so. That time he received a contribution from some white supremacist only meant Paul has support from them, not that Paul himself returns that support. And I think he even turned down the money, arguably a political stunt if one were to prejudge him a racist, but then we have circular reasoning.

[boppers]

37. "Racist" is an oversimplification.

He's virulently anti-immigrant.

Or, rather, virulently "non-approved" anti-immigrant.

Since people generally don't point to the north about 'Canadians flooding our country', they point to the south, and complain about 'Americans flooding our country'. (If you don't know your geography, I'll give you a second to realize that Mexicans, Peruvians, etc. are all Americans, north and south americans.)

... Or, rather 'Americans who are not white' seems to be their problem. With 'white' actually being a stand in for "want to adopt, and live in, a English-speaking, free market, culture")

So, it's not that they don't like brown people, and they are not "racist" by that measure, it's that they don't like people who object to their political philosophy. Which happens to apply to, well, non-'white' folks an awful lot of the time.

In terms of US race history, Ron Paul supporters are not racist in the same way that folks who thought that a black man with eloquent speech, acceptable dress, and proper documentation should not be discriminated against..... so, they are not racists.

Jim Crow laws are lost on them.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MagickMuffin]

32. He is the SAME EXACT guy who has been behind Clinton @ her Rallies

If he THINKS John McCaineyBush will be better for the GLBT community then let the delusional man-boy vote however he wants.

He doesn't know how much he would regret that vote if his man won, but he would learn soon enough.

I'm going to make sure that doesn't happen though because I care about Everyone's RIGHTS, his included.

[cboy4]

34. The disgust you feel is similar to the disgust I feel

knowing Obama allowed a notorious homophobe to spew anti-gay hate at one of his campaign events and refuses to apologize.

[dorkulon]

36. It's about being loyal to a person, not a party or a country.

For all the shots at Obama's "messiah cult," it seems the Clinton supporters are the ones indulging in a personality cult. Someone dares to defeat her, so he must be crushed.

[Athelwulf]

39. It's sad. And the guy doesn't know what he's doing by voting for McCain.

I don't know if I want to slap him or merely feel pity.

[Kahuna]

41. That's the hillbots mantra. They will get tired of it soon. nt