Does this guy have ANY non-homophobic Religious Supporters???

[Tyler Durden]

http://gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=163&id=18614


Barack Obama’s Latest Pastor Problem: Anti-Gay Rev. James T. Meeks

Article Date: 03/31/2008

By Duane Wells

Just as the dust surrounding Sen. Barack Obama’s long-term association with controversial minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright has begun to settle comes new reports of the democratic presidential hopeful’s connection to another racially divisive public figure—the stridently homophobic Rev. James T. Meeks, an Illinois state senator who also serves as the pastor of Chicago’s 22,000 member strong Salem Baptist Church.

Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

(snip)

A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement". The newsletter cites him as both “a key member of Chicago's ‘Gatekeepers’ network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state” and “a stalwart anti-gay activist… … has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level ‘family values’ pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in ‘clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.'”

(snip)

On a more personal level, Meeks has reportedly blamed "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain" and actively campaigned to defeat SB3186, an Illinois LGBT non-discrimination bill, while serving in the Illinois state legislature alongside Obama. According to a 2006 Chicago Sun Times article, his church sponsored a "Halloween fright night" which "consigned to the flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals."

(snip)


I mean, COME ON, PEOPLE. This Candidate is looking more and more like a closet homophobe than anything else. Either he IS NOT a bigot and repudiates these people...ALL OF THEM...or he IS a bigot and holds their views.

Does anyone else see a third way on this?

[IowaGirl]

1. I think you are right on, Tyler.

:kick:

[Warpy]

2. Most religion tends to be sex phobic in general

and homophobic and misogynistic in particular, especially the fire and brimstone type of religion. I'm not a bit surprised when preachers anywhere make stupid statements about gays. I'm not surprised when they make stupid statements about women. It's in the job description for most of them.

Obama has already said he doesn't agree with a lot of the crap from the pulpit. Hell, few people do. Pain in the ass true believers are few and far between.

I think the third way lies in watching what Obama does instead of condemning him through guilt by association.

I don't like these self righteous bible beaters any better than you do. However, I know what people would ASSume about me because of the people I know in this town because nurses meet all types. I try not to make that mistake about anybody else.

[Tyler Durden]

6. If I hung around with people who wore sheets, what would you think of me?

Whether or not I wore the sheet is kind of irrelevant, don't you think?

This has nothing to do with "...pain in the ass true believers..." It has to do with the VOCAL and PROVEN support of people who believe that they have a religion based RIGHT to discriminate against groups they do not believe in.

If his religious anti-gay supporters were anti-Semites, we would not be having this conversation, because he would have been voted out of the race months ago.

[Warpy]

10. I knew people who wore sheets when I lived in NC

They were the parents of some of my friends. What does that make me?

Unless I donned a sheet and started passing out hate literature (or worse), you would still be off base in calling me a KKK bigot through guilt by association.

So it is with Obama, Clinton, or any other person who hangs around with religious types. Look at what they do, not what their associates say.

[Tyler Durden]

12. Did YOU hang out with them?

Curry their favor? Get their recommendation on a college or job recommendation?

If you didn't hang with them, have a beer and a laugh with them, then you have nothing to apologize for.

IF on the other hand, you did anything sycophantic toward them, then you're just as guilty, no matter what you believe inside.

[readmoreoften]

46. Did you call them your 'spiritual advisors'?

If so, yeah, I'd say you're a scumbag.

[DU9598]

3. Pretty serious charge

I am gay, but one of my best friends is a devout christian who continually spouts off about the sanctity of marriage. I love her and we have been long time friends. I tolerate her religious beliefs and I challenge her. She tolerates my sexuality and challenges me. But, we have so many beliefs and friends and joys in life in common that I cannot toss her aside because she is wrong in her belief on gay rights.

Am I too, as a gay man, a closet homophobe?

[Tyo]

7. If you claimed your friend as a spiritual guide...

and if you agreed with her that marriage equality for gays is wrong then I'd say you would be, if not a closet homophobe, maybe happy as an LCR member.

[Tyler Durden]

8. I have cut off the bigots and RW fundies in my own FAMILY.

Does this make me a bad person?

I do not understand you: people who do not ACCEPT me as I am are not my family or friends.

If she was an anti-Semitic German, you a Jew, and this was 1933 would you feel the same?

[blm]

4. Has it occurred to any of you that this 'problem' is the result of nearly 2 decades of

intense targeting of black churches by GOP and RW propagandists with NO REBUTTAL or attempts at countering the propaganda by a Democratic party too intent on currying favor with big business and the center right voters?

Imagine the progress if we had a Dem party who was led the last 15 years by leaders who sought to counter the progress of the RW propagandists instead of giving in to them on the issue whenever it would come up - like Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA.

Imagine if we had a Dem party led the last 15 years by someone more willing to EDUCATE instead of rolling over to the propagandists.

What we have now is what the GOP propagandists built while Clinton and his leadership of the Dem party since 1993 helped them by looking the other way or rolling over - whichever move would assure no political capital of Clinton's was spent.

[Tyler Durden]

9. Which is an excellent argument for starting a 3rd party...or even a 4th party.

I'm with you. Where do I sign?

[blm]

15. No - we just have to be more focused on WHO LEADS THE PARTY to do BETTER for all of us

into the future and not just lead us even further right the way Clinton did since 1993.

[Tyler Durden]

16. All of us except SOME of us.

Personally, I don't want some religious fanatic telling me I'm second class because I'm an atheist.

That's the next 1000 miles with these "ends justifies the means" people.

[blm]

17. One of the many reasons I appreciated Kerry's mindset so much - he said our nation

needs to understand HOW religions effect the cultures and governments of other nations around the world that we want to better communicate with, but we also need to include the viewpoints of the many who HAVE NO RELIGION.

I think he made this point in a 1997 interview, iirc.

[Tyo]

18. I started to worry when

Obama told us that we have an "awesome God". I was asking myself, where do you get this "we" stuff, Barack? Speak for yourself. And what do Gods, awesome or otherwise, have to do with politics in a supposedly secular state? The whole idea of religion infusing government was something I thought we wanted to get away from not embrace further.

[Tyler Durden]

19. When the some of the first words out of his mouth were about "FAITH"...

...I have to confess, at that point I realized it would always be hard to support the guy if he got the nomination.

Since then I've been "Second Classed" by so many of his supporters that it's become impossible to support the guy.

[blm]

28. Well it got to this point in our political reality BECAUSE of the ASSHOLE WING of our party

led by the Clintons who let it get to this point by moving right along with the propaganda instead of seeing the need to counter the propaganda.

Besides, EVERY issue, including gay rights issue, is dependent on OPEN GOVERNMENT.

The continuing protection of the powerful elite by closed government actions is what prevents honest and open discussion of EVERY SINGLE OTHER ISSUE.

[Tyo]

30. So what's Obama going to do to fix it then?

His awesome God crap and religious-based rejection of marriage equality doesn't sound very promising to me. And if at all possible try to leave the Clintons out of it. I will accept for the sake of argument that they are evil incarnate. Again, what's Obama going to do, not say, but do about insuring that our rights are the same as everyone else's?

[blm]

34. I don't know how far he will go. But I trust those around him at this point far

more than I trust those who have proven their fealty to the Bush agenda over the years.

I trust the longtime advocates of open government - like Kerry and Kennedy, Durbin and Leahy. They have been siding with Obama, and I have to believe they will have a far greater influence over him in the White House than those who are fighting against him now.

[readmoreoften]

50. Glad you trust him. I don't trust any of these people. None of them have done enough.

We need more than just a little reform. I don't see any substantive difference between the candidates and the vitriol of the Obama people and the bizarre religious overtones cut me out of the election pretty much. This election cycle has pushed me way to the left and I don't think I'll be voting Democrat after this general. The real deal is that we need to stop neoliberal expansion in general as far as I'm concerned. This is way bigger than Clinton and Obama.

[blm]

55. The first step on ANY ISSUE is open government. And that includes gay rights.

Democrats BETTER start supporting open government advocates first and forenost. It was the mindless support for closed government Democrats that allowed the RW to get out of hand and steamroll over this nation and its values debate the last two decades.

You think we would be in this political position on gay rights at all, if BushInc had been jailed by the end of 1994 as a result of an open government process that held the corrupt operatives ACCOUNTABLE as they should have been, instead of the Dems' turning over control of Capitol Hill to the RW zealots and powermongers in Jan 1995?

[kenfrequed]

77. whoops!

Well with Edwards, Kucinich, and every other substantive voice razored out of the race by the mainstream media, what could you possibly expect?

All we are left with is an emotionalist spectacle of never ending fear-appeals.

[mitchtv]

89. Gavin Newsome is not gay, so why did

Sen Obama refuse to have his photo op with the mayor? (per Willie Brown) The list of possible answers is not promising.

[blm]

96. I will bet that you and I have never heard the exact story and what the real deal is about Newsom,

and why there have been many good Dems who cast a wary eye on Newsom.

But.... I have been talking about the last 15 years of a GOP STRATEGY to target black churches with antigay propaganda and WHY did our Dem PARTY not develop a COUNTER STRATEGY? Isn't that what they SHOULD have done, instead of Bill leading the party RIGHTWARD to MEET the RW bigotry half way? That's called GIVING IN - and now you want to pin all blame on a new candidate and all Dems who have been STUCK dealing with the RESULTS of Bill's choices throughout the 90s to allow the GOP strategy to go uncountered and succeed to a degree it never should have reached.

Bill had control of the party since 1993 and has been touted as its 'political genius' - show me one strategy he developed as the party leader to counter the KNOWN targeting of black churches by GOP strategists.

[mitchtv]

135. It's not about BILL

it's about Lies to Gays and insincerity,It's about refusing to take your picture with the Gay friendly,popular mayor of an American city who is at a benefit for you. It's about feeling "forced" by the rpeubs to discuss that icky Gaymarriage thing, and more. I don't like to defend Hillary, but I gat sick of the Obama-nables trashing every Dem who doesn't agree with them ,and his love of Nuclear power and attemps to obfuscate anything he gets wrong. Oh yeah and the religious devotion , just plain gives me the creeps.

[blm]

140. Well since I don't think Obama walks on water or even speaks in a compelling way

for a policy wonk and history wonk like me, that part of the exchange is lost on me.

I care about this election as it concerns whether or not we have a country that respects Open Government that is accountable to the people, or whether the closed government we've had for so long now continues to protect the secrecy and privilege of the powerful elite.

EVERY ISSUE is dependent on open government and those who can't see that by now after all we've learned the last few decades are deluding themselves and hurting the rest of us.

[Bluenorthwest]

144. What an odd line of reasoning

First off, I have not heard Obama say a word about the GOP baiting the black churches with antigay propaganda.
Second, Obama has in fact employed one of the most prominate of the Bush Water Carriers of that propaganda, McClurkin, to continue spouting that propaganda. McClurkin took his Bush promoting all the way to the bank, for sure. He headlined the GOP Convention 2004 singing 'Stand' to GW like Monroe sang Happy Birthday to JFK. He acted as the symbol and embodiment of the antigay element of the GOP, reaching out to the homophobes for George.
Kirbyjon Caldwell, another superstar of antigay Preacherworld, has been called G W Bush's 'personal spiritual adviser' and has also been speaking for Obama, but only after, by his own admission, calling Bush on the phone and asking his permission to do so. Bush thought it was a great idea.
So for the last year or so, Obama has been promoting the most vicious of the propagnadists, and has said noting about this GOP strategy. He has not come close to countering that strategy, in fact he has openly continued it, using direct anti-gay sermonizing in official events, something even the GOP national candidates don't do.
So sure, Bill could have done more all those years ago. But why does Obama do nothing but retain the message of the GOP startegy, using in many cases the same exact people to do the bashing that Bush has used?
If you think Bill messed up, what do you call McClurkin calling gay people cursed bigots at Obama' 'out reach' to the religious crowd? Seems far worse to me, and certainly just as bad. Obama has not apologized, and what is worse, he refuses to promise that he will not host more of the same sort of gay baiting in the future. He has been asked to promise simply 'no bashing or bashers at the Inaugural' and he refuses to make that promise.
Obama's actions and stances around the antigay clergy do not seem to fit into your world view at all. Or does he just get a pass? For doing exactly what Bush did, with the exact same cast of haters, while Bill is to be fried for not doing enough? Bill did not do enough to counter McClurkin and Caldwell, yet Obama employs them. I see a double standard a mile wide and a fathom deep.

[blm]

157. Bill is fried because he LED that Dem MARCH RIGHTWARD to MEET the bigots halfway.

Obama has NEVER held the leadership of the party as a responsibility.
We KNOW what Clintons do with their power already - they lead the party rightward to kiss the asses of the RW agenda.

[Bluenorthwest]

143. If ....then

If you really believe that, best get rolling now. Our Party is infested with Pentacostals and other exteme religious types that are trying to purge gays from the party. Law suits are flying, and the power is shifting to the religionists, or actually, being handed to them. They destroyed and grew bored with the GOP. Now it is our turn.
We are being lead to the right now, by religionist candidates and administration at headquarters. While you want to make this about Bill 15 years ago, it is really about the whole DNC in the right here and now.

[blm]

148. Not about 15 years AGO, but the LAST 15 years of party leadership - and it just so

happens that the man in control of the party's political leadership from 1993-2005 was Bill Clinton and he came with a pack of his loyalists.

[Bluenorthwest]

But what about the here and now

And what about McClurkin, the star of Bush's antigay religious push in the African American chruches, being used to spread the same bull for Obama as he spread for Bush? What about that? If Obama is aware of this GOP tactic and the negative results, then why does he use it, and cause futher harm to both his community and mine, with extra harm for those who dare be both gay and black?
Why?

[blm]

156. Obama hasn't held the position. He deserves a chance. Being for open government and

open advocacy for ALL policies and legislation WILL make a difference for every issue, including gay rights.

[Bluenorthwest]

159. So you are saying that Bill forced Obama to host McClurkin?

You keep talking about Party leadership when being asked about the real time, current actions by your candidate. You are refusing to speak to the topic and want to talk about Bill Clinton.
What do you think about Democratic candidates allowing religious speakers to hold up speific minority groups for ridicule, by name and at length at official events, in general?

Your view as I see it is this: The GOP was terrible for using the gay baiting religionist tactic, Bill Clinton was terrible for not 'countering' that tactic directly, and yet somehow Obama is dandy-o when he employs that tactic himself, just as the GOP did. Terrible, terrible, and dandy-o. How you make that leap is beyond me.
And let's take a moment to talk about efforts to counter homophobia in the churches, black and white, because I have been doing that for well over 20 years, with other Democrats, with ministers and Gospel stars too. In black and white and multi colored churches. A great example of what you seem to not know, and what I seem to know is embodied in that fine Democrat, Patti LaBelle. Ms.LaBelle was the headliner at the first large AIDS fundraiser I attended back in 'the day', which was organized by African American church groups along with the Rev Carl Bean and Dionne Warwick. Democratic politicians were helpful and in attendance, a few spoke too. The message was strong against ignorance and for acceptance for the sake of the lives of humans of all races, life or death. Ignorance or death. It was an amazing night filled with the Spirit and the very cream of the Gospel world on the stage. So that is what a whole bunch of Democrats and Church leaders have been doing, for decades.
Now let's flash forward to DNC convention 2004, Obama becomes a star, and Ms Patti LaBelle is there to bring the house down. At The GOP Convention, the otherside is up to their stuff, and the headliner was Donnie McClurkin.
So no matter what you did for all of this time, many other brave Democrats both black and white and straight and gay have been working tirelessly to counter the GOP/Obama tactic of using gays as vote bait in African American and white churches, Ok? You did nothing I guess, and although he was old enough, I never heard of Barack Obama having a thing to do with countering that tactic until he wanted to grab high office. His home chruch of 20years did, but Obama, who could have done plenty, just did not.
Others did.
And Obama picked McClurkin over LaBelle and an entire universe of Gospel stars that have done the good work. And not just McClurkin but 4 well known anti-gay acts. He picked them and in doing so gave voice to them instead of those who have been doing the work that you so self righteously think was not done at all. Bill could have done more, but he did help us and did not aide them, Obama is aiding the other side in a long and ongoing battle. He painted the Gospel world as bigoted in the eyes of white Americans and the chruches as so venomous they would not vote for a man who did not gay bait a bit. And where he could have brought them lights on the path forward, he brought them the very people who use them and me as divices for profit and power.
What have you been doing to make for understanding bud? My creds are in order. Fully. I was and am,there, on the right side, with Democrats. Where have you and Obama been? We could have really used the help.

[blm]

160. How dense you playing? Obama is NOW dealing with the EFFECT of 15 years of a GOP strategy

that Bill Clinton LED the Democrats to accept to a degree and meet halfway.

GET IT?

If there was a 15 year refusal to deal with water shortages while the RW planned for there to be major water shortages and our leader accepted their plans time and time again, is it the fault of the guy who is running for our leadership now or the fault of the guy who was the leader for 15 years?

[Bluenorthwest]

162. No need to get personal

I am not defending Bill Clinton. You are focused on him. I am talking about Obama, his specific actions and alliances, the things he has said and done in this cycle.
We can talk about Bill later if you'd like. We will mostly agree. But in no way does what Bill did or did not do mean Obama has to hold bashings in the full light of day.
Obama did that. And the question is why? If it was wrong for Bill then is it not also wrong for Obama?
No one forced him to use those creeps. It was his doing. Are you trying to say that Obama's campaign takes marching orders from Bill Clinton? That seems pretty ignorant. Bill made him hire McClurkin instead of a wide specturm of non divisive Gospel stars?

This is about Obama. 2008. Lecturing me about the last 20 years of GLBT and Church interaction and the stuggels of my community is not a tactic you can deal with. I was there for all of it. You are here refusing to discuss the points that are the topic, deflecting to talking points that are based in your own theory and not real world experience, and frankly those theories are valid to an extent, but your own perspective filters them into something that is a tad on the condescending side toward the churchs, and a tad on the uninformed side about who has been doing what for the last couple of decades in terms of GLBT rights, hiv issues, and the religious communities, praticularly in minority communities.
Talking about what you think was going on, while others here were actuall involved and doing other than you think, and talking about Bill Clinton in 2008 while others are trying to find ways to comprehend your candidate's actions is a waste of my time, and a foolishly missed opprotunity on your part to speak directly about the actions of your candidate that are costing him support from so many Democrats.
I vote May 20. You did nothing but reinforce my image of Obama backers as selective in vision and unable to deal with the realities of the man's actions. So Congratulations to you and your candidate! You played ego games with people who have knowlege so far above your own that you have no hope. Go learn, get involved, go actually visit some chruchse, some gay places too. Ask some questions instead of pontificating in areas in which you are clearly inexperienced and only thinking about because your candidate is in the wrong and you know it.

[mondo joe]

80. Am I to conclude the people in those churches have no minds of their own?

They're simply blank slates for whoever targets them?

[blm]

81. No - but constant propaganda works - and there definitely WAS a deliberate political action

taken to push that propaganda, so....where was the COUNTER from the Dem LEADERS then when they should have had a POLITICAL STRATEGY to counter the RW's strategy.

Isn't that what this forum and debate is really about - the politics of the issue and the strategy to get the best goal possible?

Why the free pass for those 'political leaders' who were the ones who rolled over and LED the party rightward on gay issues as they gave in to the political strategies of the RW strategists instead of COUNTERING their strategies with one of their own that BENEFITTED the progressive movement for gay issues?

WHY do Dems have so much GROUND TO MAKE UP NOW?

[mondo joe]

87. The tree is in the acorn.

I don't accept the GOP outreach made people into bigots.

[blm]

95. GOP (and Nazis) would disagree with you - bigotry can be strengthened OR weakened depending on

any commitment to do so.

Your willingness to pretend it was OK for the Dem party to sit on its hands as the GOP strategized to STRENGTHEN and reinforce the bigotry for the last 15 years and then turn all blame onto Obama for the results of that strategy is wrongheaded, imo.

[mondo joe]

97. I don't think there's any amount of GOP outreach that could make me bigoted if I didn't

have it in me to begin with.

I'm not blaming Obama for others being bigoted. But I do blame him for counting them among his advisors.

[blm]

99. The Fellowship is a MISSION that HRC commited herself to for 15 years. Instead of COUNTERING

the strategy of GOP pushed propaganda in black churches she was praying with those RWers who developed the strategy. Do I think she believes in their antigay message? No. But she did see her political future tied up in her fellowship with that side of the theological divide. If Bush hadn't failed so miserably in the last few years, would Hillary even have crossed back over to the left or would she still be pursuing Bill's 'meet the GOP strategy on their side' path?

You are an intelligent, informed, enlightened person who WOULDN'T fall for propaganda from a GOP strategy, but think back to high school and tell me how many people are exactly like you and how many of them would be SUSCEPTIBLE to constant propaganda developed ESPECIALLY TOWARDS THEM?

[mondo joe]

100. Why are you whining to me about HRC? And why do you think adults even need

to have a case countered in order to not become fire breathing bigots?

Tell me this: How much GOP outreach would it take to turn you into a homophobe?

[blm]

101. Zero. But this isn't about me or you. You think EVERYONE is strongminded in their own right?

Look at the closeted racists who call themselves Dems who can easily fall for propaganda about welfare queens in the 80s and can fall for propaganda about a black candidate just as easily.

You seem to have no problem with that or the antilabor and antiunion advisors of Clinton camp.

[mondo joe]

102. I think everyone is responsible for their own choices, including the choice to be a bigot.

And if you think those people are simply weak minded, you are as insulting as anyone else.

[blm]

103. Sorry, but I DO believe people of lesser intelligence CAN be influenced by constant

use of propaganda. Sorry you see it as me being insulting but I see it as a reality of this world and a MULTIBILLION dollar business choice made by those in control.

See - the Fellowship HAS a mission - and spreading godly virtue is NOT the actual mission for those fascists, is it?

[mondo joe]

104. You appear to be saying those churchgoers are of lesser intelligence.

Very insulting. Very ugly.

[blm]

106. Why? Is it insulting to acknowledge that not everyone in your highschool class was an A student?

Or a B student?

That MOST people, including as adults, are mostly C and D students? That's most of my family - and YES, there are a number of anti-intellectual bigots in my family, against gays AND blacks.

You think the advertising industry that mostly serves the fascist agenda targets me and you or them?

[mondo joe]

108. Are you saying adults are not competent to make their own choices?

Are you saying people who attend churches are not competent to foerm their own opinions?

[blm]

111. No - I'm saying that constant propaganda CAN work on those not aware of the source

and are YOU saying that 15 yrs of propaganda crafted SPECIFICALLY to target a certain group would NEVER work?

You and 'your' group certainly hang your hat on every bit of antiObama propaganda with NO CONSIDERATION of any other values, so you ARE susceptible to a degree, too. And, in fact, you MAGNIFY every association as if it has been a more powerful threat to your rights than the last 15 yrs of a Dem president who met the GOP strategy against you halfway at every turn.

I came by Clinton awareness on my own long before the primary by reading the substance of the historic record, and realized how anti - open government the Clintons have been as they sided for years with the secrecy and privilege of the Bushes and their powerful cronies.

If you really used your intellect in a fair and open way you would admit that this country would be far less under the cultural control of the far right if Clinton had sided with open government and accountability instead of siding with the protection of BushInc throughout the 90s.

There would have been no turnover of Congress in 1995 with most of BushInc exposed and some jailed by the end of 1994, would there?

The loss of so much progress didn't happen in a vacuum - and it certainly didn't happen because black churches held all the power. They were manipulated with propaganda campaigns for years just as borderline racists were/are targeted.

You can hold yourself up as a hero all you want, but don't pretend that you are completely incapable of falling for propaganda when it suits YOUR political purpose.

And don't even TRY to pretend that somehow black churches and Obama have been the powerful figures who caused any of our loss of rights and backwards social thrust the last 15 years. Fascist agenda and some Democrats FAR MORE POWERFUL than any of us did that.

[mondo joe]

112. Let's make this simple: Do you believe those who sit in - as you say - black churches

are not competent enough adults to be responsible for their own judgments and choices?

Yes? No?

[blm]

113. Do YOU think people of average intellect are NOT susceptible to constant propaganda

that has been crafted specifically to target THEIR weakest area of knowledge?

YOU certainly let propaganda crafted to make Obama look like a worse human being work on YOU, don't you? Because it was CRAFTED to make it work on YOU.

Make it easy on yourself and look in the mirror.

I know where I have screwed up in the past and don't repeat it and don't pretend I never made the mistakes.

[mondo joe]

114. I think people of average intellect are personally accountable for their own bigotry.

Which propaganda is responsible for your positions?

[blm]

116. I can recognize propaganda easily now where I didn't in the past. Read National Security Archives

and the reports and information about your government and its actual history.

If more people cared about OPEN GOVERNMENT that was accountable to the citizens, ALL of our rights, including gay rights, would have been more easily advanced over the last 15 years instead of being walked backwards by the BushInc agenda and the powerful Democrats who abetted them.

[mondo joe]

117. So you're immune to propaganda but the rest of us are poor saps being led by the nose?

Nice.

[blm]

119. Only if the shoe fits. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. If it does, then it does.

It's up to you to fit yourself honestly where you are and where you want to be.

All the insults towards me, and all the insults towards Obama and some misguided black church leaders won't change that and won't change the historic record of this nation and the individuals who actually effected it for the worse as far as YOUR rights are concerned.

[mondo joe]

121. Well, we'll all have to bow to your superiority of intellect and self possession.

:rofl:

[blm]

123. No - just care enough about your country and the truth to demand open government.

That's about all.

[mondo joe]

125. But since, according to you, my thoughts aren't really my thoughts but the

result of others telling me what to think, how could I ever know what I'm really thinking?

What if I think I'm caring about my country and the truth but I'm just the hapless pawn of others with superior intellects?

[blm]

126. Read the reports available to any citizen. Bow to yourself for acting as a CITIZEN with a duty.

.

[mondo joe]

127. Please explain how I can use my own judgment in reading such, since you say

I am of inadequate intellect to form my own opinions. Thank you.

[blm]

131. Whatever - see what you want to see.

Don't let any of this nation's actual historic record that you show no interest in accessing stop you from defending those whose loyalty is to closed government.

Keep fantasizing that closed government and the mission of the Fellowship is going to side with you to achieve the goals you have for your life as a citizen of this country.

[mondo joe]

134. Please answer the question.

How can I trust my own judgment when you keep telling me I'm not intellectuallycapable of forming it, without likely being the pawn of some external party?

[blm]

136. You never answer any of my questions... and you misrepresent what I said.

*I* wouldn't take your judgment seriously to inform *my* positions because you have not shown an interest in the actual records that exist and that concerned citizens CAN ACCESS still at this point at the National Security Archives.

I didn't say you AREN'T intellectually CAPABLE - I *do* think you are uninformed about the hazards of closed government or you wouldn't treat it so casually and support its continuance as you clearly do by supporting another Clinton in the WH.

When you can make an open government argument FOR another Clinton administration based on what you learned from the historic record and its resulting events of the last 15 years, instead of hanging your hat on the RESULT of 15 yrs of the RW targeting black churches with antigay propaganda, then I would consider what you have to say more closely.

[mondo joe]

137. I'll gladly answer any question you wish to ask me. Go right ahead.

But I'd like you to then answer my questions.

[blm]

139. I did answer...and I have at least half a dozen questions in my earlier posts that

you avoided.

[mondo joe]

141. Again, I'm happy to answer your questions. Let's review:

I looked back for your questions. Here's what I came up with:

>>Isn't that what this forum and debate is really about - the politics of the issue and the strategy to get the best goal possible?

Answer: This forum, the LGBT forum, is about whatever LGBT people want to talk about, I think.

>>Why the free pass for those 'political leaders' who were the ones who rolled over and LED the party rightward on gay issues as they gave in to the political strategies of the RW strategists instead of COUNTERING their strategies with one of their own that BENEFITTED the progressive movement for gay issues?

Answer: I give no one a free pass. I consider all parts of the whole in making my determinations. I disagree with your assessment.

>>WHY do Dems have so much GROUND TO MAKE UP NOW?

Answer: Because we had a stolen election, followed by a tragedy that solidified their control, followed by a lackluster candidate in 2004. So 8 years or so is a lot of ground to make up.

>>You are an intelligent, informed, enlightened person who WOULDN'T fall for propaganda from a GOP strategy, but think back to high school and tell me how many people are exactly like you and how many of them would be SUSCEPTIBLE to constant propaganda developed ESPECIALLY TOWARDS THEM?

Answer: I don't buy your starting point. Churches were a fertile ground for the GOP because they were already aligned on some issues.

>>You think EVERYONE is strongminded in their own right?

Answer: I think everyone is strongminded enough to be responsible for their own bigotry - the exception being those who are at diminished functional capacity.

>>See - the Fellowship HAS a mission - and spreading godly virtue is NOT the actual mission for those fascists, is it?

Answer: I don't see politicians spreading virtue as likely or desirable.

>>Is it insulting to acknowledge that not everyone in your highschool class was an A student?

Answer: No, but it is insulting to demean people as not actually believing what they believe, or simply being pawns with no agency of their own.

>>and are YOU saying that 15 yrs of propaganda crafted SPECIFICALLY to target a certain group would NEVER work?

Answer: I'm saying propaganda doesn't make people bigots. People ACCEPT the propaganda BECAUSE they're bigots.

>>Do YOU think people of average intellect are NOT susceptible to constant propaganda that has been crafted specifically to target THEIR weakest area of knowledge?

Answer: I think people of average intellect are responsible for whether or not they accept propaganda.


If you have other questions you'd like me to answer please say so in reply. I will then proceed with my questions to you.

Thank you.

[Bluenorthwest]

146. McClurkin worked for Bush

And then for Obama in the same capacity as gay baiting 'outreach'. How in the hell do you explain that in your world of 'Obama is trying to counter the propaganda'? Obama is spreading the same propaganda, using the self same water carriers, and your forked tounge and double sided rule book is intellectually weak. If you think targeting African American churches with antigay propaganda is a bad GOP tactic, you would at the very least be critical of your candidate for engaging in that same tactic.

[blm]

150. BILL Clinton led the party and DIDN'T counter the GOP tactic, instead meeting the GOP halfway

to accept their strategy as a working one.

I never said Obama is countering the 'tactic' as he has never been in the position of party leader EVER, has he?

Bill was leading this party from 1993-2005, and every backward move was because HE CARED MORE about cooperating with GOP and leading the Dem party rightward instead of taking any stands and fighting it out for progress.

[Creideiki]

152. What you're not giving is any way that Obama WOULD change the dialogue

By traveling and giving a stage for ex-gay ministries?

By giving tacit support to state Defense of Marriage Acts?

I can't even tell if you're from a state with one because your profile is blank.

But don't worry because the Blessed Baby Barack will most likely win the nomination and the Presidency in November. Unfortunately, then he'll be in the uncomfortable position of being held accountable (yeah, right--he's the Blessed Baby Barack--he's never held accountable by the Legion of Adoring Fans).

[Bluenorthwest]

154. You are talking about Bill Clinton

I am talking about Obama. Tell you what, I promise never to vote for Bill again, how's that? Now about the fact that Obama uses the gay baiting religion wedge with Rovian glee, and with the exact same cast of bashers that Bush used?
Stop talking about Bill. What he did or did not do does not in any way mitigate or explain what Obama did in using McClurkin, and holding the first Democratic events in my memory that used open hate speech against a minority group of Americans, by name, with no balancing argument offered, and no apology afterward. I have never see such a blatant display of hate based pandering in my entire life. How in the hell is that anything but a giant step backward for Democrats?
You are on shakey ground, and can not even address the actions of the candidate you wish to promote. You can only talk about Bill Clinton. I am old enough to have voted for Carter, so I know all about Bill, and Hillary, and thus do not ask about them when talking about OBAMA. See?
You seem to think you have somethihng to 'teach' others, but you know, we all keep asking you questins you refuse to address and instead you talk about the past. You are being asked about Obama's antigay propaganda ploys, in this current election cycle. And you are deflecting and avoiding.

[Bluenorthwest]

155. The deflection award for the day, man.

Obama. I agree with you about Bill ok? What the hell about Obama's use of McClurkin and all? How does that fit into your thinking? Obama.

[blm]

158. Obama isn't endorsing McClurkin. McClurkin is a minor peripheral RESULT of 15 yrs of Dems

giving in to the GOP strategy - what part of that is such a mystery to you?

After FIFTEEN FOCKING YEARS of the GOP targeting black churches for political gain using this strategy, you can be damn well certain that it is a reality that a NEW Dem leader will have to deal with.

Obama has NEVER endorsed McClurkin and those of you who want to PRETEND that McClurkin and other effected black churches have been more powerful in their positions than a PRESIDENT Bill Clinton was leading the Dem PARTY halfway down the path of bigotry to MEET the GOP and congratulate them on their working strategy, well, I call horseshit or a complete lack of a sense of proportion.

One would have to be delusional to believe that Obama as a current Dem leader or ANY black church leader has wielded more of the power that marched gay rights backwards the last 15 years more than President Clinton and The Fellowship mission did.

[Bluenorthwest]

161. So Obama HAD to

run out and hire a famous Republican anti-gay operative to be the only speaker and host of a series of Obama events, because of Bill Clinton?

Dude, your problem is that you are talking about Clinton. I am talking about Obama. You are talking about Chruches and times that you know nothing of, as if they were mindless zombies, instead of a diverse and often highly gay inclusive community of Christians. You act as if Bill forced Obama to hire McClurkin who is exactly like all religious blacks because of GOP propaganda. The fact is McClurkin is a Republican, he is part of the nastiest sector of the hate churches, and he is a fully informed speaker of Bush propaganda. Obama picked up a phone and asked Donnie to speak and sing on his behalf. Obama could have picke many other Gospel stars, who would have served as the good Democrats they are. His own church is hight inclusive and supports full equality. You act as if black Christians were mind control victims and that they all hate like Donnie. It just is not true.

Yours is the most evasive set of arguments I have ever seen on a subject that is defined by the evasion of the offending crowd as they attempt to defend the hate speech against their fellow Democrats within a Democratic campaign.

I know exactly what Bill did and did not do. I also know McClurkin was a gay baiting event done with intention, and that is simply wrong. Obama did that, he and his hater pal Dubois. Do you know who that is? Doubt it.
The way you think of African American chruches is narrow.

[blm]

105. BTW - Do you think Dem PARTY should NOT have developed a counter strategy for the GOPs

pursuits and goals?

You are pleased at our Dem leaders' in the 90s inaction in this regard and their years of capitulation to the strategy?

[mondo joe]

109. You'll need to be more specific.

Thank you.

[blm]

115. GOP developed a strategy to target black churches with antigay propaganda and

the Demopcratic party KNEW these churches were being targeted but did nothing to develop a counter strategy to block any headway by these efforts.

Was that a WISE political move for Dem party party to LET the GOP strategy gain ground and then give in as a party LED BY BILL CLINTON to meet them halfway on that ground?

It's usually called giving in without a fight.

[mondo joe]

118. They were pretty well anti gay before any such scheme. They were

targeted BECAUSE they were anti gay.

President Clinton and the Democrats enjoyed broad and strong support from that community, however, so I'm not sure what he was supposed to do - try to getthem to like him more than 90%? Shoot for 92%??

Of course things really took off after a stolen election, so I'm not sure what the Dems were to do at that point.

[Tyo]

5. His own church, the UCC backs marriage equality

But Obama doesn't agree with them on that issue. And it kind of begs the question if he's UCC how come he's always seeking spiritual guidance from the likes of Wright and Meeks instead of from the the clergy of his own church?

Is it possible that Obama's UCC connection is just a cover? An attempt to distance himself for political reasons from those churches that have beliefs and policies with which he actually does agree?

[Tyler Durden]

11. What's worse?

They said of Reagan that either he believed the stories he told that were from the movies were real, or he was lying.

Which is worse? EITHER makes him out of the Reagan/Nixon mold no matter what initial he uses: D or R.

[blm]

20. Yet you support Clintons who LED the surge rightward and did NOTHING to influence

the churches in a progressive way, especially as those black churches were SPECIFICALLY targeted by the GOP and RW propagandists and allowed to go uncountered for so long.

[Tyo]

24. Why is it so hard for Obamazombies to understand

that failure to support their Messiah does not automatically translate into Clinton worship. There is a you're-either-actively-supporting-us-or-you're-with-the-enemy mentality among Obama fans that would be right at home in the Bush White House.

[blm]

25. A zombie - Why is THAT your default reply when someone speaks to the REALITY

of the last 15 years of Clintons' leadership of the Dem party?

We wouldn't be IN this position today if Bushes and Clintons WEREN'T so right at home in the White House TOGETHER.

I suppose you agreed with Bill to deep-six all the outstanding matters in GHWBush's IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA Drugrunning operations, too?

Gee - if you agreed with Bill protecting Poppy and his powerful cronies throughout the 90s on those illegal operations, then you would be right at home in the Bush White House.

Why don't YOU wake up from your deadness and realize that supporting Obama isn't a thoughtless decision, but one borne of DECADES of supporting OPEN GOVERNMENT. Obama isn't ideal on that issue like a Kerry would have been, BUT, he is many miles ahead of Clintons who always sided with protecting the secrecy and privilege of closed government throughout the 90s.

[Tyo]

26. When you're up against questions you can't or would rather

not answer, the fallback position is always that the Clintons did it too and they were worse. Maybe for once we could debate Obama on his own merits?

[blm]

29. No - I clearly said the current REALITY of the discourse is BECAUSE Clinton rolled right

on that issue the last 15 years as the LEADER of the party.

You want to blame Obama as if his position occurred in some vacuum. WHO was the PARTY LEADER who was setting the example on the political approach to take on issues for the last 15 years?

Obama is stuck dealing with the RESULT of Clinton's failures to address these matters in a progressive way FOR FIFTEEN YEARS.

THAT is a reality unfaced by those of you intent on making the issue all about now instead of giving someone new a CHANCE to move the party leftward from where it is today as you let Clinton move the party rightward throughout the 90s and want to see it happen again.

[dsc]

31. Then why has John Lewis, to meniton just one,

managed to support full equality for gays and not get involved with homophobes in his spare time? Was he magically gone during the Clinton years?

[blm]

36. If John Lewis was running a national campaign are you certain NO homophobic ministers

would be in his corner?

And why isn't it important to you that the last 15 years of Clinton's leadership of the Dem party really never countered the POLITICAL MOVE the RW propagandists were making when they worked their propagandist asses off to TRAGET the black churches with antigay agendas purely for political gain?

Shouldn't that have been right up Bill's alley as far as a good use of his 'talent' to persuade?

Why didn't he have the DNC or left groups develop a plan to counter these politically motivated moves of the RW machine?

The TRUTH of why we are where we are TODAY is Clinton's example to other politicians over these years was that they will succeed if they GIVE IN to the bigotry of the RW - just like he did.

[dsc]

37. I am not saying it is unimportant

I am saying that Obama, not Clinton, not Bush, not the bogey man, but Obama is responsible for the fact Obama has a disturbing habit of surrounding himself with homophobic ministers.

[blm]

40. We'll see what he does. The last Dem president sure talked a good game and then rolled over

and actually let the RW go uncountered with their propaganda targeting the very black churches you want to blame now.

Too bad many of us in the party didn't speak out more loudly when it was becoming noticeable in the early 90s as a political move by the GOP.

And I also believe that Clintons both KNEW it was a political move - and agreed to ignore it as Hillary chummied up to those RW manipulators behind the scenes. Which makes it DOUBLY SHAMEFUL that they sought to exploit it for her political future needs, instead of to counter it in a way which benefit mankind and the country.

>>>>>
When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian “cell” whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the antiunion Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat. Clinton’s prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or “the Family”), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to “spiritual war” on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship’s only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has “made a fetish of being invisible,” former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan.

(snip)

The Fellowship’s long-term goal is “a leadership led by God—leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit.” According to the Fellowship’s archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship’s God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular visitor to Coe’s Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing and spiritual guidance.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010937.php

[Tyo]

42. If you would spend more time spelling out for us what

Obama's plans and programs are and less time cataloging the sins of the Clintons we'd be better for it I think. Having good advisors and allies and hoping that a couple of SC justices bite it so they can be replaced with better ones doesn't really constitute a program for change imo.

[blm]

43. We LEARN from the past with the intention of not REPEATING it.

If you don't operate that way, then that's your deal. The Clintons ARE important to this point because their actions leading this party contributed the most to the current POLITICAL reality you wish to pretend just arrived with the emergence of a black candidate.

I trust Obama and those around him with progressive answers to issues and their advancement through an open and transparent government system.

Obama is running against Clinton and McCain. He is more trustworthy on open government issues than either of them, so I expect better results on ALL issues.

[Tyo]

44. I've got the past already.

I'd like to focus a little bit on the future for a change. I thought the future was Obama's strong point.

[blm]

48. It is. And better that next pres is surrounded by progressive advocates of open government than

than the Bushprotecting closed government Democrats who we were stuck with in the 90s.

[Creideiki]

51. And what do we do if Obama follows his much-touted Faith

and nominates anti-civil rights people to the Supreme Court?

Sit around and wait until we're all dead so that someday, someone will get treated equally?

[blm]

58. Looks to me like he has committed to OPEN GOVERNMENT and that is the biggest hurdle on any issue.

Some of you haven't enough grasp of this nation's actual historic record to realize it, yet.

Youthink we'd be debating this issue at all as politically divisive if BushInc had been put in jail after the BCCI report?

Hell, we would probably have had gay marriage and all the fixings by 1996.

[Tyo]

52. Yet the best we can do it talk in vague generalities about

how good his crew is going to be and how we are supposed to trust his judgement regarding the people he surrounds himself with except for when it's a bunch Fundie ex-gay dickwads and homophobe preachers and then we aren't supposed to pay any attention, and how he'll seek out better SC justices than Scalia if the opportunity presents itself.

Does Obama actually have any sort of existence outside of the context of Hillary and Bill? If they disappeared, would Obama just go poof?

[blm]

56. I trust the open government advocates on ALL issues.

I am making a bet on supporting Obama - I'm betting that he is far more likely to respect open government and open debate on ALL issues including gay rights.

I already LOST a huge bet and many of my rights as a citizen when I bet in 1992 that Clinton would respect open government more than BushInc did .

[Tyo]

62. Good feelings, warm fuzzies, and promises of open government,

coming from a candiate with a stated opposition to marriage equality and an affinity for fundie theology. At least you admit you're making a bet. All I know is, I'll be voting against McCain in favor of one of the McCain lights we have on our side. Don't care which one it is. No bets for me, just the knowledge that we don't want a Repubican in the White House and that our civil rights will be ignored in Washington for another four years no matter who gets elected.

[mondo joe]

86. So you're saying you have sort of a history of midjudging candidates and being disappointed

later by your own choices?

Got it.

[blm]

107. Did YOU KNOW Clinton's long history with Bush and Stephens when YOU voted for him?

I didn't. Now I know. Shouldn't we all be able to admit what we DIDN'T know, acknowledge how it hurt this country in the long run, and be wise enough to not repeat those mistakes?

[mondo joe]

110. I have zero regret about my votes for Clinton. He was the best option available,

and nothing since that time has indicated there was a better candidate in either run.

[blm]

120. You didn't know he was going to coverup for and protect BushInc did you?

If I had known, I would have dug in harder for Harkin or Tsongas.

And now that it is clear how BushInc was protected throughout the 90s, why is HRC a better option for ANY citizen who needs open government advocates in the WH to assure EVERY ISSUE gets honest and open debate and deliberation?

You have to believe your rights can exist absent open government. I am pretty certain they do not.

[mondo joe]

122. Again, I have zero regret. Harkin and Tsongas were not the candidate.

Clinton was, and he was by far the best viable candidate in both runs.

[blm]

124. Why? Bush1 would have been impeached - he EXPECTED to be impeached after the release

of the Dec 1992 BCCI report. You think he ran the worst campaign ever ACCIDENTLY? Any Dem could've won the way GHWBush was deliberately flailing.

This country would have been better off in the long run if it had the opportunity to learn far more about what BushInc was actually doing in our name.

Many of them would have been facing jail by the end of 1994 instead of planning their takeover of Capitol Hill and their WH return in 2000.

But Clinton sided with BushInc, just as Jackson Stephens groomed and bankrolled him to do.

[mondo joe]

128. Again: Clinton was the nominee, and the best vote of any in the GE.

You can go back and live in fantasy land if you like, but that is that facxt of the matter.

[blm]

129. In hindsight, NO, IT WASN'T the best vote for this country. No Bush2, no 9-11, no Iraq or Iran war

on the horizon.

You can hide behind what you think was so good about Clinton, but the negatives effected this nation for far longer and far more tragically.

Now we know what that vote in 1993 led to, especially after 9-11 and Bill's book.

Why do you want the protection of BushInc continued into the next decade anyway?

[mondo joe]

130. Who should I have vote for instead? Bush? Dole?

Be specific.

[blm]

132. Not the point. The point was why repeat knowing what occurred? The only time we

HAD control was in the primary of 1992 - where ANY Dem would have won in 92 as Bush was being exposed daily by the headlines coming everyday still from IranContra, Iraqgate and BCCI revelations. Victory didn't DEPEND on Clinton and his skills.

[mondo joe]

133. It's certainly the point in reality. You moan about voting for Clinton - I don't.

In reality he was the best choice of the candidates in the election.

[blm]

138. I don't moan about it - I just know the REALITY of our world would be wholly different

had an open government Democrat been the nominee in 1992, instead of Clinton who was groomed and bankrolled for years to protect BushInc and had his primary campaign UNDERWRITTEN by those who needed him to protect their interests and their freedom.

[Creideiki]

145. It sounds like you're suggesting

that Clinton messed around with Monica so that he would be impeached so that Gore wouldn't want to run on the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency so that Gore wouldn't win in a landslide so that...so that...so that...

Sorry got lost in the layers of paranoia.

[dsc]

27. as usual you miss the person's point

They aren't saying you are right, wrong, or indifferent as to what Clinton did, what they are saying is that simply because they don't support Obama doesn't mean they do support Clinton.

[blm]

32. I understood it. But we got to this point SOMEHOW and Obama and Dems are STUCK

with the reality of what the last 15 years of Clinton leading the party RIGHTWARD, including on gay issues.

And you miss the point when you fail to realize that the ONLY way gay issues will be handled honestly and openly in DC is through the transparency of process we would have with open government.

Clintons have already proven they agree with closed government that protects secrecy and privilege. That closing off of government effects every other issue - EVERY. OTHER. ISSUE.

[dsc]

33. actually I think SCOTUS is our best route

for many of our issues and that is hardly open government. But as I stated below John Lewis, to mention one, managed to support gay rights and stay away from gay bigots.

[blm]

39. And if Lewis was running a NATIONAL CAMPAIGN not one gay bigot would show up

in his corner?

Really?

Would all the black ministers targeted with propaganda the last 15 years suddenly disappear if only Lewis was running for president, or would Lewis be in the same position ANY black candidate or nominee will be in BASED ON how the Dem leadership of the last 15 years never countered the antigay propaganda machine allowed to infiltrate the black churches as a targeted POLITICAL OPERATION?

You can change the names all you want, but the reality of TODAY is because of the last 15 years of failed leadership by the Democratic party.

The Republican party somehow knew to make this an issue in black churches. Why wasn't the Dem party showing any leadership in countering this operation?

[Creideiki]

45. When the "too" gay-friendly supporters are around

Barack won't even allow pictures taken. But with the homophobes, he's hugs, kisses, and smiles.

[blm]

47. and how did it GET to that point in our POLITICAL REALITY? Who let the GOP target

black churches with that antigay propaganda pushed by the RW political groups for POLITICAL GAIN since the early 90s without any efforts coordinated by the Dems to counter the propaganda?

[Creideiki]

60. Probably happened because Clinton attempted a pro-gay move

as one of his first actions as President.

Then the anti-gay Democratic forces stepped up and countered him.

I'm not saying Bill was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he tried and got smacked hard from within his own party.

And as long as the anti-gay Democratic forces remain, of which Barack seems to be fully a part of, there's not going to be any progress.

David Sirota, here in Denver, is fond of saying that we should vote for someone that will not veto progressive legislation from the Right. When it comes to civil rights for gay people, I've got every confidence Barack will veto.

Randi Rhodes is fond of saying that people shouldn't be voting against their own self-interest. Right now, Barack is appearing to be against my own self-interest.

Tell me why I should support Barack? Give me the speech where he's saying that the Democratic party should be looking out for everyone in the country. Tell me where he doesn't say that his Faith says that gay marriage is wrong. Show me where he isn't scattering crumbs and expecting us to lick them up from his feet and then telling us we should be grateful for the crumbs. Explain how his appearance at the Logo debate wasn't about him saying, "Quit asking and maybe we'll get you second-class status...maybe."

I'm irritated as hell. A Democratic Senator from my home state should be absolutely incapable of losing my full support. Somehow, Barack has done that.

[blm]

83. BECAUSE the 'greatest political force in the Dem party' got smacked down and stayed rolled over

while he led the entire Dem party rightward on antigay legislation.

You expect Obama, who hasn't even BECOME president yet, to stand firmer than Bill did with all the power a leader could have AS PRESIDENT but instead rolled over and GAVE IN while LEADING the rest of the party to assuage the right for his entire term and even beyond.

I expect Obama to be further left as president than he is positioning himself now because he doesn't HAVE the luxury of skincolor to be a fiery leftist in this election.

[Bluenorthwest]

151. Hey you are the one that claims to know history

So you should remember that this 'will be more left in office than on the trail' thing was exactly what was said about Clinton, who was also pulling in the youth vote, being new and hip and representing change after years of terrible policy. Did that one work out? And Obama is to be trusted in that regard eventhough he is running to the Right of where Bill was and whle he keeps using anti-gay propagandists to drive wedges using people's religion?
Yours is a mind shut down to believe what you wish to believe, which is fine, you will vote Democratic and that is good. But your decision is based on talking points and emotion and selective vision, not historic memory and knowlege. If it were, you could discuss OBAMA's actions and allainces and you can not, will not, no matter what.
You spout about Bill's 90's inaction in the face of Obama's current negative actions. Obama is actually enganing in that antigay/African American Chruch propaganda, paying for it and gathering up the votes with it. Address that.

[Bluenorthwest]

149. Forget the 90's for a moment

Who is continuing the GOP targeting of churches of all types with antigay propaganda in 2008? I have no wayback machine, I live here and now. Hiring the chief GOP African Amreican hate mongers directly from Bush to campaign with sermons against gay people, by name, at official events is one hell of a long way from 'countering the propaganda', it is in fact deployment of the same propaganda, by the exact same propagandists.
You keep up with the but but Clinton. Even when asked about the actions and alliances of Obama. You talk about 93, here in 2008, and ignore the questions about Obama. I'm a Democrat, looking at a May 20 Primary. The actions of Obama are the proofs of Obama.
I was there in the 90's, and frankly, anyone who is using the 'gay marriage is too much, we must settle for Civil Unions to please the religious nuts' line is using the exact same argument that brought us the compromises of DADT and DOMA, which were compromises, and were better than what we had and what the right wanted. They were incrimintal steps. It was the best we could do. I was there, active, and involved. If you think those two bills were sell out compromises, and yet support 'incrimental' civil unions as does Obama, you are simply a hypocrite and what you think is a grasp of past history is a regurgitation of talking points you have learned by rote. If it were not so, you would have answers about YOUR candidate's actions and alliances, and would not be trying to foist your faith based decision off as some logical deduction. You say you trust Obama but you do not address the direct questions many of us have that lead us to not trust him. If your postition was well thought out, you could talk about Obama, McClurkin and Caldwell and all of that, instead of having the need to ingnore all of that to make your point.
You are asked about Obama, and counter with but Clinton. How will that help me promote Obama if he is the nominee? When people ask about McClurkin? I should say, during the general against McCain, that Clinton was worse than McClurkin so it is ok? Do you understand what the point of discussion about candidates is for those of us who are Democrats, not fanclub memebers?
When I ask about Clinton, the answer can not be Obama, and vice versa. Obama has some problems that you seem unable to even look at. A rational mind does not refuse to deal in facts. But a guy making a gamble does. I assume the rights in question are not your own.

[ronnykmarshall]

65. Like Gavin Newsom.

Obama made it a point he didn't want his picture with Gavin.

I think that was just catty. Obama wants to be purdiest one in pics and Gavin is just TOO hot!

[we can do it]

74. His Church Seems Pretty Much Polar Opposite of My UCC Church

I am skeptical. More shit keeps floating to the surface.

[Bluenorthwest]

147. In fairness

Rev Wright and his church, Trinity UCC, support the GBLT community in our fight for equality, without hesitation. Wright is not antigay, Trinity employs gay people in public positions, welcomes us in the pews and has many times turned out to help fight the good fights right along with us.
My question all along about Obama is why he rejected Trinity's teachings in favor of alliances with such Republican operatives as McClurkin and Caldwell. If he has stood with Trinity on gay issues like he stood with them on the tough rhetoric of Wright, he would currently have my support and in fact devotion.

[Zuiderelle]

13. Curioser and curioser.

And upsetting. The ONLY way he could prove that he is not an anti-gay bigot at this point is to emphatically state that he does not agree with Meeks' views on homosexuality and that HE SUPPORTS EQUALITY for gay Americans on the FEDERAL and STATE levels.

Nothing else at this point will do it for me. He's looking more and more like a panderer and liar with every one of these revelations.

[Tyler Durden]

14. Works for me Comrade.

I'm telling you, if this guy gets elected, I will call him on his failure to support his oath of office every day of the week.

The 14th Amendment has no "buy-out" clause.

[terrya]

21. Meeks IS viruently homophobic

I remember he did all he could to try and block the gay rights bill that finally passed here in Illinois a few years ago.

Meeks does have ties to some really nasty people...Peter LaBarbera's Illinois Family Insititute being the most conspicious. IFI recently tried to put an "advisory" intitiative on the Illinois ballot about a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage here...but there were lots of discrepencies, shall we say, about the names on the petitions.

Tyler, you might post this in GDP. Just a suggestion. I'm curious as to what the most vociferous of Obama's supporters will have to say about this.

Shame on Obama for associating with this bigot. I'm seriously beginning to wonder about Obama and his support for the GLBT community.

[dsc]

22. It is already posted there

and it is 'old news' 'I won't vote for Meeks then' 'Hillary's pastor molested kids' and my personal favorite 'guilt by association'.

[terrya]

23. Naturally, of course, it's heteros who are saying those things.

I know of Meeks. He is a state senator and he is a homophobic creep. There's a civil unions bill in committee in the Illinois legislature...and if it gets out of committee and is scheduled for a full vote, Meeks will be there, with the IFI, to oppose it every step of the way. "Homosexual marriage is a sin", blah, blah, blah.

But as you said...to the people in GDP, it's "get over it", "lighten up", etc, fucking etc.

[Creideiki]

35. Terry, I'm concentrating on Colorado right now

Rather than Illinois any more.

Is the DOMA still in effect? Did you ever hear anything about Barack opposing Illinois' DOMA? Because I never did. Could have missed it, of course, but I never heard anything.

[terrya]

38. I'm not sure, Dinkledog.

Jim Edgar was Governor when he signed Illinois' DOMA. I'm not sure Obama was in the state senate then. I'd have to find out.

Right now, DOMA is still in effect. That's one reason why gay marriage isn't politically possible here. Plus, our Governor, Blagojevich, opposes same-sex marriage and said he would veto any same-sex marriage legislation.

[Creideiki]

41. Great

I always got the feeling that Rod was just pandering to the homophobic Democratic parts of Chicago that he needs to keep for the governorship. I'll keep hoping I was wrong.

[kdpeters]

49. Looks like another case of finding exactly what you are looking for

and the selective outrage that comes along with it.

[Zuiderelle]

53. Selective outrage?

[kdpeters]

54. Selective outrage.

[Zuiderelle]

57. Oh, did you not understand my question?

[kdpeters]

61. If you have something to say, just say it.

Don't play coy. You're an adult; it isn't cute. What the hell are you getting at?

[Zuiderelle]

63. Fine, let me try again. What do you mean by selective outrage?

[kdpeters]

67. I mean you're selecting the events and evidence to react to

Lo and behold, those you select are those to which you respond with outrage. It seems suspiciously like you've already reached your conclusions and you will only consider facts that support what you want to believe and reject everything that counters that. Here is what you said in a post above:

The ONLY way he could prove that he is not an anti-gay bigot at this point is to emphatically state that he does not agree with Meeks' views on homosexuality and that HE SUPPORTS EQUALITY for gay Americans on the FEDERAL and STATE levels.

You're setting a bar that goes waaayyyy beyond proving that he isn't a bigot but about setting a bar so high only for Obama that you don't set for anyone else BUT him. Who else has to pander so totally to you to prove they aren't an anti-gay bigot? So far, it's only been Obama.

I see no reason to set such strident litmus tests for a single solitary person except to enable you to reject all of his positive statements on GLBT issues, his emphatic disagreement with McClurkin, the fact that he has NEVER used McClurkin ever since indicating he learned his lesson, his close association with pro-equality Jeremiah Wright, and his strong support among many queers -- such as myself. All of this you totally reject out of hand yet consider such specious nonsense as the Gavin Newsome photo snub as if that wasn't on par with what nearly every other Democrat, including Barney Frank, was doing at the same time.

That's what I mean by selective outrage.

[Zuiderelle]

70. I can't get past your choice of words like "strident" and "specious"

But I will answer that I expect honesty from anyone who expects my vote. His refusal to pose with Gavin is indeed one piece of evidence that put together with McClurkin and Meeks weighs very heavily against him.

Your outrage at our outrage isn't going to make our outrage go away.

[kdpeters]

59. The most obvious answer to your question is his closest spiritual adivsor: Jeremiah Wright.

You must ignore that because it doesn't help you enable your self-fulfilling martyrdom. Does it?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[ronnykmarshall]

66. LOL!!

Koolaid swilling ass!! You said "ass"!!!

[kdpeters]

68. You must have had the same kool-aid enema that I did. We basically agree

on everything except on whether or not go after Obama so much more stridently over the roster of Democratic candidates that more or less take the same stances and consort with similar people.

Which, in fairness, is pretty much the stance of every Dem politician.

Yeah, chovexani. That's my position too. But just because I'm gay doesn't mean I have to buy into the orthodoxy that Obama's is any worse or any less triangulating or pandering than anyone else's. Your avatar speaks for itself that you hold no such strident criteria for Hillary to jump over and that makes your kool-aid swilling ass a hypocritical ass as well. This queer ain't swilling THAT kool-aid, my friend. I live in the real world and see shades of prejudice and bigotry and don't go climbing up on my cross every time I encounter the slightest whiff. Sometimes there are more constructive ways to confront these things than with the requisite outrage that seems to be the only kind of arrow you have available in your quiver.

[foxeyes2]

69. How about me?

I find it deplorable that Senator Obama has as advisors ministers that are so virulently against equality for GLBT Americans. Meeks and McClurkin are not just against us taking our rightful place at the table but they actively work to keep us from getting close enough to the table to see what is being served. There has been a lot of talk about Senator Obama being able to unite the party and the country. Well as long as he continues to give ear to prejudicial people then he should be called out on it. I am an American and I am due the same rights and privileges as everyone else, the same rights as my brothers, the same rights as my neighbors and coworkers, nothing more and certainly nothing less. Seantor Obama seems to think quite differently. Having said that Senator Clinton is nowhere close to being where she should be on gay rights. She should be supporting full participatiuon at the table as well. The one difference that I see is that Senator Clinton does not have as far as I know homophobic ministers as her advisors. Now I could be wrong of course.
I am not happy with either choice for the nomination and whoever it is come November I will pull the lever but I will do so with a heavy heart and a sad spirit. We, you, me and the rest of GLBT America deserve better, we deserve equality. That is our birthright.

[kdpeters]

78. Now that's an argument I find reasonable and accessible

And I think many people who also don't see it the same way could read what you wrote and understand where you're coming from. I see it differently, but most definitely see your point and agree with most of what you say.

The one difference that I see is that Senator Clinton does not have as far as I know homophobic ministers as her advisors.

This one sentence may be all that exists to our disagreement here and it really isn't a whole lot. In the overall picture considering everything, you've decided that this difference between Clinton and Obama is quite significant; I've decided it isn't. I see the two candidates (three if I were to include my first choice, John Edwards) as virtually indistinguishable on our issues. Also significant to me is the difference between Bill Clinton's words and actions and how similar Hillary Clinton's words lead me to believe her actions will be similarly disappointing.

I'd never call Clinton a homophobe while ignoring Obama's problematic actions in the same regard. That's the kind of treatment Obama gets from a lot of people and that's about 90% of my gripe here. So may of the reactions are so reactionary. I've seen a lot of what I call "playing the gay card", a lot of double standards, and a lot of unfair accusations toward people. Responses like yours make it clear that it really is about the issue and not about the candidate.

[ccharles000]

71. ...

:puke:

[MethuenProgressive]

72. Obama made a choice - anti-gays have more $$ than gays. So he went for the anti-gay voters.

Homophobia is a choice.

[SarahB]

73. Just wondering if you'll continue to post in this forum if Hillary becomes the nominee?

Or are you, as a heterosexual male, hiding behind this board because it's easy to get more "yeah, right on" responses as a Clinton supporter?

Frankly, as a recently out, bisexual woman married to a man, I'm sure there's plenty of people who don't think I belong here either. Still though, have you done any soul searching here as to why the sudden increase in posting on this forum in the last few months? Did GLBT issues mean this much to you prior to a few months ago? Seriously, I'm not much of an antagonist (as I think DU is often far too guilty of doing the work FOR Republicans and it frustrates the shit out of me), but I do wonder as to your motives.

[LostinVA]

75. Tyler is a friend of mine and I'm pretty damn positive he will

[SarahB]

82. I hope so.

Unlike many people on DU, I probably have 15 minutes a day (if I'm lucky) to read various forums of interest to me (even less to post). If I'm mistaken (and I truly hope I am as it would be pretty sad if someone posts on a forum of no interest just because they're more likely to find people more agreeable to their point of view), I fully wish him the best.

[Tyo]

79. Tyler has been supporting us for a long time

probably since well before you decided to come out. His criticisms of Obama are spot on and clearly resonate with people here if the amount of agreement he gets from the regulars is any indication.

Of course you are welcome here, but I don't think it's right to jump in by criticizing someone who has eloquently stood up for us not only on DU but elsewhere as well.

[SarahB]

84. Um,

when I began to be open with the people I am close to in my life has no bearing on any "official coming out" on DU. I'm not sure if my opinions do either. I wasn't aware one needed to have the approval of others in terms of when my "DU coming out time period" gives me the right to a question either. I have had the experience of people stalking me and butting in to my personal life far too much on this site over the years, so I choose to keep my private life pretty damned private (plus my husband posts here and being married to a bisexual woman can bring in a lot of frat boy, stupid questions from others that we both feel is no one's business but ours). We have friends outside DU we discuss our personal life with far more. Life does exist for many beyond this site.

I know how this place works and I also know that those who post more frequently will be closely defended and those who don't (like myself, who has at other times been a very active member of this community for 4-5 years) will be questioned as to motivation as if we are somehow less entitled to our opinion because we are living extremely full, busy lives. I fully expected that in my original reply. I'm just asking some questions for the OP to consider himself. I'm nothing if not a person who can see many sides to issues and keep an open mind.

It seems like there's a consistent pattern on DU. A question infers attack. Attack = Defense. Defense = one party is automatically wrong. It's not about right or wrong. It's about dialog and thought. I seemed to see a pattern. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps motivations are entirely about nothing more than support. I just hope that support does continue.

[Tyler Durden]

91. I understand anyone's suspicions.

I'd always been close to a lot of the GLBT posters on the other pages; but I've been involved with the community since 1971. I came over here because I saw the encroaching homophobia (and other forms of bigotry that parallel homophobia), the most disgusting to me being the "get over it, there are more important issues than your sex life" passive/aggressive form. As I heard more and more of it over on the other pages, I came over here. Call it my Adult Asperger's Syndrome limited attention span if you will: I fought in GD/GD-P and my physiological/psychological tunnel vision kept me there. Also, on the few times I thought I'd like very much to come over here, I didn't want to intrude if the area was felt to be a haven; I can respect my friends desires for privacy within their group as I can express solidarity, but as a heterosexual person I can't be gay anymore than I can be black or 16 again. I am glad I was welcomed, and I should have known better as the community has always welcomed me with open arms.

Clinton supporter? Only in a process of elimination, and a certain desire to see a woman in the office. I was solid for Gore, a conviction born out by his unqualified support for the community.

The issues that capture my passion are few, but one stands out; the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is an example of what rights should be: Equal, and Unequivocal. This is the one pillar that civilization must stand on: Equal Treatment Under The Law. I have watch friends and loved ones abused and have watched them die of HIV because they were members of the last minority group that the bigots of the world feel it is OK to discriminate against, and I am sick and tired of it. There never was any excuse; societal, ethnic, religious or otherwise for the disgusting bigotry the GLBT community has experienced, and to see it not only in any political candidate, but in the presumed leading candidate's entourage of advisors IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is a horror I had hoped to never see again in my lifetime. I WILL NOT SUPPORT a candidate who tolerates this. Bill Clinton and the DOMA/DADT debate pales beyond this as DOMA was a dodge to prevent the Republican dominated congress from starting up their perverted "Marriage Amendment" to the Constitution. DADT fit in the same mold. They were shameful in their pretense; whether or not they were necessary to short circuit the bigots in congress will be a question for history. This said, Senator Obama has shown his willingness to sacrifice the rights of people I hold as friends: I cannot accept him as a president any more than I could vote for McCain.

I hope this clears up some questions? Thanks again to the forum for the acceptance you've shown your token old, white, straight guy.

[kenfrequed]

76. hold the phone.

you intro with this line


"Does this guy have ANY non-homophobic Religious Supporters???"

And then you bring up reverend Jeremiah Wright, who is not homophobic, and the scandal about him has NOTHING to do with homophobia. Whatever this Meeks persons idiocy, or Obama's not being adequately distant from said idiocy, it has absolutely nothing to do with Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

This article is a hit piece, and not a very well researched one.

[Tyler Durden]

92. I seem to remember talking about Obama on this thread, not Wright.

Although Wright's attitudes have not exactly been anti-GLBT, I would say they are bigoted, and bigots of any stripe are not on my list.

[kenfrequed]

142. Uhm no.

You find me actual evidence of bigotry on Wrights part. I could care less about Obama. I listened to the entire "controversial" sermon that Wright delivered and there was nothing bigoted about it.

Unless of course you call criticizing your own country for its ills inherantly bigoted. And I truely doubt that you do.

[MuseRider]

85. Tyler, another good find.

I was beginning to worry about you since I had not seen you around much lately!!

Well, I did not like BO from the start with all the religious talk and it has just gotten worse from then till now. I am not surprised by this. I cannot personally trust that someone who hangs like this and says that he believes in leaving GLBT citizens in an unequal position will do better than that. His actions are different than what he says. I have begun to suspect him and worry about what his real motives are. Now I do tend to be skittish about people who use religious leaders as frequently as BO does. I am not getting any less uncomfortable (and that is being polite) with him, or HC. I guess I am going to have to write in DK :) as I can't vote for someone, anyone who refuses to stand up and loudly proclaim that our constitution is more important than allowing prejudice to continue.

I give the hell up. Not on my work on these issues but on the party. I gave up enough to quit it but I still had some hope that there would be enough courage left to bring it back to something more recognizable. One would have thought that the results of the last election would have given them at least enough courage to stand for something that approached liberalism. :shrug: Damn pitiful and now we have these 3 lovely people to choose from. Ick.

[Tyler Durden]

94. I took the "Week Off Boycott."

Really set my tension level a lot lower.

[MuseRider]

98. Good for you.

Sometimes you just have to do that. I have been so busy that my participation has been off and on, that always helps too. Spring is coming on here and the farm needs much work and my gardens need to be started (new place, no garden. Lots of room but lots of stumps and rocks....).

Mostly Tyler, like I said above, I have given up on the national political scene. I am not interested or engaged unless something like this, your post, comes up about something I care about deeply. I don't care who they are or what party they are in, it is wrong. For me it is issues only and rarely do I see a policy that I think is good or even progressive coming from any of them so I am mostly out of it. Now if my husband was not reluctantly supporting Obama I would probably feel much better. For some reason he thinks my disgust is because I secretly support Clinton because she is female. What? LOL, what a world.

[TechBear_Seattle]

88. The trend is obvious: Obama dislikes gay people

Most of his spiritual mentors and role-models are active enemies of the GLBT community. He himself has gone on record -- repeatedly -- stating his opposition to equal marriage.

This is as clear as day to everyone except the Obama devotees.

[mitchtv]

90. I hope that Obama......

( fill the blank with all your most fervant hopes and desires)

[Tyler Durden]

93. Hope in one hand....

...shit in the other.

See which one fills up first.

To quote Shakespeare: (HAMLET, act 3 scene 3)

KING CLAUDIUS

My words fly up, my thoughts remain below:
Words without thoughts never to heaven go.

[xchrom]

153. all i needed was donnie and gospellettes -- people forget that there

were 4 anti-gay acts all together stumping for obama in sc -- now we see a longer term pattern emerging that suggests more than just pandering.

and btw -- donnie and meeks and the othes are THREATS -- real threats to lgbtq folk.

this like other events is more of the baseball bat hidden behind the back while smiling and offering 'hope and change'.