Skip to main content

View Diary: Mark Sanford, heroic defender of marriage (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yeah, not to be *too* cynical (0+ / 0-)

    but I was recently trying to look up information on his apology for DOMA and typed into google something like "Bill Clinton apology  for  .. "

    and the auto fill in feature gave me several juicy options including Rwanda, Tuskegee, and the semen stained dress thing.

    IOW, once an issue is far beyond the point of being ameliorated in any meaningful way, you can be sure that Bill will be there with a genuine, heartfelt "I feel your pain" apology!

    •  What year do you live in? (0+ / 0-)

      Are you still stinging over Nader? Politics of the 90s were different than those of today. A lot of smart liberals said stupid things about a bunch of issues that worked out to favor liberals in the end. Clinton's first acts in office included fighting discrimination against gays in the military. His opponents made "gays in the military" a mantra, it took over all reporting of planned initiatives, and eventually the horrendous compromise of DADT resulted. From "gays in the military" the GOP was able to begin to sew the seeds that formed their taking of the House. There was nothing to be gained politically for any national politician to come out in favor of gay marriage until WELL after the Prop 8 fight played out. The worst Clinton and Obama can be blamed for is pragmatism. If Obama had come out for gay marriage as a candidate in 2008 we could very well have ended up with President McCain, for all you know.

      •  I don't live in any particular year (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MPociask, jnww

        I just call them like I see them, no matter what the year is.

        For example, I lived Buttfuckville USA back in the 1960s and wasn't shy about standing up against gay (and religious) bigotry.

        Sure, if I had run for election, I probably would have received about 1 or 2% of the vote.

        But whatever, that is less important to me than not being a total sellout.

        And voila, 40 years later, who'd ever have thunk that I turned out to be on the right (i.e., "correct") side of history?

        •  1% to 2% (0+ / 0-)

          which pretty well describes the margin Nader took from Gore, thus giving us Bush. See sometimes purity in favor of pragmatism leads to real world consequences.

          •  That is a red herring,or what ever the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MPociask, jnww

            relevant logistical fallacy is (I'm not very good at keeping those straight).

            The bottom line is that Nader got something like 70,000 votes total in Florida in the year 200 election.

            At the same time, 200,000 Democrats voted for George W Bush.

            So, puzzle me this -what was the problem here?

            Nader's minor poaching of votes from both sides??

            Or Gore's inability to hold on to "reliable" Democratic voters???

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site