Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 6/27 (378 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am exceptionally offended (15+ / 0-)

    at Christie using his veto as a stick to require a ballot initiative.

    It's cruel and demeaning.

    Christie woud prefer, yet again, that gay people like me are subjected to an ad campaign that:

    (1) implies that we are monsters who cannot be trusted around children; and

    (2) that we aren't really part of the community.

    It's been at least ten years since a certain former President made it part of his party's platform to impugn my dignity. And just about every single year since, those view have been put on the ballot in various places.

    Chirstie, like Bush, is insisting that it happen once again, purely to advance his own political prospects. Shame on him.

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:19:36 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Except Christie cannot win on this (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, JBraden, gabjoh, abgin

      The polling on gay marriage in NJ the past year has been so one-sided that Christie can't be helped politically by a referendum campaign at all.

      He is, no doubt, sincerely homophobic.  And he will be not-so-well-remembered because of it.  The stuff like Sandy will be forgotten eventually, that's fleeting.  But where you stood on history-making issues and events is long remembered.

      I do feel for gays having to tolerate the hate messaging these campaigns inevitably bring out.  But winning these referenda is huge for affirmation and a bigger smackdown on the haters than winning legislatively.  So embrace it for what it's worth when the numbers are on our side.

      45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:17:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do not think he's homophobic at all (0+ / 0-)

        He's clearly supported gay candidate and officials in the past and seems to have gay friends, legitimately.

        It is entirely feasible to not have personal animus towards a group while also not supporting policies that are beneficial to that group.

        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

        by wwmiv on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:05:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lets not defend the asshole. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sapelcovits, abgin, MetroGnome, DCCyclone
          •  Hey... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BoswellSupporter

            Every once and awhile it is appropriate to defend someone against unfair attacks. This was an unfair attack and isn't a good characterization of Christie.

            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

            by wwmiv on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:09:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, I think completely is. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              abgin, DCCyclone
              •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                Let me simply point out that if he were actually homophobic that he would never have appointed the first out gay judge to the state high court, nor would he have had such glowing words of praise for him as well.

                He is not homophobic, he simply holds a particular position that puts him at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from the LGBT community on that issue. There are plenty of people who do not support gay marriage, but are fine personally with gay individuals. Christie seems to be one of them.

                23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                by wwmiv on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:16:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  How is supporting discrimination not homophobic? (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sapelcovits, abgin, MetroGnome, DCCyclone
                  •  This is the whole debate in a nutshell (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MetroGnome

                    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

                    by conspiracy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:23:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Because homophobia (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jncca, willisorgeln

                    is a personal animus toward a particular group.

                    Supporting a particular set of policies may sometimes imply that you are prejudiced, such as in the case of voter ID laws, but it can never prove that you are prejudiced. In the instances where there is not proof (statements of personal animus, further evidence, etc.) of personal prejudice, yet there is evidence that they are not prejudiced personally (in this case) then we should be generous. We do not win allies by treating them like enemies.

                    Take this example: say you have a GOP governor who supports voter ID laws, yet this governor had signed into law a state level Dream Act, supports immigration reform generally, has appointed many Hispanic officials, has Hispanic personal friends, and called other GOP officials "heartless" because they believed in self-deportation and other ruthless xenophobic measures.

                    Would we say that this governor simply because he supports a policy position that might harm Hispanic voters (voter ID) is a prejudiced individual? No, we probably would not because the preponderance of evidence here is that they are not prejudiced at all.

                    Similarly to my example above (which, by the way, is Governor Perry of Texas), the preponderance of evidence shows that Chris Christie is probably not homophobic at all, despite the fact that he does not support gay marriage.

                    23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

                    by wwmiv on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:28:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Christie no different than Goldwater... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NMLib, HoosierD42, itskevin, sapelcovits

                  ...voting against the Civil Rights Act.

                  He was sincerely just plain against it.

                  His defenders, including even recently at NRO, try to sugarcoat his record by saying he actually was somehow supportive of civil rights for blacks in some ways locally.

                  But that is simply trying to build a facade.

                  I'm sorry, wwmiv, but you're being a bit naive on this.  Bigotry is complicated, but it's still bigotry even when complicated.  Teddy Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to visit the White House even as he didn't give one whit about civil rights and believed "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."  White Southerners long had what they viewed as close personal relationships with blacks even as they raged against voting rights and in support of segregation.

                  And having gay friends is nothing new or exculpating for homophobes today.  There are lots of homophobes who rationalize having good relationships with gays, often because they have to under given circumstances, even while holding a chauvenistic condescension.

                  45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                  by DCCyclone on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:13:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I would argue (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gabjoh

                    that Teddy Roosevelt inviting Booker T. Washington to the White House wasn't in spite of his feelings on civil rights, but BECAUSE of them.

                    If he wanted to give off the facade of being in favor of civil rights, Washington was the perfect choice.  He certainly wasn't going to invite someone like W.E.B. DuBois.  

                    Inviting someone like Booker T. Washington to the White House sent the message that civil rights should be obtained slowly and gradually, which is what Washington basically argued.

        •  Having gay friends (6+ / 0-)

          And appointing LGBT people to various offices doesn't excuse him denying a group of people something which the SCOTUS has affirmed time and time again is a fundamental right.

          In fact, instead of excusing it, it makes it worse. He wants to deny his friends the right to marry in the state of New Jersey? What kind of asshole does that to his friends?

          25, Practical Progressive Democrat (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

          by HoosierD42 on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 03:19:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Are you kidding? (0+ / 0-)

          Ask any of your gay friends how they feel about this.  I am a gay male, and what you are saying is the equivalent of a politician liking black people and giving them jobs, while simultaneously not supporting anti-lynching legislation.  

          Can you get married tomorrow?  Imagine if you couldn't.  Do you have any idea how completely demoralizing you are?  

          What is your definition of leadership?  Isn't it all about the tough choices so that all people can be allowed their God-given rights of liberty and equality?

          Have you ever taken a tough stand on an issue?  Ever?

      •  He has his eyes on 2016 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen, andgarden, abgin

        Seeing as he already has a rocky relationship with many conservatives it doesn't surprise me that he's trying to curry their favor.

        “Herbert Hoover once ran on the slogan, “Two cars in every garage”. Apparently, the Republican candidate this year is running on the slogan, “Two families in every garage”.” ~Harry Truman 1948

        by lordpet8 on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 12:47:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I find not much to agree with here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCCyclone

        In particular, I disagree with you that this comes from "sincere homophobia" (with all due respect to my friends here who disagree). Rather, as someone else has said, I believe it is largely about Presidential politics.

        If I agree with you about anything, it is that ballot proposition with a decent chance of winning is not always an unacceptable option. However, that does absolutely nothing to change my view of the damage inflicted by such campaigns.

        And, again, respectfully, I think your "feel for" caveat comes across as being a bit tone-deaf. That's probably because, through no fault of yours, you do not have personal experience enabling you to put yourself in my shoes here. There has not been a point in my life where mainstream discourse did not admit individuals with the straightforward view that I am a blight on society by my very existence.  

        Ok, so I read the polls.

        by andgarden on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:10:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site