Miers hearts gays

Or at the very least, she doesn't hate them. I wonder what Dobson has to say about that.

As reported by AMERICAblog:

I just received a document from the Human Rights Campaign that appears to be a "gay rights" questionnaire Harriet Miers filled out in 1989 when she was running for Dallas city council. (HRC says they got the document from a trusted source and thus believe it to be authentic.)

There are few interesting things about this questionnaire:

1. The questionnaire is from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas.

2. Miers seems supportive of increased AIDS funding, which isn't a small deal in 1989, especially in a more conservative place with Texas.

3. Miers says she believes gays should have the same civil rights as straights. Again, perhaps no big shocker today, but this was 1989 in Texas.

4. At the end of the questionnaire, Miers says she is NOT seeking the endorsement of the gay rights group.

5. But then why did Miers fill out their questionnaire in the first place? Would a true conservative family-values candidate fill out a candidate questionnaire from a gay rights group TODAY, let alone in 1989 and in Texas to boot?

(Click on image to enlarge)

A PDF of the full questionnaire, with Miers' signature, is here.

•  Wow

  Holy shit man. A non-bigot on the Supreme Court?

  Of course, like Arnold i'm sure she would sell gays out at the drop of a hat for political gain.

  by Disgusted on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:33:28 PM PDT

  •  I am surprised that she would even have to

    think about it.

    by bruh1 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:34:03 PM PDT

    •  If you look at the whole document

      I think you would see that this isn't exactly true.  In fact, the two questions after that one show that she was not in favor of repealing the "sodomy criminalization" statutes.  I think I'm reading the questionnaire correctly, but I'll look again.

      by taylormattd on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:43:39 PM PDT

      •  You are reading that correctly

        This is a very mixed bag of a questionaire.

        by Geotpf on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:38:27 PM PDT

        •  She's a 'mixed bag' of a person too....

          I don't think she's going to be anything BUT conservative..... all day long, all I've been hearing from Republican 'talking heads' is 'trust us, she'll satisfy you'... in response to the screeching 'special interest groups' that want to see someone more dramatically conservative.
          Yet all I keep hearing and seeing from Democratic perspectives is close to a 'yay she's a woman, and not THAT conservative' and now THIS??  She 'hearts' gays???  Why do I have the urge to scream 'RUN, its a traaaaaaaap!!!!' like someone from a low-budget horror flick??
          I don't trust her farther than Dick Cheney could throw her.... (and I'm assuming that's not far, considering I don't see the potential for alot of upper body strength there) ;)

          by hopefulcanadian on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:22:12 PM PDT

          •  she's anti-gay

            She worked with Exodus Ministries, the group that believes gays can be 'cured' through jesus christ.  

            That is all the evidence you need to realize she is anti-gay.

            by ra739 on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 09:33:38 AM PDT

  •  Uhhhhh...

    There is no political gain on the Supreme Court.  That's the "supreme" part of it.

    by MatthewBrown on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:41:40 PM PDT

  •  I'm sure the strategy is to hand us

    a social moderate who is a fascist corporate whore.

    by Anaxamander on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:24 PM PDT

    •  See Huff Po.

      David Sirota and Jonah Peretti both drop some heavy smack on Harriet.

      Huff Po

      See some of the comments under Peretti's column!  Huff Po con lurkers are going ballistic!

      by boilerman10 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:49:24 PM PDT

  •  Operative term: "used to be"

    Remember, Miers "used to be" a Democrat. She no longer is. So maybe she "used to be OK" with gay folks, and now no longer is?

    by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:52:36 PM PDT

    •  interesting question

      Outside of so-called "ex-gay" movment, I'm not familiar with many people who've gone backwards on gay rights issues. But it certainly seems possible.

      Even so, Miers' political background (such as contributing to Lloyd Bentsen's final re-election campaign in the Senate) suggests that she was a center-right Tory Democrat, who still had a strong grip on Texas politics at the time. My guess is that her political beliefs have changed only slightly between 1989 and today.

      by pine on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:58:47 PM PDT

      •  Lloyd Bentsen was a Texan

        Don't forget...so there may have been more at work than agreement with his political philosophy.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:01:16 PM PDT

      •  She's a recent convert to

        evangelical Christianity, correct?  Would that cause her to go backwards on gay rights issues?  Probably a lot of issues I would think.

        by HariSeldon on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:09:02 PM PDT

        •  Didn't her pastor say she came to his church in 80

          She was working against abortion in '92, so any shift to the right was not recent. I think she's just an opportunist.

          by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:14:10 PM PDT

        •  being evangelical doesn't make one

          anti democratic- i know a plenty of evangelicals so i am not exactly sure why people here keep harping on her faith

          by bruh1 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:33:48 PM PDT

          •  Is that like

            ..."some of my best friends are gay, so obviously I'm not a homophobe!"

            by PerfectStormer on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:52:04 PM PDT

      •  She was a homophobe on the Dallas City Council

        Regardless of what she said when she filled out that survey, she was quite anti-gay when she was actually on the Dallas City Council.

        It's been thirteen years so I can't remember specific votes, but she voted with the homophobes consistently from my recollection. There were at least a couple of gay issues that came before the council (one was a proposal to repeal a prohibition on hiring gay people for the police department) and she voted the wrong way each time.

        So don't believe the efforts to make her look gay friendly based on this old survey -- as soon as she got into office, she quickly changed her stripes. And I don't know what she has said on gay issues since leaving the city council, but I sure as hell wouldn't trust anything she says...

        by TexasTom on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:20:17 PM PDT

        •  thanks for the info

          by pine on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:25:05 PM PDT

    •  I doubt that.

      Thats one of those morality issues that is formed in early adulthood, and rarely changes for the worse. In other words, its much more likely that she was once a bigot and now isnt, as opposed to the reverse.

      My thinking is based solely on my own experiences with various humans. Havent known anyone, or heard of anyone who grew less tolerant with age.

      by ablington on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:03:11 PM PDT

      •  Norma McCorvey

        aka Jane Roe (v. Wade)
        After years of the wingers stalking and preaching at her she succumbed and "saw the error of her ways." Tried to have her own case overturned to no avail.

        by RevDeb on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:26:36 PM PDT

        •  Touche.

          Good example. Well, forget what I said. STILL...I think thats not the norm, and she had extraordinary circumstances.

          by ablington on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:33:09 PM PDT

      •  Remember the saying?

        What's the definition of a conservative? A liberal that's been mugged.

        Anyway, who knows what secrets are lurking in these stealth candidates?

        by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:42:01 PM PDT

        •  Ugh.

          I wish she were Borkier.

          by ablington on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:22:07 PM PDT

  •  This is not necessarily true!

    According to someone working on her city council campaign:

    Re: miers
    Another insight into Harriet Miers from Lorlee Bartos:
    I ran Harriet's campaign for that 2 year term on the City Council.
    I had my own crisis of conscience half way through the campaign when I found out that though she had been pro-choice in her youth -- she had had some sort of born again experience and is on the extreme end of anti-choice. Also, she was at that time, very uncomfortable with rights for gay people.

    To her credit, she was at least honest with me about those issues.

    posted by jim mitchell @ Oct 3, 1:40 PM

    
    From the Dallas Morning News editorial board blog:  Link  (sorry, you cannot link to an individual post. just scroll down to find)
    

    by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:05:30 PM PDT

•  Question: How long before the far right

  begins a smear campaign if all of this is true? And, another question - will we play the political cards right if they do? Namely that if she really is a moderate- will we say "see the Republicans can't handle a moderate justice on the court"

  by bruh1 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:33:37 PM PDT

  •  Helping A Stealth Candidate Appear More...

    moderate? Are we sure we want to do this? If we realize that Bush has kept his promise to put  Scalia/Thomas strict constructionist candidates on the court haven't we dug ourselves a hole by wishfully thinking that Bush has "thrown the social conservatives overboard"? Some contradictory evidence:
    Link
    

    On abortion, Nathan Hecht, a Texas Supreme Court justice and a close friend of Miers, told World Magazine editor in chief Marvin Olasky "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians."

    Hecht also told Olasky, according to an entry at www.worldmagblog.com, Miers is "an originalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible" and the Constitution.

    Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church, a conservative church in Dallas, for more than 25 years. A former pastor, Ron Key, told Olasky, "Our church is strong for life, but Harriet and I have not had any conversations on that."

    When Miers was president of the Texas bar in 1993, she led an effort to convince the American Bar Association to return to a neutral position on abortion, according to the Associated Press. Texas lawyers, including Miers, proposed the ABA hold a referendum on its stance regarding the 1973 Roe v. Wade opinion legalizing abortion, but the lawyers' organization rejected it, AP reported. The ABA still favors the Roe decision

    
    link
    

    In 1989, the same-year she was elected to a seat on the Dallas City Council, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers gave $150 to the pro-life organization Texans for Life, a group that favors ending legalized abortion.

    The donation was enough to earn Miers a spot in the "bronze level" of contributors for that year, as well to place her name on the program at the group's annual banquet. At the time the organization was known as Texans United for Life.
    

    by HL Mungo on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:59 PM PDT

    •  what has any of that got to do with my question?

      i am not asking you what we think- i am asking what will happen with the right wingers if they decide she's not conservative enough

      by bruh1 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:32:20 PM PDT

      •  Conservatives Will Not Rebel...

        because she IS a social conservative. Somehow we have to come to think that a stealth strict constructionist is a great victory because they are not a Bork like in your face strict constructionist. Forgive me if I don't toast to this great victory. The wishful thinking that is going on around here is amazing. It is an imagined victory that is only serving to make her appear more moderate than she is.

        by HL Mungo on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:01:15 PM PDT

        •  actually i have come to think i dont know

          what she will do.

          by bruh1 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:59:48 PM PDT

  •  read more closely

    uh, she's not so gay-friendly after all.  view the full pdf with all her answers to the questionnaire.  miers supported anti-sodomy laws and declined to support anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation or HIV status.  note at the end of the pdf the notes someone took, presumably on her speech during the "candidate screening" event miers attended.  she said, "my personal conviction is not consistent with the homosexual lifestyle," and she referred to being gay as a "behavior."  both these remarks show clear hostility to gay people.  i can only suppose that praising this woman as pro-gay is a psychological exercise in denial of the uncomfortable fact that she is not at all gay-friendly.

    by aleather on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:56:45 PM PDT

    •  link to pdf here

      http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/miersquest.pdf

      by aleather on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:59:44 PM PDT

    •  But she met with gays and

      she appointed some to jobs, or something to that effect.

      I doubt she is very supportive of gays, although most people in both parties talked that way in 1989.

      I don't think most people here believe she is gay friendly. They're saying she is because they think that will make the GOP dump her.

      by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:00:52 PM PDT

      •  I came of age after 89 as a gay guy

        so I am a bit surprised after all that I heard of the time to hear that it was receptive to gays

        by bruh1 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:31:13 PM PDT

        •  It wasn't

          not as far as I know. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

          by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:40:29 PM PDT

          •  and this is why i have a problem with some

            of the hyperbole i am reading. people are reacting knee jerk. i would like to hear something more substantive in a diary or two from people just to have some idea of who this woman is.

            by bruh1 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:54:00 PM PDT

            •  here:

              According to someone working on her city council campaign:

              Re: miers
              Another insight into Harriet Miers from Lorlee Bartos:

              
              I ran Harriet's campaign for that 2 year term on the City Council.
              I had my own crisis of conscience half way through the campaign when I found out that though she had been pro-choice in her youth -- she had had some sort of born again experience and is on the extreme end of anti-choice. Also, she was at that time, very uncomfortable with rights for gay people.

              To her credit, she was at least honest with me about those issues.

              posted by jim mitchell @ Oct 3, 1:40 PM

              From the Dallas Morning News editorial board blog: LINK (sorry, you cannot link to an individual post. just scroll down to find)
              

              by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:12:41 PM PDT

              •  I read the post- but

                one post is not enough for me. I want a complete picture of what that means judicially

                by bruh1 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:29:47 PM PDT

      •  NOT "most people in both parties"

         in TEXAS, which was rabidly homophobic then. People are creating "good will" from her out of whole cloth. Her own campaign manager from the 1989 council run says she had had a "born again experience", was at the far far end of anti-choice sentiment, and was not happy about "rights" (not equal rights, not civil rights, but RIGHTS AT ALL) of gay people.

        by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:10:14 PM PDT

        •  Did she have that after 1989?

          The information I've read said it was earlier in the 80's.

          I have no expectations that she will support gay rights. But that she met with gays and hired a gay man in 1989 does seem like it's fairly notable.

          by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:34:25 PM PDT

          •  Met with gays

            and specifically did not seek their endorsement.  She voted against allowed lesbians to serve on the police force (said they were criminals), and did not support "gay rights" in any way during her term in office.

            That she appointed a FELLOW ATTORNEY who happened to be gay to an UNPAID city board is not "hiring a gay man", it was filling a spot where it is difficult to find competent volunteers because of the time involved.

            by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:46:51 PM PDT

            •  Basically the same thing

              She could have appointed an incompetent person solely because they were straight. She didn't do that. She could have refused to meet with the gay organization. She didn't.

              Am I saying that she is going to be gay-friendly? No. I've said over and over in this thread that I know she will vote against gays. But I can't minimize that she did these things, especially considering it was Dallas in 1989.

              by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:30:08 PM PDT

•  Good for her

  More judges who believe in civil rights, please.

  I don't know what percentage of Republican voters actually get upset by this sort of thing, but if they do, too bad for them.

  by Steve M on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:34:06 PM PDT

  •  She did NOT believe in civil rights,

    she specifically did NOT want the endorsement of the gay and lesbian political group and she voted against allowing the hiring of gays and lesbians on the police force.

    Just how is that "believing in civil rights."  I live in Dallas.

    I cannot believe that people are accepting the positive spin on this woman.

    by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:48:47 PM PDT

    •  Fair enough

      Hey, I'm not from Dallas.  I responded to the diary as it was posted.  I understand what you're saying.

      Take it easy on me! :)

      by Steve M on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:59:55 PM PDT

      •  Hey

        Didn't mean to yell at you!

        But read the whole PDF file. Reads like I remember her.  She didn't want people to <g>know </g>she met with "the gay group."  The gay man she appointed to a city board - an unpaid position for which it is difficult to find qualified volunteers - was a fellow lawyer who happened to be gay. Proves nothing. Again, it is all about the insider game.

        I think this is an inside draw: Bush knows where she is - weekends at the Crawford ranch and all. She's helping her VERY anti-choice pastor start a new church, splitting off from the current VERY anti-choice evangelical church.

        What is so hard for people to understand about that?  I just don't get it. She's evangelical - so strongly that she would help a lifelong anti-choice favorite pastor START UP a new church.  And there are people out there who have doubt how she feels about abortion?

        LINK
        

        Ron Key, who has been Ms. Miers' pastor since the early 1980s, said his church is anti-abortion. Mr. Key, who recently left Valley View Christian Church to found a new church with Ms. Miers and others, stopped short, however, of saying that those beliefs would color her approach to the law.

        She is a corporate lawyer - literally - and was part of a law firm that was heavily fined for assisting clients in fraud. Fits right in with all the Bush activities so far!

        She is a "Get out of jail FREE" card - insurance for the criminals in the White House! (among other things!)

        by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:29:47 PM PDT

•  Fag Hag in the house!!!!

  Yeah Dr. Dobson! I'm comin' out...I want the world to know...I've got to let it show!!!!

  Uh oh...What has Georgie done now?!

  I think I can hear the sound of heads exploding all the way in Colorado Springs!

  I'm not naive enough to think that this woman is an ally of mine, but it is fun to watch conservatives soil themselves over this choice.

  by chicagochristianleft on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:36:01 PM PDT

  •  fag hag?

    I kinda thought she looked like a lipstick lesbian.

    by joeesha on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:56:16 PM PDT

    •  Well...since you brought it up

      The photo I saw of her beaming at the president showed her with some very racoon-like black eye pencil. It's a fashion tragedy really.

      by chicagochristianleft on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:12:17 PM PDT

•  If this is true

  The uglies will come out on the right...Wow

  by Nes on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:36:04 PM PDT

  •  Kos, you troublemaker!

    Always finding new ways to agitate a wingnut  :-)

    Nice to see.  Maybe she'll turn out to be Souter-in-drag.

    by Torta on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:46:22 PM PDT

    •  This looks like something

      you should talk about on Datalounge.  Or is that site reserved just for hurricanes?  lol

      by HillaryGuy on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:00:30 PM PDT

  •  OMG! Everybody get under cover!

    The wingers are gonna blow!!!

    by Shiborg on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:13:24 PM PDT

•  Right wing blogs SUCK!!

  I tried putting a comment at a right wing blog and it was if anything more right wing then most of the other bloggers. I was testing their tolerance for views off the beaten track. They banned me! I've had this experience before. It seems right wingers don't really understand what freedom means do they?

  by Blutodog on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:36:29 PM PDT

  •  Somehow

    I managed to get banned before I even posted a comment.

    by MasonLee on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:46:11 PM PDT

    •  well look at you

      with your long hair. Damn hippy. It's easy to see you're a trouble-maker from a mile away.

      by AnnArborBlue on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:49:29 PM PDT

      •  You're right

        maybe I should take a shower.

        by MasonLee on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:50:13 PM PDT

    •  Maybe it was your email address:

      [e-mail]

      by Shiborg on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:21:22 PM PDT

  •  Homogeny => Hegemony

    The whole point of the Right is to create and sustain homogeneity in Amurka, so that it's easy to keep "our people" in line and extend the hegemony of money and military might.

    The Left embraces diversity and is saddled by its immense challenges in comparison.

    by peeder on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:46:28 PM PDT

•  Well...

  Note that she said she didn't support the repeal of the Texas sodomy law later overturned in Lawrence.  That's a bit troubling.

  by profmatt on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:36:55 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, I would hardly say she hearts gays

    ...when she considers their private behaviour to be criminal.  Her views may be different now, but I'm certainly not getting the warm fuzzies from that survey.  The issue is more that she may be perceived to be gay-friendly by the right.

    by lilredjeep on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:44:11 PM PDT

    •  I should point out that

      Ann Richards, who is a hero to many progressive people, never opposed the state's sodomy laws either. It just wasn't something that was opposed by  people who wanted to have a career. That's Texas for you, a hate state.

      by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:46:51 PM PDT

    •  As far as the wingnuts are concerned...

      it doesn't matter if she advocates putting gays into ovens. If she once gave a quarter to a homeless AIDS patient on the street, they will accuse her of being insufficiently conservative and soft on "family values."

      by Shiborg on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:29:03 PM PDT

  •  ding! great catch.

    Also, realize that "civil rights" didn't necessarily mean "marriage rights" back then -- could've just meant "do we have to let gays vote?"

    by Adam B on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:45 PM PDT

    •  Back then

      it meant "we won't give them the death penalty for holding hands in public."

      by Cream City on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:48:18 PM PDT

    •  Although you would think that

      any reasonable definition of civil rights, even then, would include the right to engage in private, consensual sexual activity.  Ms. Miers seems to take a narrow view of "civil rights".  

      But even so, I'm tickled pink (so to speak) - this should give the wingers apoplexy.

      by MasonLee on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:48:43 PM PDT

    •  Am I missing something...

      Is everyone on Kos under the delusion that Bush is going to nominate someone who is on the record as supporting gay marriage?  Are we ever going to realize that Bush's nominees are going to be between bad and worse?  The President is not a Democrat!  Maybe we should try to sniff out this nominee, before we attack out of hand.  This may be great for us, who knows?

      by MatthewBrown on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:03:25 PM PDT

      •  well . . .

        . . . it just suggests they may not have vetted absolutely everything.  Who the hell knows.

        by Adam B on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:14:30 PM PDT

        •  Prez and Miers are friends.

          No need for vetting. He probably knows where she stands on everything! She visits him at Camp David, etc.

          They've known each other for years on a personal basis. Don't you think they've had general discussions on all of these topics over the years? A comment here, a joke there, it adds up to knowing who someone is and more importantly HOW they think.

          by auapplemac on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:59:35 PM PDT

      •  Some wingnuts DO think that Bush is..

        ..a "Visionary liberal".  I got this once from a wingnut who called me to discuss something I had written in my local paper.  So, there is some room on the right of Bush.  I think we'll see some of these folks come out off sidelines to bark about how Miers is not conservative enough.

        by Rimaroka on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:53:04 PM PDT

  •  Love the sinner...

    hate the sin.

    Isn't that the mantra of the rabid religious right? The same religious right that works tirelessly to marginalize gays and write discrimination into the Constitution? And isn't it a fact that Miers is a born-again, just like Bush?

    I wouldn't put too much stock in this questionnaire.

    by AZnomad on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:54:55 PM PDT

•  stale

  I'm sure her views have, shall we say, evolved, as she has become a Bushite.  Bush may be the corporatist, but I suspect he has thrown Scalia a social rubber stamp, as long as Bush can also achieve his real agenda.

  by Silverleaf on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:37:09 PM PDT

  •  except

    I read that she was Bush's personal lawyer back as far as 1985, so that would mean she was already a Bushite.
    

    by rioduran on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:41:04 PM PDT

    •  but

      she would have had other clients then, too.  I meant when she joined him politically.

      by Silverleaf on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:46:07 PM PDT

    •  She was still giving $

      to Democratic PACs as late as 1989.  I'm sure her thought has "evolved" toward brownbacking ever since.

      by corvo on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:47:03 PM PDT

      •  Her thoughts are irrelevant

        She could go to every gay wedding in Texas and she would probably still vote anti-gay on the Court. Thomas is not really that anti-gay in his opinions (he opposes sodomy laws) but he still votes that way.

        I just hope that at some point we will have better arguments against GOP SCOTUS nominees than, "GAY GAY GAY GAY".

        by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:56:38 PM PDT

        •  you may have missed

          my drift.  By "evolve," I mean, sarcastically, "seeing the error of her previously less-than-ultra-conservative ways on EVERY issue on which the Prez has a viewpoint".  But not flip-flop, heavens no.

          But we agree, I think, that she will be a rubber stamp, rather than an independent thinker (she has the smarts be able cogently to go up against Roberts and Scalia if she ever differs from them on ANYTHING?  Hahhahhahhahhah.......)

          by Silverleaf on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:02:23 PM PDT

          •  I replied to corvo's comments

            I wasn't disagreeing with you.

            by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:10:48 PM PDT

            •  ah.

              by Silverleaf on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:13:30 PM PDT

    •  But was he a Bushie then?

      He was still a baseball team owner, years away from his first political office.

      by Cream City on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:50:24 PM PDT

  •  I seem to be in the strong minority...

    I think this nomination COULD be great for us.  Loyalists are historically the most apt to flip once they get to the court.  There seems to be a lot of screaming on here for a filibuster and we really don't know that much about her yet, except that she is a loyalist, which I kind of see as a plus, in terms of our chances of sneaking a moderate aboard.  One thing I know for sure is that the President does the nominating, not the minority party, and he will NOT nominate a clearly moderate or liberal judge EVER.  Most of the posts today I have seen are utterly ridiculous in terms of peoples pipedreams of getting someone they "like" nominated or being able to filibuster indefinitely.  I like Reid a hell of a lot so far as minority leader.  I think there was some back door wrangling, and I trust his lead on this so far.  I'm MORE than willing to see where this one goes.      

    by MatthewBrown on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:52:37 PM PDT

    •  I think so too

      Somebody who's spent basically their entire life being a mouthpiece for others and who FINALLY gets to be their own person has a way of doing exactly the opposite of what was expected.

      Kinda like the perfect kids who are raised sooooo strict, and when they get off on their own, do exactly the opposite of what they did when they were home. Because their parents can't stop them.

      If this woman is looking for a surrogate family, the  court could be that. And if that's the case, she'll change drastically once she's there.

      by mmacdDE on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 06:59:58 AM PDT

•  Nothing to see here.

  She may have been using this form to let them know that she would not be particularly adversarial, but that they should not consider her to be an ally, which would rile the conservative base.

  Politically savvy -- invoking apathy in activists on both sides of the aisle.

  by peacemonger on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:38:00 PM PDT

•  She wouldn't fill it out today

  Texas was conservative in '89, and homosexuality was less accepted in general, but homosexuality was NOT a part of politics in '89 the way it is today (and Texas was probably less conservative back then).

  She may have filled it out then, but I'll bet she or most GOPers wouldn't fill it out today.

  by LiberalFromPA on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:38:09 PM PDT

•  Good works, Kos

  I like your style. More like this one, please.

  by TOTO rules on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:39:19 PM PDT

•  I would like to here from those who remember her.

  I live about 30 miles east of Dallas, moved here in 93.  Dallas has changed how they elect the City Council since she was elected, but I do know the canidates are still asked to fill our questionnaires.  There has to be someone out there that remembers her.

  89 is a long time ago though.  She can always say it was a 'youthful' view that has matured like her with the years. Meaning to her equal rights may be special rights and of course she could never support that.  

  Shoot, in 1989 I was still playing straight.

  by edalex on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:40:31 PM PDT

  •  I imagine her time there will be studied extensive

    I imagine that all sorts of liberal and conservative partisans are rapidly searching through her records during her brief time in public office in Dallas. It's one of the few chances that we have to see what her political beliefs are like, in action.

    By the way, I'll do a search on Lexus-Nexus later tonight to see if she comes up in any news articles from the time.

    by pine on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:02:40 PM PDT

  •  1989 was indeed a long time ago.

    Most people's ideas about homosexuality have changed since then.

    Why assume hers got worse? They could have become more enlightened. In private.

    Look, I can't read this woman any better than anyone else, but one trait that seems very probable is that she's someone who will say -- in public and to her boss -- things she does not think in private, simply to get ahead. (I mean, come on -- GWB the most brilliant man she'd ever met? It's what he wanted to hear, so hey, that was her line and she stuck to it. There's no possibility she could actually have believed it.)

    In other words, she's a liar, a flatterer, and a hypocrite. Not the nicest of characteristics.

    However, what happens when a flatterer for gain no longer needs to climb -- because she's already at the top of the ladder and no-one can do anything to her?

    It's anybody's guess.

    by Canadian Reader on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:12:20 PM PDT

    •  Still an evangelical...

      so involved with her church that she's helping the pastor set up another one [http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/100405dnnatabortion.d644831.html LINK}

      I don't know too many evangelicals who are giving GLBT people or pro-choice people a break these days. Evangelism goes directly to the heart of the person. To me, it is a way of being superior and lets you look down on other people for their 'disapproved' behavior.

      Show me an evangelical in favor of equal rights for gays and I will show you someone who's going to be tossed out of their church. Not help start another one.

      by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:49:43 PM PDT

      •  ug

        typo led to long link. it's late. my apologies. I repent. Please not the prayer circle again. I don't want to be healed!

        by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:51:01 PM PDT

•  Hearts gays?

  She was for criminalization of sexual conduct. Read her answers to question 2 for god's sake.

  I'm glad she's not on the record as stating that gays ought to be dragged from the backs of pick-ups and that Texas towns ought to designate an official weekly Fag Bashing night, but lets not get carried away.

  Everytime conservative spokespeople bitch and moan that the president made a compromise choice, they end up always getting what they want.

  Frankly, her position as WH counsel and her closeness to the man submitting her for congressional review (he is NOT hiring her, it's not in his job description) ought to basically disqualify her. The Texas Lottery chicanery don't look too good either. I think it's a tremendously stupid nomination, and I'm sure they haven't vetted her properly. Perhaps they are throwing her to the wolves in order to buy more time to feel the waters and make the pick they really hope will save their skins when they're all being subjected to public grillings.

  by mrblifil on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:40:50 PM PDT

  •  huh?

    Everytime conservative spokespeople bitch and moan that the president made a compromise choice, they end up always getting what they want.

    Yeah, they're ecstatic about Souter.

    by DarthCheney on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:44:47 PM PDT

    •  Souter wasn't sold as a compromise

      He was supposed to be a true believer. Again, the Bush tradition of poor vetting holds true.

      by mrblifil on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:08:58 PM PDT

•  Why am I questioning Cheney pushing her

  on Linbaugh and Hannity shows??  I can't believe he is really excited by this pick!

  Think Progress link on Hannity:

  http://tinyurl.com/bpcxu

  by Phil S 33 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:40:55 PM PDT

  •  Because gay issues

    and civil rights issues and privacy issues are not something he gives a rats ass about. Thats not why he's in charge, never has been. Its the money. Its the oil. That wing of the republican party only helped get him elected. He is not guided by any moral opposition to gay and lesbian issues, not guided by any Christian issues, not guided by any right to life issues. He is guided by money, control of that money and the power it brings. World domination has nothing to do the right's so called "family values".

    by Kane in CA on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:50:39 PM PDT

    •  and

      Mary can attest to that......

      by distributorcap on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:49:22 PM PDT

•  Kos, I'm not sure where you're going with this one

  Are you trying to kill Miers' nomination by scaring conservatives away from her because you yourself don't think she'll be any good?  Or are you trying to pump up the libs to support her because you think that she'll be another Souter?  Either way it seems pretty backhanded.

  by Mike in Chicago on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:41:27 PM PDT

•  she was on the board of Exodus Ministy, Inc.

  Of course she's gay.

  http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2172806_1?&channel=LP

  But the Dobson-Right will rally behind her because she was "cured through prayer," or some bullshit like that.

  by DarthCheney on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:42:22 PM PDT

  •  Wrong Exodus

    The Exodus she was involved with was something about prisoners.

    by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:44:41 PM PDT

    •  thanks for the correction

      Just for my reference, where did you learn this?  Do you have a link?  Thank you.

      by DarthCheney on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:49:53 PM PDT

      •  CNN

        apologized today for exactly this error it also made.  Sorry no link.

        by Cream City on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:51:42 PM PDT

      •  Josh Marshall

        TPM

        by taylormattd on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:51:47 PM PDT

  •  Wrong Exodus Ministries

    See TPM for the story.

    by taylormattd on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:36 PM PDT

  •  Two Exodus Ministries

    There is also a Texas-based Exodus Ministries that helps ex-cons get back on their feet. According to the White House, this is the one Miers was afiiliated with.

    by Beowulf on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:38 PM PDT

•  Maybe she sees gays as a source

  of adoptive parents for all the unborn babies she wants to save?

  by supak on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:42:54 PM PDT

  •  How can she possibly have the qualifications

    She seems never to have worked as a TV reporter. Ever.

    by mrblifil on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:11:07 PM PDT

    •  badumpump

      (;?/)

      by supak on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:57:06 PM PDT

•  ha ha

  It would be nice to see to a liberal senator annouce they're glad to see this evidence that she's progressive on gay rights-- who knows if she is or not , it'd just be fun to see the Freepers blow a collective brain gasket.

  by Beowulf on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:43:43 PM PDT

•  Thom Hartmann

  On AirAmerica now, he's got so much b/g on Miers - It's stunning!

  by UniC on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:05 PM PDT

•  I'm very afraid

  What if...Bush nominates Miers and she's pro choice, etc.....Big Fight, now the Repugs ARE FORCED to vote against this "anti-family-values, baby killer,"  So Bush nominates Gonzales.  The Dems can't vote against family values and baby killing!!

  by Newtown2 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:47 PM PDT

•  I've been hesitant to mention this

  but now might be the time -

  we've all noticed Mr. Bush's propensity to completely screw things up that don't involve winning elections, which he's very good at.

  the war, the economy, his oil company, the Texas Rangers.  It's basically a life-long pattern.

  Is it possible that he's just as incompetent at picking SCt justices to "move the Court to the right" as he is at - say - invading other countries?

  Just a thought . . .

  by mississippi scott on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:50 PM PDT

•  People...

  She was in charge of the committee to pick a nomination... and that committee picked her.

  Let's not get too in love with things just because she opted to tell gay groups, in essence, "I believe in your causes, but won't stand shoulder to shoulder with you to fight for them."

  Are we really going to say that we're happy with a person with no judicial experience being nominated for the Supreme Court just because she's not dumb enough to go on record saying all the Bush talking points that we KNOW she'll be defending as soon as she's on SCOTUS?

  Fight 'em on everything. That's how they got where they are.

  by HollywoodOz on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:54 PM PDT

  •  Are you being sarcastic?

    I really doubt that the point of this diary was to say she's a great person for answering a gay questionaire. The point is probably to (as was attempted with Roberts) freak out the wingnuts and make them reject her. It's to exploit their hatred of gays because most people here think that she will be rejected if they think she is too gay-friendly. That's probably also the point of all the people who spent most of today claiming that Miers must be a lesbian.

    It's a variation on the same gay-baiting that Republicans do.

    by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:51:57 PM PDT

•  With Rove still out of prison

  I still don't trust any documentary evidence he could be involved in. Or, that anyone he might approve of, would not be a liar, in print or speech.

  by t v d on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:56 PM PDT

  •  Plus

    This is 15+ years ago. She may be reasonable about equal rights (other than women versus men), but that doesn't mean she won't exonerate Bush for any of his myriad crimes against everyone as "president" or Texas governor.

    by t v d on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:49:30 PM PDT

•  Civil rights

  Depends on what the meaning of "civil rights" is. Liberals have a broader view of what they include than conservatives do...

  by jaydfwtx on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:46:31 PM PDT

•  Ha! In 1989 they didn't have PDFs!

  It looks monospaces, but a PDF from 1989 must be a forgery!

  by anonymous coward 8 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:47:43 PM PDT

•  still worried

  according to her boyfriend Hecht (also a judge) described as a "conservative, evangelical,"

  by scarlette on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:48:22 PM PDT

  •  That wasn't Anne Hecht, was it?

    just kiddin'

    by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:44:38 PM PDT

•  Me thinks that

  is become she is one. When I heard some stuff about her today my laydar (lesbian gaydar ;)) went off. Never married, she likes cutting brush with the shrub out on the ranch etc... Smells fishy too me.

  As a gay friend of mine said once, stereotypes become sterotypes because they are right at least 51% of the time. For instance, not all women who were tomboys grow up to be lesbians, but 87% of lesbians were tomboys.

  by PLS on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:48:57 PM PDT

  •  she has a boyfriend

    cross reference her name with Hecht in google (they are both judges, both evangelicals and have been quietly seeing each other for years)

    by scarlette on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:52:32 PM PDT

    •  with never

      a moment of sodomy between them......

      by Silverleaf on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:05:48 PM PDT

      •  nor any other sin....?

        So, why don't they marry? It's the family-oriented, culture of life thing to do this year. What is it that's keeping them from being married?

        There's something hiding under the rug. Something doesn't add up. Something is rotten in Denmark. But she surely is NO friend of gays & lesbians, nor of pro-choice people.

        by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:42:42 PM PDT

  •  Really unwarranted

    This "smells fishy"?  Even if she is lesbian, why is that "smelly" or "fishy"?

    And you have even less evidence than those who "smell" this because she is single at 60 -- showing a lack of knowledge of what many women lawyers of her generation had to do to succeed: never marry.

    And all that said, why in the world does it matter?

    by Cream City on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:54:31 PM PDT

•  Harriet Miers -- her pastor's view

  She has recently been born again, like Bush and has influenced Lauras faith.
  http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/

  I talked yesterday with Miers' pastor, Ron Key, who for 33 years (until a few weeks ago) was pastor of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas. "She started coming to church in 1980. She helped out with kids, made coffee, furnished donuts, served on missions committee. She worked out her faith in practical, behind-the-scenes ways. She doesn't draw attention to herself, she's humble, self-effacing." Key has still seen her in recent years because "her mother is 93. Harriet tries to get home as much as she can." When Key and Miers met in 1980, "I don't know how strong her faith was at that time. She came to a place where she totally committed her life to Jesus. She had gone to church before, but when she came to our church it became more serious to her.... Our church is strong for life, but Harriet and I have not had any conversations on that.... We believe in the biblical approach to marriage."

  by snowbird42 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:49:54 PM PDT

•  it was reported this afternoon

  The NYBlade had this way earlier this afternoon.

  She apparently also met with some gay groups during that time.

  by tvb on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:50:03 PM PDT

  •  She was an at-large candidate

    for Dallas city Council, which has a ridiculously low voter turn out. If you don't pick up a few votes everywhere around the city, you never win an at-large seat. LOTS of people 'met with' THE gay group (not "gay groups") and some of them, like her, thumbed their nose at them.

    Translation of the whole PDF:  "Hello all you sodomites. NO, I do NOT support repeal of the statute that makes you all criminals. NO, I do NOT want your endorsement for the council race."  

    You did read the Whole PDF, right?

    And that makes her somehow more acceptable? how?

    by YucatanMan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:40:11 PM PDT

•  Kos shame on you for this

  while I don't like homosexuality I hate the facts that Kos himself has taken it upon himself to out gays or their sympathizers even when it is in the best inertest of gay right advocates to keep these identities secret as in the case. I am beginning to wonder if Kos is not too emotional and childish. Kos please grow up.

  by houston s best on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:50:05 PM PDT

  •  Huh?

    WTF. That was snark right?

    by RANT on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:54:53 PM PDT

  •  huh?

    What are you talking about?  And you "don't like homosexuality"?

    by taylormattd on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:56:24 PM PDT

  •  And shame on you

    And not, surprisingly, for not liking homosexuality. (Whatever the fuck that means).  But for jumping to conclusions. Nobody has been outed. And in case you hadn't noticed, being a "gay sympathizer" (whatever the fuck that means too) would be a good reason to support her for most people who frequent this site (OK, now I'm jumping to conclusions too, but attack away if i'm wrong on that one). I doubt there are gay rights advocates anywhere that are whispering about this, hoping it remains their little secret.  While I, like a commenter above notes, am uncomfortable with her response to the question about retaining anti-sodomy laws, the issue is not denying her confirmation no matter what, its finding out who the hell she is, so that the Senate can, indeed, fulfill their obligation to advise and consent on the nomination.

    by Kane in CA on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:02:48 PM PDT

  •  Where are you on the subject

    of heterosexuality? Or is that something you've never really considered before?

    by mrblifil on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:12:52 PM PDT

•  Glenn Beck on Meirs

  I heard the Clear Channel Rush wannabe, Glenn Beck repeatedly make the claim that Harriet Meiers was a listed contributor to the Al Gore campaign ($1000!) as well as the Bill Clinton campaign.  

  Seems pretty unlikely but Beck is an idiot. Still it's telling that he doesn't trust Bush to put
  forth a real conservative.

  Anybody heard anything on that subject?

  by AndyS on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:50:29 PM PDT

  •  Gore, yes - in the 1988 primary

    the Clinton bit seems to be an unfounded rumor.

    by MasonLee on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:52:09 PM PDT

    •  That's from a Slate article

      I think they said her mother donated to Clinton in '92.

      by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:07:56 PM PDT

•  Miers is an insult

  This nomination is an insult, a slap in the face.  This woman has ZERO qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. At least John Roberts had argued cases before the Court. As far as I know, she hasn't even done that.  She's clearly a crony, and apparently her law firm has run afoul of the law on at least two occasions, with multi-million dollar penalties, as pointed out in another front page posting.

  So by nominating this woman, Bush is very clearly telling the Democrats this:

  "I think you're a bunch of pussies. You're beaten down and defeated, and even with my approval ratings at an all-time low, even with all my problems with Iraq, even with Delay and Frist being in legal trouble, I can still kick sand in your faces.  I can still bend you democrats over and shove my big Texas cock up your ass, and all you can do about it is squeal like the little piggies you are. So squeal for me, democrats, squeal."

  Sorry if that's a bit graphic, but it's the truth.
  

  by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:50:37 PM PDT

  •  You're right about the message.

    But wrong, I think, about the intended recipients. This is not meant just for Dems, but for anyone who doesn't completely worship him.

    Immature, sure, but a typical narcissist's lashing out in reaction to the withdrawal of sustaining adoration. Bolton's recess appointment was the same thing. "They can't tell me what to do! I'll show them!"

    In the case of Harriet Miers, he may also genuinely believe that because she is one of his people, she is automatically better than anyone who isn't associated with him.

    by Canadian Reader on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:29:24 PM PDT

  •  But

    I'm not sure how it is that Bush is kicking sand in the faces of Democrats if the entire right wing is up in arms about Miers' nomination. I don't disagree that she's a crony and that she has no qualifications other than her being buddy-buddy with Bush, but I think the sand in the faces of Democrats will come when some other SCOTUS justice retires or kicks the bucket.

    John Paul Stevens is 85 and could very easily ride off into the sunset next. Then whoever Bush nominates will make Miers look like William Brennan.

    by firehorse on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:29:47 PM PDT

    •  Same dynamic

      It's actually the same dynamic between Bush and the dems, and Bush and the radical right.  Think of him like a kid, an adolescent, constantly pushing that envelope to see what he can get away with. Profanity? Drinking? Staying out past curfew? Poor grades?

      So Bush is constantly pushing with us, to see if he can get us to rubber stamp his nominees despite their support for torture, despite their inability to spot terrorists despite the PDBs, despite the stonewalling on release of documents, despite the refusal to answer questions.

      And Bush is doing the same with his base -- how far can he push them before they stay home and refuse to vote? How much lip service can he pay to their pet causes?

      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:50:55 PM PDT

•  Don't get too excited.

  The whole questionnaire has bad stuff in it too.

  Miers opposed repeal of the anti-sodomy law.

  Miers opposed anti discrimination legislation, or at least ducked it.

  Support for the "same" civil rights was a poorly framed question, since the pitch from the right is usually that they are opposed to giving gays and lesbians "special" rights, like the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of sexuality.  Now we read a reference to the "same" rights as code for the right to marry.  I don't think that is the way it was read in 1989.

  by Tod on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:51:50 PM PDT

  •  precisely n/t

    by lilredjeep on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:57:00 PM PDT

  •  well, at least at one point in her career,

    she seems not have taken the position that gay people should be put in death camps.  Gotta hand that to her.

    I mean, we are talking a Bush nominee.  

    Has anyone noticed that John Kerry didn't wind up with the most electoral votes last January?

    by DCDemocrat on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:08:57 PM PDT

•  What is it with you people?

  Have you been drinking water out of New Orleans taps again? This is not proof of an expansive gay civil rights record. She simply deigned to answer a questionaire, and didn't even support repeal of the sodomy law later struck down by the Court of which she may soon be a member.

  Has this site been taken over by Harry Reid's staff? I mean, I don't think we should oppose this woman (let's just point out to every lawyer in the country that she has never even been a judge -- that will create its own ripple, and point out to the soccer moms that she is plainly getting picked because she is a friend of the President). But please stop suggesting that this woman has a liberal bone in her body. It just ain't so.

  by Bensdad on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:53:49 PM PDT

  •  Markos isnt making the claim that she

    has an 'expansive gay rights record'. I think his main purpose is to rile up the righties even more. To them, even little hints of compassion are too much, you see.

    by ablington on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:14:49 PM PDT

    •  I see...

      ....and it is his site! But I, for one, think that the right is not really riled up over this selection. She will actually vote the way they want. How could you attach yourself to Bush's hip without catching a brain infection? This is an orchestrated protest by the extreme right to make Bush look centrist.

      by Bensdad on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:12:12 PM PDT

•  In the late 80's

  she was a Democrat.  She contributed $$ to the DNC, the Gore campaign, and to Lloyd Benston's re-election.

  Then she went Republican.

  I think she's clearly an opportunist who swings whichever the wind blows (as long as it's blowing in her favor).

  It will be interesting to see what such an opportunist does when they arrive at the top rung of the ladder with no one left to please but themselves.

  by DoDi on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:56:52 PM PDT

  •  Democrat does not

    translate to pro-gay. Gore in the 80's certainly wasn't gay-friendly. I think he voted for sodomy laws sometime in the 70's or 80's. So while her actions in 1989 have little bearing today, I don't think she was acting on some liberal Democrat pressure.

    by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:05:25 PM PDT

    •  Oh.. I agree completely.

      She was pandering and saying whatever would be to her advantage.

      I don't think she has any actual convictions aside from her own career advancement.

      by DoDi on Mon Oct