Gee, Thanks Gov. Napolitano

Janet Napolitano, the Governor of Arizona, is frequently mentioned as VP material but folks who do so should be aware that, like another Arizonan, her national reputation is a little different from her reputation at home.

Here in Arizona, she is considered a "centrist" which means she's quite a bit to the right of what's popular with the national base. She reinforced that image with some comments she made today regarding the odious ban on gay marriage proposal that will once again be a proposition on our ballot.

Yes, after having defeated one such measure in 2006 - the first state to do so for such a proposition - we're faced with fighting it all over again this year. Plus we'll have the disadvantage of competing with our neighbor to the west for funds to fight it.

Last time, the proposition was put on the ballot via the signature gathering method but this time, the Rethug dominated legislature, used procedural tricks to approve it for the ballot in the last minutes of the legislative session.

Well today, while reiterating her opposition to gay marriage she also said she opposed the proposition since there was already a law in effect banning gay marriage. Well, fine, we're used to this mealy-mouth blather from our Dem politicians in reddish states. But then she continued:

It's been referred to the ballot. Voters of Arizona will have a chance to decide this, and that's fair, too.

Janet, I'm sorry, but I frankly don't think it's "fair" to amend the Arizona constitution to enshrine the second class status of a minority via a simple vote by the majority - especially after it's already failed once. This is a homophobe's talking point, not that of a decent Dem. You could have easily omitted this gratuitous swipe at Arizona's GLBT community and their progressive supporters. But no, you had to encourage the haters that what they're proposing is "fair." Gee, thanks. Maybe you and McSame - who starred in an antigay ad last time around - can team up for another ad this time touting the "fairness" of it all. Sheesh, it's frustrating to be a gay Democrat.

•  Tips for surviving as a Desert Dem!

  Thanks!

  by Ian S on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:41:26 PM PDT

  •  Isn't she rumored to be gay herself??

    by soms on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:44:23 PM PDT

    •  yes

      Fair or not, there seem to be persistent rumors about her sexual orientation. If it's true, it must be an extraordinarily stressful thing for her to have to keep secret. The idealist in me wishes that she would just admit it if it's true, but there can be powerful reasons for wanting to stay in the closet.

      I do think Janet is going to have to deal with this issue more directly if she has any aspirations of achieving higher office.

      by pine on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:49:46 PM PDT

    •  The Rethugs here had a whisper campaign

      during her runs for Governor. She's never been married and has no romantic interests but publicly denies she's a lesbian and I accept that as the truth.

      by Ian S on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:51:12 PM PDT

      •  Wouldn't it be awesome

        if she becomes VP and then comes out??
        :)
        One can dream. Right??
        She has an inspirational lifestory. Heard that she came to AZ in a car with a suitcase and nothing else and built her career and life from there on.

        by soms on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:02:22 PM PDT

        •  She came with a law degree

          I'm pretty sure, and proceeded to work at one of the more prestigious law firms in Phoenix at that time.

          by latinadem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:03:59 PM PDT

      •  I accept as true

        What my lesbian friends have whispered to me.

        For a state as red as Arizona, I'm very pleased to have a governor as great as Janet Napolitano.

        by punkdavid on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:02:40 PM PDT

        •  And, what would your lesbian friends be saying?

          Your comment begs the question.  So, she is gay?

          by alliedoc on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:11:53 AM PDT

    •  those rumors

      are so sexist and homophobic. The assumption that any single woman of a certain age who is not married, or who has focused on her career, must therefore be a lesbian, is just so bizarre and really capitulates to the whole Leave it to Beaver ideal.

      If a guy is single in his 40s and not obviously gay, people would celebrate him as a lady's man. It certainly wouldn't act as a barrier to the same extent that a single woman has to deal with.

      by sortalikenathan on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:25:38 PM PDT

      •  I'm not so sure...

        If a guy is single in his 40s and not obviously gay, people would celebrate him as a lady's man.

        That's true if he actually were acting like a "lady's man" but if there's no romance in his life, the same rumors will swirl. Actually, we had just such a situation here in Arizona with our now Attorney-General Goddard - he was dogged by rumors of being gay right up until he married some years ago.

        by Ian S on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:01:34 AM PDT

      •  So true. You forgot "heavy set".

        There are certain biases that seem to be acceptable.  One is certainly single women who are heavy set.  Wow.  That's me except that I am a widow.  I guess I better keep wearing my wedding ring.

        You can be prejudiced against "big boned women" to quote KD Lang, fat people in general, people from West Virginia, the elderly, and even dwarves to some extent.  I add the last one because so many high profile dwarf actors seem to not care when "pimping themselves out" for a buck.

        by alliedoc on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:14:48 AM PDT

•  I don't see that she had much choice

  I agree that the phrasing of Napolitano's statement leaves much to be desired, but I don't see that she had much choice other than to say that she opposes the amendment  but respects the legal process.

  Arizonans defeated the initiative once before, and I suspect that they can do it again.

  by pine on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:47:04 PM PDT

  •  The one negative

    Is that the proposal that was defeated was COMPLETELY over the top, seeking to ban private companies from extending domestic partnership benefits, and all kinds of things that even conservatives found offensive.  They overplayed their hand.  

    The 2008 proposal is not as far-reaching, it just takes rights away from gay people.

    by punkdavid on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:04:54 PM PDT

•  My guess is that Arizonans (and many other

  staters too) may have much more pressing matters - like making ends meet and keeping their home - by the time the proposition is up for a vote.

  by power2truth on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:48:31 PM PDT

  •  Clarification: more pressing matters than going

    out of their way to decide how others should live their lives.

    by power2truth on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:49:40 PM PDT

    •  you'd think

      One would think so, but the Arizona GOP has always had "interesting" priorities.

      In the late 1990s, when Arizona public schools were literally falling apart due to lack of adequate funding, the Republican-controlled legislature was more concerned with discussing ridiculous legislation, like a bill that would ban coed dormitories at state universities or a resolution calling for Arizona to secede from the union if the 2nd amendment were ever overturned.

      Napolitano's ascent to power in the state owed as much  to Republicans being freaking morons as it did to her own resourcefulness as a candidate.

      by pine on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:55:33 PM PDT

      •  True

        this seems to be theme, doesn't it? I guess it's something to be thankful for, that the republicans are so blatently horrible.

        by CS in AZ on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:59:01 PM PDT

      •  Maybe I missed something though. Isn't this for

        the voters to pass, ultimately?

        by power2truth on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:18:25 AM PDT

    •  We're going to have to work to defeat this

      sadly... it's not a done deal but I hope it will be defeated. It would be nice if the gov. was more supportive but I generally like her anyway.

      by CS in AZ on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:57:05 PM PDT

•  It's not homophobic to say it's "fair" to decide

  Constitution issues by popular vote (as CA wingnuts are screeching for), it's ignorant. I'm not sure how you get homophobia from that quote.

  Shirley Schmidt: A Democrat.

  by Jyrinx on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:08:39 PM PDT

  •  "The voters should have the say"

    is a talking point that homophobes use to justify putting antigay initiatives on the ballot. Would it have been "fair" for white folks to push to put segregation on the ballot in the 1950's? Or would it have been racist?

    by Ian S on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:02 PM PDT

•   I had thought she was a good pick...no more

  We don't need that sort of week leadership on the ticket with him.
  If she is rumored to be gay --even  if she isn't---antigay laws would affect her too.  I know straight guys that seem gay to people who get just as much flack
  as gays do and have suffered the same ostracism and discrimination..

  by ganymeade on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:57:17 PM PDT

•  Janet

  Jan is a great governor, and as an Arizonan I am proud of her.
  She has had to drive centrist lane since most of Arizona, except may be Tucson, is insanely Conservative. But I am glad she has managed to figure her way around issues that are more important to Arizona - than spending time either being a liberal or a conservative or a centrist. I am really proud of her.
  Unfortunately for Arizona, we have two of the most reactionary republican thugs as our senators. Hopefully she'll replace McSame in next election.

  I have nothing but utter contempt for the other Senator Kyl. United States Senate probably bows her head in shame that a person like Kyl is a member of hers.

  by saguaro on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:00:14 AM PDT

  •  Flagstaff

    Maybe smaller, but we are hardly insanely conservative

    by vibber419 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:23:00 AM PDT

    •  Stupid question but why is Arizona so

      conservative?  And why is Indiana so much more conservative than the rest of the MidWest?

      by alliedoc on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:17:48 AM PDT

•  I do not support gay marriage.

  That is one of the issues where we are going to disagree and I support Janet on this one.

  by Bo Jangles on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:02:03 AM PDT

  •  Why not?

    Not being a jerk, but just wondering what your reasoning is?

    by vibber419 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:24:03 AM PDT

  •  I repeat what vibber419 said. Why?

    It just seems counter intuitive.  If you saw the picture of the first couple to be married in California, they had been together 50 years, you could not think that?  What does it even hurt?  How does it undermine "the family"?  I just don't get it.

    I can see no other reason than it is just a way to act out prejudices.  Some people doesn't like blacks so don't let them join the fraternity, or golf club or whatever.

    What difference does having gay marriage make to society as a whole?  Improves it?  Strengthens the family?

    by alliedoc on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:22:14 AM PDT

•  post modern bigotry

  if you cannot criminalize the act, then criminalize the idea.

  Marriage was traditionally the leasing of a woman's vagina to a male that is not related to her.

  That is way traditional (primitive) societies still have rituals for safeguarding the virginity of the woman, it is like a car once you take "it" for a ride "it" loses its value. so marriage is an approval of sex.

  the post modern bigots cannot ban the act so they are trying to ban the approval (the idea).

  a gay family is per definition legalized homo-sex a social acceptance of the act.

  by akhinaten on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:10:15 AM PDT

•  Yeah, it is disappointing, although

  not surprising.  In 2004, when Brian Schweitzer was running for gov here in Montana, he not only endorsed the reprehensible anti-same sex marriage measure on the ballot, but he (totally unecessarily) came out against civil unions.

  I voted for Schweitzer, and I'll vote for him again.  But after the 2004 election, before he took office, I ran into him in a small shop in Missoula.  I congratulated him on his election, affirmed my vote for him, and expressed my dismay over his response not only to that hideous marriage law, but also regarding civil unions.

  Beaming at me, he said it was our job to eradicate homophobia and then he'd be on board.

  Realpolitik, I guess.  

  Ugh.  

  by RadioGirl on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:23:21 AM PDT

  •  Schweitzer for VP - NOT.

    Another "centrist" who should not be Obama's VP.  I understand that in Montana, you should be happy to have any kind of democrat, but it's time to move beyond that nationally.

    by alliedoc on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:24:26 AM PDT

    •  Um, your comment strikes me as

      just a bit patronizing:  "...you should be happy to have any kind of democrat, but it's time to move beyond that nationally."

      Beyond us hicks?

      Please:  check the attitude at your state line.  

      by RadioGirl on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:23:40 PM PDT

      •  I'm glad you responded. Sometimes I say things

        before I think.  But, then again, sometimes we try so hard to not be offensive that we don't say what we really mean.

        Please know that I am not totally retarded on this.  My brother got sick of living in Chicago and commuting to work on the El.  He was a rural guy at heart as our family was from small town Illinois.  He loved to fish.  He was single.  Ergo, he picked up stakes and moved to Montana.  Kalispell as a matter of fact.  He used to tell me that he stopped voting because everyone would know who he voted for when it was in the papers, there were so few Democrats.  We talked on the phone often and that topic always came up.  That and the Bears and Steelers.  Jim died December 6, 2006 of lung cancer.  My mom basically gave everything he owned to his friends because they were part of the life he chose.  He would have loved to vote for Tester, and I asked my mom if he did absentee ballot.  He hadn't.  He kept thinking he would be well enough to vote.

        As I write this I realize that it must seem made up, but it isn't.  My brother was a hick and proud of it.  But he was a Democratic hick and you should be sorry to lose his vote (I talked him into voting every election).  And, I may seem to have attitude but I really don't.  I am just stating the facts in a perhaps inelegant manner but, why parse things?  Look, let's be honest.  Montana is the 13th reddest state.  I have often thought how lucky I am to live in a state that is mostly blue.  I couldn't deal with living in a red state.  I wouldn't feel like voting either.  And, I am not talking "hick" I am talking how people vote.  There are some really elitist people who vote red every single time.  You know what?  I started off apologetic but I am more inclined to tell you to check your attitude and revise it.

        by alliedoc on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:38:15 PM PDT

        •  Dear alliedoc

          Thanks for a candid response.  I am so sorry about your brother; what a terrible loss.  I can tell your love for him was very great.

          I've followed up with a personal response to your email address listed in your profile; am sharing with you a piece I wrote in 2004 at the request of Resist Foundation in Boston, a progressive funding group.  I don't expect to change your mind; I just want to share with you my take from these parts.

          I do challenge the red state/blue state binary; I think it's too simplistic.  But you can read what I wrote, and you'll have my personal email to respond if you'd like. (No expectation on my part of a reply.)  I was brought up in the West – southern Colorado (not Boulder, not Denver, not Aspen!) and now am in Missoula, MT.  I come from working class folks and my family and neighbors have always been such a mix.  But this year, my 90-year old "second mom," a lifetime Republican, is voting Obama.  

          In the meantime, all best.  And again, I am so sorry about the loss of your beloved brother.  Sounds like a really fine guy.  And I do love Kalispell.  It doesn't make up for your brother not being able to vote, but I did vote for Tester, and when I vote for him again, I'll be thinking of your brother.  

          We may be plain folks out this way.  But not hicks.  

          I can't tell you how much I appreciate your thoughtful reply.  

           

          by RadioGirl on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:55:49 PM PDT