Here's the new low in socially conservative GOP attack advertising, from the Fayetteville Observer:
About that last line--Imagine if she had said all homosexuals are rapists?--that's almost what she said. It more literally translates into All homosexuals are pedophiles.
I don't want Chris Cole to take her out on this because he is an openly gay Libertarian Senatorial candidate in the Tarheel State--though that does make it a bit sweeter.
I want Chris Cole to take her out because atheists and homosexuals are American citizens and should not be the fear-mongering weapons used by a desperate politician to hold onto her power.
I come perilously close to Delawaredem on this one: How does anybody associated with a campaign that demonizes whole groups of other American citizens based on their religious beliefs/unbeliefs or their sexual orientation actually sleep at night?
Here's what I'd pay money to see: Chris Cole asks Senator Dole: If being gay prevents me from being a Scout Leader, do you also think it should prevent me from being a US Senator?
Go for it, Chris.
Sen. John McCain has figured out that when it comes to campaign strategy, bigotry is a cross to bear, not burn. He came to the defense of his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, last week.
During a town hall meeting, a McCain supporter said she was afraid of Obama because he was an Arab. Taking the microphone from the frightened woman, McCain said her fears were unfounded, Obama is not an Arab. He’s a decent American, a family man, with whom McCain just happens to have differences.
Honesty like that has earned McCain respect from both sides of the aisles. Sen. Elizabeth Dole should take a lesson from McCain. A broadcast ad targeting her opponent, Democratic state Sen. Kay Hagan, shows Dole ratcheting up her rhetoric, and probably winning the honor, so far, of fielding the nastiest, most misleading, negative ad of the campaign. Here’s part of the ad that portrays Hagan as a godless liberal:
“Godless Americans Political Action Committee is a left-wing organization …
“They actively support political candidates who are atheists and who also support their liberal agenda to remove ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance and force the Boy Scouts to accept atheists and homosexuals as troop leaders.”
Dole’s campaign made the same charge in a widely-distributed mailer....
Her ads are not only an attack on Hagan but on homosexuals, suggesting that homosexuals are predatory. Imagine if she had said all heterosexuals are rapists?
About that last line--Imagine if she had said all homosexuals are rapists?--that's almost what she said. It more literally translates into All homosexuals are pedophiles.
I don't want Chris Cole to take her out on this because he is an openly gay Libertarian Senatorial candidate in the Tarheel State--though that does make it a bit sweeter.
I want Chris Cole to take her out because atheists and homosexuals are American citizens and should not be the fear-mongering weapons used by a desperate politician to hold onto her power.
I come perilously close to Delawaredem on this one: How does anybody associated with a campaign that demonizes whole groups of other American citizens based on their religious beliefs/unbeliefs or their sexual orientation actually sleep at night?
Here's what I'd pay money to see: Chris Cole asks Senator Dole: If being gay prevents me from being a Scout Leader, do you also think it should prevent me from being a US Senator?
Go for it, Chris.
Comments
On the bright side, at least I'll never have to worry about running for president.
Why?
I can understand not responding to FRC but taking a position on the issue seems reasonable.
But why would libertarians criticize the right of a private entity to decide how it runs its own business? I mean, sure, you should say "That's freakin' stupid," but would you actively seek to force the Scouts to do what they do not wish?
Just because I don't think that the power of the State should be used to coerce private organizations doesn't mean that I should shy away from criticizing them when I personally think they are wrong, or organizing people to try to convince them to change their ways.
However, the issue here is not so much the principle of "forcing" the Scouts to accept gay Scout leaders as it is using homophobia for political gain. The implicit message from Senator Dole is that the other candidate wants to give pedophile predators access to your children; that is what I find offensive.
And, BTW, it is you (and Cole) who are saying that Dole is equating gays w/predators and rapists. Dole didn't say that, did she? Why couldn't she be making the [quite] libertarian case about [left-wing] groups advancing their agenda of forcing private groups to accept as members folks whose beliefs are contrary to that of the group? If Cole asked Dole that question at the end of this post, what if she said "Of course it doesn't preclude you from becoming a senator; nor does it do so from becoming a Scout master, but since the Scouts is a private group it doesn't really matter what I think now, does it?"
Isn't that what Republicans have been doing to Democrats for a while now?
Obama knows Ayers -- he agrees with bombing the Pentagon! And if you vote for Obama, you hate America too!
Ad nauseum.
Nobody denies that the BS of America has the right to include or exclude whoever it wants.
It's the Republican bigots like Dole who are supporting the BS of America's campaign for taxpayer cash (despite excluding large groups of taxpayers from its membership), and who are playing the anti-gay card.
The entire Republican Party is one giant morass of hate, hate, hate. It thrives on the stuff -- putting the faggots and dykes and illegals and godless and muzluhms and joos in their place.
Rather than try the increasingly clumsy artful dodge, start addressing the hatred that is at the core of the modern Republican Party. That might actually get you somewhere.
First, SPARE ME that the GOP has been "doing it to Democrats for some time." Face it -- neither party has a terrific track record of "doing it" to the other party.
Second, the rest of your diatribe is typical "progressive"-ish emotionalism masquerading as making a point.
The POINT is that many libertarians and/or conservatives have a quite legitimate view that groups like the Scouts have a right to determine who can be in their group WITHOUT groups like gay rights organizations and/or atheists DEMANDING they be allowed to join! Period! That is my whole point here. Obviously there are many bigots out there who take advantage of homophobia and religion; likewise, the gay groups and atheists continually utilize the court system, for example, to hopefully eventually get a judgment in their favor that private groups will eventually have to accept them. Such actions certainly aren't very "tolerant" either now, are they?
The Scouts should never be the beneficiary of any federal or state funding as long as it may run afoul of discrimination laws. Absolutely. Such lawsuits in this regard are completely legitimate. But don't talk about "intolerance" and hate hate hate when groups like the Scouts just want to be left alone and do what they do w/o being dictated to. If you think the government SHOULD be able so dictate, then you certainly ain't no libertarian now, right?
Now I'm not in NC but if there are indeed pushes of the "liberal agenda to remove ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance and force the Boy Scouts to accept atheists and homosexuals as troop leaders,” why is Dole's campaign (or anyone's) wrong to make a point of this? Like I said previously, if Chris Cole does manage to ask Dole his question and she answers as I posited, would that be acceptable to you, Chris and/or Steve?