home

That Went Well

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:23:42 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Obama gets his just desserts:

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Obama's anti-gay religious right activist used the opportunity Obama gave him last night to preach his hate to thousands of African-Americans. That's just great. And the white preacher who Obama picked to help explain to the audience that gays aren't minions of Satan? CNN reports that he said nothing at all - just a short little prayer, then he left. As for Obama, he did a taped introduction in which he praised McClurkin, the religious right activist, as one of his favorites. That's nice, because the way to help combat homophobia in the black community is to make sure the gay-basher is first endorsed by someone as high-ranking as Obama, who then chooses to say nothing about the gay-bashing.

< The Sad Story of Hamid Sayadi | Dodd Opposes Mukasey >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    That Went Well | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Nobody could have predicted this (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:15:39 PM EST
    After all, he's "just a singer."

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:18:41 PM EST


    Parent
    "Obama gets his just desserts:" (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    Nobody could have predicted this
    What do these comments mean? That Obama's goals were not achieved? That there were significant unintended consequences? What desserts? Nobody could have predicted what?  

    Dunno, so far it sounds to me like the event was pretty successful from OB's POV...

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    So it DID go well from Oama's perspective? Just like he planned?

    You just damned him far more than I ever could.

    Parent

    He's certainly not my candidate, (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    I couldn't care less what he does right or wrong.

    Mukes me chuckle, though, to see so many "Dems" spend their days trying to make a pariah of fellow Dem...

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:57:07 PM EST
    As you are a "no matter what" supporter of Repulicans, it does not surprise me that you think having principles is funny.

    Parent
    Pure ignorance on your part. (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    But not surprising, unusual nor unexpected.

    What strikes me funny is that the principle of a Big Tent seems to have less and less room for any pole than your own as the as '08 primary season approaches.

    Parent

    Your Big Tent (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    like Decons, allows for Presidential candidates represented by anti-gay bigots.

    I grant that your tent is bigger in that sense than mine.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:00:31 PM EST
    As you are a "no matter what" supporter of Democrats, and someone who, should Obama become the Dem POTUS candidate, will execute a perfect 10.0 flip-flop and change your position to include him in your "Big Tent" despite his support from some whom you define as anti-gay bigots and not support whomever the Rebub candidate is, I do chuckle at your "principles."

    Parent
    If I was (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:05:36 PM EST
    a "no matter what" supporter of Democrats, I would not be criticzing Obama here.

    Try to make sense next time.

    Parent

    Oh, it makes plenty of sense alright. (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:31:24 PM EST
    If he is the Dem nominee, you'll flip-flop and include him in your "tent" despite his representation by some whom you label as "anti-gay bigots."

    Funny, that.

    Oh, and if/when he runs for Sen again, I look forward to your continued criticism of him and your support of the Republican candidate who opposes him.

    I'll let you have the last word...

    Parent

    Heh (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    Of course the Republicans are sure to offer a candidate superior on the issue.

    Makes plenty of sense for the irrational.

    Parent

    Embarrassing moral relativism, even for you. (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:03:24 PM EST
    I'll let your comment stand as it defines you and your pup tent so well.

    OK, I really will let you get the last word in this time Charlie Brown.

    Parent

    Sure (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    For the irrational, your comment would make sense.

    Are you suggesting I support NO candidate? Vote on one issue?

    What a silly person you are.

    Parent

    Nope. Just chuckling, again, at your lack of (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:41:57 PM EST
    principles.

    Another day, another circular conversation with PTD.

    Parent

    My principles are intact (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:47:53 PM EST
    You clearly have never read me on the suject of primaries and the Big Tent.

    Read "Relativity, Uncertainty and the Big Tent" for a general exposition on the subject.

    Parent

    "Big Tent Democrat" (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:35:40 PM EST
     is much like my use odf "Deconstructionist." Except I intend the irony.

    Ah (4.50 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:38:50 PM EST
    I repeat the question to you from last week.

    Can everyone stand on your stage aqnd represent you? Is there ANY line to draw?

    David Duke? anyone?

    Parent

    nd we answere that week (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:45:35 PM EST
      by pointing out the very fact you would stoop to equating McClurkin with Duke (and someone else compared him with Stalin and Hitler) simply demonstrates the type of vicious dishonesty and hatred that is emblematic of intolerant, repressive minds.

     Next?

    Have any Duke quotes (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    to compare to McClurkin's statements?

    Didn't think so. I continue to pray for a cure to your ignorance.

    Parent

    Again you descend into unintelligibility (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:54:25 PM EST
     when challenged.

    Unintelligible for the ignorant (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    I continue to pray for your cure.

    Parent
    Why must you mock religion? (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:09:09 PM EST
      You can't be content  merely to attwmpt to mock me (although the attempts are so astoundingly feeble, I suppose your lack of self-satisfaction is understandable).

      That you annoint yourself as someone to whom Democrats should listen-- for something other than equal measures bemusement and exasperation-- and advocate basically ostracizing everyone who disagrees with you on what you have declared the purity tests   is harmful to the Party in direct peoportion to the extent you succeed. Thankfully, your success appears to be limited to a group to small to be mesured let alone to matter.

    Parent

    Ouch. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by fishbane on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:37:22 PM EST
    Thankfully, your success appears to be limited to a group to [sic] small to be mesured [sic] let alone to matter [sic]

    Perhaps it is a group too small to write at a fifth grade level, judging from your responses.

    Parent

    Ouch, (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:40:23 PM EST
      that cuts deep. Now people are mocking my typing. How will I endure?

    Parent
    I am mocking YOU (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    Not religion.

    Your ignorance, I continue to pray for a cure for it, keeps you from seeing that.

    Let's see if you will actually READ anything said by McClurkin as opposed to waiting to have it rought to you.

    Parent

    Stop dissembling (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:18:14 PM EST
     if you have quotes by McClurkin which show the hatred and intolerance you ascribe to him then put them on the table. I said LAST WEEK that actual evidence of such statements would change my mind. Your efforts to spin the statements already publicized will not.

    Parent
    I said before (1.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:20:56 PM EST
    that is is no a matter of principle forme to NOT perovide you links as you have chosen to defend McClurkin ignorantly.

    It is now up to you, as far as I am concerned, to inform yourself on the matter. As always, I continue to pray for a cure to your ignorance.

    Parent

    That might be the most fairness (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:38:19 PM EST
     you have ever demonstrated.

      After mocking others, you balance it out by engaging in wicked self-parody, unmistakably evocative of Joe McCartyh and "I have here in my hand a list of 205 names ... members of the Communist Party ...."

    Bravo.

    Parent

    Heh (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    You do realize that that is nothing but irrational invective and is entirely unrelated to anything I have written.

    Then again, you never do answer the question of who YOU would oject to representing aq Presidential campaign.

    The pure anti-McCarthyism, applying your rubric.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:05:42 PM EST
      McCarthy Joe had his secret list and you have your secret list.  you nd he both use secret lists for purposes of attacking the reputations of perceived political enemeies. When challenged to produce or cease smearing you  don't produce but keep smearing.

      I see a relation. That you don't is telling.

     Finally, as you well know,  I answered you last week that I would object to people such as Duke or anyone else who advocates hatred and exclusion. I merely object to your devious and dishonest efforts to place McClurkin in that group without any evidence-- another parallel to your role model Joe.

    Parent

    Decon's (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:12:09 PM EST
    Gone off the rails into ppj territioy. A new low for him.

    Parent
    He is intolerant (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:16:07 PM EST
    of any view I espouse.

    this is not new.

    Parent

    some friendly advice (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:23:37 PM EST
      When squeaky and Edger come blundering along and fall into the hole you are digging and begin lavishing praise on your awesome new ladder, it's time to stop.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:41:59 PM EST
    Some friendly aqdvice right ack, when you have spent the thread making a fool of yourself, you can not dig out of it by personally attacking those who disagree with you.

    Parent
    I am not sure Edger and Squeaky are not BTD (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:02:02 AM EST
    or sharing the same useless brain.

    Parent
    Very nice (1.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:33:43 AM EST
    The Peaches "civility" brigade lives!

    I do enjoy watching that group pontificate about issues they know nothing about.

    I miss your contributions.

    Parent

    I have a secret list? (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:10:39 PM EST
    My gawd, you have lost your mind. And kept your ignorance.

    Parent
    Here's your quote: (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:18:48 PM EST
    My point is that you neither know what Duke said nor what McClurkin said.
    You condemn Duke but defend McClurkin.

    If you knew what both said, I credit you that you would condemn both.

      Clearly you allude to having access things Mcclurkin said of which I am unaware and have not been discussed here ad nauseum.

      I have asked you to let us all know what McClurkin has said that we don't know about so we can judge his alleged  remarks. You have dissembled and refused.

       Are you now retracting the claim to know things he has said beyond what has been exposed and dissected here?

      If so, man up. If not, lay your cards on the table.

    Parent

    Because you are unaware of it (1.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    does not make it a secret.

    Come now, you are smarter than this.

    Parent

    I am completely ignorant (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:16:02 PM EST
     in terms of knowing the point you are trying to make about my not quoting any of duke's anti-black, anti-jew and anti-homosexual statements making McClurkin comparable to him.

      Please enlighten us.

    Parent

    You are ignorant of more than that (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:19:25 PM EST
    My point is that you neither know what Duke said nor what McClurkin said.

    You condemn Duke but defend McClurkin.

    If you knew what both said, I credit you that you would condemn both.

    I can not answer for why you choose to persist in your ignorance on this matter, generally you are very well informed, but I pray for its cure nonetheless.

    Parent

    I don't know everything anyone said. (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    everything

       That's not the point. I do know about some of the things Duke has said that cause me to label him a racist, anti-semite (and anti-homosexual bigot)  with hatred who seeks to exclude those he hates.

      I don't know of ANYTHING McClurkin has ever said to cause me to label him someone who hates homosexual and seeks to exclude them. I've challenged you repeatedly to provide the super-secret evidence you allude to having. Put up or shut up.

     

    It is a secret to you (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:29:39 PM EST
    only.

    Parent
    For his next foray (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:10:34 PM EST
    into mixing politics and Old Time Religion I hear Obama is going to take up something a little less dangerous.

    alien, he'd probably manage (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:34:03 PM EST
    to get bitten, because he held them from the wrong end.

    Why must you mock religion?

    because it's so easy. the material practically writes itself. it's the same reason we all mock pres. bush.

    "God delivered me from homosexuality,"

    if he thought it was ok, god wouldn't have had to deliver him from it. mr. mcclurkin speaks for himself. he's entitled to his beliefs, and we're entitled to call them what they are, bigotry. if he, and some posters here, don't like it, too bad. free speech has a price.

    let's see, sen. obama knows nothing about social security, and apparently has no control over who fronts for him at campaign events. his inadequacies are becoming more evident daily.

    before he completely ruins his future chances, he might do well to come up with some face-saving way of gracefully bowing out of the race, and concentrate on learning how to be a good senator, and overall politician.

    You're probably right about that (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    As they say in the video, it's all about knowing you're in the right place with the spirit and therefore "aren't skeered of anything." Obama's been too calculating, trying to win the demographic segments he thinks he needs even if it means jettisoning other segments and thereby compromising his own core attraction, his call for inclusiveness. If he were following a truer path I don't think he'd be getting himself into these situations over and over where he keeps getting bit. It really doesn't seem to be congruent with what he's said and written about his ideals. Maybe BTD is right and it's all Axelrod's fault.

    Parent
    Axelrod feeds his worst instincts (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:57:57 PM EST
    The absolute worst choice to run his campaign - they feed the worst in each other.

    Parent
    It's a shame (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 04:05:00 PM EST
    There really was a time there when I believed he'd be able to catalyze real change for the better. No more though, and who at this level gets second chances?

    Parent
    Mistakes Notwithstanding (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    I think he will be around for a good long time. He is young and will have more chances.

    Parent
    More chances (none / 0) (#85)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 04:33:00 PM EST
    at the presidency? You're optimistic.

    Parent
    Wow (1.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:51:32 AM EST
      You found an extremist blog that puts your spin on it.   I guess next time Jim links to a blog that mirrors his prejudices we will declare him correct. Of course, for balance, there are other versions:

    Post

    Do You Think (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:58:35 AM EST
    That Jews should be "perfected" too?


    Parent
    He is a big fan of (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    The Bell Curve, like those "reasonable" bloggers like Andrew Sullivan.

    Parent
    Wow! (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    The New York Times log is extremist? A big ole quote from that one in the link.

    You really are a piece of work.

    Parent

    no (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    Here's the quote from the NYT:

    The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.

    He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: "Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings," he cried.

    "God delivered me from homosexuality," he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: "God is the only way." The crowd sang and clapped along in full support....

    Mr. McClurkin's support for Mr. Obama could signal to some black evangelical voters that race and religion are more important than Mr. Obama's support for gay rights.

      That's not extremist-- it's the slant you and Ameriblog attempt that is extemist.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    A "slant." Whatever dude.

    You're just an "extremist."

    Parent

    Gee, OK (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    Since everything is about spin. Never mind the content of the speech. You can senseless gay-bashing as good or bad!

    And then everyone gets a trophy!

    Parent

    Or rather (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:30:28 PM EST
    -- You can spin senseless gay bashing --

    Parent
    Where is the "senseless gay bashing" (1.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:25:03 PM EST
      this is what i am talking about. people trying to "spin" McClurkin into being a "senseless gay basher" and portraying him as an evil bigot when there is no evidence from his words or deeds to support that.

      Disagreeing with him and believing him misguided is entirely different than the cynical mischaracterization of what he has said and the using of the mischaracterizations to demonize him.

    Parent

    No evidence (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:26:41 PM EST
    None whatsoever.

    Hopefully, we can "cure" you of your foolishness.

    Let us pray.

    Parent

    You've had a week to dig up a single (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:31:32 PM EST
     statement by or act of McClurkin to justify your rabid hatred for him. Thus far we know that he believes homosexual behavior is sinful and that he consideres the desire a curse from his perspective. I disagree with that but I see nothing about it that evinces a call for hatred, intolerance and exclusion. i only see that from people like you who refuse to accept someone can believe differently than you without being evil.

      I'll take him over you any day, even if my view of homosexuality is much closer to your view than his.

    Parent

    Look (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    There is no need to dig nor will I provide you with links.

    I just hope that someday, through prayer to God, we can cure you of your ignorance.

    Parent

    Here's the problem (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    He's saying that every openly gay person alive is inferior to him because they don't have the strength to change.

    Historically, proclaiming minorities to be inferior has always led to totally awesome and inclusive activities, here on Planet Bizarro.

    Parent

    You're right Decon.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:45:58 PM EST
    Judging McClurkin by his words alone, he has some whacky beliefs to say the least, but I can't go so far as to call him a bigot.  It's just not there.

    Other holy rollers say only the lord can save you from the bottle...that doesn't make them anti-drinker bigots, just whackos.

    Parent

    Wonderful (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:53:44 PM EST
    Your defense of McClurkin has you equating alcoholism with being gay.

    You exposed yourself.

    Parent

    Actually I wasn't.... (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    Some holy rollers, and McClurkin seems to be one, don't have a problem with gay people, they have a problem with fornication aka sex out of wedlock or not for the purpose of reproduction.  

    Other holy rollers, say muslims, have a problem with alcohol use.  Are they anti-social drinker bigots?

    Parent

    Abstinence (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:31:39 PM EST
    Is not part of McClurkins program. He is out to cure gays of their lifestyle choice which is a sin before god, in his eyes.

    Imagine being a gay christian teen and having this darkages crap dumped on you. He infers that gays are gay because they have been sexually abused, and that is where the gay impulses come from. That is how monsters like Father Ritter come into being, thet is if they don't off themselves first.

    No wonder the suicide rate is so high for these kids.

    Obama's choice is no better than the right wing hypocrite politicians that pander to the likes of Dobson. It is only for the power and money that the evangelicals can deliver.


    Parent

    I wouldn't attend this whackadoo's.... (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:39:56 PM EST
    concerts or congregation squeaky.  

    I'm just not convinced he is a bigot.  I am convinced he's nuts.

    Parent

    In A Way (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    That is the whole point. For Obama to give a platform to this nut, lends him credibility.  For a democratic US senator and frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination to give this "nut" more credibility is wrong. It hurts Obama and sends a hateful message to all gay people.

    BTW-this "nut" is not any near the fringes. Delivering sermons at $100,000/month suggests that he is closer to mainstream than anything else.

    Homophobia and anti-gay bigory is alive and well in the US. We know that the right is virulently anti-gay. I do not like to see the middle (Obama) align with this poison even for a second.

    Parent

    It is the point (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:15:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Wait a second.... (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:27:57 PM EST
    is Obama not allowed to have bigots play music to raise money/votes, or is he not allowed to have nutjobs play music to raise money/get votes.

    All bigots are nuts, not all nuts are bigots.

    Parent

    Yes, but (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    Once the guy starts in with his schtick about gays he is no longer a singer but a anti-gay bigot. He gave a speech to a bunch of like minded homophobes in Obama's name.

    Consciousness raising  is what we need more of from our leaders,
    not preaching against an entire group of people who are just as normal as any other creature of god, so to speak. Naming a group sinners, because they are gay is bigotry because it stigmatizes them.

    McClurkin's lipservice about love, kindness, inclusion if you recant, does nothing to mitigate his bigotry.

    Parent

    You all say it's bigotry (none / 0) (#94)
    by Electa on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    McClurkin and the 3,000 people in the audience call it keeping the laws of God.  They feel one way and you feel another about the matter.  I'm not pro gay but I am pro human and civil rights for all.  

    Obama is seeking the African American vote, just like Clinton.  The majority of African Americans are not anti-gay, so to speak, but deeply committed to their religious leanings.  According to their belief in the Bible gay behavior is against the teachings of God.  They are not anti-the individual who practices gay behavior.  A girlfriend's sister has 2 really good gay friends.  She got married over the week-end and the guys laid her wedding out.  She is deeply religious and believes strongly in the Bible yet that doesn't stop her from deeply loving her gay friends.

    Doesn't a minister who claims to refrain from same sex activities have the right as a US citizen to support the candidate of his/her choice?  My friends who are gay understand that Obama needs the African-American vote and if it means showboating an infamous gospel singer who just so happens to be a reformed gay, if there's even such as thing, then sobeit.  He drew over 3,000 people...good for Obama.  If McClurklin performs urban or rural Black, White, and Hispanic folks are coming out by the thousands.  He's loved.

    I wouldn't write Obama off so quickly.  He's picking up momentum on Black talk radio.  Jena demonstrated the power of that medium.

    Parent

    You (1.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    wonder why you are not making headway here.

    Nutjobs? Please. Defend Obama on McClurkin. It really is not worth a continued discussion.

    Parent

    Kudos to Obama... (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:00:04 PM EST
    for not excluding a singer from a concert fundraiser for his warped, confused, offensive views on homosexuality.

    Kudos to Obama for not caving to the pc police.

    Kudos to Obama for countering such views by reiterating his support for equal rights for homosexuals.  

    Parent

    No, I don't wonder (none / 0) (#104)
    by Electa on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:13:00 AM EST
    in fact never even crossed my mind why I'm not making lead way here.  Where's the importance?  Anytime someone differs from YOUR opinion it seems to raise yur ire.  One thing we do agree on however is it's not worth further discussion.

    Parent
    I was not responding to you (1.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    That was a reply to kdog.

    Parent
    You know (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    How can anyone take you seriously when you write:

    Some holy rollers, and McClurkin seems to be one, don't have a problem with gay people . . .

    Even Decon knows better than that.

    Parent

    That's basically what the man is saying.... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:36:21 PM EST
    feel free to believe him or not.

    Parent
    David Duke says his is not (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    a racist.

    What's your point?

    Parent

    John Aravosis is extremist? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:11:46 PM EST
    That is an interesting POV.

    Parent
    Shows (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 01:15:32 PM EST
    How far right the line has been drawn, or pure ignorance. My guess is more of the latter in this case.

    Parent
    Aravosis (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:11:23 PM EST
      has "outed" homosexual Hill staffers without regard for  their privacy in zealous pursuit of a narrow agenda. Yes, I consider that "extremist." He's more intelligent and more cognizant of practical politics than many other extremists, but stooping to those tactics is extreme.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    I elieve you are mistaken. Aravosis has never outed anyone.

    Not even Jeff Gannon, who outed himself by running pulic online ads as a gay prostitute.

    Parent

    They All (1.00 / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    Look the same, Mike Rogers,  John Avarosis ......whatever.

    Parent
    really? (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 04:19:53 PM EST
    then explain this:

    link

     Notice that Aravosis says that the time he worked on ther hill he "didn't know" he was gay.

      Some times things are not as simple as you guys like to make them, are they?

    Parent

    Good For Him (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 04:34:02 PM EST
    I did not know that he had worked with Mike Rodgers. It is despicable for gays to support anti-gay legislation and lawmakers. I have no problem with them being outed for the hypocrites that they are.

    Aravosis is clearly an activist, hardly an extremist though.

    Parent

    Did not know that (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 04:44:31 PM EST
    I agree with your condemnation of it.

    Parent
    I'm glad to hear (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:46:56 PM EST
     you condemn such extreme tactics, even in perceived furtherance of an agenda you support.

      You didn't comment though on my suggestion that his claim that he "didn't know" he was gay until well into his adulthood suggests that everyone who has ambiguous and perhaps dissonant connection (for lack of a better term)
    with his or her sexual orientation and is unable to handle (again, for a lack of a better term) his orientation as you think he should just might not be a self-loathing homophobe worthy of scorn and ostracism.

    Parent

    I don't believe John Aravosis (none / 0) (#72)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:38:56 PM EST
    has outed anyone.

    However, If you are gay and in your pursuant of a narrow extremist agenda, you decide support or promote laws that discriminate against gay people, I cannot say that outing you is an extreme action.

    Whatever happened to

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.



    Parent
    Well for one thing (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 04:24:24 PM EST
    it didn't stop being extremism, even in the defense of liberty.

    Parent
    Tis a matter of opinion and you are entitled (none / 0) (#90)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:50:31 PM EST
    to yours.

    I don't think outing under conditions expressed is extreme. Were I gay, given the attack on gays by the GOP,  I'd have no qualms with outing someone like Larry Craig, if I had the goods.

    And if you were gay and you had such qualms, then I say you were foolish; and when they finally pass laws requiring you be sent to treatment, I'd say you should have seen it coming.  

    Parent

    What about (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:54:15 PM EST
     a "nobody"  committee staffer who works on environmental policy for a committee that just coincidentally is chaired by a legislator who votes anti-gay? would i be foolish to think that is both extreme and wrong?

    Parent
    As a lawyer you should be aware (none / 0) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 06:07:33 PM EST
    that not everything is black and white - nor should it be.

    A nobody staffer such as you describe probably doesn't deserve outing. A COS, however, may very well deserve it. Facts and circumstances.

    The fact your "nobody" ought to be exempt, should not lead to a blanket rule that no one should ever be outed. Which is the position you more or less espoused, unless I misread your initial thesis.

    If you have evidence that Aravosis or Mike Rodgers, for that matter outed a nobody, I would consider the facts and circumstances and, if appropriate, condemn it. I haven't read Americablog, regularly in awhile, but I don't believe Aravosis has  ever advocated outing someone in a position of your nobody.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:20:40 AM EST
      and that would seem to be the obvious point I have been making all along. There are shades of gray and people should recognize them rather tarring mcLurkin with monochrome black because they do't share his beliefs.

      I used the example of the environmental committee staffer because I recall, somewhat vaguely, that description fits one of the first victims of this campaign several years back. I will look for a link

      I do think that for the most part one's sexual orientation is no one else's business and that people should be afforded whatever amount of respect and privacy they desire. Of course, if someone chooses to use "sexual politics" to advance a public career then exposing what would ordinarily be "private" might be justified to inform others of the hypocricy. I would limit that though to people who "exploit  sexual politics" and not extend it to people who are simply politically different than the "outers."

       A Senator who panders to "values voters" while secretly cruising for gay sex is a lot different than a Hill staffer with some conservative positions on issues that have nothing to do with gay rights.

    Parent

    more (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:06:26 AM EST
    Blade

      Here's a story about the outing of the gay staffer i mentioned.

      To partially respond to your posr below this one, note that in both articles Aravosis is specifically asked about the outings and, with ample opportunity, in no way dennies his involvement and defendsa and rationalizes his actions. I consider that to answer any question about his role.

    Parent

    Interesting, but... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:35:50 AM EST
    The "article" was a profile of Tolman three years ago in Metro Weekly, a local gay and lesbian magazine, a story that Tolman said he had long forgotten about.

    Seems your nobody had already been outed by himself. This example is not as clear cut as you implied.

    Its just a guess, but it appears that Tolman had been openly gay, then when gays became a target due to the efforts of the GOP "target gays rather than discuss Iraq and other issues campaign" decided discretion was the way to go. Which in a way highlights Aravosis' point.

    Parent

    Not To Mention (1.00 / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:48:53 AM EST
    That the other two outees in the article, Mike Foley and Barbara Mikulski were long rumored to be gay. On the other hand smearing tactics meant to support anti-gay hate are quite out of line in my book. That is what Linda Chavez did during her losing run against Mikulski in the 80's.

    During her first Senate campaign in the mid-'80s, the Republican Party ran against her a conservative pundit named Linda Chavez -- who was later nominated by President George H.W. Bush as Labor Secretary until she was accused of paying her housekeeper under the table.

    Throughout that race, Chavez attacked Mikulski, a former Baltimore social worker, for her relationship with Teresa Marie Brennan, an Australian feminist academic and congressional aide who shared Mikulski's home for two months.



    Parent
    The article you link to up thread is inconclusive (none / 0) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 06:12:50 PM EST
    It says some people say... some people say a lot of things, not all of them true.

    Parent
    and Obama (none / 0) (#50)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:41:26 PM EST
     evidently, not to mention poor little Kdog.

    Obama? (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    We'll see.

    Parent
    folk who say (none / 0) (#95)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    homosexuality can be cured have as much credibility with me as people who say Jews can  be perfected.

    Here's part of what McNobody had to say:
    "God delivered me from homosexuality," he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: "God is the only way." The crowd sang and clapped along in full support.
    --------
    I'm tired of religion being used as some god-given cloak for bigotry, and here aren't our so-called xtian brothers coming a little too close for comfort to the Wahabbis and their ilk who proscribe homsexuality and execute us homos? God is the only way: there is no God but God. To think this is the 21st century and this clown is making a theology out of Coulterisms.

    That makes no sense whatsoever (none / 0) (#96)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:01:41 AM EST
      You are now inadvertantly equating a person making choice to follow Judaism with a person being homosexual.

      Perhaps, you need to THINK about this as it seems to directly and completely counter your views.

       Obviously, people who follow Judaism can, and many have, convert to other religions, including brands of Christianity which throw around terms such as "perfecting." Equally obviously, many people have converted to Judaism from other religions. Equally obviously, many people who were raised religious drift away from religion or even repudiate organized religion or even adopt atheist beliefs.

      I doubt you really think that homosexuality is comparable to religious beliefs and that peope can simply choose their sexual orientation or to have none.

      I don't doubt at all that you have the same sort of hatred and intolerance toward people with religious beliefs which don't fit your personal politics as some people have toward gays.

      I'm still searching for someone with explantion for why one brand of hatred and intolerance is good and the other bad.

     

    Parent

    not at all (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:56:47 AM EST
    My post asserts that people who say either that Jews can be perfected or homosexuality can be cured have zero credibility with me.
    That is a statement about the speaker's stupidity, not about some putative equation of two very different things.
    I agree that people can change, but change a person who chooses for herself is one thing, it's a question of individual will or desire, while those advocating for a "cure" or "perfection" implies pathology and degradation. Who needs to be told by either McNoboby or Coulter that they need to be perfected or that they're just not god's favorite kids? Their speech is genteel hate speech, not mine, which simply points their viciousness out.
    You need to THINK about why you want to give their hate speech such latitude and why you think saying you're religious gives you some sort of free pass to be a raving bigot.


    Parent
    Your speech (none / 0) (#103)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:08:04 AM EST
     is far more aptly described as "hate speech" than anything McClukin has been quoted as saying.

      "McNobody"  amply illustrates the depth of your hatred as you refuse to acknowledge he has any worth as a human being simply because you disagree with him that you have to recruit coulter and make the false claim they are in any way aligned further demonstrates your irrational hatred for someone simply because his views differ from your views.

      All you can do is resort to a false conclusory declaration his speech is "hate speech" and "vicious" without showing any hatred or viciousness he actually expressed.  ALL of the hatred and viciousness in this sorry episode has been directed at McClurkin not emanated from him.

     

    Parent

    you are confused (none / 0) (#105)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    If McNobody hadn't gaybashed, I would not be attacking him. If he apologized for using his religious authority to demean gay folk, then again, no problem.
    Further, where do you read I deny him anything? I'm not advocating for his incarceration, his forced conversion, his distance from god, or any dimunition of his rights from his free speech to raising a family to marrying who he wants. He is free to say what he likes, as hateful and stupid as it is, as perfectly Coulteresque as it is, as reactionary as it is, while I am free to point all of that out.

    If you can't see the hate when someone tells you that you can be cured of something you don't feel is a choice (or even if it is it is YOUR choice, not some intrusive, phony xtian bigot's), much less a disease, then that's your problem.

    "God delivered me from homosexuality"? Deliver me from the McNobodys of the world!


    Parent

    That Went Well | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment