willravel, if you read my post #28 in the "Republican Fred Thompson officially Announces Candidacy for President. Good News, Or?" thread, you might agree that Thompson's anti gay stance may not be based on his personal homophobia.
It seems that all republican candidates for elected federal office, most especially candidates for president, must embrace the same extreme positions...rabidly partisan against Plame, Wilson, and Patrick Fitzgerald, and irrationally pro Libby, to the extreme of ignoring national security consequences of the Plame CIA leak, in a time of war. They all must privately address TPTB at CNP, and seek the endorsement from it's board of governors. They must be anti-gay, anti-abortion, skeptical of the theory of evolution, and pro intelligent design.
Quote:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._53729225/pg_2
The closet on the Right - gay journalist David Brock writes about politician Michael Huffington - Interview
Advocate, The, Feb 2, 1999 by Chris Bull
<< Page 1 Continued from page 1. Previous | Next
As a conservative who had a public coming-out after years of rumors, did you relate to Huffington's story?
I might have been more sensitive to the issue than some journalist off the street, but my own coming-out process was different. I was happy to be gay going back to when I was 18 or 16. I was fortunate that I never had a problem accepting it. Before I made my announcement, it was known among my friends and family and about 200 conservatives I dealt with in Washington. When I came out I had a day or two of stress. After that, I felt fine. Having it become public was a good thing for me. I believe it was a good thing Huffington did for himself as well. It's a big step in his journey to accept himself.
Before you began to move away from the conservative, antigay movement, you had many gay critics. Many felt you were aiding and abetting the enemy.
People did recognize me sometimes when I was in public, but it was never spoken to me directly. My politics are in a state of flux at the moment, and I'm not really prepared to talk about them. I was knocked off my conservative foundation in a fundamental way, and I still don't know where I am exactly. As a journalist I'm skeptical about all ideologies.
<b>What do you think about the recent conservative Republican attacks on gay men and lesbians?
</b>
The tone of the Republican leadership in the last couple of years does make me wonder if there is any place for gay people in the Republican Party. It's something I've thought a lot about, and I'm not sure I have the answer yet. I'm not questioning the party's free-market philosophy, but its stance on social issues is wrong. I'm afraid to say the party might be a lost cause. The influence of the religious right has certainly increased over time. The pressure for a kind of culture war from neoconservatives like William Bennett is also increasing. <b>I think it indicates that conservatives lack issues that resonate with Americans now, so they try to inflame their base. That's destructive.</b>....
|
They all must remind us.... 5-1/2 years after 9/11 that an "enemy wants to attack us". They all want "victory" in Iraq. They are all "saved" christians. They are all politically and ideologically, "fringe" candidates...extremely partisan, extremely christian, committed to reviving "Reagan's" legacy.
It's not homophobia, that they personally embrace, it's a mixture of ultra conservative rabidly partisan bullshit, spiced with just the right amount of fear mongering and race/ sexual orientation baiting. Ugly, ignorant....and a proven recipe for moving election results to a close enough actual outcome, that a revamped and totally corrupted and partisanized DOJ can suppress enough opposition votes to clinch close races in their candidates' favor...
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center
Minnesota case fits pattern in U.S. attorneys flap
A prosecutor apparently targeted for firing had supported Native American voters' rights.
By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2007
.......At a time when GOP activists wanted U.S. attorneys to concentrate on pursuing voter fraud cases, Heffelfinger's office was expressing deep concern about the effect of a state directive that could have the effect of discouraging Indians in Minnesota from casting ballots.
Citing requirements in a new state election law, Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer directed that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification by Native Americans living off reservations. Heffelfinger and his staff feared that the ruling could result in discrimination against Indian voters. Many do not have driver's licenses or forms of identification other than the tribes' photo IDs.
Kiffmeyer said she was only following the law.
The issue was politically sensitive because the Indian vote can be pivotal in close elections in Minnesota. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area has one of the largest urban Native American populations in the United States. Its members turn out in relatively large numbers and are predominantly Democratic.
Heffelfinger resigned last year for personal reasons and says he had no idea he was being targeted for possible firing. But his stance fits a pattern that has emerged in the cases of several U.S. attorneys fired last year in states where Republicans wanted more vigorous efforts to legally challenge questionable voters.
Politics have always played a role at Justice and other Cabinet-level departments. But, critics say, Bush administration strategists went beyond most of their predecessors — Democratic or Republican — in seeking ways to convert control of the federal government into advantages on election day.
And the Heffelfinger episode has contributed to a backlash among some Minnesota Republicans. Sen. Norm Coleman, a Bush loyalist in the past who is facing reelection next year, has called on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales to resign — largely as a result of the U.S. attorney firings and the revelations about Heffelfinger.
A hint at why Heffelfinger's name was on termination lists that Justice Department officials and Bush political strategists put together emerged when Monica M. Goodling, the department's former White House liaison, testified last week before the House Judiciary Committee about the firings.
<b>Goodling said she had heard Heffelfinger criticized for "spending an excessive amount of time" on Native American issues.
Her comment caused bewilderment and anger among the former U.S. attorney's supporters in Minnesota.</b> And Heffelfinger said it was "shameful" if the time he spent on the problems of Native Americans had landed him in trouble with his superiors in Washington.
But newly obtained documents and interviews with government officials suggest that what displeased some of his superiors and GOP politicians was narrower and more politically charged — his actions on Indian voting.
About three months after Heffelfinger's office raised the issue of tribal ID cards and nonreservation Indians in an October 2004 memo, his name appeared on a list of U.S. attorneys singled out for possible firing.
"I have come to the conclusion that his expressed concern for Indian voting rights is at least part of the reason that Tom Heffelfinger was placed on the list to be fired," said Joseph D. Rich, former head of the voting section of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Rich, who retired in 2005 after 37 years as a career department lawyer — 24 of them in Republican administrations — was closely involved in the Minnesota ID issue. He played no role in drafting the termination lists, which were prepared by political appointees....
|