Gays, Dems and sHillary
It’s clear that Town Hall columnist Kevin McCullough doesn’t surf around these parts, because he would know that the “radical homosexual activists” aren’t supporting the two-faced sHillary. He’s bleating away that we’re on her side in his latest screed, Hillary asks gay activists for marriage amendment help.
I’d tell you that I was rolling on the floor laughing after reading this — I’m too sore for that — however, feel free to fall off of the chair as you read sh*t like this:
Hillary Clinton wishes to lead the fight against protecting marriage in the upcoming debate on the matter in the United States Senate. Oh sure when my New York listeners call her office her spokespeople say that she supports marriage – she just doesn’t wish to see the federal government over reach.
Right… Ms. Universal Healthcare wants government not to intrude!
This last week however, a little clue was uncovered that indicates Hillary is not neutral on the issue at all. Instead she is strategizing on how to promote the message of the radical homosexual activists while debating the Marriage Protection Amendment on the Senate floor next week. This tidbit came to light in the New York Blade newspaper – a mouthpiece for the radical homosexual lobby.
He’s referring to the article, Marriage Matters: LGBT Leaders Rethink Dems’ Talking Points. Openly gay NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn hosted an event with 55 LGBT leaders and elected officials earlier in May to strategize about the amendment debate. This is also worth the read, because it outlines more excruciating “planning” by Dems to address the amendment, and it sounds like more tap dancing and dodging — and cluelessness.
Quinn said LGBT leaders will also be developing new talking points for the MPA vote beyond a set of seven circulated at the meeting from the Human Rights Campaign. Those points generally diverted attention away from the matter at hand without emphasizing the inherent dignity and value of LGBT relationships and families.
One statement read, “…President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress have chosen to put politics ahead of real progress…” Another read, “Many legal experts agree this amendment also would close the door on civil unions…” Perhaps the most explicit talking point said, “This ban on same-sex unions undermines the Constitution, which has never once been amended to deny rights to a group of Americans.”
Ethan Geto, longtime political consultant and president of the firm Geto & de Milly, said the messages lacked the personal elements that connect with people. “It was missing some of the kinds of messaging that we should be focusing on in these situations, which is to be talking about our lives, our families, personal stories-how people are deeply personally affected as human beings, as parents, as children, by this kind of stuff,” he said.
What’s new? They are afraid to utter anything about gay rights, they refuse to bring the humanity of taxpaying lesbian and gay citizens into the argument. The strategy so far (and HRC is just as guilty of this) is to say that the civil equality isn’t a real issue, and that both parties need to focus on “more important matters.” Guess what Dem leadership — the Rethugs are going to keep beating this dead horse because they know you don’t want to talk about it, and have no counter-argument except “let the states decide.” Last time I looked, a whole lot of gay and lesbian citizens were living in states where their right to marry was decided by popular vote. Dems have no plan.
The article also points out that in the floor debate before the 2004 amendment vote, NY Senator Chuck Schumer couldn’t even manage to use the words “gay,” “lesbian,” “same-sex” or “marriage” and sHillary’s position was “leave it to the states,” and didn’t speak of how an amendment would directly affect the lives of gays and lesbians. This year’s comments out of Dem leadership haven’t been inspiring.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, laid out the basic problem with the spineless Dems.
“I know from traveling across the country and talking to a lot of people, there is widespread disenchantment about the Democratic party’s leadership or ability to take a stand,” Foreman said. “This is something that the Republicans have mastered-they take care of their base, and they understand that they cannot win without an energized base.”
Let’s go back to McCullough’s Town Hall column, He catches sHillary’s number with this bit of spot-on analysis, which goes to show you that her attempts to suck up to left or the right convince no one. For the wingers, she’s part of the Homo Agenda.
In one breath to callers from her state she assures them of her support for the institution of traditional marriage and how the states should have every right to protect it. In the next she is hosting backdoor conferences, making propositions in smoke filled rooms to advance the radical homosexual activist cause – yet she must go to the activists to learn how to make their case.
It is one thing for a person to be a sworn enemy; you understand where they are coming from. It is entirely another issue to be so hostile to the welfare of the institution of marriage that you purposefully commit to destroying it but you can’t articulate why.
…Judges are out of control over turning the will of the people. The activists are seeking to turn the debate over protecting marriage into a campaign to legitimize and promote publicly their behavior that none of the nation is interested in nor should be subjected to.
And all the while Ms. Hillary plots and schemes, lying to her own voters, making alliances with activists, and asking for the talking points to drag our nation even further from its necessary moral roots.
At least now we know…
Yes, we all know. Given this reaction from the wingers, the right leaning Dem establishment needs to realize there is no compromise on this issue that will mollify the viewers of The 700 Club, just to pull an example out of thin air. They might as well do the right thing by a loyal constituency — or watch it hold its votes for those candidates who won’t publicly commit to civil equality.
Another take on sHillary’s dilemma — Jonathan Chait: Hillary Clinton’s character gap. A snippet:
As a prospective national candidate, she has two great vulnerabilities. First, many voters think she’s too liberal. Second, many voters also see her as cold, calculating and unlikable.
Her response to this was to position herself in the center, cozying up with her former GOP tormenters in the Senate, staking out hawkish positions and making an overture to cultural conservatives. The theory was that her centrist positions would endear her to moderates but that it wouldn’t cost her on the left, because years of conservative vilification caused liberals to bond with her emotionally.
But instead of moderates focusing on her positions while liberals focus on her persona, the opposite seems to be happening. Moderates fear she remains too culturally divisive to win. And liberals can’t stand her centrist positioning. It’s the worst of all worlds.
Yes, it’s what we’ve been saying h
ere all along. You’d think the dolts in her campaign would get a clue that she’s toast as a presidential candidate.
And look — the NY progressive base is dropping sHillary like a stone, hahahahahahaha (NYDN):
She is not in Arkansas anymore,” said Yayoi Tsuchitani, campaign chairwoman of the Village Independent Democrats, which voted this month to back Jonathan Tasini, Clinton’s little-known Democratic challenger for her Senate seat.
“This is New York we are dealing with, and the majority of New Yorkers are against the war,” Tsuchitani added.
The defections among the activist left of the city’s Democratic Party — long considered a loyal chunk of Clinton’s political base — suggest that her recent rush to the political middle ground and beyond may exact a price.
In addition to the Village Independent Democrats, the equally vociferous Downtown Independent Democrats also voted recently to endorse the anti-war Tasini, a 49-year-old freelance writer and longtime labor organizer from upper Manhattan.
Other established political clubs in Manhattan — including the upper West Side’s Three Parks Independent Democrats and downtown’s Gramercy Stuyvesant Independent Democrats — chose in recent weeks to endorse no one for Senate rather than support Clinton.