Fox News article:
Zeroing in on concerns among some groups of gay voters, a YouTube.com video directed by a New York writer, theater director and part-time political activist takes aim at Rudy Giuliani and raises questions over the former mayor's support for gay Americans....What crap! Davis is a Democrat, interested in destroying Giuliani and showing his contempt for Republicans by revealing a despicable belief that they hate gay people and that their hatred can be stoked by images of actors behaving according to gay stereotypes. Decent Democrats should condemn Davis's video campaign, "Gays for Giuliani." It's blatantly homophobic. And I condemn Fox News as well, for reporting the story the way it did, illustrating it with a stock photograph of Giuliani in drag that lacks any sufficient connection to belong in a professional journalistic report on the video campaign.
The purpose, says Ryan Davis, the director, is to point out what he calls the disconnect between what Giuliani has stood for in the past and what he is saying on the campaign trail. Davis, a gay Democrat, never has supported or worked for Giuliani (he worked for Howard Dean's presidential campaign in 2004), but he said at least he used to respect Giuliani's positions.
Giuliani was "over-the-top in support of gay rights, and then pulled back," Davis said.
Republicans should resist being baited by this sort of trash and should take note that Democrats are afraid of their front-runner -- afraid enough to deal in stereotypes that offend their values. Or are you going to tell me that Davis is an independent operative, doing his own thing? Then condemn him!
AND: Some people are saying they don't see how the ad is homophobic. Please. Picture an ad about Barack Obama with black actors behaving in an equivalent exaggerated racial style and going on about how much they love him for providing them with some benefit. It would obviously be racist.
Posts
208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 208 of 208What position is he taking that is homophobic? And how about the way all the Democrats reject gay marriage? Why don't you call that homophobic?
That's a fair question, but it moves the goalposts from civil unions, which Giuliana supported in the past and is now backing off from, to marriage. The Democratic candidates reject the term marriage but support civil unions with full rights. So, they're moving toward what benefits gay people while Giuliana is moving away from what benefits gay people.
By the way, I'm not a Democrat--I changed to Independent after Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Beth, Reader I am:
There is a crucial distinction that I must emphasize. It is not homophobic -- without more -- to oppose gay marriage. It is rejecting the broadest view of gay rights, but that does not need to rest on a foundation of bigotry, and I think that for most people, it does not. Of course, those who are homophobic oppose it too.
On the other hand, iIt is homophobic to use exaggerated gay stereotypes as seen in the ad, especially when the purpose is to agitate homophobia in others, as it was in the ad. This is something I find despicable and hope to see backfire.
Ann, your distinction is noted. I wish you found as despicable Giuliani's willingness to warp his own beliefs and throw his support for civil unions overboard in his pursuit of the presidency. I don't care what motivates opposition to civil unions, I care about outcomes. To Giuliani, his gay supporters are expendable, compared with the support he picks up by jettisoning his more moderate positions. He's spineless. Some tough guy!
Beth, I don't think it's that different from the way the Democratic candidates reject same-sex marriage. There are some political realities to be dealt with. And adjusting to political reality is not purveying hatred or disparaging gay people (which is what the ad does).
Ann wrote:
You're being ridiculous! Why don't you gracefully say you're sorry you assumed I'm only vigilant about the offenses of Democrats?
Mindsteps wrote:
I challenge you to find where I indicated that you ignored something (or anything for that matter).
You poposed that I apology to you, yet are silent when I challenge you to find on this thread where I 'assumed' you are only vigilant about the offenses of democrats. I take your silence as conceding that you wrongly criticized me. It would be an honest and decent thing to do to find the time to acknowledge your error.
BTW, on the Ford matter, the head of the republican party at the time repeatedly claimed that he could not find anything racist about the ford ad and also asserted that the republican party could do nothing to prevent it from being played.
Ann, of course it's different. The Democrats are lining up behind civil unions, which grant the same rights as marriage. The difference is symantics. Giuliani is running away from his embrace of civil unions and saying gays in relationships shouldn't have the rights civil unions offer.
I realize what I'm witnessing is how a political moderate who supports gay rights can manage to rationalize voting for the party that does everything in its power to harm gay people because there's some other issue compelling her to put on those blinders. I suppose it's terrorism in this case--Rudy must be your Walking Tall candidate. But Giuliani is still a hypocrite, and calling him a political realist doesn't change that.
Beth wrote:
I suppose it's terrorism in this case--Rudy must be your Walking Tall candidate. But Giuliani is still a hypocrite, and calling him a political realist doesn't change that.
And if you are a hypocrite in one area, whose to say that you won't be a hypocrite in another area, such as national defense?
Hi
Tks very much for post:
I like it and hope that you continue posting.
Let me show other source that may be good for community.
Source: Wal-mart interview questions
Best rgs
David
Post a Comment