Presidential Campaign Question - who has a Gay Chief of Staff?
| By Kevlar Liberal - Oct 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Veterans for Progress |
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Categories: Effective & Ethical Government, All Network Posts: Front Page
Categories: Effective & Ethical Government, All Network Posts: Front Page
Pop Quiz - which of the two presidential candidates has a Gay Chief Of Staff?
1) Sen. Barack Obama or
2) Sen. John McCain,
Surprise! The correct answer is #2!!!!
http://blog.blowfish.com/culture/greta-christina-why-i-do-care-about-john-mccains-gay-chief-of-staff/851
Now, overall, this should be a non-issue. If the Republicans truly believed their own rhetoric about qualifications being the ultimate arbitrator of hiring practices, it should be widely celebrated that John McCain is progressive enough to ignore the hate and bigotry in his own party to have Mike Buse be in such an important position.
But it's not that simple. Because Senator Creepy Old Guy was so heavily involved in writing his Party's platform, he can be called ANYTHING but progressive. The GOP is running this election on an engine of hate and intolerance that would make the Klan stand up and cheer.
So, how can he, in any good conscience, rely on this man to be his Chief of Staff?
There's two answers:
1) John McCain hates gays in all forms with every fiber of his personal and political being, but is more than willing to surrender those views to surround himself with those people to help him win an election.
2) He genuinely gives a crap about anyone sexual orientation as long as they can do their job, but is willing to surrender that view in order to appease his Party and win an election.
Is one any better than the other?
1) Sen. Barack Obama or
2) Sen. John McCain,
Surprise! The correct answer is #2!!!!
http://blog.blowfish.com/culture/greta-christina-why-i-do-care-about-john-mccains-gay-chief-of-staff/851
Now, overall, this should be a non-issue. If the Republicans truly believed their own rhetoric about qualifications being the ultimate arbitrator of hiring practices, it should be widely celebrated that John McCain is progressive enough to ignore the hate and bigotry in his own party to have Mike Buse be in such an important position.
But it's not that simple. Because Senator Creepy Old Guy was so heavily involved in writing his Party's platform, he can be called ANYTHING but progressive. The GOP is running this election on an engine of hate and intolerance that would make the Klan stand up and cheer.
So, how can he, in any good conscience, rely on this man to be his Chief of Staff?
There's two answers:
1) John McCain hates gays in all forms with every fiber of his personal and political being, but is more than willing to surrender those views to surround himself with those people to help him win an election.
2) He genuinely gives a crap about anyone sexual orientation as long as they can do their job, but is willing to surrender that view in order to appease his Party and win an election.
Is one any better than the other?
Comments are closed for this post.
If any party is speading hatred it's the Democrats with comments like you've made. And you might to a little editing before you post. "2)" should be "He genuinely DOESN'T give a crap..." which is the case.
The one dabbling in religion, declaring same-sex marriages as an "abomination."
The one that thinks it's ok to fire gay employees purely for their sexual orientation, regardless of job performance.
But as far as the issue of Sen. McCain choosing a man to be his Chief of Staff regardless of his sexual orientation, the issue of surrendering his principles is still the same.
If he's personally opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage, and bans on homosexuals in the military, why doesn't he put on his maverick costume, and fight the GOP on this issue? If he secretly supports those issues, but then says something else just to be his Party's candidate, what does that say about his integrity?
>>And yes, pardon my minor typing errors, but you did manage to get the point. BTW, Did you mean to say that Dems won't vote for a "Back Man" as some sort of Freudian Slip?>>