Dean and Gays
By Callimachus | Related entries in Dumb Things Said By Smart People, General Politics, SexualitySo if John McCain took heat from moderates for going to Liberty University, what punishment ought to be meted out to Howard Dean for his appearance on the “700 Club?”
A natural political step, courting an important segment of the voting population, keeping the party’s doors open to everyone. Yes, yes, but what he said …
Dean appeared on The 700 Club – Pat Robertson’s television show – Wednesday, May 10, in an effort to court Christian evangelicals who constitute the political base of the Republican Party. While on the show, Dean claimed that the Democratic Party platform said “marriage is between a man and a woman.”
But that is not in fact what the platform says. Rather, it states, “We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.” The platform, which was adopted at the 2004 convention in Boston, also supports the tradition of states defining their own marriage laws and opposes amending the U.S. Constitution to change that.
The latest misstep by Dean, coming on the heels of his decision to fire gay party outreach worker Donald Hitchcock earlier this month, has triggered a wave of angry statements from the LGBT community, many of whom saw Dean’s comments as a cynical political ploy. The incident served to ratchet up the growing discontent with Dean and the party within the community.
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 18th, 2006 and is filed under Dumb Things Said By Smart People, General Politics, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 18th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
I just LOVE the continual fine nuances and semantics in this subject. Don’t worry, it is the same in NZ.
At least here, for better or for worse, we now have the “Civil Union Act” in addition to the “Marriage Act”. The latter has been in existence for some while, the former for only two years or so.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
I find it odd that McCain took heat when it was Falwell that approached him. Its at least as likely that Falwell is trying to ingratiate himself with McCain.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
This is the problem with the democrats. They are a party of demographics, not ideas; their message is tolerance which means they cannot take a stand on any issue which may alienate the opposing viewpoint.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Dean was stupid for doing this, and apologized for it a couple days later. Frankly, I didn’t give McCain any grief for the Liberty U thing. It makes sense, and the speech that he delivered was right on. And honestly, it seemed like a little bit of a shot across Falwell’s bow, since he reminded everybody that people on the other side of the issue weren’t evil and needed to be respected too.
Yeah..Dean…boo…hiss. Not a good moment for him at all.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
You’re not giving Dean much grief here. Why?
May 18th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
When you say “this” about Dean, to what are you referring?
The article is positing that this is a pattern. If that’s unfair or inaccurate, why not refute it?
If it’s not, why so tame?
May 18th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
“Yeah … ” speaks volumes. Did you intend it to do so?
May 19th, 2006 at 12:10 am
I’m not sure what you’re getting at reader. I think what Dean did was stupid. But Cal’s point was if moderates were giving McCain grief, why not Dean? I didn’t give McCain grief. I thought what he said was smart. So I’m not in Cal’s crosshairs. However, I still call Dean out. So doesn’t that entitle me to even more “incredibly reasonable” points? :-D
May 19th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Dean is an example of the amazing ability Democrats have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. By not being clear on a relatively touchy issue, about which there are strong feelings on both sides, all Dean succeeded in doing was pissing off both sides.
If you’re going to stand for something, that means taking the heat from the people who disagree, not trying to nuance your way out of the conflict.
McCain is a horse of a different colour – he went to Liberty, but didn’t say anything out of character there. In fact, his speech there was one of his better ones in the past several years. McCain has plenty of flaws, but they weren’t on display then.
May 19th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Howard Dean in bed (however briefly) with Pat Robertson… who’d've thunk it? Also, does this also mean Dean now is open to Robertson’s idea of assassinating Hugo Chavez too?
May 19th, 2006 at 11:24 am
To his credit, Dean understands that the Democrats need to open the tent wider to religious voters, as well as other demographics who’ve been disillusioned with the party.
To his detriment, he’s clearly not the person to pull these changes off.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
McCain’s speech was good. I thought his message was very clever, including a message that addressed tolerance for EVERYONE.
Dean on the 700 Club was a mess. First, I can’t believe he said what he said. Second, I don’t care how much dems should be trying to garner support from religious voters. The fact that he even spoke to Pat on his show makes me sick. Pat Robertson is completely vile. No one should talk to him at all – he’s about the same to me as Ann Coulter, and I think those people should just be ignored as much as possible.
May 19th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Tom Strong is right – Dean is pandering to religious voters. It may come as a shock and a surpise to people who think that the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights movment think that everyone should have equal rights, but black churches very typically come out against gay rights legislation and voter inntiatives. Here in Washington State we had a black preacher try to pressure Microsoft with a boycott of some kind because of their gay-friendly HR policies. (Please don’t presume to lecture me about how people have a right to their religious beliefs; I know all that – I am objecting the 9-11 Defense for people who think their religion entitles them to attack other people.)
What is sad is not that the head of the party is trying to reach out to religious voters; he should – but that he seems to think that bigotry is what it takes to attract religious voters. That ought to be extremely insulting to anyone with any moral sense.
May 19th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Tom Strong is right – Dean is pandering to religious voters. It may come as a shock and a surpise to people who think that the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights movment think that everyone should have equal rights, but black churches very typically come out against gay rights legislation and voter inntiatives. Here in Washington State we had a black preacher try to pressure Microsoft with a boycott of some kind because of their gay-friendly HR policies. (Please don’t presume to lecture me about how people have a right to their religious beliefs; I know all that – I am objecting to the 9-11 Defense for people who think their religion entitles them to attack other people.)
What is sad is not that the head of the party is trying to reach out to religious voters; he should – but that he seems to think that bigotry is what it takes to attract religious voters. That ought to be extremely insulting to anyone with any moral sense.
May 19th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Sorry for the double post. Found a boo-boo.