“I am proposing a constitutional amendment that would stop gay marriages as a practical matter in this country."
Is this because Thompson clearly believes gay marriages are a serious moral threat or because Republican strategist Rich Galen -- who is a senior advisor on the Thompson campaign -- told him that playing the gay card was a good way to win conservative votes.
Lat fall, before the 2006 Congressional elections, Galen publicly (in a column published Oct. 27) called on GOP candidates to tie the then-recent NJ Supreme Court decision supporting gay unions to Nancy Pelosi, her "San Francisco values" and to Congressional Democrats.
Okay, pandering to homophobia to win votes isn't that new, but then comes the blatant hypocrisy from Galen:
I know I will be accused of gay-bashing, but I am not. I am looking at this from a purely political standpoint. I understand homosexuality exists and denying that is foolhardy. If we want to reduce the effects of HIV/AIDS on society, fostering long-term relationships - even homosexual relationships - would be one very good way to do it.
I was so stunned that someone could acknowledge that gay unions might be a good thing for society (Rich equates it with reducing the the effects of HIV/AIDS, which I might point out, people still die from) but at the same time abandon that moral and public good for partisan political gain. I am naive, which Rich pointed out to me when I emailed him challenging him on this point. He wrote me:
...you're shocked that political people look at things through a political prism? Oh, please.
So, the questions that Fred Thompson should be asked:
- Are you privately supportive of gay people and their relationships (surely you came across many in Hollywood) despite this public stand?
- Are you viewing the gay marriage issue through a "political prism" and not a societal/moral/public policy one?
- With senior advisers on your payroll who believe one thing but abandon their beliefs to win votes, how will the American people know you are sincere about your beliefs when you stake out a position, especially on polarizing issues?
- Will you take stands on issues you believe in even if you know it may cost you votes?
6 comments:
I figured the hypocrisy is common among many politicians (especially republicans) and I'm not surprised one bit. But I'm not sure which is the lesser of the two evils - a politician whose rhetoric is filtered through a political prism or the politician who speaks from the heart about intolerance and hate.
Thanks for the comment.
I'd prefer a politician who uses the polls to to help him or her figure out how to "sell" what he or she believes in, rather than one who uses the polls to figure out what to believe in to gain political office. And I don't think either party has a monopoly on hypocrisy.
Tara was a spam commenter. My policy thus far is to only remove spam comments. You can disagree with me or insult me all you want...as long as you are a real person.
Thankfully, look at what his strategery accomplished in the 2006 elections. Maybe it's a sign that people are tired of the divisive politics that Mr. Thompson has decided to embrace. Maybe it's a sign that no one read Mr. Galen's column. Maybe it's Mr. Thompson filling the real conservative voice that's been lacking in the top tier. Any way you slice it, it stinks of opportunism and I think people will see it.
Good grief, can no one stand up against these queers? I thought Fred would be the man, but not anymore! Anyone that supports the queer life will not get my vote. There's nothing gay about being a queer!
Post a Comment