Via the Tennessean, the Tennessee Democratic party has condemned [Tennessee Democratic Party nominee for the US Senate Mark] Clayton, saying in a statement that he is "associated with a known hate group" (a reference to Public Advocate of the United States), and blaming his victory on the fact that his name appeared first on the ballot.You have to have a certain sense of pity for the man. It's so hard to unseat an incumbent, even when your own party doesn't officially disown you!
By the way, "hate group" in this context means a group that was apparently founded to pursue evangelical Christian values, and oppose the gay rights movement. Its platform is here; compare and contrast with, say, the KKK.
Would the Democratic Party care to apply the same standard to these guys? They appear to be guilty of the very same offense.
10 comments:
"Would the Democratic Party care to apply the same standard to these guys? They appear to be guilty of the very same offense. "
Only in the solitude of the far-left fever swamps...
"these guys" may not be voting so uniformly Democrat in the next election, what with the anti-religious issues rising into plain view in the modern Democrat party.
At least I'm hoping there will start to be a break. It would be a good thing all around.
People decry "wedge issues," but I think they're a fine defense against identity politics. They require politicians to promote ideas instead of mindless bloc loyalty or expectation of bounty. I don't agree with either the gentleman from Tennessee or the black pastors on the issue of gay marriage, but I'm thrilled to see them break ranks and advocate what they truly believe on the subject instead of the party line.
Primaries can be pretty maddening for the party leadership.
On the other hand, I realize my source is Mother Jones, but if this article even remotely describes the new Democratic candidate for Tennessee senator, he's beyond challenging party orthodoxy and deep into hee-wacketa-wacketa-do-do-do land:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/mark-clayton-tennessee-democrats-senate
How in the world did the Dems so lose control of the primary process on this guy?
That's actually the first link in the post. :)
Apparently they lost control by the age-old process of abdication. None of their serious people wanted to run against Corker, so they got a collection of whoever showed up and paid the filing fee. His name just happened to be at the top of the ballot.
Remember Alvin Green?
"he's beyond challenging party orthodoxy and deep into hee-wacketa-wacketa-do-do-do land:"
Well that put a sorely needed smile on the old mug...
In return I'll link this.
In order to become governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sibelius turned down funding from the DNC because of the requirement to support the party platform. She could not do that and get elected, so she ran as a Democrat without national Democrat Party assistance. So there's hope for those who would like to see the best aspects of the pre-1960s Democrats return.
LittleRed1
Oh, wow, I completely missed the link, Grim! I was just going by what I'd caught on last night's news, which was little but a brief reference to his membership in some kind of church group.
Well, the political group to which he belongs appears to qualify as a "hate group" merely because they are occasionally ribald in their opposition to gay marriage. However, if we are honest about this, they're far less so than Jon Stewart is in his support of gay marriage. His recent pieces on the Boy Scouts and Chick-Fil-A made use of all kinds of gay stereotypes and gay sexual imagery; but because he's in favor, that's not hate.
At first I was taken aback by it; it'd be kind of like opposing the KKK by telling every black joke you know on live television. On reflection, though, I think the gay rights movement appreciates it because putting gay sexual imagery in front of Americans has always been their major approach (e.g., "Dykes on Bikes," the 'kiss-in' at Chick-Fil-A, etc.). So they see this as another opportunity to force Americans to confront the reality of homosexual sex.
But if some anti-gay-marriage group should write a profanity-free but satirical song about their preference that Boy Scout leaders not be sexually attracted to boys, that's a hate crime.
It's the "hate speech" and "hate group" stuff that makes me draw such a hard line against speech codes and laws against cursing in public. because if they get their foot in the door, it's a pretty short road from there to banning "hate speech" since it's SO hateful, and stuff. And don't say they won't because it's been tried many times on college campuses. We let them get away with it, and as sure as shootin, there will need to be a civil war. Because the minute you criminalize speech that covers mainstream Conservative thought, you've effectively made a political party illegal.
Post a Comment