2008 Vice-Presidential Thread

[INDY500]

For McCain -- I submit into nomination the name of John Kasich

He's from the battleground state of Ohio, a strong conservative, a deficit hawk with an actual record of working across the aisle, possesses media savvy and of coarse he's an FOB (friend of Bono).

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Some call Georgian a good fit for Obama
Ex-Sen. Nunn an ally with defense expertise

By Bryan Bender, Boston Globe Staff | June 16, 2008

WASHINGTON - When a newly elected Senator Barack Obama was staking out issues to champion in Congress, he sent word that he would like to meet with a former senator he had admired from afar: Sam Nunn of Georgia.

Nunn, who during a 24-year Senate career earned a reputation as the Democratic Party's foremost defense advocate while amassing a moderate voting record, met Obama at his office in February 2005. There, the two talked for hours about the issue on which Nunn has spent much of the last two decades: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

The liberal freshman from Illinois and the national security specialist from rural Georgia immediately hit it off, according to interviews with confidants of the two men.

Nunn, whose somewhat colorless demeanor hides a passion for defense policy, was clearly impressed with Obama's command of the subject, and Obama has called on Nunn since to discuss arms control legislation and other matters, the confidants said.

For two decades, Nunn has been floated as a potential vice presidential candidate by virtue of his national security credentials and conservative southern roots. And each time he has dis missed such talk out of hand, while the party's nominees opted for more liberal choices from states more likely to go Democratic in November.

But this year, the personal and intellectual affinity between the presumptive Democratic nominee and the 69-year-old elder statesman - who abandoned a policy of not backing candidates in Democratic primaries when he endorsed Obama in April - makes him a real possibility as Obama's running mate, according to interviews with current and former government officials who know both men.

"He sounds like he may be more open to it," said Arnold Punaro, a retired Marine Corps general who served on Nunn's Senate staff for 24 years and remains in close contact with his former boss. "He has never before endorsed anybody. That was a surprise to me."

Nunn declined to be interviewed for this story and has weighed in only once publicly on the 2008 veepstakes, telling the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last month that he thought it was "highly improbable" that Obama would ask him to be vice president and "highly improbable" that he would accept.

Those close to Nunn, speaking on condition of anonymity, say he seems more prepared to accept a vice presidential offer this year, helping to offset Obama's lack of experience on national security and giving the Democrats a fighting chance in Georgia.

"I think he would be an excellent choice and would have to be in the top three or four for Obama," said former secretary of defense William S. Cohen. Cohen, a Republican and former senator from Maine, and Nunn recently launched a bipartisan policy dialogue, sponsored by the centrist Center for Strategic and International Studies, designed to elevate nuclear security, climate change, national service, and other "seminal" issues in the national debate.

As a "Southern moderate-to-conservative with a tremendous background on security, [Nunn] would complement [Obama's] tremendous gifts," Cohen said.

Nunn also remains a key political and business figure in his home state, which has not voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1992.

Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, said he believes Nunn could boost Obama's electoral chances in Georgia. "He is still a heavyweight" in local politics, Black said.

But others stress the potential drawbacks to an Obama-Nunn ticket. Nunn, who will turn 70 before Election Day, could undercut assertions that an Obama administration would bring a youthful vibrancy in stark contrast to his 71-year-old Republican opponent John McCain. Nunn himself cited a lack of "zest and enthusiasm" for politics when retiring from the Senate in 1997. Putting Nunn on the ticket could also take some of the sheen from Obama's image of change.

Meanwhile, his past stance against gays serving openly in the military would probably alienate some elements of the Democratic Party.

"It is hard to see [that] the really left wing of the Democratic party would look favorably on him," said Black.

And Nunn's law practice and business dealings - including seats on the boards of Chevron, General Electric, Dell Computer, and Coca-Cola - could come under scrutiny.

But Nunn's post-Senate career has focused on much more than corporate leadership. His prime focus has been on reducing the spread of nuclear materials, part of a lifelong interest in foreign affairs that was passed down by his great-uncle, Carl Vinson, who served in Congress for more than a half-century, from World War I to the Vietnam War.

Vinson, for whom the young Nunn worked, played a leading role in building America's modern military and later was honored when a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was named for him.

Nunn was raised on his family's farm. After graduating from Georgia Tech University and Emory University Law School, he served six years in the Coast Guard Reserve and was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 1968. Just four years later, he moved to the US Senate, where he often broke with his own party, supporting school prayer, opposing new taxes, and voting to limit death penalty appeals.

Many Democrats are still upset with him over his role in blocking President Clinton's efforts to allow gays to serve openly in the military. However, earlier this month he appeared to soften his position, backing a Pentagon reassessment of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

On other signature Democratic issues such as abortion, the environment, gun control, and affirmative action, Nunn has been a loyal partisan. He also spoke out publicly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Nunn is currently best known for his work as cochairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a foundation he helped establish with media mogul Ted Turner to fill the gaps in government efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Those efforts first drew Obama to seek out Nunn. According to aides to both men, Obama has elicited Nunn's advice on several pieces of legislation, including to accelerate plans to secure nuclear material from the former Soviet Union.

"They get along really well," said a senior Obama foreign policy adviser, noting that one of his boss's phone calls to Nunn was before Obama traveled to Russia and Ukraine in 2005 to inspect security at weapons facilities. "Nunn is in that category of smart, tough advice."

The adviser declined to be identified discussing private conversations of his boss.

Obama has even tried to follow in Nunn's footsteps, teaming up with Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana to secure "loose nukes."

It was Nunn and Lugar who first joined forces in the early 1990s to establish the landmark Cooperative Threat Reduction program to secure Cold War nuclear stockpiles - a program that Obama singled out in his 2006 book as "one of the most important investments we could have made to protect ourselves from catastrophe."

Nunn, for his part, is said to be more concerned than ever about the direction of the country. When he endorsed Obama he said, "We have developed a habit of avoiding the tough decisions and seemingly lost our ability to build consensus to tackle head-on our biggest challenges."

 

[U2387]

Well, it's a good point but I think if asked, he's say yes out of obligation.

Why couldn't the Governor run for Senate?
He's a popular Dem, right? Kaine?

That said, another Dem in the Senate in a purple state, that's a pretty compelling argument. Especially with some pretty good candidates otherwise.

If he went in another direction, I might pick Joe Biden but he was my pick all along, so I am certainly biased.

I agree, I think Warner or Kaine would say yes out of obligation, but that Obama knows full well they need those seats in Democratic hands and would refrain from asking. The only Virginia guy I see him picking is Webb for National security/defense/blue collar whites appeal. However, others can accomplish the same task for him. Short list: Wesley Clark, Sam Nunn, Bill Richardson-these are the probables; a little less likely- Evan Bayh or Bob Graham; outside the box, appeal to independents but unlikely-Chuck Hagel or Michael Bloomberg. I would be willing to bet it is 1 of these 7 I mentioned. Flat will not happen: Hillary or one of her loyalist Governors- namely Rendell of PA and Strickland of OH- this would be suicide for Obama and no balance on issues or regionally.

Like you, I was 100% for Joe Biden from a few days after the 2004 election. I stumbled upon him (had only seen him quoted in foreign policy type articles in the past) when I was randomly looking through Senate Democratic websites for people I would like to see run next time. One look at his website and I knew he was the one. Not just foreign policy, but crime, education, transportation, the budget, judiciary issues, health care, patients bill of rights, energy, the guy has his finger on the pulse, is not a hard core leftist and he can appeal to the middle easily. He has worked across party lines for yrs but can and will come down hard when the Republicans are full of shit.(Bush Israel speech the latest example) I have never observed any person more capable of rattling off, in a concise and understandable, plain spoken manner, every single detail of an issue when asked on the spot. In addition, I met him a few times and he is truly a genuine guy who says what he thinks, appreciates his supporters, does not look down on anyone and has no problem calling people out on their bullshit.

Here is Biden's reasoning, and I am more inclined to believe him when he says this even though everyone who has accepted VP has said the same thing before: He does not want and will not take VP or Secretary of state no matter how good a job people think/know he will do. He has said when there, he can advise, talk to, travel and meet with leaders, negotiate, etc, but that the President will not make an important decision unless they themselves feel it in their gut. So he sees the job as not having too much influence over vital issues. He figures as chair of foreign relations, he can step in and get involved with legislation, organize his fellow Senators and demand a different course from Obama if he does not like it. Everything must go through congress, whereas Obama could (though i doubt he would, he has shown a willingness to surround himself with people who compensate for his inexperience on many issues) hypothetically say to the VP thanks for the advice, Joe but I disagree and we are doing X instead of Y.

 

[U2democrat]

Another Biden fan

 

[Carek1230]

Here's a question I was thinking about the other day. Does the VP really bring in voters? I'm not asking to be a smartass; I really want to know. I can't ever remember voting for a president based on his VP choice. Are there really that many people who vote that way?

It does to me. I don't like Obama but won't vote for McCain....I am waiting for Obama to announce his VP running mate before I make a decision to cast my vote for him or not.

 

[martha]

It does to me. I don't like Obama but won't vote for McCain....I am waiting for Obama to announce his VP running mate before I make a decision to cast my vote for him or not.

So if you don't like his choice for a running mate, who will you vote for?

And what difference does a vice-president make anyway?

 

[2861U2]

I think Sam Nunn won't be asked. Apparently he once fired 2 aides solely because they were gay, and said they would have been considered risks to the CIA and Defense Department.

 

[U2DMfan]

Like you, I was 100% for Joe Biden from a few days after the 2004 election. I stumbled upon him (had only seen him quoted in foreign policy type articles in the past) when I was randomly looking through Senate Democratic websites for people I would like to see run next time. One look at his website and I knew he was the one. Not just foreign policy, but crime, education, transportation, the budget, judiciary issues, health care, patients bill of rights, energy, the guy has his finger on the pulse, is not a hard core leftist and he can appeal to the middle easily. .

Great post, U2387
He's a huge defender of civil liberties as well.
I especially agree about how he is able to rattle off those ideas as if from the top of his head and have them make complete sense. Concise and understandable. I saw him on 'Meet the Press' once during the 2004 election articulating the fiasco in Iraq and he just blew my fucking doors off.

I have to admit, part of my real displeasure with the 2008 Dem primaries, aside from picking a lesser electable guy (JMO) among a few solidly electable candidates, was the fact that Biden was an afterthought. There is no better evidence that this is really nothing but a beauty contest than right there. There was one primary debate, I forget which network or even the particular question (re:foreign policy), where Biden quite literally cleaned the clock of every person standing on the stage.

One by one, it seemed they were all stock answers (outside of loony bin Dennis), all perfectly crafted as to not lose favor with 'XYZ' demographics and then Joe was the last to go. He said something to the effect of "Can you believe this mularkey?" Haha. I think he might have used that exact word. He then proceeded to simplify, clarify and offer a solution. The crowd erupted and then the next question was probably something to the effect of "So, Barack, why don't you like Hillary?" A fucking farce of a process, really.

In this day and age, I see myself turning even more and more away from the two political parties and find it near impossible to find a candidate that I could really beleive in. I actually felt proud of Joe Biden. Probably for the first time in my adult lifetime, I had a candidate that I could really believe in. Even if I may not agree with everything, I think he and I come from the same mentality.

Whoever Obama chooses, he needs to get someone who will fight because that's about all a VP is worth during the election. And I agree with your reasoning about how Biden would be more effective as the Chair of FR than VP, although, I think he'd take Sec. of State. Although, I think Kerry might get that position. Kerry was the first big name to jump out and endorse him, that was before it became the cool thing to do. Kerry picked Obama as the highlight speaker at the 2004 Convention as well. So, looks like Biden might just stay right where he is. Which ain't all bad.

To answer Martha's question, "what difference does the VP choice make"?
According to the so-called experts it doesn't do much to help but it can hurt.
Conventional wisdom says that usually they won't help carry States unless they are very popular and the State is already close to a toss up. Like Gephardt probably would have given Missouri to Kerry or a guy like Tom Harkin could probably help in Iowa etc.

There is the demographic factor. According to the so-called experts, you can sure up your 'base' by picking XYZ. This was why Kerry picked Edwards (which IMO turned out to be a big mistake) and why HW Bush picked Quayle (he was supposed to be a good looking guy with strong personality, DOH!), also I think Bob Dole picked Jack Kemp because he was to the 'right' of Dole on certain issues and so on. When you only have two choices, does this really make any difference? I don't think it does.

Obama will not need to pick Hillary to 'sure up' anything, I think he can win without her as much as with her. That's just my hack opinion. I think the reaction by the media about the outcomes in West Virginia and certain demographics etc. were just sensationalism. I think most of that has already passed. Can I just mention that I hate the media?

Then you have the embarassment factor. I believe McGovern picked the guy who had received electro-shock therapy (Eagleton) and ended up having him resign from the ticket. McGovern was destroyed in the election. Did that have a factor? I dunno but some so-called experts say it may have reflected negatively on his decision making skills.

Lastly. It's the future of the party, when you win. Al Gore (most likely) would not have been the 2000 Democratic Nominee if not for being Clinton's VP. George HW Bush (most likely) would not have been the 1988 Republican Nominee if not for being Reagan's VP. Mondale in 1984=Carter's VP and so on. That said, you have Dan Quayle in 1996, who fell embrassingly flat but that could be easily argued to have been a terrible VP pick in the first place.

So does it really matter? I guess it only matters if you make a bad choice and/or you win and have a fairly succesful Presidency, therefore possibly creating the candidate of the future. The other aspect to that in particular is, a lot of politicians are fearful to challenge the VP as it could be seen as some kind of disloyalty. HW Bush and Gore both had challengers but as I recall, I don't think it was really that close. So we probably do make more of it than we should.

I think the vast majority of people vote for the top of the ticket.
I'd have to assume, anyways.

 

[martha]

Lastly. It's the future of the party, when you win. Al Gore (most likely) would not have been the 2000 Democratic Nominee if not for being Clinton's VP. George HW Bush (most likely) would not have been the 1988 Republican Nominee if not for being Reagan's VP. Mondale in 1984=Carter's VP and so on.

This is a good point. I hadn't thought of that.


But I'd still like to see actual research on the voters who really do make their choice for President based on who the VP candidate is.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I really, really wish Sen Obama would choose a woman. A qualified woman.

Three women who could join GOP ticket

politico.com

David Paul Kuhn Sun Jun 22, 6:18 PM ET

While the vice presidential slot may be John McCain’s best means of wooing those Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters who remain loath to embrace Barack Obama, the Republican party is a thin source of politically viable women, leaving McCain with few top-tier options.

The most-mentioned potential running mates — former Republican candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty — are all men. Yet no clear front-runner has emerged, and there are at least three women McCain might select to fill out the ticket. All three would mark a symbolic turn away from Vice President Dick Cheney, the ultimate D.C. old-boys-club insider.

One obvious choice is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She’s as near to Cheney on policy as she is far from him symbolically. Rice, however, has consistently denied interest. While such denials are par for the course for prospective veeps, if Rice is indeed out of the mix, that would leave McCain with three other likely female running mates to consider:

Sarah Palin

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin may be nationally unknown, but in her state she is nothing short of a political phenomenon.

Palin, 44, would add youth to the GOP ticket. As governor she has shown a willingness to veto some of the state’s large capital projects, no small plus for fiscal conservatives. But it’s her personal biography, which excites social conservatives, and reformist background that might most appeal to McCain.

She’s stridently anti-abortion, and recently brought to term her fifth child — who she knew would have Down syndrome. A hunter, fisher and family woman with a rapid professional rise, Palin is a natural for Republican framing.

In 1982, Palin led her underdog high school basketball team to the state championship, earning the nickname “Sarah Barracuda.” Two years later she won the beauty pageant in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska — and was also named “Miss Congeniality.” By her early thirties, she was the mayor of Wasilla.

In 2003, as ethics commissioner on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, she risked her rising political star by resigning her position in protest of ethical misconduct within the state’s Republican leadership as well as then-Gov. Frank Murkowski’s acceptance of that impropriety. Though this briefly made her an outcast within the party, within a year several state Republican heavyweights were reprimanded for the conduct she’d decried.

Her reputation with the party thus redeemed, Palin defeated Murkowski in the 2006 Republican primary on the way to being elected governor.

As governor, she’s continued challenging the state’s powers that be, even winning tax increases on oil companies’ profits. Her approval rating has soared as high as 90 percent, making her one of America’s most popular governors.

“Palin is becoming a star in the conservative movement, a fiscal conservative in a state that is looking like a boondoggle for pork barrel spending,” said Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster who specializes in women’s politics.

“She’s young, vibrant, fresh and now, and a new mother of five. She should be in the top tier,” Conway continued. “If the Republican Party wants to wrestle itself free from the perception that it is royalist and not open to putting new talent on the bench, this would be the real opportunity.”

But several top Republican Party leaders, who asked that their names be withheld so they could speak frankly about vice presidential options, said that Palin remains out of the top tier for now. “Too unknown and inexperienced,” said one GOP insider. Others pointed out that she is not only based far from the continental 48 — and in a state with just three electoral votes that should already be in the bag for the GOP — but also has no foreign policy credentials or experience.



Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina has an up-by-her-own-bootstraps success story, having worked her way from a start as a young secretary straight through the glass ceiling to become Hewlett-Packard’s chief executive from 1999 to 2005. She presently serves as the chair of the organization tasked by the Republican National Committee with preparing the party’s crucial get-out-the-vote operation. It’s no symbolic post, but a crucial position for a party facing an uphill presidential contest.

Along with eBay.com CEO Meg Whitman — who has also been brought up occasionally as a long-shot GOP vice presidential prospect — Fiorina is one of the most prominent female executives of the last decade.

Fiorina is also already close to McCain. The two of them recently sat down at his Arlington headquarters with frustrated Clinton supporters and urged them to shift their political allegiance to him. On the campaign trail and on shows like CBS News “Face the Nation,” she’s served as a ubiquitous advocate of the candidate. Privately, she has also become one of McCain’s most trusted economic advisers.

Grover Norquist, a fiscal conservative leader and longtime party organizer, touts Fiorina’s economic and executive bonafides but labeled her a “dark horse” vice presidential prospect. One Republican state party chairman said, “everybody would be very pleasantly surprised with her” before adding that “the danger is that she hasn’t been vetted” — a concern echoed by several GOP insiders.

These insiders also expressed concern that adding her to the ticket would do little to galvanize social conservatives, some of whom still view McCain with suspicion and antipathy. They also brought up her lack of foreign policy experience, and expressed concern that her reputation as “the most powerful woman in business” — as she was once called by Forbes magazine — could prove a dubious distinction at a time when economic anxiety is reaching levels unseen since the late 1970s.

While McCain has criticized excessive executive salaries, Obama spokesman Bill Burton has already issued a statement pointing out that she “presided over thousands of layoffs at Hewlett-Packard while receiving a $21 million severance package” when she was fired by the company’s board of directors in 2005.

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Last week Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the longest-tenured female Republican senator, joined McCain for a fundraising sprint in the Lone Star state. Hutchison, who until recently headed the Senate Republican Conference, now serves as chairwoman of the Republican Policy Committee, two top Beltway party posts.

Hutchison had already engaged on McCain’s behalf, defending his embrace of the controversial conservative Pastor John Hagee earlier this year and making the rounds as a surrogate on the Sunday political shows (including an appearance Sunday on ABC’s “This Week”), though, like McCain, it’s a medium that does not suit her. And also like McCain, she is not a gifted campaigner.

In Texas, where she has been comfortably reelected, one Republican strategist notes that she’s “proven she can get scores of Hispanics in a huge state surrogate.”

“She’s underused as a surrogate to the party,” the strategist added.

But despite her popularity in the state and in the party and her years of experience, insiders are skeptical she’ll be selected. Like Alaska, Texas is already a solidly Republican state in presidential races. And adding Hutchison — who supports embryonic stem cell research and is relatively moderate on abortion (she is against outlawing the procedure, though she also opposes federal funding for it) — to the ticket would also alienate some social conservatives.

And then there’s the energy problem. Hutchison has long been a defender of Big Oil, which may make political sense locally but could prove a liability in a national race at a time when oil companies are enjoying record profits even as Americans pay record amounts at the pump.

Insofar as Hutchison, Palin or Fiorina are seriously considered, the question McCain's team may first have to answer is how much of a premium to place on gender.

Then there is the media factor. McCain himself aches for the favorable attention of a press corps he feels prefers his rival. The vice presidential pick is one of the few remaining set pieces that will ensure him the spotlight, and could build excitement about his candidacy. And as even Republicans are noting, they could use a bit of excitement.

 

[martha]

Where's Ann Richards when we need her.

 

[Irvine511]

i'm pulling for Charlie Crist.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Ann Richards kicked ass

 

[deep]

Ann Richards kicked ass

One convention speech does not make a career.

She was unexpectedly defeated in 1994 by George W. Bush, winning 46 percent of the vote to Bush's 53 percent, despite spending 23% more than the Bush campaign.

Is she responsible for our current nightmare ?

 

[Irvine511]

Is she responsible for our current nightmare ?

i blame Barbara "this is all working out very well for [victims of Hurricane Katrina]" Bush.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

(AP)CAMPAIGN NOTEBOOK
Powell is favorite in online VP poll

June 30, 2008

Ever wonder what it would be like if the vice presidential sweepstakes was conducted like "Survivor"? Now we know, because of Affinnova, a Massachusetts-based company that used "evolutionary optimization" to trim down a list of 100 possible vice presidents to the strongest candidate for each party.

Participants in the Internet sample, taken from June 12 to 17, were presented with three president-vice president combinations and asked to pick the one that most appealed to them. Over time, those tickets not picked dropped off, and the more commonly selected moved up the list.

There was just one winner: retired general Colin Powell. Powell, who has said countless times that he has no interest in running for office, wound up atop both the Democratic and Republican lists.

Rounding out the top five picks for Democrats, in order, were former vice president Al Gore, former representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina. On the GOP side, the results for second through fourth place were: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and former governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, in a virtual dead heat. Former mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City took fifth.

 

[Irvine511]

I think Sam Nunn won't be asked. Apparently he once fired 2 aides solely because they were gay, and said they would have been considered risks to the CIA and Defense Department.

i agree with you.

Nunn was also rabid about DADT in the early 1990s.

the only risk to our security is that which is posed by DADT which fires gay soldiers -- including over 30 fluent in Arabic translators.

if Bush was actually serious about fighting terror, he'd repeal this asinine law (which was given to us by the Clintons).

 

[deep]

i agree with you.

Nunn was also rabid about DADT in the early 1990s.

the only risk to our security is that which is posed by DADT which fires gay soldiers -- including over 30 fluent in Arabic translators.

if Bush was actually serious about fighting terror, he'd repeal this asinine law (which was given to us by the Clintons).

What do you think it was like before DADT ?

Repeal it ? Are you clueless ?


Repeal and go back to asking all inductees are you now or have you ever been gay ?

Gays had to lie to get in the service.

If they were ever caught, they suffered severe penalties.

Officers had the right to ask anybody anytime and they had to tell on themselves and others .


After 12 years of Reagan and Bush. Gays had a great and sympathetic friend in Bill Clinton. If you lived through the 90s you would know this.

 

[Irvine511]

What do you think it was like before DADT ?

Repeal it ? Are you clueless ?


Repeal and go back to asking all inductees are you now or have you ever been gay ?

Gays had to lie to get in the service.

If they were ever caught, they suffered severe penalties.

Officers had the right to ask anybody anytime and they had to tell on themselves and others .

no, silly. repeal it all. let gays serve openly and honorably. that's what Clinton should have done in the first place. he FAILED. and he threw gay people under the bus for the rest of his term -- who signed the first DOMA?

After 12 years of Reagan and Bush. Gays had a great and sympathetic friend in Bill Clinton. If you lived through the 90s you would know this.

Clinton was a friend to the gays only when it served his purposes, like getting elected in 1992. when they became an issue for him, he dropped them.

yes, Clinton was better than Bush/Reagan. no question. i suppose i should just shut up and be grateful when someone doesn't directly spit in my face? that person is a great and sympathetic friend when he sometimes acknowledges my existence?

i don't regard Bill and Hillary as an enemy. but they are not, i repeat, NOT great allies. they are convenient allies.

Obama mentioned gays in his 2004 convention speech. he has gone to black churches and chided them for their homophobia. he gave an extremely thoughtful answer in the LOGO forum about marriage rights and it's parallels to the civil rights movement. i might disagree with him, and i might think he's a coward for not doing more, but the level of thought with him goes far beyond mere expedience.

i am not a gay who adores Hillary because she's some sort of drag queen template, a great diva who pratfalls as hard as she rises.

they have not fooled me. i see them for who they are, and i know i am nothing to them beyond a demographic to be won over, and then tossed some scraps if/when it serves them best.

but at least they haven't centered an entire social policy on my social death and destruction.

but, hey, i've come to lower my expectations, and smile and speak in a real friendly-like voice whenever them straights be comin' round. after all, us uppity faggots get what's coming to them, don't we.

 

[deep]

no, silly. repeal it all. let gays serve openly and honorably. that's what Clinton should have done in the first place. he FAILED. and he threw gay people under the bus for the rest of his term -- who signed the first DOMA?


Clinton was a friend to the gays only when it served his purposes, like getting elected in 1992. when they became an issue for him, he dropped them.

yes, Clinton was better than Bush/Reagan. no question. i suppose i should just shut up and be grateful when someone doesn't directly spit in my face? that person is a great and sympathetic friend when he sometimes acknowledges my existence?

i don't regard Bill and Hillary as an enemy. but they are not, i repeat, NOT great allies. they are convenient allies.

Obama mentioned gays in his 2004 convention speech. he has gone to black churches and chided them for their homophobia. he gave an extremely thoughtful answer in the LOGO forum about marriage rights and it's parallels to the civil rights movement. i might disagree with him, and i might think he's a coward for not doing more, but the level of thought with him goes far beyond mere expedience.

i am not a gay who adores Hillary because she's some sort of drag queen template, a great diva who pratfalls as hard as she rises.

they have not fooled me. i see them for who they are, and i know i am nothing to them beyond a demographic to be won over, and then tossed some scraps if/when it serves them best.

but at least they haven't centered an entire social policy on my social death and destruction.

but, hey, i've come to lower my expectations, and smile and speak in a real friendly-like voice whenever them straights be comin' round. after all, us uppity faggots get what's coming to them, don't we.

I did a google search and see where you are getting some of this complete bullshit you are regurgitating


I was there, I remember the debates, in the Democratically controlled congress

here is a gay man, maybe you will listen to him

Dems on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Cowards Then and Now.
Posted on June 11, 2008 by gary chapelhill

Back when the primary was in full swing, I wrote a post contending that Hillary was the better candidate when it came to LGBT issues such as marriage and gays in the military. Obama supporters who commented, and those I know in “real-life” always responded with sentiments such as “but Clinton got us into the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ mess in the first place”. First of all this is not true. Bill Clinton wanted there to be no ban whatsoever on gays serving in the military. After all, we have been serving proudly (if not openly) in just about every conflict and every branch of the military since the birth of this nation. Of course the GOP was adamantly opposed to overturning the ban on gays in the military. But Clinton had a Democratic majority to work with in congress, so you would think he could have easily passed this reform, which he had campaigned on before being elected President. Like so many other aspects of the Clinton Presidency, the Obots prefer revisionist history to reality. They claim that Clinton is to blame for the policy we have now, “don’t ask, don’t tell”. While he did eventually sign the compromise into law, it was Democrats in congress who blocked an outright ban.

Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on gay and bisexual people in the armed forces was led by Democrat Sam Nunn of Georgia who organized Congressional hearings that largely buffed the armed forces position that has remained unchanged since the 1981 directive.

After backlash from members of his own party, Clinton agreed to a compromise. While not perfect, the compromise did seem to open a pathway for gays and lesbians to serve legally in the military:

The final result was a Congressional compromise of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” that was later amended to include “don’t harass”. Officially, the compromise dictates that the armed forces will no longer ask recruits about their sexual activity and/or orientation, will not investigate any serviceman or servicewoman’s sexual activity and/or orientation without solid evidence (thus preventing witch-hunts), and self-identified homosexual servicemen and women agree that they will not engage in homosexual sex acts, or do anything that announces that they are a homosexual, i.e. public statements or participate in a same-sex marriage openly.

Once the Republicans regained control of the government this policy was perverted to indeed serve as the basis for witch-hunts to purge gay/lesbian service members, but that was clearly not Clinton’s intention, and in my opinion hardly his fault. I lay blame with Democrats like Sam Nunn who didn’t fully support Clinton’s promise to end the ban entirely.

Today the Oborg tries to paint Clinton as anti-gay, saying that he backed down in the face of adversity. To begin with, many of these 20 somethings were still in diapers when this occurred. They may not remember the hostility towards gays and lesbians in the early 90’s. Those of us who are old enough to remember can recall that the AIDS crisis was threatening to decimate the gay community. Many people in our society (not just the military) didn’t even want to shake our hands or drink after us at water fountains out of fear of the disease. Sodomy laws were still on the books (I wonder if any of these kids even realize that at that time just being gay was technically illegal). So for Bill Clinton to even make this stand is in my eyes heroic. He could have very easily ignored his campaign promise when he saw that the political wind was at his face. But he tried, and when he couldn’t get the ban overturned, he compromised. If he had had the support of his fellow party members he may have very well been successful.

Their cowardice then led to the policy that we have now. They also showed the nation that they had no principles and were easily frightened by a small but vocal minority of religious bigots. The Obamanuts today will Blame Clinton.
And what about the rest of the Democrats, some of whom are still around from back in 1993? Nancy Pelosi (from San Fran-freaking-cisco!!!) wants to study the issue:

Davis said she plans to convene a hearing on the issue by the end of the year. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she supports the creation of a panel of military experts to study the issue.

While others are being considered for some very serious roles in an Obama administration:

Last week, Nunn — whose name has been floated as a possible running mate to Obama — told reporters in Atlanta that he thinks it would now be appropriate to revisit the matter.

“I’m not advocating anything — except I’m saying the policy was the right policy for the right time, and times change. It’s appropriate to take another look,” Nunn was quoted as saying by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Yes, that’s the same Sam Nunn who obstructed Clinton’s attempt to overturn the ban in 1993. Now he is being considered as a running-mate for Obama and Clinton is being trashed for his historic attempt to gain equal rights for the LGBT community.

To all you sweeties out there: This is the reason I will never vote for Obama.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]
I did a google search and see where you are getting some of this complete bullshit you are regurgitating[/q]


and what did you find? nothing? because i wrote that, no assistance from anywhere else.

as opposed to your various Obama crisis of the day.

i'll deal with the article in a moment.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Dems on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Cowards Then and Now.
Posted on June 11, 2008 by gary chapelhill[/q]


erm, do you find this compelling? he thinks that Clinton was heroic because he caved to conservative Democrats?

keep googling, deep. and let's talk about the 1996 DOMA. because that and DADT are the two biggest pieces of discriminatory legislation passed in my lifetime at least. the christian right would be proud of GWB had he as much success.

but, yes, i will have a problem if Nunn is the VP. is Clinton as much to blame for this as Nunn was? no. but did Clinton throw us to the wolves after the 1994 elections? absolutely.

are the Clintons generally good for the gays? yes. but that's not saying much. and if the winds change, we know where we stand.

 

[deep]

[q]
keep googling, deep. and let's talk about the 1996 DOMA. .

sure, it passed overwhelmingly with Dems supporting it, a veto would have been overridden and this was an election year

I remember the climate in the 90s well

things are much better now

I believe CA will vote down gay marriage ban

this is 2008, why is Obama signing DOMA now? (see no 6, from Obama's website )

http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/obama.pdf

 

[Irvine511]

i'm still waiting for you to show me where i ripped off my post.

did you read the Obama document you just posted?

[q]I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. [/q]

so while the irony of a black man supporting a separate-but-equal institution is not lost on me, it hardly seems that he's "signing DOMA now." he supports federal benefits for those people who live in states that have marriage equality. i don't see how a mainstream politician does any better. you're so ready to defend poor Bill Clinton and offer him aloe after he bent over and sold out the gays for various political expediencies ... and yet you hold Obama to a vastly higher standard.

your spin takes on new levels of torque.

but it's entertaining.

 

[deep]

i'm still waiting for you to show me where i ripped off my post.

did you read the Obama document you just posted?

[q]I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. [/q]

so while the irony of a black man supporting a separate-but-equal institution is not lost on me, it hardly seems that he's "signing DOMA now." he supports federal benefits for those people who live in states that have marriage equality. i don't see how a mainstream politician does any better. you're so ready to defend poor Bill Clinton and offer him aloe after he bent over and sold out the gays for various political expediencies ... and yet you hold Obama to a vastly higher standard.

your spin takes on new levels of torque.

but it's entertaining.

I think you believe, like myself that the CA Gay Marriage Ban will not pass the November.

Comparing Bill Clinton's actions in the 90s, that actually moved the ball further in both Gay rights and Civil Rights enforcement, to what a Politician does today, in 2008 when we have a much stronger "Progressive Movement" and the Democrats in control of both houses is just plain wearing "blinders".


maycocksean, who is a 100 % Obama supporter, is at least objective enough to admit he thinks "ethanol" is not a good idea.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse': from DOMA 1996

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Denial of 'marriage' and 'spouse' for Gays: from Obama 2008

Do you believe the civil institution of marriage (with absolutely no equirements imposed on religious institutions) should be made legally available to two committed adults of the same sex?
Obama - I oppose.

 

[Irvine511]

I think you believe, like myself that the CA Gay Marriage Ban will not pass the November.

yes, i do.

Comparing Bill Clinton's actions in the 90s, that actually moved the ball further in both Gay rights and Civil Rights enforcement, to what a Politician does today, in 2008 when we have a much stronger "Progressive Movement" and the Democrats in control of both houses is just plain wearing "blinders".

but this is what i've been saying all along. yes, OF COURSE the Clintons were better than any Republican would have been, and advancements were made during the 1990s. but the biggest strides were made by ordinary gay people themselves who refused to be treated as second class citizens, and there was not comparable help from the White House. the gays helped get Clinton elected in 1992, and two things they got were DADT and DOMA. yes, much of that had to do with the Congress at the time, as well as the culture climate, but to sit there and pretend that the Clintons treat gay people with any more respect than that which they'll get from said community in political returns is just silly. when gays became radioactive, the Clintons dropped us like kryptonite.

maycocksean, who is a 100 % Obama supporter, is at least objective enough to admit he thinks "ethanol" is not a good idea.

erm, so do i, and i have stated, in no uncertain terms, that i think Obama is a "coward" on marriage rights. and sean is far more honest than you, who manufactures what i'm now going to call "Deep's Daily Obama Disaster." because it's getting bewildering.

however, to equate his semantical, politically necessary need to toss the straights a bone about the precious word "marriage" as equivalent to the passage of DOMA -- in and of itself a perfect example of Clintonian triangulation, he tossed the gays under the bus so that he could get other legislation passed through the Republican controlled house, and it's only retroactively that it's been spun as some kind of bill that enabled the passage of marriage equality in MA and CA.

i know you'd like to think that you're more aware of the 1990s because you were an adult and i was a teen, but i paid attention, and i wrote a paper on the passage of DOMA in college.

you're also not quite aware of the abuse of DADT in the military itself, not least of which how it's often used to target women disliked by their superior (male) officers.

 

[Irvine511]

I believe CA will vote down gay marriage ban

[q] Dear Friends, 


Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country. 



As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of fully inclusive laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states. 



For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success. 

 


Sincerely,

Barack Obama 


Obama Calls Calif. Amendment 'Divisive and Discriminatory'  | News | Advocate.com

[/q]

 

[deep]

Looks like we have a V P for McCain

Florida Gov. Crist says he's getting married

By Adam Smith, Times staff

Published Thursday, July 3, 2008 6:43 PM

ST. PETERSBURG — Florida's most powerful bachelor is getting hitched.

Gov. Charlie Crist, single for nearly three decades, on Thursday morning became engaged to his girlfriend of nine months, Carole Rome.

"She's special in every way. She's brilliant, beautiful and sweet. I'm very, very lucky," Crist told the St. Petersburg Times in an exclusive interview.

Crist said he picked out the sapphire and diamond ring on Wednesday at the Gold and Diamond Center in St. Petersburg's Northeast Shopping Center.

No date has been set for the wedding, but Crist, 51, said it would be in St. Petersburg, where he is a member of First United Methodist Church. There probably also will be a reception in Tallahassee.

 

[yolland]

^ The ultimate move to the center? Or just a lesson for the Florida press in not being too quick to put the pieces together?

 

[deep]

a man could be tempted

to move to her center