Intolerance, the GOP, and "Christian" values

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiU3maL6rzE

I totally missed this one, and shame on you all for not bring it up either. J/K :)

"The Newsroom" mentioned this in tonight's episode. Apparently at one of the forgettable and often pathetic 2011 GOP primary debates hosted by FNC, they aired a clip of a soldier serving in Iraq who just came out as gay on YouTube and asked the candidates if they would roll back the progress that gay and lesbian soldiers have made. Loud boos came from the audience, and not a single candidate had the courage (not even courage, but minimum human decency) to support that soldier - who was taking a major risk - and chastise members of the crowd who were disrespectful. At least in 2008 McCain had the decency to correct the people who were spouting Obama lies/hate/fear (much to his political peril among some conservatives, unfortunately). The question was directed at major bigot Santorum, who blah blahed a little about how sexuality has no place in the military (and he got cheers for that). Just like how racism is no longer a problem in the US, and abstinence is the best way to fight AIDS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

I guess during that summer of GOP debates, there were also regrettable crowd reactions like cheers for TX's prolific executions and letting the sick uninsured die. But for the "pro-military" party, I can't believe how they handled the gay soldier issue. He had to hide who he was, and probably endure a lot of homophobic conversation weekly, just to live through 120 degree heat and get shot at/blown up. All that because he cared enough to serve the US in the armed forces. And I think this was the first time in a long time that the entire GOP field had not served in uniform at all. So yeah, they have every right to pass judgment and hang that soldier out to dry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xT1iMvTwYI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao

Well, after the repeal of DADT and various state and federal court rulings, one could argue that the LGBT crowd got the "last laugh" and are on a winning streak vs. the old, hateful ways of a certain wing of the GOP. Obviously there's a long way to go before sexual orientation discrimination is no longer an issue, but we have to hold people accountable when they are exhibiting shameful behaviors. I don't think Romney's trouncing has done anything to reverse the undercurrents of bigotry that exist in some of the GOP, and frankly I don't know what will. But for those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, a choice, a disease, a deviant lifestyle, etc... how is this for thought?

There are plenty more damaging and even deadly transgressions discussed in the Bible that we should probably address before we try to eradicate homosexuality from society. For those who are so against gays and the "sin" that they represent - are they just as intolerant and vociferously opposed to the rampant selfishness and greed that has caused great suffering and even deaths worldwide during the recession? Are they similarly protesting the brutality and violence of our penal system and foreign policies? And will they also boo those who show a total lack of Christian compassion for the poor, the sick, and the mistreated (and may even contribute to their pain)? Fight those fights first, because as far as I know Jesus didn't bring up homosexuality even once in all the Gospels. And if he did, I really doubt it was in the context of booing them.

----------

Come on, that's just LIBERAL MEDIA talk. The right and honorable Mr. Rick Santorum totally would have condemned those boos...if he had heard them.

"I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier. That soldier is serving our country. I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job; I hope he is safe and I hope he returns safely and does his mission well.

I have to admit I seriously did not hear those boos. Had I heard them, I certainly would have commented on them. But, as you know, when you’re in that sort of environment, you’re sort of focused on the question and formulating you answer, and I just didn’t hear those couple of boos that were out there. But certainly had I, I would've said, “Don’t do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.”

I mean, you could barely even hear those boos, how could he have known they were booing? Or what exactly they were booing? Maybe they were booing something else.:

"Kelly brings up an excellent point, sharing that it was unclear whether those booing were doing so because of the soldier, or the content of his question"

Because if that was the case, then it would have been totally okay right?

----------

Haha thx. Gotta love the excuse machine. That's kind of amazing that 10 candidates + the moderator didn't hear anything from what seemed to be dozens/hundreds of booers in the crowd. They were just too dialed in! They presumably heard the question (which they were concentrating on) and the video... so putting 2 and 2 together, could they at least acknowledge that soldier's patriotic service and legit concerns, apart from the issue of crowd boos? They acted like that man didn't even exist, and Kelly was giving them a hypothetical question. Humanizing an issue with an actual personal example makes it harder to blanket stereotype and hate (kudos to Google and Fox for that I guess). I guess that's debating for dummies 101 though: when you don't like the question or direction of the discussion, just pretend it never happened and talk about what you want to talk about.

At least in 2008 McCain had the decency to respectfully and diplomatically correct people who were spouting Obama lies/hate/fear (much to his political peril among some conservatives, unfortunately). And McCain was a fogey probably going deaf and senile at the time. He heard the boos and did the right thing. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

Michigan GOP changes rules at the last minute to give Romney win over Santorum

Not that I'm a RS supporter, but I will pounce on any opportunity to badmouth Romney.




http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/01/michigan-state-gop-awards-romney-at-large-delegates

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10425254-santorum-romney-allies-going-all-in-in-michigan

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147787317/santorum-upset-by-mich-delegate-decision



We all know that it's a major shame if a politician can't even win his or her own state (e.g. Gore in 2000). So despite Romney et al.'s much more formidable and organized campaigning machine outspending Santorum's at least 3-to-1 in his birth state of Michigan, the polls were neck-and-neck, and some even had RS ahead by double-digits a couple weeks ago before he botched the AZ debate. I have little idea how the stupid delegates system in the US works, but apparently the 2 candidates had earned 14/30 MI delegates each, with the party awarding the final 2 at-large delegates. Party rules stipulated that each candidate would get one, since the voting was so close, so MI would be declared a tie. But the MI GOP changed the rules at the last minute to award Romney both. The reasoning for this change is unclear. Santorum's camp is of course crying foul, and he's not the only one. MI's former Atty. General compared this move to a "banana republic". It stinks of corruption, even if it was done honestly and ethically.



Romney also "stole" a perceived Iowa win even though a recount showed RS barely won (or the 2 tied). But the headlines got out that Romney won, so that is the story. Again here, the press says that Romney won MI, so now he gets the momentum and the publicity, while RS looks like a complainer if he doesn't let it go. But despite all of Romney's advantages, the fact that MI was so close should send his campaign and the country a message on his viability as a candidate.



To me, it's just scary that some careless volunteers in Iowa and some un-elected party bosses in Michigan can literally determine who the next presidential challenger will be.