Gravel Takes On Clinton’s “Bigot-Friendly” Gay Policy
Mike Gravel pulls no punches in his latest attack on arch-nemesis Senator Hillary Clinton.
Comparing Clinton to historic haters like Strom Thurmond, the Democratic presidential hopeful digs into Clinton’s religious-like espousal of state’s rights…
The former Alaska Senator and gay-friendly, progressive politico writes:
During last week’s historic gay debate, Hillary Clinton dredged up the old states rights argument when justifying her opposition to gay marriage. Apparently she thinks that the second class citizenship of gays and lesbians is a matter for the states to decide.By drawing upon the language of states rights, Hillary embraces the tradition of John Calhoun and the defenders of slavery along with Strom Thurmond and the segregationists. Throughout our nation’s history, every time national public opinion turns against oppression, opponents of progress use states rights to present themselves as defenders of liberty in the face of federal power.
States rights has always been the last refuge of the bigots.
Damn, girl. If words could slap, these would definitely leave a mark. And, possibly, permanently disfigure.
Gravel’s definitely got a point, though. As we’ve seen, federalism doesn’t have the most stellar equal rights record. When will politicos stop taking the easy way out and forge a new, unified America? We’re not asking them to walk on water, sheesh.
What makes it more galling is that states rights is almost always a conservative/libertarian theme. She no more believes in states rights than in leprachauns. Where will her states rights be when she nationalizes/socializes our health care? Lying bitch.
yet for some reason, homos still love Hillary… can’t get enough Hillary… got a boner for Hillary… clamp on the nipples for Hillary.
we have *how many?* states currently banned gay marriage. yes. let’s leave it up to the states. what a great idea.
you know, Obama said that… OVER A YEAR AGO. even he had to good sense to make it a federal issue (that’s just my opinion though).
WWH has a great point. I’d love to hear what she has to say about, say, abortion rights reverting back to the states. Bet she’d be opposed, even though technically as it’s not a right speicfically granted to federal govt., it should be a state’s rights issue.
I live in NYC and I don’t personally know ANY homos who love Hillary. Most can’t stand her.
“States rights has always been the last refuge of the bigots.”
Not really. Sure it was in the Civil Rights Era, but that was close to forty years ago. For the past couple decades – since Reagan, maybe – it seems to me that a strong Fed Gov’t has been more of a threat to most of our freedoms & rights.
I still think her answer is b.s., and that she’s using “states’ rights” as an excuse – neither she nor any candidate outside Ron Paul really advocates lessening federal power. But I also think Gavel is full of it. Worse, I think he knows it.
Gravel has some guy up at Columbia write all this stuff…
Same here NYCstudman…everyone here in Beantown not only dislikes, but downright hates Clinton yet look at her polls. I don’t get it. Everyone here thinks she’s a NeoCon posing as a Democrat. She’s gonna be almost as big a disaster on Iraq and other issues as Bush. Plus what really worries me is, like her overrated husband before her, she’s gonna lose both houses of congress for Democrats, if not next year then during the 2010 midterms. It’s more important to keep the majorities in Congress and build on them than get the White House. She needs to be stopped somehow…the problem is, this country is no more ready to elect a Black man than Hillary Clinton. I’m getting more and more pessimistic everyday…we need someone who wins so big they sweep us to bigger margins in Congress and that sure ain’t Clinton.
I meant Gregg not Nycman…my bad.