Daaaamn! HRC lays it all out there in their new push against John McCain.
The gay non-profit today released a six-page report emphasizing all of the Republican’s anti-gay ways. Their conclusion: McCain’s nothing but an older, grayer, less courageous Bush. [Prune-tang?]
So, gays for McCain, let this be a lesson to you: don’t do it.
See an even more explicit dissection – and the report – after the jump…
OPPOSED Ending Discrimination Against GLBT Americans in the Workplace. Senator McCain cast a deciding vote against the federal Employment Non Discrimination Act.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
OPPOSED Protecting GLBT Americans from Hate Crimes. Senator McCain voted three times against expanding the federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation.
PROPONENT of Discriminatory Military Policy. Senator McCain supports Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and does not believe that gays should serve in the military.
OPPONENT of Equal Benefits for Same-Sex Couples. Senator McCain voted for the Defense of Marriage Act which prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal rights and benefits in any state.
ACTIVELY SUPPORTED State Ban on Domestic Partnerships. Senator McCain campaigned for a ban on same-sex relationship recognition in his home state of Arizona – even appearing in a campaign television ad.
SUPPORTED the Confirmation of Anti-GLBT Equality Judges. Senator McCain voted to confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees who had taken anti-GLBT positions. He has pointed to Justice Samuel Alito as a role model for future Supreme Court appointments.
SUPPORTED a Discriminatory HIV/AIDS Policy. Senator McCain supported a Jesse Helms strategy to cut off funding for prevention efforts aimed at the gay community and voted to prohibit foreign nationals with HIV from immigrating to the United States.
fredo777
He’s not getting my vote anyway, but the sad thing is that these anti-gay moves could be just what gains him more favor from the more conservative voters.
Madonna's Boy
All those Hillary-backers who are against Obama for petty reasons better wake-up and acknowledge who is the REAL enemy…McSlain. A vote for McSlain, is a vote against the gay community’s self-interest. “Gays for McCain” = “Jews for Hitler”!!!
GOBAMA!!!
Chris
“So, gays for McCain, let this be a lesson to you: don’t do it.”
Let this be a lesson to you, Andrew: There are issues besides LGBT rights. Some of them, like foreign policy and national security, trump other concerns for voters given the nature of the world in which we live.
I don’t care how many promises Obama makes to the LGBT community (not that I’d believe any of them given his track record with Donny McClurkin). They’re not enough to make me vote for him given his willingness to unconditionally meet with state-sponsors of terrorism.
Hillary Clinton was the only good choice. She voted for the Iraq war because the evidence at the time suggested Hussein may have had weapons of mass destruction. She also voted for the war because Hussein had time and again violated UN mandates. Either the mandates of this international body have meaning, or they don’t. Just because we’re the only country willing to enforce them with military force doesn’t make us wrong. Yes, our handling of the aftermath has been disastrous, but there were just reasons to invade (beyond the WMDs). I’m proud of Hillary for recognizing that and ignoring the moveon.org idiots that are taking over the party.
I won’t be actively supporting McCain this fall, but I will be voting for him. Hopefully in four years, Hillary will run again.
if not clinton, obama.
i guess we should just bomb everyone and ask questions later. no need to meet with anyone- we’ll just let the bombs do the talking…
national security- under mccain, we’d be (still) kicking out gays and letting criminals (FELONS) in. how does that help security?
ChristopherM
Oh come on Chris, even she has admitted the reasons for going to war were trumped up and bad. We don’t invade sovereign nations pre-emptively…it is un-American. And you can repeat McCain’s lie that Obama wants to meet unconditionally with terrorists, but it doesn’t make it any more true.
SeaFlood
Chris… the McClurkin thing is all you can come up with? Is that enough for a real position???That’s one incident. Hillary made such gaffes, too.
It doesn’t matter… Hillary or Obama… I don’t care, but the Dems need to be in the house. It’s that simple.
Chris
Oh come on Christopher, she’s admitted the evidence of WMDs was false, not that Hussien wasn’t in violation of UN mandates time and again which threatened military action if he did not comply. He didn’t comply. Do you think UN mandates should have meaning, or not?
I said Obama would unconditionally meet with state-sponsors of terrorism (Iran). Note the difference between terrorists and state-sponsors of terrorism. I’m sure he’s changed his story several times by now, but his change of heart is as sincere as his church departure.
“We don’t invade sovereign nations preemptively…it is un-American.” Uh, Obama has said he would pre-emptively strike Pakistan (a nuclear-armed nation) if terrorist cells were located. I guess he’s un-American. Well, we kind of already knew that.
#4: Yes; I said we should bomb everyone. Please try constructing a thoughtful argument or post.
CHURCHILL-Y
“the McClurkin thing is all you can come up with? Is that enough for a real position???”
http://www.obamameeksrecord.wordpress.com/
http://www.queerty.com/gay-democrats-must-move-beyond-impotent-delegate-goals-20080514/3/
http://www.queerty.com/dnc-chiefs-gay-promises-mean-little-20080428/
http://www.queerty.com/are-dncs-black-leaders anti-gay-20080124/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/13/17299/3193
NObama!!!
mark
“Prune-tang” was hillarious, thanks for the laugh.
It would apply just as well to those bitter old “protestors” Clinton bussed in to at the DNC committee settling Florida and Michigan.
Ferraro = Prune-tang numero uno
mark
Any queer who trusts McCain after he crawled on his belly to Falwell and Hagee…you’d have made the best KAPOs in the CAMPS, shoving others into the gas chambers, as it saved your pathetic skin.
Len
But, Chris, if the UN did not support our invasion of Iraq and we did it anyway, what’s the difference between Bush and Saddam?
Either UN mandates have meaning or they don’t.
slcoutsider
While I am certainly no McCain supporter, they didn’t really say as much as they thought they did with this ad. The ’04 elections should have taught us that simply saying “so-and-so voted against this x number of times” doesn’t really mean anything. There could have been riding clauses in the bill or other language that he or she just didn’t like. It doesn’t necessarily mean he or she is against it altogether.
Tom
In fact, Israel has been in violation of numerous UN resolutions for decades and no one proposes bombing and invading that country. I love how these right-wingers only cite the UN when it justifies their own murderous agenda and then they want to abolish it when it takes any action contrary to their New World Order view of things.
And yes you are a right-wing conservative if you support murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to capture one man (its really about the oil anyway) and if you would vote for McCrazy (who will lead us into another war in Iran).
Chris
Len,
Either UN mandates have meaning or they don’t. Exactly. The fact that U.S. made the choice to enforce the UN mandates with military action, and once we did, other countries, seeing there could be a potential for loss of life, backed out, and in the disastrous aftermath of the invasion acted like they didn’t support taking action against Iraq to begin with, doesn’t invalidate what we did. It simply makes them cowards of the worst kind. I’m certainly not a fan of the UN. It keeps passing resolution after resolution on how the killing must stop in Darfur, but because the U.S. is too busy in Iraq to take action, no other country feels the need to stand up and do what’s right, even if there could be a cost of human life. It’s despicable.
What’s happened in Iraq due to our lack of planning for after the invasion is criminal. It doesn’t make Bush the same as Sadam. Get a grip on reality.
emb
And saying someone deserves support because she voted for a war that MANY at the time contended (correctly, as it turned out) was based on trumped-up, falsified, and outright fictional evidence is hardly evidence of sound foreign policy or national security credentials. It’s really just evidence of a basic personal gullibility at best, political pandering or insidious warmongering at worst. And that goes for McDopey as well.
Yeah, there are lots of issues besides homo ones: and McCain’s dead wrong on every last one of ’em.
hells kitchen guy
I’d never vote for him, but I agree with #11. Look at Nixon opening up China.
CAm
I have to say, I have continually been surprised that Obama will tell hostile audiences that they need to respect gay rights. He’s said it several times in front of church audiences To me that was surprising, most people running for election will tell an audience what they want to hear. Again, not that thrilled with anybody, but I prefer somebody who stands up for us, to somebody who claims they are for us, but can barely bring themselves to use the word “gay” in a sentance.
CitizenGeek
Chris,
Yes, there are issues besides LGBT issues … but how can you put them ahead of your right to have your relationship with whatever guy you fall in love with recognised by the law. How can you put that ahead of the fact that you could never serve in the military openly. Or that you have no protection if you’re fired from your job for being gay. I just don’t understand how you could put those issues ahead of stuff like national security (something that Obama has proven he is capable in, anyway!).
todd
Chris, are you really Mary Cheney? I bet she will put National Security Concerns first again in this election – and guess what, her non-entity partner will never have any rights.
Mark
Chris is a 110% correct on this issue, unpalatable as it may be. No more on the job training for presidents, thanks.
I don’t know if I can stand voting McCain, but I’m sure the Communist Party is running somebody, don’t they always?
Obama supporters have sickened me off their candidate, though I have to say the Obama people on queerty aren’t nasty as they are on Americablog, Huffpo and, well, virtually every other site in America. Thanks for that.
fredo777
Mark, I have to ask: who gives a rat’s ass what some of Obama’s supporters have done online? I’d have voted for Hills if she got the nom + some of her supporters were down right insufferable.
If Johnny Mac wins, we’re screwed. And not in the good way.
fredo777
* downright
Goddamnit, I even caught that typo before I submitted, got distracted + sent it anyway.
John K.
So Mark, you’re not voting for a candidate because you don’t like the way some of his supporters say things? That’s really a smart way to go about things.
Mark
If you can hold your nose long enough, read Americablog…you’ll see some wildly inappropriate attacks on HRC from people who call themselves Democrats.
But no, that’s not the only reason. I’ve been very engaged in the process from the get-go, given money, been on the phones for moveon, and I’ve become disgusted with the Obama campaign, the filth they’ve used on HRC, the media’s tag-screw of her, and the DNC’s support of it. I don’t believe that I can support another person who mouths the word “change I can believe in” and has yet to offer any concrete examples of what that change will be. I don’t support voting “present’ to avoid going on the record about one’s stance (I think it’s very inside-the-beltway behavior from a guy so “outside the beltway”, I believe he’s got Rezko $$ filth all over himself, and if not, Michelle has pulled in enough corporate board money to make them just like everyone they say they are not. This doesn’t even touch the Trinity debacle, and I’m not too worried about flag pins and all, but I’m completely not about that hot mess. So perhaps that gives you a fuller idea.
fredo777
Okay, let’s say I agree that he’s done some dirty deeds. Which of the candidates have been boy (or girl) scouts during this campaign?
These are politicians we’re talking about, after all. The presidential election is + always has been about the lesser of evils. Good luck finding the presidential candidate who is above reproach. I’d still vote for him before any of the other remaining options.
Peter Pan
Tom said “In fact, Israel has been in violation of numerous UN resolutions for decades and no one proposes bombing and invading that country.”
Don’t forget, Israel, according to President Carter, has at least 150 nuclear warheads but is not subject to any scrutiny regarding nuclear facilities etc.
Iran is an independent country, if it wants to develop nuclear warheads it absolutely may do so.
The US, China, Russia, France, Israel all have nuclear weapons, who the fcuk are they to tell the rest of the world what it is allowed to do?
BTW. I’m totally against nuclear weapons and I’m also totally against these bullies wanting to tell other countries how to run their affairs!
No one appointed the USisrael to be the policeman of the world!
Peter Pan
McPain is the best.
Together with Zionist (blush) Lieberman there is nothing they are not capable of!
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html
But on the other hand Obama is remote controlled by Zionist (blush) Brzezinski!
http://www.rense.com/general82/obm.htm
chuck
Any GLBT person that would vote for Mc Cain has got to be a masochist.