Thursday, March 15, 2007

Spineless, and built to stay that way

Sometimes the Democrats seem to be trying to do their best to lose. With the dismal failure that has been "our Shrub", a Democratic victory should be inevitable. But once again, candidates show the ability to waffle wimpily away from success.
The latest example: Both Hillary and Barack fail to take a stand when asked "Is homosexuality immoral?".
This is an easy question to answer, "yes" or "no", but waffling non-answers only make you look phony. A religious moralist can say "All sex outside of marriage is immoral". A liberal can say "Any sex between consenting adults shouldn't be judged by others". But trying to pander to all by not taking a stand looks really weak. (By the way, I'm a liberal).
The candidates need to face the fact that the right wing WILL attack them no matter what they say, so they might as well say something with substance. It at least proves that you stand for something, and it's easier to defend substance that hot air.
For the record, I wish Hillary and Barack had stood up for gay rights, and challenged the whole question as being discriminatory. We should stand, loud and proud, for "Human Rights". The right has been using homophobia as a weapon for years. It's time to disarm them.
Added: As always, someone else says it better that I do. This time it's RS Janes at Grouchy's place

– Is homosexuality immoral? Hillary Clinton dithered over an answer, finally telling ABC it was for someone else to conclude whether homosexuality is immoral. WTF?! Dems, how about this for an answer: In a free country, it’s not the business of a politician nor the government to make judgments about what consenting adults do in the bedroom — PERIOD. It is also not the business of the military to examine the sex lives of its personnel unless it is affecting their conduct while on duty. If you personally have a problem with someone else’s sexual preference, perhaps you need professional help because it’s your problem, not theirs.
Update: Hillary has "clarified":" I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner's statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe."
Update 2: Barack now makes this statement: "As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years."

Dagnabit, they're trying to make my blog irrelevant. But wait, if I put up a post bitching about something, and the candidates comply within hours...hmmm, I'll have to think about what I bitch about next.


whig said...

Good sense and judgment is universal. If you say what you should when you should, don't be surprised to see others say the same things at the same times without first reading one another.

It's part of the particular genius of blogtopia (y!sctp) that as we get to know one another better we really do begin thinking in more similar ways than we even did before.

Eventually it even becomes (gasp!) consensus.

whig said...

What's also nice is that the blog conversation and the mainstream political conversation are connected in similar ways, albeit with some more delays and finessing on the mainstream side.