6 responses

  1. David Roberts
    December 28, 2011

    Nothing like transparency in politics, lol. Ron must have gone to the NARTH school of historical revisionism.

  2. Lynn David
    December 29, 2011

    More clowning around by the republicans… who’d have thought?!

  3. Andrew
    December 29, 2011

    Given Paul’s recent willingness to go along with the repeal of DADT, I think it’s apparent that he doesn’t have a knee-jerk homophobia. I just don’t think he spends much time considering what’s important to our community overall – we aren’t “his people” per se, but I don’t think he has it out for us either.

    I do think, however, that part of the necessary process for getting where he’s gotten has involved cozying up to fringies who do have it out for gays, Jews, and a multitude of others. He was willing to accept it at the time because they were within his constituency for the most part, and because it was unlikely to have real national policy impact. And because, frankly he didn’t spend much time thinking about us. It’s easy to sit in the cheap seats.

    Now, however, he’s having to do something he’s not really had to consider before: vetting not only his own campaign (which he’s doing spottily), but also people who throw their support behind him.

    In that context, I take the retraction of this minister off the website less as a matter of “sweeping it under the rug” than as correcting a mistake – and not all that different from Obama’s unapologetic choice of anti-gay ministers at his inauguration, by the way (lest we employ double standards).

    Paul is willing to accept the support, but he’s not prepared to tie his name & reputation (further – he’s still trying to put his newsletters screw up in the past) to someone who thinks, among many other things, that killing gays is okay… but it probably took a little doing to figure that out (especially when no one on your staff really focuses on liaising with the LGBT community).

    In short, if Paul believed that killing gays was okay, he’d have left the citation on the website. He doesn’t usually dance back from issues he truly believes in, even when they’re wildly unpopular (i.e. being okay with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons).

    As for lack of support of the anti-sodomy ruling, as inconvenient as it is for us, it is consistent with his stance of the supremacy of states rights over federalism and is not intrinsically and intentionally anti-gay, but anti-gay by consequence. The pesky 14th Amendment notwithstanding, mind you. What’s unfortunate is that Paul seems to put principle and consistency ahead of real world consequences. Which is easy when you’re old, white, straight, and a member of the elite.

  4. Ryan
    December 29, 2011

    I read some of this guy’s writings today. He even supports the Death Penalty for those who work on the Sabbath “under certain circumstances”. He’s the wing nuttiest of all right wing nuts. Whoever in the Paul campaign who failed to vett him properly needs to resign.

  5. Andrew
    December 30, 2011

    Agreed – and here’s my take on this. Much more relevant than issues is the inability to vet properly. I said the same thing when McCain brought Palin on board… if you can’t vet during the campaign, what faith is anyone supposed to have that your administration won’t be full of bigots or nincompoops?

  6. Timothy Kincaid
    December 30, 2011

    Administrations may have varying degrees of bigots but there is one constant: all administrations that I’ve seen were simply dripping with nincompoops.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop