election 2008

The Ripple Effect: How my post on Jon Elrod has spread

I presumed yesterday’s post on the special election would cause some consternation, but it’s always interesting to see how these things play out. Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project asked me to cross post my entry there, which I though would be fun.

From there, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, radio personality and erstwhile former blogger at IndyUndercover got all up about it on his “I’ll admit this blog is mine” blog Indiana Barrister, and apparently has asked Jon Elrod if he’s gay on his radio show.

I’m presuming the answer he gave is no — I don’t listen to the show and haven’t heard one way or another what he actually said.

It’s really cute that in his blog post Abdul says “As one of the premiere bloggers in this state…” Aw. I’ll bet your mom calls you every morning to tell you how handsome you are, too, Abdul. That doesn’t mean it’s true, except in the “state of confusion in Abdul’s head.” Good grief.

Then Gary Welsh at Advance Indiana got all on the case about Abdul even mentioning it either place, referring to my blog post as “a baseless rumor the campaign of Andre Carson has been spreading about Republican Jon Elrod for the past two months.”

Dunno where that description comes from, as I haven’t heard a word about Elrod’s sexual orientation from the Carson campaign. I’m certainly not from the Carson campaign — I’m voting for him against my preferred wishes, and I only posted the entry yesterday morning. But it’s convenient for Gary to reassign the issue to Carson, since he can then claim it’s based in homophobia, as Welsh’s commenters immediately do on his post.

It’s a lot harder for Gary claim my motivation as homophobia – especially when he has a moratorium on talking about me on his blog. I believe I’m one of the people he refused to mention.

Whether any of this changes what I think about voting Elrod — I’ll have to get audio of Elrod’s answer and see what I think about it, and whether I believe his answer. I’m glad that he’s at least been asked publicly a question that half a dozen people emailed me to mention they wondered themselves. If the question is in that many people’s minds, it should be addressed.

Continue ReadingThe Ripple Effect: How my post on Jon Elrod has spread

March 11 District 7 Special Election

I’ve been saying I’m going to write about the March 11th special election, and I haven’t forgotten that. I actually have had a REALLY long post written about it since Friday, but I’ve revised it 10 times and can’t quite get out what I really want to say… so I’m starting over.

Hopefully you’ve all figured out by now that Julia Carson’s District 7 seat as a U.S. Representative is being filled by a special election on March 11th. Whomever wins will still need to campaign again to be chosen in this May’s primary race and to be re-elected in November if they are the candidate.

The two contenders for the seat are Democrat André Carson and Republican Jon Elrod. Elrod is currently my rep in the statehouse, having upset Ed Mahern for 97th District in 2006.

So, where do I stand? As I mentioned in a comment on a previous post, I’ll be voting for André Carson, although he’s not my favorite candidate, and I’ll be supporting another democratic candidate in the May primary.

I really don’t believe Carson has enough political experience to be a U.S. Representative yet. His only other elected office has been a few short months on Indianapolis’ City-County Council. He has no experience in higher Indiana offices, no experience at the Indiana Statehouse, all of which should be prerequisites for an office at the federal level.

There are several people much more qualified for this office than Carson, some of whom actively sought it, like David Orentlicher, who is our representative for the 86th District in the Indiana Congress.

Why Carson over Elrod?

I’ll get to that, but let me start off with some of Elrod’s good points:

Elrod does talk a good game on gay issues. Many gay people in Indianapolis are campaigning for Elrod because he stands out as a lone Republican voting against SJR-7 and against other homophobic legislation in the Indiana Statehouse, and I can see that’s a great thing. There are several gay households in our neighborhood that have Elrod signs in their yards.

However, these same folks are studiously ignoring that Elrod hired a notoriously anti-gay company to build his website – a company that has actively lobbied for SJR-7 and for other legislation destructive to the gay community. I don’t think that’s a deal-killer as far as voting in my eyes, but it does suggest that Elrod doesn’t have a complete awareness of gay issues, or who he might accidentally be in bed with politically in the Republican party.

Elrod also really gets himself out there. I held a long conversation with him in my front yard when he was running in 2006 for District 97, and numerous other people in our district also reported talking to him. He’s definitely a “get out and meet the people” guy. I’ve talked to him twice since that initial meeting, too.

So what’s wrong with Elrod?

I’m not voting for Elrod because I strongly believe that he’s gay.

Yep, you heard that right.

I really, really think that Jon Elrod is gay, and I’m voting against him for that specific reason. I have no real, verifiable concrete evidence that Jon Elrod is gay. None whatsoever. I have no smoking gun, no secret lover, no rumor or innnuendo from within the gay community. I have nothing but instinct.

That man sets off my gaydar at 5 miles away. I’m not kidding.

I’ve been out and active in the gay community for over 20 years. My gaydar is a finely tuned, high performance machine at this point. When it occasionally misfires – and I admit it does – it always because people fly under the gaydar; never because I’ve had a false positive. I never suspect someone is gay when they aren’t; I always suspect they’re straight when they’re gay. I suppose it’s possible that Jon Elrod is straight and I’m mistaken. But I really don’t think so. Not at all.

There’s also not much evidence to contradict my belief; he’s good-looking, single, definitely metro-sexual, and I’ve never seen a girlfriend/beard, although there might be one.

So… IF Elrod is gay, shouldn’t I be voting for rather than against him?

In theory, yes.

Vote for a gay man? In a heartbeat – I’d be thrilled to.

Vote for a gay Republican? – that’s conceivable. If I thought he was the right guy, I just might. I don’t cross the aisle often in my voting, but it’s definitely not off the table, depending on the person.

But vote for a closeted gay Republican? Absolutely fucking not. I’d rather cut off my own arm and beat myself in the head with it.

In the year 2008, there’s absolutely no reason why anyone running for public office should be in the closet, even in Indiana. Especially in Indiana. There’s so much at stake for gay people in Indiana that it would be an utter betrayal of trust to be a closeted elected official, and I really, really believe Elrod is.

What I don’t get is why I’ve never heard this elephant it the room (if you’ll pardon the pun) discussed in the gay community.

I CANNOT be the only person who thinks Elrod is gay. So if all these other gay people are supporting him, are they doing so also suspecting that he’s gay, and wanting to have him in office because of that, despite the closeted status?

I sure hope the hell not, because the very idea makes me sick to my stomach, it’s so disgusting. The self-loathing involved in doing something like that would be overwhelming to me, and one of the most pitiful things for a gay person to do that I can imagine.

I really don’t believe that Jon Elrod is a true friend to the gay community of Indianapolis, and I don’t believe he’s the best person for the job of U.S. Representative for District 7.

Continue ReadingMarch 11 District 7 Special Election

Electoral Compass 2008

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

I’ve taken Political Compass quizzes on back in 2003 and again in 2006 here on this site.

This new Electoral Compass is a different take – it’s written in flash, for one thing, and it places you on the compass with current electoral candidates.

Here’s my score on the current one:

Political Compass 2008

Compared to previously in 2003:

Political Compass 2003

And one I took in 2006 from Okay Cupid. Note that on all of them, the axis changes, which makes them harder to compare.

You are a

Social Liberal
(88% permissive)

and an…

Economic Liberal
(26% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Strong Democrat

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

The new compass seems to think my politics are closest to Obama’s positions. I’m not terribly sure about that – the questions are pretty general, and Obama hasn’t really give specifics about many of his stances. He’s given some general outlines and a lot of inspirational speeches, which I do find inspirational. But I know more about Hillary’s actual politics.

Continue ReadingElectoral Compass 2008

Election 2008 and Hillary Clinton

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

A while back I posted about my belief that the media was illustrating a sexist bias against Hillary Clinton in their coverage of election 2008. Erinposte actually collects and documents numerous examples of it here in s fascinating catalog of anti-female hate.

And pop matters has a great list of helpful hints for Hillary, compiled from various media reactions to her campaign.

It’s a great list because it applies not just to Hillary, but to all women out in the workforce today.

It’s okay to appear ambitious. Ambitiousness shows that you’re confident and secure—a leader.

Don’t appear too ambitious; it freaks men out and offends less accomplished women.

Don’t cry, or it will expose you as too weak to lead our fine nation. And, remember, if you cry, then Jesse Jackson, Jr. will accuse you of crying out of self-pity, rather than for Hurricane Katrina victims.

Do cry, because you don’t want to appear unfeeling and robotic; crying humanizes you! And even if you simply well up a bit, they’ll call it crying, anyway, so you may as well let the waterworks flow.

For God’s sake, don’t laugh. Your laugh is a crazy cackle, and whenever you let loose, you’ll be accused of deflecting attention away from an issue you don’t want to confront.

Do laugh, or else people will think you have no sense of humor, and the last president to lack a sense of humor was Nixon—you certainly don’t need that comparison.

Don’t allow fine lines to appear on your face, or Rush Limbaugh, that paragon of GQ handsomeness, will question whether the nation is ready to witness a woman age in office.

Do age naturally, because if you go for cosmetic surgery or even Botox, it will reinforce the perception among some voters that you are not genuine.

Flash some cleavage to remind us you’re a woman.

Cover it up because it’s unseemly for a woman “of a certain age” to dress like a slut.

Wear pantsuits because they make you look both fashionable and authoritative.

Don’t wear pantsuits, because Anna Wintour says not to, and you don’t want to mess with the devil.

Use Bill Clinton to campaign on your behalf because he’s the best there is (or at least he used to be) and people still like the two-for-one deal.

Don’t use Bill Clinton because you ought to run on your own record and, besides, he’s really annoying the crap out of a lot of party leaders.

Refer to yourself as ‘Hillary’ because it makes you seem accessible.

No, refer to yourself as Senator Clinton because it reminds people of your experience.

No, call yourself Hillary Rodham Clinton to show show you maintain an identity separate from your husband’s.

No, call yourself Hillary Clinton (without the Rodham) to show you are committed to your marriage despite all the whispered rumors.

Oh, hell with it, call yourself ‘Hill’. It’s a win-win-win: it makes you one of the gals and it reminds people that you work on Capitol “Hill” and it lets you avoid the whole ‘Clinton’ imbroglio.

Continue ReadingElection 2008 and Hillary Clinton

Election 2008

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

Two things I discovered via bilerico.com…

This stirring music video of Obama’s post New Hampshire primary speech. I’m still not sure whether I’m voting for him or for Hillary, but either way, I’m going to be getting a more intelligent candidate than the utter imbecile in office now, so I’m happy either way.

On the other hand, long-time AIDS and GLBT activist Larry Kramer points out that there is no candidate today that truly supports GLBT people in America the way they should.

I cannot support any of the candidates thus far running for president because none of them supports me and my people in the ways we need to be supported. This is not just about gay marriage, which has become a nonspecific red herring for non-specific maybes. (Why do you hate us so that you will not permit us to legally love?) Of course we want gay marriage, but that is not all we want. We want safety. (We are the only people in America that it is socially and legally acceptable to hate and discriminate against.) We want no more taxation without representation. (When I die, our government gobbles such an unconscionable amount of my estate that my partner will no longer be able to afford the house we both have put so much of our money and energy into.) We want the approximately 2,000 benefits our government provides to heterosexual married couples. (Why don’t we get them? We pay the same taxes they do.) In other words, we want equality. We want everything straight people have and get and are entitled to. And there is not one candidate who has come anywhere near offering anywhere near any of this. In fact, I am afraid that there is not a one of them who, when push comes to shove, would not continue to sell us down the river. In fact, I have come to believe that forbidding us all of these things we are entitled to is based on hate, pure and simple. There are, by some estimates, 20 million of us. But we don’t make as much noise as our enemies do. In fact, we don’t make any noise at all. More fools we.

Continue ReadingElection 2008

links for 2008-01-11

Continue Readinglinks for 2008-01-11

Hillary is getting the bums rush

This go around, I decided to take some time to watch some of the candidates out on YouTube – listening to them speak versus what the media is saying. So for the past couple weeks I’ve been pulling up the Democratic candidates and watching what they say, then comparing to the news coverage of the same event. Here’s my conclusion:

The media are sexist, racist assholes with a (mostly right-wing) political agenda.

More sexist than racist, but they are both. The spin they put on stuff is bizarre, and completely subjective, and it’s the media pushing some sort of agenda, rather than letting candidates speak for themselves.

Especially the longer footage earlier in the same event, where there’s some utter jackhole with a big yellow sign that says “Iron My Shirt!” and he’s chanting “Iron My Shirt!” over and over at her. In 2008, for fuck’s sake. Why the fuck isn’t that the big story all over the news, rather than her crying? Come the fuck on – that’s the story. We have people in this country who are actually not afraid to go to a public event and act this way – tell me sexism isn’t alive and well in America. That should be shocking to anyone and everyone who sees it, but I see it getting almost no coverage at all.

Then watch the “crying” – she never actually cries at all. At worst, she’s getting choked up because she loves America. She’s not “having a breakdown” or “Too tired to campaign” – I’m sorry, but aren’t there times when you also get choked up about our country, because despite its flaws, this is truly a great experiment we are in. Hell, I get emotional every time I hear the friggin’ National Anthem. Hillary is made of iron compared to me, and I can kick your butt to Toledo.

Do yourself a favor, and spend some time watching the candidates themselves, rather than the “interpretation” of the news. You’ll have a lot more faith in the system and the potential than you have in the past, I tell you.

Continue ReadingHillary is getting the bums rush

Presidential facts in 2008

The stats, via Shakesville:

If you were ever in any doubt about the supremacy of White, Protestant Patriarchy in this culture, let’s do a quick review, OK?
232 Years as a Nation
42 Presidents
42 White Presidents
42 White Male Presidents
42 White Male Christian Presidents
41 White Male Protestant Presidents
1 White Male Catholic President (who was assassinated in office)
46 Vice-Presidents
46 White Vice-Presidents
46 White Male Vice-Presidents
46 White Male Christian Vice-Presidents
46 White Male Protestant Vice-Presidents

It’s definitely time for some change.

Continue ReadingPresidential facts in 2008