Leave it to the party of "inclusiveness" to hold a debate in which only a minority group is involved. From 365gay.com:
For the first time the leading candidates for the presidency will hold a televised debate devoted solely to LGBT issues.
The one-hour event will be held on August 9 and broadcast on gay network LOGO at 9:00 pm ET (6:00 pm PT) and through live streaming video at LOGOonline.com.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Chris Dodd have confirmed they will participate. Several other Democratic candidates also may join the debate.
Aren't these candidates running to represent all people? Suppose a debate was proposed devoted solely to white issues? There never will be because it would be considered bigoted to ignore other groups and those who argued such a point would be correct.
The issues facing America are not gay issues, they're not Hispanic, Asian or Black issues either, they're American issues. Homosexuals in America have some core issues they support such as gay unions and the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy that Bill Clinton thrust on the military. They are important issues that matter to that community, but are not of consequence in the bigger picture.
If Democrats really wanted to have a debate that mattered, why not focus it solely on national security and the War on Terror? For an hour and a half, they could debate how we should fight the continued war against Islamo-fascism and argue the finer points of border security. Of course the candidates would never agree to that because they would be forced to put themselves on the line and take an actual position on the single most important issue of our time. I want to know exactly what Hillary Clinton or John Edwards would do if the capitol were bombed tomorrow or if simultaneous terror attacks rocked New York City. That is an issue of greater import to me and other Americans than whether or not more redundant "hate crimes" laws should be passed.
This shows exactly how the Democrats think, they agree to a debate discussing issues that mean something to a constituency that has clout and money but will not debate on the most watched news network in America where they would be asked tough questions -- Fox News. That speaks volumes of the Democratic candidates to this point.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. If these candidates want to risk their election being seen supporting lgbt issues in order to secure votes, it will work against them. Their ultimate goal should be to represent the voice of the American people. The only supporters of this cause are lgbt's and businesses who believe the ideal: "live and let live" is going to help make them money. The voice of the American people says from the study of ancient times "this is very detrimental to the advancement of our society".
jane at 5:58PM on Jul 11th 2007
2. LGBT Americans represent approximately 4 percent of the voting public. They are a constituency that sees the horrors of political games played with their community but hardly reap any benefits. That alone is enough to justify this, but something tells me you don't agree with that. But to continue:
All of the candidates will no doubt be speaking to other groups and constituencies (racial, religious, what have you--including other minority groups), this just happens to be in the form of a debate.
I too would like to see an entire debate on issues of terror and the war in Iraq; but don't blame the gay community for wanting some accountability from those who in the past and future will have and will decide their well-being.
Sean at 7:38PM on Jul 11th 2007
3. This will be very risky for the candidates. If they tell the group everything they want to hear, they will probably alientate their more conservative supporters.
Steve Bonomo at 10:16PM on Jul 11th 2007
4. Would you whine about it if they took out ONE HOUR and spoke to a seniors group? What if they used ONE HOUR to speak to the NAACP? How about the UAW or Teamsters? Trial Lawyers? NEA? Would your knickers be in such a twist if they spoke for an hour in front of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the American Cancer Society or the AMA? What about the League of Women Voters? This is just one group of people and one hour out of the next year and a half of political B.S. My guess is that you're just bitter because they haven't selected to speak in front of the Bitter White Racist Homophobic Paranoid Idiots group. Let them know when your convention is "Scott" and maybe they can pencil you in.
Bubba S. at 3:40AM on Jul 12th 2007
5. I think that this is a good thing. The candidates need to discuss something other than the war.
halyn at 9:01AM on Jul 12th 2007
6. Uh, Bubba? They are not taking time out to "speak" to a group, the candidates are holding an entire debate dealing with that group issues only.
That's a concern. I don't give a damn if Hillary talks to the United Pedicurist's Conference or John Edwards talks to the National Association of Mirro Makers, the fact that we have the entire Democratic field talking to a group that represents a mere 4% of the population is an issue.
You people on the left are so touchy.
Scott at 8:11AM on Jul 12th 2007
7. hey...maybe the rest of the other candidates will follow and actually have a decent debate. hey, the gays can vote to...especially in areas where there are many of them. like anything else...yes, the candidates will have to think about losing existing votes...but they may be getting more votes. but what the hell...atleast they are thinking about it. gotta give them koodo's for thinking. doesn't happen often.
iamchavira at 12:09PM on Jul 12th 2007
8. Birds of a feather flock together.
joem at 7:55PM on Jul 12th 2007
9. Uh, Scott? LGBT Americans represent approximately 4 percent of VOTERS, not of the population. Some estimates actually put the group's numbers nationally at below 4 percent.
The fact is that LGBT Americans are a political force, just like some other groups that will be shown much attention over the coming months.
LOGO and the HRC chose to have a debate. The Democratic candidates, although hardly as pro-gay as many in the community would like, obliged their invitation. Mitt Romney said no, and John McCain and Rudy Guiliani didn't respond.
I think it's great to see a group represented in a way other than through divisive, hateful attempts at Constitutional amendments and being used as a wedge issue.
Sean at 12:48AM on Jul 13th 2007
10. Where to begin? Most debates focus on issues that pertain to the majority of Americans, and that is a very good thing. There are other issues, however, that are important in minority communities, and holding a debate on these topics is the only way for some of us to hear what the candidates think. Why such an uproar? If you don't want to watch the debate, don't watch it. There will be plenty of other debates for you to watch. Why such resentment that, for about an hour, issues important to many Americans that don't happen to include you, will be addressed? And do you really think Republicans would pass on a debate sponsored by the NRA or the Christian Coalition? Or, for that matter, Fox news?
Ken at 9:13PM on Jul 18th 2007