Submitted LTE: Presidential candidates in Pride

The Chronicle wrote about Elizabeth Edwards at <URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/22/BAG14QK14L1.DTL

. I responded:

In re Mrs. Edwards' visit, it is gratifying to see that the Democratic
Party is losing its fear of the LGBT community. One wonders, however,
where Kerry and Edwards were in 2004 - possibly afraid of coming down with
a touch of the gay? The Libertarian candidate for president, Michael
Badnarik, was the only candidate actually in that year's parade. One
might well have missed it; of all local media, only the Chronicle's Laurel
Wellman mentioned it or interviewed him, and sadly, only after the parade.

Chris Maden
2004 Chair, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
2004 Treasurer, Outright Libertarians of the SF Bay Area

We'll see if they print it.

~Chris

Go, Chris-thanks!

"Sending the wife in" is nothing new, actually. Al
Gore sent Tipper in to "talk to the gays" in 2000, and
both Bush and Kerry sent their wives to various queer
events in 2004.

Apparently, the belief is that we're kept at arm's
length through the spousal connection, and
additionally any commitments made by the spouse aren't
binding on the actual candidate -- since the spouse is
neither the candidate nor a staffer.

Pretty clever.

What's not so clever is what's actually said by the
spouses in question -- both Mrs. Edwards' lackluster
speech and Theresa Heinz-Kerry's laughable statement
that "in a Kerry White House, the door will be open to
you and if it ever isn't, you just come to me and tell
your Momma T" -- lacks anything that's of substance.

And one other thought -- how come Democrats keep
insisting that the continued refusal of actual
candidates for national office to show at their
events, sending instead a delegate to collect huge
donations, represents "the growing clout of gay and
lesbians as voters and their continued move into the
political mainstream?"

Imagine if George W. Bush was too busy to show up at
an evangelical breakfast, or if Nancy Pelosi avoided
an appearance at a key meeting of NOW or MoveOn.
They'd be pilloried.

If anything, this treatment shows that Democrats just
view queer folk as ATMs to be patronized by "Mama T"
and alternately furtively flirted with (in the
fundraising days) and condemned/avoided (in the actual
campaign and upon assuming office).

Fortunately, gay folk have caught on to this farce and
as a result, we're in a much better position to pitch
our own candidates who are real on LGBTQ issues. Now
we just need to hope that certain folks get the
message and stops stifling the libertarian message on
gay rights in favor of a Republican Lite agenda!

Cheers,

Brian

--- "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...> wrote:

Go, Chris-thanks!

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Christopher R. Maden
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 12:01 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com;
outrightca@...
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Submitted LTE: Presidential
candidates in Pride

The Chronicle wrote about Elizabeth Edwards at <URL:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/22/BAG14QK14L1.

DTL

<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/22/BAG14QK14L1