First, he did it once, as part of a comedy sketch -- and might have repeated it again as part of another.

Second, if we democrats had an authentic 'cross-dresser' or even 'transsexual' candidate and the Republicans used this against the candidate, we'd -- rightly -- scream about their 'homophobia.'  

Third, as a New Yorker during the whole Giuliani Administration -- and every administration since Beame -- I can assure you that there are many more important reasons for criticizing him than this, or his adultery (Clinton, FDR, Kennedy, LBJ anyone).

In fact, I'm a bisexual who finds it highly offensive how so many of us let out our 'inner homophobe' if a Republican gives us a chance.  Even Larry Craig -- and I'll say publicly that I shared his liking for 't-room cruising' until my knees made the pleasure not worth the pain (It's always the legs that go first) -- should be criticized for his hypocrisy and pathetic lies, not for his gayness, which I've seen far too often.


by Prup aka Jim Benton on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:29:53 PM EST

I am 62 years old, a life-long liberal Democrat -- I last voted for a Republican when the Democrats ran the war-supporting racist Frank Rizzo for Mayor of Philadelphia.  I am also an atheist and my belief in secularism is one of my strongest reasons for believing in the ideals of the constitution.

I also believe that the coming election is, with 1860 and 1932, one of the three most important in history.  Not just because it will end the regime of Bush -- any Democrat could have and would have accomplished that.  But I have become conviced that Sen. Obama is truly a 'transformative' candidate, that his philosophy towards politics will make a difference.

I believe that, in his campaign he has shown a new attitude towards politics, and tactics that were influenced by both Martin Luther King and Gandhi -- and that he understands that their philosophy was not 'non-violence' but 'truth-force.'

(It has also seemed obvious to me that this election will not be close, that no Republican could have won, and that John McCain's self-destructively stupid campaign will make him one of the great losers in our history, on the level of Goldwater, Landon, Alton B. Parker, Dukakis, etc.  I hope what I am going to say is not affected greatly by that belief, but it may be.)

I have read Talk2Action for two years now -- though have rarely commented until recently -- admired its many authors, and the vital work it has been doing.  I have, as well, referred to it, and to information I have gathered here in comments and blog posts elsewhere.  I will continue to read it, to enjoy it, and refer to it, but I cannot remain a member, and sadly, because of you.

This response is the second time when I can only describe you as deliberately choosing a 'useful lie' as a weapon.  We don't need such lies, the truth we have is powerful enough.

Condemn Rudy Giuliani's hypocrisy in accepting the invitation to speak, or the hypocrisy of the Republicans in asking him, fine.  But to condemn him as a 'cross-dresser' when he did nothing more than hundreds, maybe thousands of college students and amateur and professional actors and comedians do every year, appear in drag in a comedy skit, is a LIE and you know it.  (Ignoring whether that is or should be condemnable were it true.)

Which would be minor except that earlier you did the same on a more serious matter.  Calling John McCain a hypocrite is like saying the color of an orange is orange.  Questioning whether he was any more sincere in his condemnation of Falwell and Robertson in 2000 than he was in his embrace of them is valid, and again, to me the answer is obvious.  Stating that "John McCain has no principles, not even bad ones," needs repeating again and again.

But you suggested -- and when called on it, repeated it -- that he might have a 'hidden Dominionist/Reconstructionist agenda.'  You linked him (sadly, in what I can only describe as McCarthy style) with those who do.

You know better than that, you knew better than that.  (If you doubted it, the testimony of Dr. Philip Butler, who knew him both in the Naval academy -- they lived on the same floor -- and as a POW -- Dr. Butler was in the 'Hanoi Hilton' for 2 1/2 years longer than McCain -- and who has written a devastating portrait of him at "Military.com" confirms that "He is not a religious man.)

Your use of the 'hidden agenda' was a 'useful lie' and a stupid and unnecessary one at that.  McCain has suitably separated himself from the usual support the Religious Right gives Republicans.  The truth was, as usual, far more powerful.

Your use of this tactic not merely makes me wonder about other 'exaggerations' I have spotted here, but also casts doubts on the work of the fine people who write for this blog.

I have, through my life, rarely been a joiner of anything but the Democratic Party, but I joined this organization proudly.  Sadly, because of these two -- relatively minor but telling -- incidents, I can no longer remain a member.

We happen to have so much truth on our side, we don't need to use lies -- even against liars.  So, to continue the statement in my title,

"We have met the enemy and they is us."  A small enemy compared to the mosntrousness of the Republicans, but an enemy nonetheless.

by Prup aka Jim Benton on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:23:11 PM EST