New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said if elected president he would decline the position of Honorary Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America because of that organization’s policy barring participation by openly gay males, he said at a Democratic presidential debate Wednesday night.When asked if he would accept the position, Richardson said, “No, I wouldn’t, because I think as president I would commit myself, number one, that I will be a leader that prevents discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation.”
Last month, Richardson angered gay rights supporters by saying at a presidential forum that he believed being gay was a “choice,” but he later clarified that he misspoke. (CNN)
————————————————————————————————————-
First off, there is actually 2 stories here: First is the story about the boy scouts, the other is the story Richardson’s supposed misspeaking.
To Governor Richardson’s remark about not being the Honorary Chairman of the Boy Scouts because they don’t allow children to be openly gay, my only response comes in the form of a question: Will you also relinquish your being Commander And Chief of the US Marines?
As for misspeaking, if you had seen the clip of what he said, you would see that he was not misspeaking at all. Either he was too stupid to understand the question, or he actually answered what he thought was right even though it was not socially acceptable. The moderator even asked him the question again “is being gay a choice”, and he continued his answer.
Both of these instances: saying no to being Honorary Chairman of the Boy Scouts and saying he misspoke are simply the advice he was given from his Campaign Staff. After making an unpopular statement he was undoubtedly told he should claim it was an accident, and then by denying the Honorary Chairman job, he is trying to get back in good with the pro-homosexuality voters…
You need to get on yahoo or aim and talk to me sometime. I want to talk to you about the issue of the Religious Right planning to support a third party candidate if Giuliani is nominated. They are doing so for reason of him not being pro-life (or at least not as pro-life as they would want him to be).
I think that this is a stupid decision. If the ‘religious right’ does not support the republican party, because of this issue, they will necessarily make a democratic candidate win.
I confess though, I am ignorant of these issues. I am not as in the ‘know’ as I use to be. The only way I can see this as not being a monumentally stupid idea is if Giuliani is not as much a guaranteed candidate as I am assuming now.
By: sofyst on October 2, 2007
at 3:23 am
I would love to talk to you sometime on aim, I’m usually there, just IM me at LVARocks.
As for the religious right supporting a 3rd party candidate, I agree that would be a dumb decision. First it continues this ridiculous notion that the only important issue for them is abortion. Also, as you said, it would make them lose, even worse. It will be like the 1912 elections where Taft (the incumbent President) ran as a republican, Roosevelt (former Republican President) ran as a 3rd party (bull moose party or progressive party), and Woodrow Wilson (democrat) ended up winning the election without much issue because the Republicans were split.
But if the religious right want to lose by a large margin to make a point, I guess that is their incentive. In the end, to be honest, either Obama or Clinton is gonna be President. I think the democratic primary will be a much harder fight then the actual general election. I can’t see any of the top republican candidates possibly beating Clinton or Obama. I wouldn’t say Giuliani is the guaranteed candidate though. Thompson has just joined the fray and is already pretty much neck in neck with Giuliani, and Romney is winning most of the early states which will give him a HUGE boost in polls afterwards. I think the Republican nomination is still very much up for grabs. Giuliani is a terrible Republican candidate (he is very pro gay rights and abortion), but he’s probably the best general election candidate because he can get some people on the left too. Still I can’t imagine any republican winning the white house…
By: Politics In Moderation on October 2, 2007
at 6:45 pm