The illustrive case of Harry Truman

[dsc]

Recently yet more evidence has come forth that Truman was racist and anti semetic. The evidence isn't total and complete but it is strong. But without Truman there would be no Israel and the Armed Forces wouldn't have been desegregated until Kennedy in all likelihood. Truth be known I don't care if Clinton and Obama think I am moral, I don't care if Edwards is uncomfortable with my rights, I don't care if Richardson uses Maricon. In the final analysis I care if what their public policy towards gays will likely be. Just like I don't think African Americans and Jews care about Truman's personal views. I haven't made up my mind who to support but deeds speak louder than words.

[Strawman]

1. or LBJ

By all accounts a guy who freely dropped n-bombs and was a ruthless son of a bitch to anyone who got in his way. He literally ruined people's lives.

But he sucessfully passed the first Civil Rights Legislation since Reconstruction. And when grandma who has no money goes to the hospital and the bill gets paid...that's him too.

Nobody is running for choirboy/choirgirl. I think it's a reasonable position to say "I don't care" as long as it is done without illusions. But, on the other hand, it's not so simple, it's not like any accomplishments really provide justification for LBJ's behavior. It is a difficult moral issue. I'm not sure where I ultimately come down on it.

Ideally, I would choose someone with admirable personal qualities and is also politically effective, but the bottom line is that these people are elected to do a job and get results. As a constituent, that has to be an important consideration. While there's certainly a line that couldn't be crossed in terms of personal conduct or privately expressed views that a candidate cannot cross and get my vote, I don't think that any of these Democratic candidates have crossed it.

I'm reading Robert Caro's bok on LBJ, Master of the Senate now. I was wondering the other day who are the real ruthless sons of bitches in Washington today? Obviously Karl Rove, but what about on our side? My sense is that none of these primary candidates approach LBJ in that regard. Maybe that's good, but maybe it's not. And I kind of wonder if that sort of ruthless ambition is a requirement for political success in our system. I'd like to think not, but what have the good guys done for us everyday people? What have we gotten in the last 38 years since Medicare and Medicaid and Civil Rights Legislation? Not much.

[dsc]

2. True Johnson was a piece of work

We were better off for having Johnson in office but he had some major demons.

[Strawman]

3. My question about Edwards is

What are you compromising for besides empty hope? What reason do you have to believe that he can deliver as much as Truman did? He can't issue an executive order to recognize gay marriage or civil unions like Truman did to desegregate the military and there is no reason to believe he will have the same effectiveness at securing the passage of his legislative agenda as LBJ or that it would even include gay rights legislation.

If he did, and you thought he would secure some gains for gays and lesbians that would be a sensible compromise, otherwise, why not stand with a candidate who stands with you?

Same goes for Clinton and I am not sure what Obama's position is. Out of that bunch, I would probably have the most faith in Clinton's ability to deliver something.

[dsc]

5. they all have basicly the same position

as a matter of public policy. I haven't made up my mind yet on who to vote for but I think it will end up being on other issues. There Edwards has the edge for me. Richardson has an edge on gay issues.

[Colobo]

4. I wouldn't vote for a person who depises Puerto Ricans or black people

Because that means the person would depise me.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Words and deeds

Truman was a racist and an anti-Semite. I fail to see how the "evidence" doesn't prove it. Did he cover himself and sheets and burn crosses? Not that I am aware of, but I know plenty of racists who also don't do that and, yet, they are still fucking racist! He had Jewish advisers? So what? That line of 'reasoning' falls along the lines of "some of my best friends are...,so I can't be..." As for your statement: "But without Truman there would be no Israel..." Prove it. Furthermore, even if you could, which you can't (my "Prove it." request is a "snipe hunt."), how would that detract from his being anti-Semitic? It wouldn't and it doesn't. I will assert that his support for the creation of Israel was because he was anti-Semitic! Why? Well, IMO, he would have reasoned that a Jewish state would be an attractive place for all the Jews fleeing Europe after the Holocaust and he didn't want those Jews here.

As for the rest of your post, I was unaware that Clinton or Obama said gays were immoral. Where has this been said? Edwards being uncomfortable does give me pause and Richardson calling gays "faggot" is a real problem. If you care what their policies will be shouldn't you clue into what they are telling you?! Since I don't know what you are talking about in regards to Clinton and Obama, I will not speak to those candidates. However, given Edwards recent statement, I wouldn't trust that he would put his neck out for us, and the same goes for Richardson.

Deeds do speak louder than words, but when "words" is all you have to go on, they speak louder than deeds yet undone!

My final thought, if you are a believer in the adage "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt.", then you (general) are in need of several good history lessons and personal accounts of those victimized by bullies.

[dsc]

7. A few things

Clinton and Obama didn't call gays immoral but they did refuse to disagree with Pace when he did. Richardson has a track record. He has signed bills giving gays ENDA style rights, protecting them from hate crimes, and limited civil union rights. That is a real track record.

As to Truman your post actually proves my point. Motive is irrelevent here. Suppose some nutjob decided to permit gay marriage only because he felt permitting gay marriage would bring about the second coming by making America the new Sodom. Would I be any less married?

As to your last comment. Trust me, I know how bad being called names feels. But Truman didn't go around calling people names, he merely wrote the bad names in his diary. That is a difference.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. You do know Kucinich supports same sex marriage, don't you?

All the others dance around the question. If it matters to you, vote for Kucinich.

[dsc]

9. except his actual record isn't all that good

He supported DOMA when he ran for Congress, made no attempts to repeal either DOMA or DADT until he ran for President.