Max

With all due respect, DRW, how exactly could something this outrageous happen, epsecially with a Democratic president still in office (and Hillary favored to win in 2016)? Even when Bush was president (and the GOP held the House and Senate) gay rights were better in the US than they are currently in Russia. Roman, I hope that you're not trying to suggest that Qfan's criticism of Obama is "racist" in nature. The fact is that Obama was ridiculously hyped up by the mainstream media (as a different type of politician), and after he made his false statement (about people getting to keep their insurance), anybody objective has to conclude that Obama failed to live up to the hype. Democrats certainly weren't pussies in 2012, when an ad was run blaming Mitt Romney for somebody's cancer, or when Biden said the GOP would put African-Americans "back in chains," or when they talked about the "Romney/Ryan/Akin" ticket, or when "War on Women" was brought up on a constant basis. (Even durinig Obama's "uplifting" 2008 campaign, McCain was compared to George Wallace, and "warnings" were also issued stating that McCain would be a worse president than Bush.) Even now, the Democrats are still echoing the "War on Women" mantra. However, the unpopularity of ObamaCare is the major problem for the Democrats this year, partly because it relates the the marketing/rhetorical push to which you alluded. Specifically, the public is confused because they are getting two different messages regarding the ACA: The vulnerable (and more moderate) Democrats are distancing themselves from it, while the very liberal Democrats (who face safe re-election bids because they represent dark blue areas) are embracing it. I am so sick of hearing about the Koch Brothers as some sort of excuse for Democrats losing. The fact is that Obama actually had more money than Romney ($1.123 billion vs. $1.019 billion) in 2012. http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/barack-obama-mitt-romney-both-topped-1-billion-in-2012-84737.html If the Koch Brothers had so much power, then Obama would have lost the election. Furthermore, plenty of extremely wealthy donors give to liberal candidates, from George Soros to the Hollywood Elite. I never hear "progressives" complain about this, nor did I hear any complaints from them back in 2008 when Obama outspent McCain by nearly 3 to 1 (because McCain accepted public financing while Obama--in breaking an earlier promise--opted out of the system): http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advertising-money-mccain-vs-obama/ Campaign finance imbalance must be the issue that liberals are most insincere about. They only seem to be outraged when the GOP has more money than they have.

In terms of the "expectations game," Christie did quite well, while Cruz did terribly. Here are the full results: Rand Paul: 31% Ted Cruz: 11% Ben Carson: 9% Chris Christie: 8% Rick Santorum: 7% Scott Walker: 7% Marco Rubio: 6% Rick Perry: 3% Paul Ryan: 3% Mike Huckabee: 2% Bobby Jindal: 2% Sarah Palin: 2% Condi Rice: 2% Note that this poll has historically been a poor predictor as to who gets the Republican nomination.

I have decided to change my prediction for the Florida special election held today: I now believe that Alex Sink will defeat David Jolly. The latest poll shows Sink ahead by 3%, and a Libertarian candidate (who is most likely taking a lot more votes away from Jolly) is at 6% support.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was just giving real-life examples of businesses getting sued for failing to serve gays.

Marceline, I don't believe that anyone can be forced to provide services to someone, but they can be forced to face the legal consequences for refusing to serve certain customers. I remember a lot of press was generated when an Oregon bakery was fined for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/ This WSJ article (about a Colorado bakery that was sued for the same reason) mentions this: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303722104579242750485975452 To the best of my knowledge, however, none of these cases have happened in Arizona, because no anti-gay discrimination laws are in place there (thus weakening the case even further for SB 1062).

Well, Roman, I never thought I would "compliment" somebody for suggesting I was a racist, but at least you had the "courage" this time to man up and specify to whom you were referring. It actually represents an improvement from your usual "some in this thread..." cowardly garbage. Prince, thanks so much for your kind words, and for the important contributions you make to the dialogue in this thread. I couldn't agree more regarding the fact that we need to have a rational dialogue over how to balance civil liberties with religious freedom, and I totally respect everything you are saying. IMO, I also would not want to see a business close its doors as the result of a civil rights lawsuit, but I also think that using religious freedom as the reason not to bake a cake for a gay wedding goes way too far. (On another matter, I certainly agree with you that, if I were gay, I would definitely not give a homophobe my business.) However, if any one church was forced to marry a gay couple, I would consider that a violation of religious freedom (and would be in support of a proposed law that would prevent such a thing from happening, especially in light of the fact that there are many churches that now marry gay couples). IMO, the only legitimate way any bakery could claim religious freedom (in refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding) was if it that bakery was a non-profit that happened to be owned-and-operated by a religious institution. (My apologies if I went beyond the scope of what you addressed. I just wanted to state my own views that religious freedom is not a valid reason for a for-profit bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple and discriminate, even though I am willing to make exceptions for how not-for-profit religious institutions approach gay marriage.)

Qfan, this took a lot of courage for you to say, and I am so very grateful to you for doing so. I know that our last disagreement got really intense, but I never intended it to come across as personal (and am so sorry if that is how it appeared). You are such a treasure because you always add such insightful comments to the board, even though our political views couldn't be more different. Despite the fact that I am so vastly outnumbered ideologically, I still enjoy coming to this thread because there are so many people--Qfan, DRW, Prince, Juppiter, Jane, Wales, Marceline, Alphanguy, and others--who add a lot of valuable content to this thread.

In that particular statement I wasn't speaking for you, as evidenced by the fact that I stated that "I cannot speak for you specifically." See below: I was, however, making a generalization about what some some of the far-left feminists seem to believe. If this upsets you so much, then you need to look in the mirror before you make such generalizations as this: This comment from January is some more evidence of your continued hypocrisy: Most hypocritical--and most hurtful--is that you immediately claim that my opposition to the president is racially motivated. Well, it's true that you didn't refer to me by name, but instead you decided to be "cute" and suggest that some in this thread dislike Obama for this reason. BUT WHAT OTHER ANTI-OBAMA VOICE BESIDE MYSELF STILL REMAINS IN THIS THREAD? All the other token conservatives have left this thread long ago, so we all know damn well who you are referring to when you make these disgusting racism accusations. (And when exactly did I say anything even remotely critical about Obama's wife and daughters?) You are the last person to be lecturing me about making generalizations, when you leap to the most disgusting ones regarding me. I have no idea how you can even live with yourself.

There's plenty of room for diversity in each party, but certain things should be core tenants of both parties, especially if the other party is vilified for holding opposing views. Given the venom with which the GOP goes after ObamaCare, those who support it don't belong in the party. And given the recent venom that Democrats have shown towards Republicans who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage, any Democrats who share those views no longer belong in that party. And even the Tea Party, whom I oppose and whose willingness to purge any non-extreme Republican has been very hurtful to the party, at least deserves credit for their ideological consistency and willingness to take on the GOP establishment (which, as I alluded to earlier, stands in contrast to MSNBC progressives, who generally seem to give unconditional support to the Democratic establishment).

Roman, deep down you know that this is just a reprehensible scare tactic. If the GOP wanted to do this, then why didn't it happen when Bush (whom many Democrats still believe organized a racist scheme to suppress the black vote in FL) and the GOP Congress had control of the federal government? Even the most serious, substantive objections that African-Americans currently have with the GOP are in regards to conservatives pushing for voter ID laws and the elimination of affirmative action. But in the very worst scenario, blacks fear that such parts of the GOP agenda will make it tougher for them to vote and get into college (or get a job). There never has been one credible claim/explanation in regards to how these most "racist" parts of the GOP agenda (voter ID laws and elimination of affirmative action) could possibly result in African-Americans being put back in chains. I cannot speak for you specifically, but some in the pro-choice movement believe any legislation that places restrictions on abortion is intrusive on female bodies and represents a "War on Women." As with the "GOP is homophopic" mantra, my biggest problem with the "War on Women" scare slogan is the double-standard employed by Democrats: pro-life Republicans receive all the venom (for engaging in a War on Women and violating their reproductive rights), while pro-life Democrats aren't subjected to these types of attacks. If liberals truly want to walk the walk on this issue, then they need to purge all the pro-life Democrats from the party (by calling them sexist, challenging them in primaries, running third-party candidates against pro-life Democrats that survive such primaries, etc.). And men aren't the only pro-life Republicans who support legislation placing restrictions on abortion. Plenty of pro-life GOP women support these measures as well.

I had no idea that PGP has now rebranded itself. Given that the reboots of AMC and OLTL failed, I sadly but objectively can't see anything that P&G could successfully do with its soaps (which don't have anywhere near the rabid fan following that those cancelled ABC soaps had). Once a soap has been cancelled, most of its casual/habitual viewers will never return. I also don't know of any network that would air a P&G soap-reboot, and the internet just isn't a viable platform for soaps (as evidenced by the failed ABC soap reboots and because of the fact that soaps attract an older audience). Furthermore, if any P&G soap reboot ever did see the light of day, the quality of what we would see on screen would likely be horrendous, given the bare-bones budget such shows would receive. Given the choice of a bad revival or no revival, I would rather take the latter.

Is anybody ready to predict the outcome of the Alex Sink-David Jolly special election House race (that has gotten so much oversized attention from the media)? I am guessing that Jolly will squeak out a win, but I will wait before making my final prediction. The one thing that I know with certainty is that the winning side will obnoxiously gloat about their victory, and try to suggest that the outcome based on this one election will correctly predict the outcome nationally in November.

I never said that Sarah Palin isn't a recognized voice on the right; I have just stated that she is no longer part of mainstream GOP thought. She still clearly has a huge megaphone among the Tea Party wing, but that wing (1) has been losing favor among Republicans at large and (2) has failed miserably when trying to get one of their own as the GOP nominee. Also, there are extremists in the Democratic party (e.g. Al Sharpton) who are recognized voices for large Democratic constituencies (and sell plenty of books), so no one party has a monopoly on hate. Even more importantly, Palin and her ilk are far from the only fear mongers in American politics today. While I don't recall a top Democrat saying something as extreme as "Republicans hate gays," the fact of the matter is that people at the highest levels of the Democratic party have employed similarly extreme scare tactics ("War on Women," "back in chains") that are solely intended to keep women and African-Americans from even considering voting GOP. I don't pretend that the GOP doesn't use scare tactics, but I wish there would be some liberal that could acknowledge that the Democrats are also very effective at using them. Far from ignoring the AZ law, I have condemned it. And if you recall, my initial point was never liberal persecution of certain Republicans, but rather the mass hysteria and fear that was leveled at McCain and Romney, who are in the moderate wing of the party. And currently the mass hysteria is directed at a very-weakened Chris Christie, another moderate Republican who was actually one of only two governors who singed into law a bill that banned gay-conversion therapy. (But, never mind that! He is opposed to gay marriage, so he hates gays, even though that was the Democratic position two years ago!) By the way, I'm not trying to gloss over the Bridgegate accusations, which are very serious. But we have a network--MSNBC--that obsessively covers this matter, despite the fact that liberals called FNC a tool of the GOP for doing the same thing regarding Benghazi. And it is not the scandal itself that is causing the most fear among Democrats (because if GOP scandal itself was all they cared about, then there would also be non-stop coverage of Bob McDonnell, who--unlike Christie--actually has been indicted). What they really fear is a moderate Republican like Christie could still be elected president, hence necessitating non-stop coverage of Bridgegate and employing other scare tactics as well (like making fun of his weight and even his Italian ethnicity, which is what occurred when The New Republic printed a picture that seemed to equate Christie with Tony Soprano). Your entitled to object to that law, but don't get the facts so blatantly wrong. It didn't require all Latinos to carry papers, but only required aliens to do so. I know that liberals perceive that provision--and the part of the law that empowered state police to determine if somebody was an illegal immigrant (if there was reasonable suspicion)--as "hate," but it's totally outrageous to suggest that a law designed to lessen illegal immigration is in the same league as a law that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against gays (who are in this country legally). I could also make a list of a vile, hateful stereotypes promoted by "tolerant progressives," like these: *Those who live in the rural areas "cling to their guns and religion" *The South is backwoods country, filled with trailer-park trash *Mormons are members of a racist cult who wear magic underwear *The rich are greedy, and that's why they are opposed to higher taxes *Opposition to Obama is because people can't stand having a black man as president *The GOP is the party of "boring white men" *The Republicans are engaging in a War on Women (already mentioned earlier) *The GOP wants to put blacks back in chains (also mentioned previously) Thus, the GOP is far from the only party of hate, though--time and again--you have been unwilling to acknowledge this fact. Even more hypocritical is that you let your idols, the Clintons, off the hook for making comments (e.g., Hillary claiming that she was the candidate of hard working, white people, and Bill stating that Obama would have been serving him coffee a few years prior to 2008) that you would have been fuming over had they been made by a Republican.

Qfan, the GOP isn't 20 years behind the times on gay marriage. Just 24 months ago, Democrats were saying a marriage should be between a man and a woman, and faced almost no backlash as a result (when the Republicans were vilified for holding the same position). Marceline, here a few examples of the scare tactics that you seem to have a hard time believing existed: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/07/for-some-gays-mccain-is-right-choice.html http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=56323 http://truelogic.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/mitt-romneys-mormon-cult/ Remember also how John Hagee's endorsement of McCain was cited as proof of McCain's supposed rabid homophobia? http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_connection_1.php Supposedly, John McCain was responsible for anti-gay comments made by Hagee. Perhaps this "guilt by association" theme would have been understandable, but the left once again exhibited an egregious double-standard, as they absolved Obama of all the hateful things that Jeremiah Wright said (and even insisted that associating Obama and Wright together was a racist action on the GOP's part). And furthermore, Hagee was nowhere near as close to McCain as Wright was to Obama. Just as importantly, if one wants to color McCain by whom he associates with, the best measure would be to take into account the fact that his wife and daughter are strong supporters of gay rights. As long as where talking about the subject of discriminated groups, I don't know why the left is so fixated on its anti-Mormon sentiment. In my observation, there are more liberals who openly express anti-Mormon sentiments than than there are conservatives who say hateful things about gays. Mormonism isn't the only religion that has a strong, anti-homosexual doctrine. And while it is fair to criticize Mormons for banning blacks from the clergy prior to 1978, Catholics to this very day do the same thing to women. So, how come I see no huge anti-Catholic sentiment coming from the left (analogous to what Mormons have experienced)? Could it be because there are actually many prominent Catholic Democratic politicians, and because Catholics make up far more of the voting pool than do Mormons? (Once again, more horrendous left-wing hypocrisy.) I don't recall any other states (except perhaps Kansas) passing similar types of Jim Crow laws. The fact that any similar bill never passed in these legislatures is a sign that again the GOP is largely opposed to hate. No mainstream Republican is pleased with the introduction of these bills, and it's a totally unreasonable standard to taint an entire political party based upon what its most extreme members are advocating. Though we hardly agree on anything, I will give you credit for condemning the three Democrats who supported the Ohio bill to which you referred.

Jane, people in the GOP are very disturbed over this legislation; otherwise there wouldn't be such a loud drumbeat from Republicans for Brewer to veto the bill. But the reason why I made my initial point specifically about McCain and Romney is because Dems attacked those two men as being puppets of the extreme anti-gay fringe (that sadly is a part of the GOP, but is certainly not part of its mainstream). Neither McCain nor Romney pushed for any type of Arizona/Jim Crow-like legislation during their campaigns, because that was never a part of the mainstream GOP agenda. To the extent that they held an "anti-gay" platform, they stated that they were opposed to same-sex marriage (which was something that mainstream Democrats were also opposed to prior to 2012) and--in McCain's case--that he was opposed to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (which a Democratic president signed into law). (I honestly don't recall Romney mentioning anything about gays in the military in 2012.) If all the left-wing had said was that the GOP contains a vocal contingent of gay haters, I would have had no objections. But the whole crux of those scare-tactics was that McCain and Romney were in the back pocket of these extremists, when everybody who is honest with themselves knows that a McCain or Romney presidency would have dealt with the issues of most importance to them (which certainly were not the far-right, religious issues such as this). If McCain and Romney were truly anti-gay, they would not be speaking out, as there is no upside for them. In Romney's case, his political career is dead. Furthermore, McCain is actually hurting himself politically by speaking out about this, because this will further damage him when he faces a far-right opponent in the 2016 GOP AZ Senate primary. (And almost all political observers expect McCain to face a primary challenge in 2016.) What is happening in AZ is not "hard evidence" that the GOP as a whole is dangerous for gays (and it is certainly not evidence that a McCain or Romney presidency would have been dangerous); instead, all it proves is that the GOP members of the AZ legislature are dangerous for gays. Before making any sweeping generalizations, you need to look at what the GOP is doing as a whole, and see how successful similar Jim Crow legislation has been in all 27 states that have Republican-controlled legislatures (as well has how successful such legislation has been in the GOP-controlled House). And in regards to the one mainstream GOP position--opposition to gay marriage--that liberals cite as evidence that Republicans hate gay people, the left completely lacks credibly when making such assertions, given that those clamoring for gay equality unconditionally supported the Democratic Party pre-2012 (back when Democrats were also anti-gay marriage). I made all my points above, but I just wanted to say that I never said that all Republicans are "pretty bad at times." I did say that the actions of the AZ Republicans were reprehensible, but then explained how these attitudes are not reflective of the mainstream, national Republican Party. Qfan, if you don't mind me asking, I must admit that I am puzzled as to the enthusiasm showed by you and other gay people towards Bill Clinton. His signing DOMA into law did more to harm gay marriage than anything Bush did. I have no idea why Clinton's signing of DOMA is seen as water under the bridge (unless there is indeed a double-standard on how liberals judge both parties on the issue of gay marriage, as I suspect), because if a Republican president did the exact same thing, he would never be forgiven.

Not every GOP legislator in Arizona voted for it. I wish there were more, but a few GOP members did vote against it, and three more now regret their votes. It is reprehensible for her to play both sides of the fence on this issue, but the reports suggest that she is going to veto it. He gave that as one important reason to veto the bill, but never said that was the only reason. But, for arguments sake, let's assume that McCain is only opposing the bill for that reason. If he hates gays as much as the liberal fear-mongering implied, then why would he care about the objections of business? Wouldn't he instead want to support the bill and do all he can to make gay people's lives miserable? What the AZ legislature does isn't a general reflection of the entire GOP. If it were, then you would see identical legislation pass in all 27 states that have majority-GOP legislatures. And you would also see the House of Representatives pass such a bill on the federal level. Instead, what you are seeing is a loud drumbeat of prominent Republicans calling for a veto of the bill, because such anti-gay measures couldn't be further removed from the top GOP priorities, such as repealing ObamaCare and reducing taxes to stimulate the economy. Furthermore, my initial comments weren't even about the GOP in general, but instead over the specific way that McCain and Romney were vilified as rabidly anti-gay during the last two presidential campaigns. Everyone deep down knows that extreme social conservatives do not have enough appeal to win the GOP presidential nomination, and that the plausible GOP nominees (if elected) wouldn't be able to force gays back into the closet. In fact, gay rights advanced even during the presidency of Bush, a man more socially conservative than either McCain or Romney. (I realize that those advances took place in spite of Bush and not because of him, but the point is that even a hated GOP president didn't cause doom for gay people.) If all the left did would be to suggest that gay rights would advance much more further with a Democratic president, I would have no problem (and I would actually agree with such a statement). But the hysteria that implies that gays would have several decades of progress erased (if a plausible GOP nominee became president) is absurd, since that didn't even occur during the Bush presidency.

Mitt Romney joins both Arizona senators in asking Governor Brewer to veto a gay-discrimination bill. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/mitt-romney-arizona-sb-1062-jan-brewer-103943.html?hp=l1_b2 Now everyone can see that those left-wing scare tactics--implying that a McCain or Romney presidency would be dangerous for gays (because both "hate gays" so much, and because both apparently would have been puppets of the most extreme elements of the GOP)--were false.

It is interesting that the P&G soaps once featured black actors prominently, because the general perception is that they are the whitest of the bunch. All the time I was watching, it was only token treatment for blacks, with the exception of ATWT's Ben and Jessica.

A YouTube user named OLTLFlashback was nice enough to post some good episodes from July 1994, such as this one:

Prince, please note that I plan to respond to your more lengthy post, as well as to the posts written by Qfan and Roman. However, I have just been too busy lately, and all these posts require long responses on my part, so I haven't had time to respond yet. Regarding the following post: There was little chance of Dems ever re-gaining control of the House in 2014, even if conditions were optimal. If I am not mistaken, a political party (that controls the White House) has never re-gained the House majority during the sixth year of a presidency. I'm sure that some liberals will blame gerrymandering as the sole reason for the GOP majority, but I would be shocked if the total popular vote for GOP House candidates doesn't exceed that for Dem candidates in 2014 (which was not the case in 2012). The GOP will certainly make gains in the Senate, but the odds are 50% at best of them re-taking it. Of course, they should be able to flip all the seats in AK, AR, LA, MT, NC, SD, and WV, but winning election's isn't the GOP's strong suit. I'm especially worried about Tea-Party extremists getting the nominations in AK and GA (a seat currently held by Republicans). I know that Dems would like to take out McConnell, but I think he narrowly survives (because KY voters' desire to see a GOP senate is stronger than their dislike of McConnell). If Scott Brown actually runs in NH, I think he will have a greater than 50% chance of winning that seat. The GOP seems to be delusional about VA, however: actually, Mark Warner could be beaten (though it would be hard), but Bush associate Ed Gillespie is not the person who could do it. It's possible that Hillary could change her mind about running, but (barring any major health problems) I highly doubt it, because 2016 is the last possible chance that she has to run. Yet, the problem (as you stated) is that 2016 looks like it may be a problematic year for the Democrats. (This is why I am so perplexed as to how some of Hillary's die-hard supporters can be so sure that she will win.) But two years is a long time in politics, and a terrible 2014 won't necessarily spell doom for liberals in 2016.

I already acknowledged that Edwards is an outcast, but you conveniently left out the fact that Ted Kennedy (who did things that are far worse that what Edwards did), John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton are worshiped by today's Democrats. You can talk about Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, and David Vitter if you wish, but none of those men command anywhere near the admiration and respect in their own party as do those Democratic perverts. (And if you'd like to talk about Sarah Palin, she's only loved by the Tea Party, not by the entire GOP.) I never said that you personally called the Clintons racists, but I certainly remember other liberals doing so. Do you remember how much Hillary was attacked when she made the idiotic statement that she was the candidate of "hard-working Americans, white Americans" (which was a hell of a lot more brazen than Palin's "real Americans" remark)? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-support-from-white-americans/#comments http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/sohillary-clintons-stopped-hiding-her-racism/ http://www.thenation.com/blog/how-does-hillary-clinton-feel-about-white-racist-vote# However, I certainly do agree with you on the point that Democrats would have been united behind her had she been the 2008 nominee. After all, few, if any, liberals seemed to mind when Biden used race-bating tactics and told a black audience that the GOP would put them back in chains.

It wasn't the government who first asked Bill Clinton about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Rather, Paula Jones had filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the president, and in the deposition Clinton lied about having sexual relations with Lewinsky. (The question was perfectly relevant, because Jones' lawyers wanted to show a pattern of behavior on Clinton's part that involved inappropriate sexual relationships with his subordinates. In any event, the one being questioned doesn't get to decide which questions merit a perjurious response.) Clinton was later impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, not because he cheated on his wife. The great economy and the president's masterful spin (where he made Ken Starr and the GOP the real villains) were the main reasons why the public at large was against his removal from office. But apparently it wasn't just the GOP Congress who thought that Clinton did something awful, as Bill Clinton was later prohibited from practicing law for five years. Bill Clinton did not run as a Conservative Christian who was pro-life, but he frequently used religion to his benefit. For instance, I certainly remember him regularly attending church (and letting others know it). But what should be far more upsetting to liberals is that Clinton supported DOMA and even DADT, despite the fact that his own marital/sex life was completely disgraceful. Where's the outrage on the left for Bill Clinton's hypocrisy on gay issues? Any Republican who opposes gay marriage and then has affairs is rightly called out for his nerve (over telling others how to live their lives when he himself can't abide by "proper" Christian values). Perhaps it's true that Hillary didn't care and completely forgave Bill, but only she knows that. Likewise, perhaps she hates Bill and would like to leave him, but realizes that the two of them need to stay together because they have mutual political interests. (Again, no one other than Hillary knows for sure.) But how many people honestly believe that Hillary would have been Senator, SOS, and presidential contender if she dumped her husband? Again, this does not include you, Qfan, but many on the left believed that the Clintons were racists during the 2008 campaign. So either they are racists or they are not. It can't be that Bill and Hillary are only racists when they are opposing the number one progressive idol of the modern era. This goes beyond just a moment of weakness, or even beyond the responsibility of accidentally taking Mary Jo Kopechne's life. Kennedy didn't even bother contacting the police until 10 A.M. the next morning. For those who believe that Kennedy deserved to remain in the Senate for what happened at Chappaquiddick, let's all remember the mass hysteria that resulted when it was reported that Bush was arrested for a drunk driving incident (that killed nobody). This incident apparently showed his lack of fitness for the presidency, his immaturity, and was proof that he was such a disgrace to the entire Bush family. I applaud Senator Kennedy's role in advocating for the Americans with Disabilities Act, but he didn't single-handedly make it happen. Other senators--such as Bob Dole and Tom Harkin--were eloquent advocates of the ADA, and President Bush-41 signed it into law.

Qfan, we'll have to agree to disagree about flag burning, but I give you high praise you for your consistency on the matter regarding symbols/buildings/etc. (since I seem to be under the impression that you think people who actually say hateful things are worse than those who paint swastikas on synagogues). While Edwards is indeed seen as an outcast, Bill Clinton (with the sole exception of when he attacked then-candidate Obama) and Ted Kennedy (who did things far worse than Edwards) are embraced by Democrats more than Palin is embraced by Republicans. There are at least some conservatives who don't worship Palin's every move, but Kennedy and Clinton have been idolized for decades by liberals.

I know that this is a concept that some on the left don't seem to "get," but burning an American flag is seen by many as not just a way of saying "I hate America," but is also seen as a major sign of disrespect to the countless soldiers who were killed trying to defend the liberties that we all hold dear. That's absurd to suggest that people can't be upset if a symbol is defaced. African-American's would be rightfully outraged if the Dr. King Monument was painted with graffiti. (It wouldn't be seen as just an attack on Dr. King, but instead as an attack on all black people.) Now, in this case, such behavior wouldn't be protected by the constitution, because the Dr. King Monument is government property. But, if somebody wanted to purchase a MLK doll and deface it, that would be legal (since that would be one's personal property), but it would still be incredibly offensive and disrespectful to African-Americans. Sarah Palin is not the queen of the GOP, as her popularity is only limited to the Tea-Party wing. If she runs for president (which she did not last time, since she knew she had no chance of winning the nomination), she would do about as well as Michele Bachmann. If you feel the GOP should be forever tarred-and-feathered for nominating her for VPOTUS, then there can't be a double standard: the Democrats then should forever pay for John Edwards, whose behavior is worse than Palin's.

This obviously doesn't reflect your behavior, Qfan, but I can't believe that you forgot all the accusations of hate that the far left made against the Clintons. Do you remember how the MSNBC wing reacted after "fairy tale," Bill's comment that Obama won the South Carolina primary just like Jessie Jackson did, and Hillary's comment where she seemed to suggest that LBJ deserved as much credit for the Civil Rights Act as did MLK. This was all "proof" of the Clinton's racism. Now that Hillary is Obama's heiress apparent, the far left is just sweeping all of this history under the rug. And also, Martin Bashir did have the right to say what he said because hate speech is free speech. I don't understand why liberals get upset when conservatives say "hate speech is free speech," because liberals always (correctly) say that other disgusting acts like flag burning are also free speech.