Bobby Jindal??

Jindal is a false hope for the GOP. They tried with him once before touting him as a star politician, so they immediately trotted him out for some TV state of the union response and he revealed he has no charisma, no TV presence, a poor ability to give a speech, and a deer in headlights aura.

A democrat can only hope Jindal runs.

It's not like Republicans are going to vote for the opposing candidate (or not vote at all) just because Jindal is a moron.

three words: George Bush Junior

It's not like Republicans are going to vote for the opposing candidate (or not vote at all) just because Jindal is a moron.

three words: George Bush Junior

There are more democrats than republicans so if all things are equal the democrats have the advantage. The republicans could not even win more votes with Bush against Gore and he was an uncharismatic flat candidate. Bush at his most popular could only get a million more votes than bland dud Kerry. Studies show the next generation is more liberal and more accepting of other people than the last. The country is getting browner. Republicans can hunker down in gerrymandered districts and pass laws trying to stop everyone but old white people from voting, but that can only work for so long because old people tend to die.

For a republican to win at the national level they will need someone who will steal votes away from the democrat. The republicans think that is Chris Christie, but there is nothing in our history that shows Americans like to vote for angry grumps or people who look like they are one jog away from a heart attack. Hillary has her problems (being a woman, the assumption she is a political Lady Macbeth trying to seize power, her horrible high speaking voice) but she will beat all republican comers.

I actually agree with Andrew Sullivan:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resigned under pressure:

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/04/brandon-eich-and-hillary-clinton/

Some of the very same people who have jumped up and down with delight as Brandon Eich lost his job will doubtless be backing Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 if she runs. The “Ready for Hillary” ranks are crowded with gay men – and good for them. But it’s worth considering some consistency here. If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton? How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?

The firefox is very aggravating and I too agree with Sullivan. The man's personal beliefs are HIS OWN. He's allowed to spend his damn money on whatever causes he wants to even if I don't personally agree with or support those causes. So long as he was bring money and talent to the BUSINESS (Mozilla) I don't see why he should be singled out and then lose his job over this.

It would have been one thing if the employees of Mozilla demanded his resignation. That's within the company and its their right to say if they don't want this guy as their leader. But for outside bullying groups to force this is disgusting IMO.

The firefox is very aggravating and I too agree with Sullivan. The man's personal beliefs are HIS OWN. He's allowed to spend his damn money on whatever causes he wants to even if I don't personally agree with or support those causes. So long as he was bring money and talent to the BUSINESS (Mozilla) I don't see why he should be singled out and then lose his job over this.

I was really sickened by this news as well, Prince, especially when there was zero evidence that he ever discriminated against gays in the workplace. This was nothing less than a McCarthy-like witch-hunt.

If outside groups want to protest and complain they have a right to but I think this went a little bit too far. And if they truly didn't like his action they should have resigned or stop using Mozilla products....

Anyways I'm going to bed....

The firefox is very aggravating and I too agree with Sullivan. The man's personal beliefs are HIS OWN. He's allowed to spend his damn money on whatever causes he wants to even if I don't personally agree with or support those causes. So long as he was bring money and talent to the BUSINESS (Mozilla) I don't see why he should be singled out and then lose his job over this.

It would have been one thing if the employees of Mozilla demanded his resignation. That's within the company and its their right to say if they don't want this guy as their leader. But for outside bullying groups to force this is disgusting IMO.

Is OKCupid really an "outside bullying group"? They were the main ones pushing this.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-chief/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

And a number of articles pointed out that it *was* people within Mozilla who applied pressure.

Throughout the controversy, Mr. Eich, who is in his early 50s, refused to repudiate his donation, even after being asked personallyto do so in a meeting with two prominent software developers, who said they would no longer create apps for Firefox.

Andrew Sullivan's screeds are IMO an embarrassment. This has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton, and Hilary Clinton, as far as I know, HAS repudiated her past view on gay marriage, so what is he even talking about?

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks?

What in the hell is this? The stocks? Really??

He's an extremely wealthy man who will move on to another high-paying job.

When will all GLBT people stop being blamed and shamed for decisions like these?

I'm sick of it. I'm so sick of it.

Edited April 6, 201411 yr by DRW50

What in the hell is this? The stocks? Really??

He's an extremely wealthy man who will move on to another high-paying job.

When will all GLBT people stop being blamed and shamed for decisions like these?

I'm sick of it. I'm so sick of it.

Hear hear. Agreed. The way he is being made into a martyr disgusts me. I am the first to say that the LGBT community needs to learn to choose its battles, but let's be real here. He chose to donate to that cause. He is now being held accountable for that. And then he chose to resign. Isn't the right all about choices and taking personal responsibility? He did what he did and now he is dealing with the effects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/technology/personality-and-change-inflamed-crisis-at-mozilla.html?hpw&rref=technology&_r=0

Is OKCupid really an "outside bullying group"? They were the main ones pushing this.

From the language that OKCupid used (taken from that NY Times Blog), it certainly sounds like bullying (if not worse), to me (especially the part where the organization wishes "failure" to those who oppose gay marriage).

For example, OkCupid, a popular online dating service, set up a letter, visible to those visiting its site on Firefox, that castigated the chief executive. “Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples,” the letter said. “We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.”

The letter, which has since been removed, concluded that “those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.”

Interestingly, OKCupid needs JavaScript (which was developed by Brendan Eich) in order to function. So apparently the hypocrites at OKCupid don't want Eich to be employed as CEO but have no problems using "homophobic" technology.

And a number of articles pointed out that it *was* people within Mozilla who applied pressure.

There certainly were people in the company who didn't like him, but he also had supporters as well. If there wasn't a lot of outside pressure, it is highly doubtful that he would have been forced to resign, especially in light of the fact that he was CEO for only a couple of weeks.

Andrew Sullivan's screeds are IMO an embarrassment. This has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton, and Hilary Clinton, as far as I know, HAS repudiated her past view on gay marriage, so what is he even talking about?

Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, so she has to reverse course on gay marriage for political reasons (and nobody really knows how she truly feels on the matter). If Eich were a Democrat running for office, or the leader of a gay rights organization, then he too would need to repudiate past opposition to gay marriage. But instead, he was the leader of a technology company, so the only thing that matters (apart from his qualifications) was whether he discriminated against homosexuals. And I have heard of no such evidence that indicates he did. (Besides, if Eich did flip-flop on gay-marriage in order to save his ass, I highly doubt that his detractors would believe him.)

DRW, I believe that Sullivan's point was that Eich's $1,000 donation (which is still pretty paltry, and certainly did not mean the difference between Proposition 8's success or failure) had such minimal impact to gay couples when compared to the enactment of DOMA during the Clinton Administration. The fact that the Clintons have since recanted (for political reasons) doesn't undo the big setback that DOMA represented to supporters of gay marriage.

Hear hear. Agreed. The way he is being made into a martyr disgusts me. I am the first to say that the LGBT community needs to learn to choose its battles, but let's be real here. He chose to donate to that cause. He is now being held accountable for that. And then he chose to resign. Isn't the right all about choices and taking personal responsibility? He did what he did and now he is dealing with the effects.

I would think that passing ENDA and getting gay marriage approved in all 50 states would be far more pressing battles for the gay community than the ouster of a conservative CEO (which strikes many as petty and vindictive). I can also understand Sullivan's point that picking such battles does more harm than good for the cause of gay rights: for instance, this week also saw Mississippi enact legislation similar to that vetoed by Jan Brewer, yet almost nobody talked about it, because the egregious forced resignation of the Firefox CEO got so much more publicity.

If CEO's need to take personal responsibility for a paltry (when you consider the total amount spent) $1,000 contribution to Proposition 8 and resign, then I fail to understand how this "logic" fails to apply to any CEO who ever donated that amount (or more) to a candidate opposed to gay marriage (and who still opposes it). And why stop at the CEO? The other senior officers also represent the company, so they too should resign if they ever made a donation that offended a certain group of individuals. The problem is that now that precedent has been established (for terminating somebody's employment as the result of an unpopular political belief), we have no idea how far this practice will go. (Yes, I know that the CEO technically wasn't fired, but he wouldn't have resigned unless he was coerced into doing so.)

Edited April 6, 201411 yr by Max

From the language that OKCupid used (taken from that NY Times Blog), it certainly sounds like bullying (if not worse), to me (especially the part where the organization wishes "failure" to those who oppose gay marriage).

Is a boycott the same as bullying? Even if it is, why is this being blamed on gay groups?

Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, so she has to reverse course on gay marriage for political reasons (and nobody really knows how she truly feels on the matter). If Eich were a Democrat running for office, or the leader of a gay rights organization, then he too would need to repudiate past opposition to gay marriage. But instead, he was the leader of a technology company, so the only thing that matters (apart from his qualifications) was whether he discriminated against homosexuals. And I have heard of no such evidence that indicates he did. (Besides, if Eich did flip-flop on gay-marriage in order to save his ass, I highly doubt that his detractors would believe him.)

The people he's working with probably would have believed him, which is what would have mattered.

This is what his money helped pay for.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html

Early on, Prop 8’s supporters decided to focus their campaign primarily on children, stoking parents’ fears about gay people brainwashing their kids with pro-gay messages or, implicitly, turning their children gay.

Another notorious commercial shows an earnest school administrator fretting that a “new health curriculum” that mentions gay marriage will “mess up” children with reference to “gay attraction.”

And Prop 8 supporters quickly zeroed in on the terrifying possibility that religious adoption agencies “may be forced to place children in same-sex marriages.”

In perhaps the most insulting ad, two gay fathers are quizzed about marriage and reproduction by their daughter; the takeaway, of course, is that this faux-family is twisting the mind and morals of their child with perverse ideas about marriage and love.

This is what the LGBT people working at Mozilla knew that their boss saw when he looked at them.

Also, I believe that Sullivan's point was that Eich's $1,000 donation (which is still pretty paltry, and certainly did not mean the difference between Proposition 8's success or failure) had such minimal impact to gay couples when compared to the enactment of DOMA during the Clinton Administration. The fact that the Clintons have since recanted (for political reasons) doesn't undo the big setback that DOMA represented to supporters of gay marriage.

If we start that ball in motion, then it would mean any criticism of anti-gay law or policy would be off the table, barring something like the laws in Russia and Africa.

Does Andrew Sullivan really want to do that?

Edited April 6, 201411 yr by DRW50

Not too surprised to see Bill Maher, who has made a career out of sneering contrarianism (and is also a huge sexist and generally guaranteed to pollute and sour the side of a debate he's involved in), railing against the "gay mafia." This is why the "gay agenda" talk is so laughable. Many of those up high, or who think they're up high, always love to spit on gay people, to show how cool and hip they are.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/04/05/bill_maher_mozilla_s_brendan_eich_was_whacked_by_gay_mafia.html

Edited April 6, 201411 yr by DRW50

Is a boycott the same as bullying?

No. It's the free market in action. Conservatives love the free market until it works against them then they cry about bullying.

They better get used to it. Since SCOTUS has seen fit to decimate decades worth of campaign finance law people are going to be paying a lot more attention to who funds what causes and past donations are going to be used against people in the present.

Edited April 6, 201411 yr by marceline

The problem is that OKCupid most likely said half of what they said just to appease the gay groups that were behind this unfair effort. Anyways its just another reason why I refuse to donate any type of money to LGBT groups. When their values and their methods align with me then I'll open my wallet and give what little I have. Until then access denied.

I'd rather donate to Ready for Hilary or Priorities USA or even Senate Majority PAC

No. It's the free market in action. Conservatives love the free market until it works against them then they cry about bullying.

They better get used to it. Since SCOTUS has seen fit to decimate decades worth of campaign finance law people are going to be paying a lot more attention to who funds what causes and past donations are going to be used against people in the present.

When conservatives talk about the free market, they mean that people are free to choose from among different alternatives, and that the company which puts out the best product should be the leader in a particular business segment. This is a far different idea than a group of people deciding to boycott a company because they disagree with the political beliefs of a CEO (who never discriminated against anybody in the workplace).

Nevertheless, I'm glad that you brought up the "free market in action" argument, since I have seen that elsewhere on the internet. A huge problem with this "justification" can be illustrated with the Phil Robertson (who, unlike Eich, is a truly contemptible character) incident: liberal groups threatened a boycott of A&E if Robertson remained on air, so A&E banned him (not because the network actually cared about gays, but because it was concerned about its image), and the liberals said this was an instance of the free market at work. Then, the subsequent backlash was far greater, so A&E lifted the ban. How many liberals then stated that A&E's action (to lift the ban) was also a demonstration of free market principles? And if Mozilla later decides to reinstate Eich as CEO (to appease those who may later decide to boycott Mozilla as a result of their anger), will you be OK with that, because that too represents a case of the "free market in action"?

Not too surprised to see Bill Maher, who has made a career out of sneering contrarianism (and is also a huge sexist and generally guaranteed to pollute and sour the side of a debate he's involved in), railing against the "gay mafia." This is why the "gay agenda" talk is so laughable. Many of those up high, or who think they're up high, always love to spit on gay people, to show how cool and hip they are.

I thought that Bill Maher's joke was in extremely poor taste, and was shocked that somebody so liberal would say such a thing. But I was also shocked that somebody as staunchly liberal as Maher would be offended at what happened to the Mozilla CEO. (And the fact that people such as Sullivan and Maher are upset screams volumes at just how extreme an overreach this was.)

More from Andrew Sullivan:

As I said last night, of course Mozilla has the right to purge a CEO because of his incorrect political views. Of course Eich was not stripped of his First Amendment rights. I’d fight till my last breath for Mozilla to retain that right. What I’m concerned with is the substantive reason for purging him. When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/04/dissents-of-the-day-63/

Edited April 6, 201411 yr by Max