The top contender to run against Heath Shuler dropped out of contention yesterday. Just a few months ago he said he was planning on running once disgraced former Congressman Taylor decided not to run. Taylor gave a feeble non-answer to a local Republican Men's Club when asked his intentions for 2008.
So your assertion is this - Though Shuler believes homosexuality is wrong, which infers that it is a choice, he has no problem with the wrongdoers who have chosen to be homosexual.
Is that right?
Because it's a really very weird way to think about the whole issue. If someone comes up to me and says "White, heterosexual males are wrong", should I take that to mean that they think my whiteness, heterosexuality, and maleness are wrong but that aside from those vices I'm A-O.K.?
I don't get it.
The axe being ground here is that of social justice and equality. Call it an axe if you like. I call it a value.
That's not a personal problem? Funny, all the gay people I spend time with sure think it's a personal problem.
Heath has lots of strengths. I did a fairly good job of listing them here (though I did leave out the link you offer, faithfull). He's also got some serious liablities when it comes to encouraging progressive Buncombe County to get to the polls.
The enviro/small business thrust has been excellent, and I imagine we'll see more of it since Shuler is on the Small Business subcommittee and the Infrastructure Committee.
Faithfull, your support of Heath is clear. What do you think of his hate crimes, stem cell, Iraq War, and immigration positions?
For five long Friedman Units, I have suffered the concern trolls, the wankers, the spammers, and the LieberDems in an effort to blogwhore my homeblog, Scrutiny Hooligans, as an alternative to MSM/legacy/corporate journamalism, exemplified by Tweety, Doughy Pantload, The High Broder, and Joke Line.
We've got enough theocrats already, thanks. Are there any nice secularist Republicans who want to make the jump? You know, ones who weren't all gung ho about the war while hating abortionist doctors, activist judges, and homosexual agendas?
Jones would serve best by joining the Connecticut for Lieberman party.
Electability is a ridiculous concept that lost us the election in 2004. Remember that Kerry was the most electable candidate then?
You minimize the efforts of the candidates outside your appointed "Big Three" and limit their chances by trying to crown Hillary absent any policy discussion.
Hillary who voted for the war. Electable? Whatever. If she wins the nomination, I'll work to see her elevated, but she doesn't get a pass just because she's got a lot of money and the last name Clinton.
For the record, I'm a Bill Richardson fan. He's got experience, solid policies, diplomatic skills out the wazoo, and oodles of "electability" style positives.
Let's make the candidates work for our support. Why should they buy the Progressive Cow if they're getting our milk for free?