Bil Browning

Most friendly presidential candidate?

Filed By Bil Browning | June 20, 2007 9:27 AM | comments

Filed in: Living, Living
Tags: election 2008, gay friendly, LGBTQ community, presidency, White House

Let's run with another poll today, plus a bit of an open thread...

Who do you consider to be the most gay friendly presidential candidate? I'm only including folks who have officially announced their candidacy - so no Al Gore or Fred Thompson. If I've left someone out, please choose "Other" and write in that person's name. We'll close the poll Sunday night and put up the results early next week.

And, for the open thread... Would you vote for that person in the primary? Do you think they have the qualifications to be President? If not, who will you end up supporting and why?

Recent Entries Filed under Living:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Eric Georgantes | June 20, 2007 4:27 PM

I am not a primary voter, so... not applicable.

I would like to see Bloomberg run, now that he's an independent, though...

Are any of the Democrats really different from each other when it comes to LGBT issues? I mean say, in any outstanding way? And, well, we know where the Pubs, as coined by Mr. Browning, stand.

My primary vote will go to Dr. Ron Paul, and that's only because my vote this election is based on what I feel are much larger issues at this time.

I wish this country were actually in a place where it would be plausible to vote on a single issue, such as gay marriage or DADT, or women's reproductive rights..., but unfortunately, this country is in much deeper shit. And, I cannot in good conscious, vote for the idea that the government is supposed to do and run everything for us... it's costing way to much, with or without this war.

Are you serious about Ron Paul, Kelly? If so, why? Are you regularly a Pub voter?

I'm just looking at his campaign website and I see that he doesn't trust the International Criminal Court, the World Trade Organization or the United Nations. He thinks we should withdraw from them if they infringe on our "independence." I don't know about you, but I see world leaders around the globe brought to the Hague for judgement if they're bad enough. Why should we applaud them for holding themselves accountable and then refuse to hold ourselves to the same standard?

I see that in regards to abortion, he boasts:

"In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."

Would you overturn Roe v Wade, Kelly? Do you want a candidate that does?

Like you say, our country is in too much shit right now to give the reigns over to someone who isn't nuanced enough to delineate between something not being in the Constitution and still incredibly needed. As Paul's website says, "Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." The FDA, the FBI, food stamps, social security, welfare, education requirements, and transportation security (both land and air) aren't expressly authorized by the Constitution, but are still valid and needed governmental areas.

Haha, Gravel pulls ahead. SAy whatever you want about him, but the dude is pro queer, esp. after that speech he gave about how love is beautiful. He should run as the Kucinich of 2008. And Kucinich should run as the Nader of 2008. And if Nader runs, well, I don't know what he'd be.

I think it's interesting though that Gravel and Richardson keep tying. I voted for Kucinich, personally. He's in favor of LGBT civil rights, full marriage equality, ditching DADT, etc. etc.

Apparently I need to keep pumping Richardson. LOL

Yeah, but he loves himself the Fox News, I doubt his pro-choiceness (a recent convert just before the 2004 elections... convenient), and his commitment party building is pretty nonexistent. And has he ever given a speech about how he thinks gay love is beautiful? Seriously, after Gravel gave his little schtick on the subject, the only way to up the ante is for another candidate to rim someone of the same sex on national TV.

Jeez, Bill, I don't even know where to begin... first of all, this is the very first time I will vote in a primary and the first time I will vote as a 'pub. Did you really read what the site says?

Okay, do you realize that the U.S. pays about one billion dollars into the United Nations budget every year? This, to an organization which has China and Syria as members of the Human Rights Commission? And what is this world organization really for? Oh, that's right, to keep peace mainly, but see, peace would be a no-brainer if in fact our previous and current administrations would stop bullying the rest of the world and preemptively starting wars... not to mention what free trade would do to build relationships with other countries.

But, most importantly, Bill, that is unless something has changed- the United States is a sovereign nation... do you really want a panel of other countries with differing governments telling us how to run our ship? And, lastly, about the peace thing- the U.N. is responsible for 44 wars and counting since its inception. Are they doing such a great job that you're willing to fork over some more of your tax dollars, or should we just sell more treasury bonds to China ( $648 billion and counting)?

No, Bill, I really don't want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, really I don't. Under the Constitution, this is for the states to decide, which comes down to us and who we elect. I've heard the arguments, Bill, so don't bother- that one just is what it is... Because, you see, the Constitution is being slaughtered, and- one either believes in it, or not. I don't see how we will ever keep it together by picking and choosing.

Federalism, a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority (D.C.) and constituent political units (states). This the basic idea of our government and yet we have continued to go to Washington and ask for more, expecting them to build, regulate, fund, fund some more, and more... to the point in which we are so freaking far in debt that the U.S. dollar is actually worth a whooping $0.04 (as compared to the 1913 Federal Reserve Note.)

Our Veterans are coming home to health care that is truly unacceptable, and yet the Dems sit there and talk their socialized medicine rhetoric. The Federal Government, whom you claim should be doing all of these things, can't get it right for 18 million American War Veterans, and somehow they're going to provide health care for 360 million and counting? Something tells me there would be a whole lot of Walter Reed to go around.

Public education, welfare, foodstamps, FEMA (who just misappropriated another 495 million tax dollar), Homeland Security, Headstart, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security... all of them poorly run at best, can't we do these things better ourselves?

The Office of Management and Budget just issued a report that states it now takes 1.25 workers to pay the retirement and drug benefits for just one retiree. You really do not need to be a mathematician to figure out the books do not nor will they balance as more and more of the boomer generation retires and the gap to fund retirees widens.

Don't we all sit around and bitch that Congress is funding abstinence with our money, and at the same time we bitch that George W. just vetoed the current embryonic stem cell bill? Interesting... isn't it?

Don't we all sit around and bitch that Congress is funding abstinence with our money, and at the same time we bitch that George W. just vetoed the current embryonic stem cell bill? Interesting... isn't it?
Oh, my, yes it is! It's such a conundrum - people get irritated when their money is spent on bad things, and then those same people turn around and want it to be spent on good things! People are so strange!

"people get irritated when their money is spent on bad things"
And, what? Somehow, your irritation is more valid, and what you deem "good" more qualified?

"and then those same people turn around and want it to be spent on good things!"
Wouldn't it be grand if you had your money back, so that you could then spend it on what you deem appropriate use of your money?

Don't you think it's intellectually dishonest to claim that you know best when it comes to how all tax dollars should be spent?