WTF Ford? | KnoxViews

Submitted by gttim on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 8:33am

"I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it."

I hope both candidates lose this election. I won't feel the least bit sorry when Ford does. Why does he hate it when bigots attack him, when he himself is a bigot.

If we have to elect people like this to take back the government, I would rather let the GOP keep driving it into the ground.

Topics:

gttim's blog

vote

I feel your pain, Tim.As a

Submitted by Socialist With ... on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 8:56am.

I feel your pain, Tim.

As a gay man, I find it deplorable that I have to choose between two bigots in this election; however, I voted for Junior and have convinced at least a couple of former Corker supporters to do the same. The way I see it, our choices are:

1) Elect Junior, help the Dems retake the Senate, and have at least a small chance of turning the country around, or

2) Elect Corker (or don't vote at all), leave the Senate to the GOP, and have zero chance of fixing the mess we're in.

In my opinion, the first is the only reasonable choice.

--Socialist With A Gold Card

"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." --Brett Butler

I'm not convinced....

Submitted by LCleavelin on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 9:01am.

"The way I see it, our choices are:

"1) Elect Junior, help the Dems retake the Senate, and have at least a small chance of turning the country around..."

I'm not convinced that Junior's going to "follow his marching orders" from the Democratic leadership if the Democrats do take over the Senate.

It's probably paranoid thinking, but I've heard some Memphis area progressives speculate that Junior would have no problem switching parties if he found it politically expedient.

Ultimately, it's a matter of conscience for me. If the Democrats wanted my vote, they could have run a candidate that I could vote for without holding my nose or puking in the voting booth as I vote for him. Since they didn't, I can only assume the Democrats decided they didn't want my vote. That's ok; I'm very happy to not give it to them.

Word

Submitted by LCleavelin on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 8:56am.

"I hope both candidates lose this election. I won't feel the least bit sorry when Ford does. Why does he hate it when bigots attack him, when he himself is a bigot."

I'm with you there. Junior's been my congresscritter ever since I moved to Memphis, and I'd really have to think long and hard to come up with one issue that I care about that he's voted the way I wanted him to.

I'll be damned if I'm rewarding Junior for representing me so poorly by voting for him for Senate.

The sad thing...

Submitted by gttim on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 9:04am.

The sad thing is that he is commenting on a NJ case. He could have just kept his mouth shut. Instead, he seemed to be in a hurry to toss the gays and lesbians under a bus. He needs turnout to win, and how many gays and lesbians are now going to make an effort to go vote for him.

If I have to have bigots in the government, I would rather they be Republicans. Let them look bad. George W. Bush has been the greatest recruting tool for the Democratic Party. Let Coker be one for 6 years. I can wait for good representation. I don't need Ford, Lieberman and Biden Democrats.

BTW, I live in Georgia, so I already have bigots and liars representing me.

Ford == Memphis Mafia

Submitted by djuggler on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 9:04am.

Why is no one talking about the Ford family connection to the Memphis mafia?

With a quick search the only reference I find is Scrapiron's comment to this post: "A little research will show that the entire Ford family is the mafia of Memphis."

Are people afraid of the backlash? Fish on our pillows? A defamation suit? Or is this "fact" just common knowledge that is spoken and never documented making "a little research" a lot difficult to prove?

Both candidate are horrible. I wish a anyone else would step up and run against them.

I wish a anyone else would

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 10:18am.

I wish a anyone else would step up and run against them.

There are several other candidates running for the Senate seat. If you aren't willing to vote outside the duopoly, you're just paying the mafia dues anyway.

It really is sad how low our standards are for those who represent us. That's what happens when voters are unwaveringly loyal to political parties that have absolutely no standards for membership. Our democracy has been infected by a concept that does not exist in our Constitution.

I wonder whether legal challenges to publicly funded party primaries and to the printing of party labels on ballots are the only viable cure for this disease.

read the new book Tilden The real 19th President

Submitted by leahlex (not verified) on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 12:17pm.

I'm sick to death of our rotton political system. I live in Chattanooga and I have not voted yet. I was going to vote for Ford but now he has thrown gay&lesbians under the bus. So I see he is almost as bad tome as Corker. I have had personal contact with Corker and i know he is truly a liar and bigot. but i did not know ford is also a bigot. I have had a change of heart will not vote for HFJ instead will write in a candidate. He does not deserve to go to the senate ethier. HFJ is as big a bigot as Corker and I did not know he was tiotally against gays.By the way The book i mentioned is about Samuel L Tilden the man Rutherford B. hayes stole the election from.Oh yes florida was the state who helped the republicans steal it. Sound familar???????

Witholding a vote for Ford is a vote for Corker and W

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 1:05pm.

I'm not convinced that Junior's going to "follow his marching orders" from the Democratic leadership if the Democrats do take over the Senate.

Even in the inconceivable event that Ford didn't "follow marching orders," it would still be a huge step forward if it meant control of the Senate goes from Frist, Stevens, Inhofe, Santorum, et. al. to Democrats. Take a serious reality check.

It's probably paranoid thinking, but I've heard some Memphis area progressives speculate that Junior would have no problem switching parties if he found it politically expedient.

Again, you can't be serious. How could he possibly want to be a Repug? Can you imagine the support he would have in the GOP? Zero. Point. Zero.

If the Democrats wanted my vote, they could have run a candidate that I could vote for without holding my nose or puking in the voting booth as I vote for him. Since they didn't, I can only assume the Democrats decided they didn't want my vote. That's ok; I'm very happy to not give it to them.

Everyone's perfect candidate doesn't exist. The real world is the only one we have. How do you deal with comparing between two choices of anything in your life that you have no further control over? Just one or the other. It's up to you.

If you have to hold your nose and vote for the least objectionable, then your civic responsibility is still being fulfilled when you do so. Otherwise, in this race you're just voting to Stay the Course with George W. Bush.

And furthermore...

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 1:43pm.

I'm surprised by your post, gttim. I've agreed with your positions about 95% of the time or better and have always admired your arguments. I really hate to oppose you on anything. It's fine that we're not clones in lockstep. That's for dittobrains.

But the one time I remember us disagreeing, you took me to task--strongly, as I recall--because I was considering sticking with Wesley Clark for president in '04, if he had chosen to run as an Independent, rather than supporting the then-undetermined Democrat. (I ended up supporting Kerry strongly, but we know how that turned out.) You essentially kicked my ass up and down an SKB thread, as I distinctly recall, for abandoning the party in its time of need.

Now, the choices are both known and the stakes couldn't be higher for a non-presidential race, and you're subverting the candidate who is arguably the most critical to our party's recovery strategy. Or is it no longer yours? No that there's anything wrong with that. Just sayin', though.

I go by the parody name "Factchecker" on KnoxViews and I approve of this comment.

Factchecker....

Submitted by gttim on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 4:17pm.

If Lieberman had won the Democratic Primary that year, I would have driven you down to vote for Clark as an independent. I do not think that Kerry was the best choice, and I did not support him in the primary, but I accepted him and the Democratic nominee and supported him.

That Ford, a black man who gained significantly because of civil rights battle and the blood, sweat and tears of millions can so easily toss another group aside in their struggle for equal rights just makes me ill. That man is not a true Democrat and I would never support him. I do not want Democrats like him. Either run on true Democratic values or do not run. At least Kerry could waffle on the damn issue. Ford just tossed gays and lesbians under the buss like they did not matter.

I also said during the 2004 election that if Bush won, it would not be a complete loss because he would destroy the GOP. He is. Having the GOP control the Senate will continue to destroy the GOP. If I can't get real change, screw it. Let the idiots get what they voted for. Eventually, as the religious right are killing their dogs so they can eat, they might just see the light.

Disclaimer: I live in Georgia and so can't vote against Ford. I just come to Knoxviews like I did at SKB's to make a ruckus. ;) But faux Democrats just piss me off, and make the Democratic party look bad.

Ford does have to woo a LOT of slack-jawed yokels

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 5:44pm.

I think Jr. is trying to reclaim some of the cross away from the GOP and I trust that he may be the only type of Dem who can win here now, at least during this era of mega religion zealotry. (Many Dems around the country are not separating their stump talk from religion anymore, but similarly are invoking their faith.)

That doesn't mean Ford's not sincere about some of his beliefs that I disagree with as strongly as others here. But all politicians have to sometimes walk a line between their conscience and the will of the people, when the two don't coincide. Sometimes they can vote their conscience and explain it to their constituents. Other times they just have to vote with their people.

My bigger point is that even Lieberman (whom I despise probably as much as you), if he ran here as a D, would get my vote over any Repug. I don't believe we need to destroy the country to save it (or sit by and watch Repugs destroy it), though it may already be too late.

My take on what Fact Checker

Submitted by redmondkr on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 7:34pm.

My take on what Fact Checker and Rikki are saying is that, if we don't do something to put some obstacle into the path of the present juggernaut in Washington, the human rights of straight Americans may not survive a great many more years. Harold Ford Jr. can be a big part of that obstacle. The rights of Gays and Lesbians to enjoy the blessings of America are, like it or not, dependent upon the largess of straight America.

Even though you, as a Georgian, are not in a position to vote for either candidate, by suggesting on this forum that Ford may be a traitor to his party, you may well be influencing another Democrat who can vote to make a major mistake - staying home or voting for a candidate who has no possible chance to win.

I need to change my tag line; the RNC has taken it as its mantra. "If a thing is worth having, it's worth cheating for." - W. C. Fields

Maybe this is what redmondkr is saying, but...

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 7:54pm.

The other point to make, all though I think we all know it, is that no matter how many Dems like Ford are sent to D.C., the Dem party would still cease in promoting those offensive "value" issues most of us don't like about Ford.

Gay marriage, flag burning, ten commandments posting, anti-choice, immigration fencing, "constructionist judges," etc.: Buh-bye.

But we gotta get the majority first.

Yep, and another thought

Submitted by Eleanor A on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 8:44pm.

Seems to me like nobody thinks twice about supporting male candidates in a state where only 14% of the electeds are women; not ever mentioning anything about equal pay for equal work, or saying anything about promoting the interests of half the population at all.

Hey, I'm willing to put that aside to support Ford, and a slew of other candidates in this state, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop working to make the political climate more favorable - so candidates can come out in support for issues that matter to me.

It's going to be a longterm process, that's for sure. And I don't think any particular group holds the monopoly when it comes to flying the civil-rights banner.

So?

Submitted by gttim on Fri, 2006/10/27 - 10:10am.

Even though you, as a Georgian, are not in a position to vote for either candidate, by suggesting on this forum that Ford may be a traitor to his party, you may well be influencing another Democrat who can vote to make a major mistake - staying home or voting for a candidate who has no possible chance to win.

I see nothing wrong with that. If he is going to toss gays and lesbians under the bus to pander to the religious right, he risks losing their support, and I think he should lose the support of many Democrats. He may very well become a co-sponsor to silly ass laws against people's rights just to keep pandering. If I influence people to stay home or not vote for him, good for me. Ford needs to know he pays a price when not supporting equality for eveyone.

The rights of Gays and Lesbians to enjoy the blessings of America are, like it or not, dependent upon the largess of straight America.

That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on Knoxviews or SKB's, and I have read a few. I don't think Bill Hobbs could make a statement that stupid. (Well, maybe.) That is just fucking stupid, however.

The rights of all people in the US are guaranteed. It is only because of ignorant morons, racist pinheads, and prejudice jackasses that some people do not have them- choose which group you belong to. There is no waiting for some benevolent straight (white/male/Christian) person to bestow shit. If that was actually the case, African Americans would still be sitting at the back of the bus.

BTW, I am straight. If we allow the rights of gays to be trampled, then ours might be next. It is not the other way around. We do not need to worry about protecting my rights to hope that one day gays will have them as well. Unless everybody has them, then all are at risk.

Get real, gttim, Gays and

Submitted by redmondkr on Fri, 2006/10/27 - 2:45pm.

Get real, gttim, Gays and Lesbians are the only minority group left in America that can not only be discriminated against legally in most quarters, it is one of the most fashionable of pastimes. Try watching a Leno show even once without a cheap shot at us.

In case you had not noticed lately, laws are made laws by a majority, and that majority, my friend, is either straight or pretending to be for the cameras - a pretend-straight is the worst enemy of our human rights. A friend once said that if we all turned purple overnight so we couldn't hide who we really were, what a surprise the world would see.

Before you go suggesting ignorance, I suggest you look deeply into your mirror if you truly believe that our rights are not given - or taken away - at the whim of heterosexuals. Watch what happens when all these bigoted Tennessee straights vote yes on Amendment One and then repeat that drivel.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Look a bit closer to home to see who's displaying uncanny ignorance here.

Clutch your pearls as I ask you a variant of the question I've been asked ever since I came out to my friends, "So, when did you decide to be straight?".

I need to change my tag line; the RNC has taken it as its mantra. "If a thing is worth having, it's worth cheating for." - W. C. Fields

Really ignorant.

Submitted by gttim on Fri, 2006/10/27 - 4:14pm.

In case you had not noticed lately, laws are made laws by a majority, and that majority, my friend, is either straight or pretending to be for the cameras - a pretend-straight is the worst enemy of our human rights.

More ignorance. Did you not take HS civics. Civil rights was not granted by a majority of voters (Hetrosexuals). Civil rights were granted by the courts. The laws passed by the majority would have kept civil rights from advancing. They would have kept women from voting. They would have kept the government in your bedroom. They would have kept women from getting contraception.

If I were you I would not only look in the mirror, but I would look in a few text books. You are just saying stupid shit right now.

I would not vote for Coker, but I certainly would not vote for Ford.

"So, when did you decide to be straight?".

What has that have to do with anything I have said. Did you hear somebody say that, think it sounded intelligent and figured you would insert it in any discussion of gay rights. Nobody on this thread has said anything about the nature/nurture argument of homosexuality. Why do you think to bring it up now? Is it because you are just stupid and do not understand that it has not been brought into the discussion?

You are truly an idiot! And take that personally!

More ignorance.

Submitted by JustJohnny on Fri, 2006/10/27 - 4:22pm.

....just how far have gay rights (human right / civil rights / whatever) progressed under under a GOP controlled house and senate (and white house)?

You are completely missing the point, I think.

More ignorance.

Vote Ford.

Remember 2000!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2006/10/27 - 5:09pm.

Remember 2000!

There are several points on Ford's platform where I find him to be too conservative. Nonetheless, a vote for Ford is a vote to switch the control of the Senate, placing a much needed restarint on Bush's power.

Please remember the election of 2000, where where folks who weren't pleased with Gore's too-moderate positions, etc. Some voted for Nader, and when the dust settled around that too-close-to-call election, Bush was able to wrangle into the Presidency. Don't let that happen again. There is no conceivable scenario where a President Gore could have led us down anything like the miserable path we have been on for the last five years.

Ford is wrong on the gay marriage thing. He's also too quick on the draw for several other proposed amendemnts to the Consitution. Nonetheless, Corker in a Republican Senate will continue to rubber stamp Bush's assault on everyone's civil rights, both gay and straight. A vote for Ford will help turn the tide. A vote withheld or for anyone else will only repeat the horrible mistake that was made in November 2000.

Speaking of 2000...

Submitted by Andy Axel on Fri, 2006/10/27 - 5:17pm.

Tennessee's 11 EV's would have made the difference then.

Let's not be the goat a 2nd time.

____________________________

Forget patriotism. Instapundit.com is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Thank you Mr. or Ms.

Submitted by redmondkr on Fri, 2006/10/27 - 7:26pm.

Thank you Mr. or Ms. Anonymous,

I believe you are making a point similar to the one I stated in my first comment on this thread - the one that got me the idiot moniker.

I stand by my statement (made in a reasonably civilized manner) that a majority of Americans indeed has the ability to grant or revoke certain civil rights of gays and lesbians. By the tool of the Constitutional amendment, it's happening practically every day all over the country, and, should a federal Constitutional amendment be managed by a majority of legislators and voters, no court will have the ability to protect us from that discrimination as even the Supreme court is supposedly not above the Constitution. I learned that in high school civics in 1962; it may have changed since then.

ENDA missed passage in Congress by one vote a few years back. Until a majority of presumed heterosexuals sees fit to give gays and lesbians the "special rights" of federally mandated equality in hiring and firing practices, employers in 34 states still have the right to discriminate in hiring and firing based solely on whether a person is gay or suspected of being gay.

Remember the fight trying to get a majority to agree that sexual orientation should be included in federal hate crime legislation?

As suggested before, Mr. Ford is certainly no panacea for those with a gay rights agenda, but to advocate voting for a Ralph Nader and thereby rob him of a vote, is to rob America of a valuable tool in the fight to keep these criminals from stealing more of everybody's civil rights, not just gays and lesbians.

I'm sorry if I offended you, Mr. gttim, but you can just pass it off lightly by reminding yourself, "Well, he's just trash".

PS: I hope you don't kiss your mother with a mouth that would say something like this to somebody unless he stepped on your dangly bits.

It is only because of ignorant morons, racist pinheads, and prejudice jackasses that some people do not have them- choose which group you belong to.

I need to change my tag line; the RNC has taken it as its mantra. "If a thing is worth having, it's worth cheating for." - W. C. Fields

to advocate voting for a

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2006/10/28 - 12:25pm.

to advocate voting for a Ralph Nader and thereby rob him of a vote, is to rob America of a valuable tool in the fight to keep these criminals from stealing more of everybody's civil rights

Strongarming people into sacrificing their principles because you presume ownership of their vote is an insult to democracy. Given that Ford has registered his disregard for human civil rights not just through campaign promises, but through actual votes for bigotry, for torture and for a liar's invasion, so the insult is all the more bilous.

You don't own anyone's vote. If you want them to vote with you, ask for their vote. Don't demand it.

Ford's position on gay

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 1:40pm.

Ford's position on gay marriage has long been apparent to anyone who really cares about that issue. He has voted for amending the U.S. Constitution. Why the surprise and sudden change of heart?

While I agree that the system is badly decayed, I'm not sure the Senate race is the best forum for expressing disgust. In normal circumstances (where both parties play disingenuous foil while supporting corporate interests), I'd be voting Green in the Senate race, but with Congress assenting to torture, massive war profiteering and unchecked Presidential power and burying criminal and treasonous acts by the executive branch, I can't see any federal issue trumping the need to balance Congress. If we allow the Bushco criminals two more years of unchecked destruction of democracy, we'll be lucky if we have the luxury of working toward gay rights.

Ford is a poor vessel in which to place our hopes, having already voted for torture and bigotry, but he at least belongs to the party that can do something. Federal Republicans are so paralyzed by cowardice they can no longer perceive reality and are totally worthless.

Why are you shocked?

Submitted by marat on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 9:33am.

Reading some of the comments about this statement from Ford has given rise to what would truly be a 'Casablanca' moment: Posters here are 'shocked... shocked' to discover that Ford holds this view.

Come on! He shot a commercial in a church. He's consistently talked about the role of his religious upbringing. He's running for Senate in a Bible Belt state. And you're surprised when he comes out against gay marriage?!!?

I've already voted for Ford and against amendment 1 (my vote cancels his vote). What I'm concerned about, in this comment, is that he's not dealing with what the New Jersey court decision said. It said that same-sex couples have to be given equal protection to their relationships as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples. They specifically avoided using the word 'marriage' in their ruling.

Besides, why is a candidate for Senate in Tennessee commenting on a state supremen court decision in New Jersey? Oh, right. We're in the Bible Belt. And his opponent is threatening we god-fearin' folk with a 'librul'. He's got to innoculate himself against white trash.

I agree

Submitted by CE Petro on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 11:27am.

I agree with Marat. Ford is not addressing the opinion as it was written. But, it's not just Ford and Corker.

It also didn't help that cable news was blasting questions of how the NJ opinion would effect senate races once the opinion was given. Apparently, it seems that's what cable news has decided viewers want to know rather than actually disseminating the opinion.

Muster for suicide

Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 9:58am.

Reveille at 0600. Time to form the circular firing squad.

Sheesh.

____________________________

Forget patriotism. Instapundit.com is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Right-o

Submitted by JustJohnny on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 10:21am.

Bang. Bang. Bang. Click.

Folks, this is Tennessee. Second only to supporting a state income tax, supporting gay marriage will kill your chances for getting elected. It is politics, plain and simple.

The end game is control of one or both houses of congress, and if it takes electing a blue-dog democrat to do it, then so be it.

I'm gay, been with my partner for ~6 years; both of us voted for Ford and no on 1.

Knox (and Tennessee democrats), go vote or sit down and shut up. No vote, No voice, No Way.

Politics

Submitted by Eleanor A on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 10:43am.

I agree with JJ. This is just politics. Ford is running as a black man and a Democrat - a double whammy in the South. You really want to hand the Republicans another lightning rod issue to beat him with - when they're already running jungle drums?

I don't mean this as confrontationally as it might sound, but where were you guys six months ago when the Tennessee House and Senate voted to put a gay marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot? You could have come down to the state House and lobbied against the damn thing, which some friends and I did on a similar measure - and consequently there's no pro-life constitional amendment this year. Nor was there last year, when we did the same thing. We also fundraised for the women who put the kibosh on the bill in the House, which is how we're going to try to make sure it doesn't get through in '08. (Not that the Repugs won't try some other tactic, but money always helps.)

When will the Dems in our House and Senate realize these Constitutional amendments are just an excuse to rally the radical-right base...? Sigh...)

I just can't believe what some people will believe is possible given the confines of political reality in this state. I'm a liberal myself and I'm volunteering for Ford. To put it simply - we are badly outnumbered in this state. You can like it or not, but it's fact. Turning that around is going to take many years, and it's going to happen outside the constraints of our political system, unless a lot more people start showing up at rallies supporting paper ballots and the right to organize. (I go to those rallies myself and do everything I can to help on progressive issues, which is how I know those measures get paltry support where the rubber meets the road - lobbying the Senate, writing letters, etc.)

Which isn't to say I don't think some of this is justified, but not at the expense of handing the Rethugs another two years of a rubber-stamp brownshirt Senate. I'd rather have Ford vote right 20% of the time than KKKorker voting wrong 100%.

I dislike Ford's positions

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2006/10/26 - 11:02am.

I dislike Ford's positions on gay rights, flag burning, and some other social stuff.

But I tend to be practical rather than pure when it comes to politics. I try not to let the better be the enemy of the good.

To paraphrase Donny Rumsfeld - you go to vote with the candidates you have. Not only is Ford a huge improvement over Corker, a Ford win gives the Dems a chance to take back the Senate. That would mean they would be in control of the agenda, the rules, and the committees.

Would that change the world as much as I'd like? Nope. But it might at least put some brakes on the runaway administration we have in Washington.

So Ford it is. With absolutely no regrets.