Kerry Healey, who styles herself a moderate, pro-choice, “Weld Republican,” has announced that her choice for president is an anti-choice, anti-gay rights, right-wing Republican who has lately been cozying up to the most extreme elements of the religious right, appearing on the vile Family Research Council‘s “Liberty Sunday” broadcast and arranging private meetings with nutjobs like Gary Bauer.
From today’s Globe:
In 2008, Massachusetts may have a Republican primary that pits Mitt Romney against John McCain and a Democratic primary that pits John Kerry against Hillary Clinton. If you had to cast a Republican ballot, whom would you choose and why? If you had to vote Democratic, who would it be and why?
HEALEY: Mitt Romney. The governor is an exceptional leader and will be successful at whatever he chooses to do.
This dude has undercut Kerry Healey every chance he got, he’s veered so far right that he’s driving in the breakdown lane of our political highway (oof — there’s a metaphor gone badly wrong!), and yet Healey is still playing the loyal second-in-command. That shit is scary.
and speaking of evangelists who’ve been active in the religious right’s effort to combat the alleged “homosexual agenda”:
<
p>
<
p>
Nice.
He took responsibility and resigned.
<
p>
Same with MArk Foley.
<
p>
Same with Robert Livingston.
<
p>
Same with Bob PAckwood.
<
p>
UNLIKE Bill Clinton.
<
p>
UNLIKE Gerry STudds.
you don’t think it was maybe the teensiest bit hypocritical to be publicly bashing gays while paying for blowjobs and crystal meth from a male hooker?
<
p>
As for Foley, bullshit. He resigned because he literally got caught with his pants down and was going to be expelled if he didn’t.
And if they only censured Studds – who turned his back on the House during the vote to indicate his contempt for the vote by his fellow Democrat majority – for ACTUALLY having sex with pages instead of chatting about it – do you REALLY think Foley would be expelled for IM’s?
I didn’t realize that dealing with sexual impropriety was a Republican/Democrat thing?
<
p>
Ok, What is the Republican position?
GOP – Get caught, resign.
<
p>
Dem – Get caught, whine, go on Barbara Walters, brazen out.
You know, the GOPer from Ohio? Oh that’s right, he waited until weeks after he was convicted to finally resign. The GOP doesn’t have a high horse on this one.
<
p>
Getting caught in a major scandal seemingly weekly and resigning in most cases does not demonstrate the high level of ethics within a party.
Unless you’re going to try to contend that publicly bashing gays while privately paying male prostitutes for sex doesn’t constitute lying, Haggard absolutely lied. He also continued to lie after he’d been exposed: first, “It’s not true,” then “I bought meth from him — but only to throw it away! — and I paid him for a massage — but we didn’t have sex!” and only now does he admit the whole thing, because enough information has been released that he has no choice.
<
p>
What about Henry Hyde, by the way? I don’t recall him resigning.
<
p>
Republicans love to point at Clinton, especially, and claim that because of him, Democrats have no standing to criticize Republicans for moral lapses, as if all moral lapses were the same. But a consensual affair, though wrong, is nothing like the kind of hypocrisy involved in Haggard’s case, Foley’s, or Hastert’s (another liar, to claim he didn’t know about Foley’s problems) — Haggard actively tried to harm homosexuals in his public life, Foley (also no friend to gay rights) headed the council on Missing and Exploited Children, and Hastert let him stay there. Foley and Hastert are worse, I would say, because they aren’t just hypocrites, they’re abusers of the public trust.
<
p>
And this is where David is spot-on with his larger point: if we’re going to talk about lying and moral lapses, having an affair, or even paying for meth and gay sex while bashing gays, pales in comparison to the big lie and the big moral lapse that these more salacious scandals always push out of the news. If we’re going to talk about lying, let’s talk about Jack Abramoff, and let’s talk about Halliburton, and let’s talk about Iraq.
I foundthat whole thing very interesting. I was disappointed Kerry didn’t answer the Democrat question, and that Deval didn’t answer either. Christy’s John McCain and John Kerry was kinda predictable, but I thought Grace Ross’s “Colin Powell and Jim McGovern” response was great.
<
p>
I also thought it was a really amusing reversal of character/caricature that the Bush administration help/hurt question, Deval only mentioned the disaster of Iraq, and Grace had some really good points of positive things. I have to assume that those things were edited down, because for Deval to not mention everyone “having a few good ideas” and for Grace to completely pass up the oppurtunity to mention any negatives of the Bush administration….
Sherry Muffy would have been an unemployed hack and/or part time “criminology” researcher if Uncle Mitty hadn’t put her on the team. She drank the (non-caffeinated) kool-aid when she signed on. They may have kept her locked in the Lt. Gov. suite, but she’s still feistily loyal. DOH!