Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Senator Kerry silent on Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” Bill

By

Rachael Maddow of MSNBC has focused US attention on the draconian anti-gay legislation pending before the Parliament in Uganda, and the role of the religious right in this country in fomenting hatred in Africa. While right-wing Senator James Inhofe has denounced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (“AHB”), the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has advised that the Chairman, Senator Kerry, has no position regarding proposed genocide of gays and lesbians in Uganda. Bay Windows takes Kerry to task for this negligence in an online story:  http://www.baywindows.com/inde…  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • I think she’s having too much fun making news and questioning guests.  That’d be a glass cieling I’d be happy to help break with my vote because of her politics, the first openly gay female US Senator.  

        • as how she has more viewers than your party’s candidates have had votes, I’d imagine she do just fine.

          <

          p>Thanks for the concern.

          • The left wing offers Rachel Maddow. The right wing offers Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin.

            <

            p>God forbid an intelligent, plain-speaking, articulate lesbian woman stay on television.

            <

            p>It’s no wonder Rachel Maddow drives GOP stalwarts crazy.

              • She is a sound bite machine. Watch her show and view the perfectly picked and well rehearsed guests. They are just about reading a script. She rarely, if ever, has on any opposing views. Her bullshit stories are full of holes but nobody is there to dope slap her back to reality. I too would enjoy a debate between the “intelligent, plain-speaking, articulate lesbian woman” and Bachman. Although I would prefer it was with Coulter. As for Palin… why is the left so ravenously inflammatory about a person who is no longer running for anything?

                • who talks about “dope slapping” Rachel Maddow and in the same paragraph asks “why is the left so ravenously inflammatory” is sorely lacking in self-awareness.

                • dope slapping is not some violent threat. Don’t be so sensitive. Again, here’s my remark…

                  <

                  p>

                  She rarely, if ever, has on any opposing views. Her bullshit stories are full of holes but nobody is there to dope slap her back to reality.

                  <

                  p>PS If I ever say something like person X would kick person Y’s ass in a debate… what I really mean is that they would “win” the debate, not literally “kick their ass”. OK?

                • Are you arguing “dope slapping” is not inflammatory rhetoric? It is inflammatory (notice I didn’t say violent.)  

                  <

                  p>I compared your rhetoric about Rachel Maddow to rhetoric you characterize as “ravenously inflammatory.” If you’re going to use the same inflammatory rhetoric, you hardly have standing to complain about others doing so.  

                • Nor do I think people like me getting screwed paying high taxes are actually engaged in sexual activity.

                • As for Palin… why is the left so ravenously inflammatory about a person who is no longer running for anything?

                  <

                  p>She’s no longer running anything (like say, a state).  Sarah Palin is, however, always running for Sarah Palin.

                • …as a possible White House contender in 2012.  Hey, come to think of it, maybe THAT’s what the Mayans had in mind when they predicted the end of the world as we know it for that year!:)

                • the Mayans did not predict any such thing. Their long calendar ends that year, then starts over, just like the Gregorian one does.

                • The Gregorian calendar restarts every year on January 1. The Mayan long calendar restarts exactly like that, the day after the last day of the calendar.

                  <

                  p>The whole 2012 thing is hype for a movie. Thanks for doing your part.

                • The movie’s premise was around for a long time.  I saw a documentary on it probably a couple years ago now.

            • They are right wing pundits. Rachel Maddow is a left wing pundit… with a nightly TV show. At least compare apples to apples.

              • why not drop the “tv” element and compare conservatives and liberal female pundits?

                <

                p>First, let’s start with the tv personalities:

                <

                p>- Gretchen Carlson is Stanford grad with an advanced degree from Oxford, not that you’s know it from watching her on Fox and Friends.  I think Steve Doocy may have a dumb down effect on her.

                <

                p>- Monica Crowley is Colgate grad with a politcal science major and a Columbia Phd in Int’l Relations.

                <

                p>The there’s Coulter, Palin, Rep. Bachman who have no trouble talking teh crazy and the anti-liberal contempt-filled hate.  

                • There was another person who likely had a more significant dumbing down effect on Carlson: Michele Bachmann.

                  <

                  p>http://www.realclearpolitics.c…

                  <

                  p>

                  When she was a teenager in Anoka, Minn., she was a nanny for a young girl named Gretchen Carlson. Today, Carlson, a Stanford honors graduate who studied at Oxford, is a host of “Fox & Friends,” the morning show on — wouldn’t you know — Fox News Channel. See how far ahead the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy plans?

                  <

                  p>She has an advanced degree from Oxford?  I thought she just did a semester there or something.  

                • Carlson graduated with Honors from Stanford University, in 1990, with a self-designed degree in the field of organizational behavior. While a student at Stanford, she studied abroad at Oxford University – wiki

          • So you can’t count a “viewer” as a “supporter”. A great way to defeat your opponent is to learn how they think.

            • The way you harp on relative ratings of say, O’Reilly vs. Olbermann, it would seem you do infer support from viewership.

              • At least as much as I can before I can’t take it. He’s right up there with her for his partisanship and lack of opposing views. In fact, I think he has even less intestinal fortitude when it comes to having anyone come on his show to actually debate issues. He’s a wimp!

                <

                p>And his show is a constant repeat of the same things. He has the same 5-10 people picked for worst person in the world… How long before he drops the stupid “xxxx days since GWB declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq”… just old.

                <

                p>Sackless!

                <

                p>I do like O’Reilly’s show but I can no longer stand Sean Hannity’s show (he’s copied the MSNBC model… but with 3x the ratings).

                • That’s a characteristic the right claims to have in abundence

                  <

                  p>…until the US Attorney General announces the trial of KSM, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, in Manhattan whereupon they squeal like piglets and scatter like frightened rabbits.  

                  <

                  p>(NB inflammatory, not violent.)

                • We’ll see how the trial goes. Evidence rules for battlefield captured prisoners (or should we call them “arrests”) should be enlightening. Dems are so good at prosecuting. Speaking of which… do you think we will EVER see an outcome from the Congressional Ethics Panel on Charlie Rangel (you know the one which Pelosi said would have a report by January 2009). My calender shows January 2010 is right around the corner.

    • Kerry chaired a Senate Foriegn Relations Committee meeting on AfPakistan policy, and the Senate is still debating health care reform so I don’t think he’s on vacation.  That said, I can see why he might choose to not be front and center with a public statement on a foriegn government legislative policy. His committee is responsoble for oversight of executive branch policy not for making it. I’m sure he has the right to speak out but becuase he hasn’t it doesn’t mean he supports their policy.

      <

      p>Has Capuano made a public statement?

      <

      p>Has Coakley?

  3. It was very important for conservative Christians (e.g. Sen Inhofe) to oppose the AHB because of the close ties between C Street and the Ugandan leadership.

    <

    p>In general, I think one wants the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee to oversee foreign policy rather than conduct it. Maybe there are good diplomatic reasons for his reticence.

    <

    p>Or maybe not.

    • Senator Kerry has condemned genocide in Darfur. Considerations of deference to the State Dept. have little salience in this context.

      • If the State Department is on top of this and has a promising plan, it’d be wise for Senator Kerry not to stick his foot into it. The goal, after all, is to stop the bill. If Madame Secretary can do that, I won’t be disturbed by Kerry’s silence.

        <

        p>That said, I don’t know how these things are typically handled. It might be totally appropriate for the Senator to take a position. This is diplomacy after all and I’m not even at the level of amateur.

  4. when it was a digested version of an AP story buried on the bottom of the inside of the last page of the first section.

    <

    p>No wonder Kerry’s ignored it. So has the rest of the MSM.

    <

    p>Any proposed “law” that would serve to authorize the death penalty for private conduct between consenting adults and by extension, encourage genocide for any reason needs to be denounced as forcefully and loudly as possible.

Archives