Hey, Dem voyeurs, get out of our candidates' bedrooms!

[MoonRiver]

Is this the new puritanical face of the left? A RUMOR that Kerry was once attracted to a reporter has suddenly released no end of salacious righteous indignation from DEMS on the Democratic UNDERGROUND web site. Maybe we should have a special board called Democratic UNDERWEAR to discuss political sex stories. It was bad enough when we only had to worry about peeping tom Pukes. :crazy:

[dsc]

1. Why he feels no compunction whatsover invading mine?

If he gets out of my private life then I will gladly vacate his.

[library_max]

6. He who?

What on earth are you talking about?

[drfemoe]

7. gay marriage

Kerry's against it.

[MoonRiver]

8. Is he in favor of civil unions?

[library_max]

9. So that means he's invading your bedroom?

Kerry doesn't support something that's never been done before in this country and that makes him the sex czar? Never mind that most of the rest of the country also opposes it. Never mind that Kerry supports civil unions and full legal equality between same sex and heterosexual couples. Your disagreement with Kerry about this one issue justifies any invasion of privacy and any salacious smear against him by the Republican press, right?

[dsc]

10. I does make him the marriage czar

He goes around saying I am unfit to marry due to the religious nature of marriage. It is bad enough he does this as a divorce and adherent of a religion which doesn't permit remarriage, but to do so as an adulterer, if in fact he is one, is even worse. The number of people who are engaged in hypocricy isn't the yardstick we use to judge if it is hypocricy.

[nancyharris]

11. Sorry but

<”Never mind that Kerry supports civil unions and full legal equality between same sex and heterosexual couples.”>

It is simply not true that “civil unions” enacted by states offer full legal equality between same sex and heterosexual couples with regards to federal law and code. Nor can a couple having a “civil union” in one state have that union recognized by another state. Gay marriage is the ONLY means of ensuring equality between heterosexual and homosexual unions. Senator Kerry knows this but will not support it.

[dsc]

12. Even if they did

that would be wholly irrelevent. He has stated I am unfit for marriage on religious and cultural grounds. Thus his marriage is now an issue.

[library_max]

14. Any stick will do to hit a dog, eh?

Any excuse is good enough to do what one is determined to do anyway.

[dsc]

17. He called me unfit for marriage

He claims I am either culturally and religiously unfit for marriage while (if this is true) he was having an affair. Sorry, but that is hypocrisy.

[library_max]

23. Actually, no, he didn't.

Your words, not his.

[dsc]

25. Yes he did

At the Human Rights Forum, go to www.hrc.org and you can find a video. He said he was against gay marriage for both cultural and religious reasons. He did use those words. Presumedly he meant them. It isn't my fault he did this.

[library_max]

13. You mean, it's the only way until the law is changed.

Kerry is proposing to change the law to make civil unions recognized nationwide and provide equal protection under the law to both same sex and heterosexual unions.

[dsc]

19. no he isn't

He has said nothing at all like that and you need to site where he did.

[library_max]

24. Here you go.

Thank you for asking so nicely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=6334

[dsc]

27. Permits isn't requires

try again.

Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not.


The above is the quote from your link. He never, as in not once, says states have to have civil unions. He says permits. Those are not the same word and do not mean the same thing.

Try again.

[library_max]

28. I was hoping you'd read more than the first line.

Here's the pertinent statement.

"I'm for civil union, I'm for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term "marriage" as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously under the Constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law, and I think equal protection means the rights that go with it."

[dsc]

30. No where does the word require appear

and has been repeatedly pointed out this comment is supposedly about only MA. So which is it? Is he willing to amend the federal constitution or not? For your interpretation to be right then he is. If he is then I don't want that deal. If he isn't there is no deal to be had.

[eileen_d]

2. No, all of these Dems are sincerely concerned about Kerry's electability!

:eyes:

That's what's so ironic... people who clearly don't want to see Kerry get nominated at all are suddenly conerned that this will make him "unelectable" and demanding a satisfactory explanation - as if Kerry owes them one.

[Sensitivity]

3. I agree. These xx rumors should be banned from GD2004

[bryant69]

4. I don't know

I mean that might be misleading. I'm always curious as to what sort of undergarments other Democrats are wearing, and a website caleed Democratic Underwear would kind of confuse me. I'd go in looking to see what new boxers or briefs we were all wearing and it'd be full of sex talk.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Seldona]

5. Democratic Underwear?

:yourock:

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. I'm sorry, but I don't belong to the 'ostrich wing' of the party.

Rightly or wrongly, this is a matter that WILL affect his 'electability', and I will not bury my head in the sand about it just because some folks want to keep chanting "Move along, nothing to see here". :eyes:

[eileen_d]

16. Even if it's a bald-faced lie?

If Drudge published a false story that Edwards had an illegitimate child, would you worry about his electability?

I would discount any such story about Edwards from Drudge immediately. Just as I discount the Kerry/intern story.

[Cuban_Liberal]

20. But do you KNOW it's a lie?

I don't. The spectre of Monica and Bill haunt me, and Drudge broke THOSE, too, remember. I will NOT spend the next 8 1/2 months fighting of "Clinton's Cock: The Sequel".

[eileen_d]

21. I don't blame you for not wanting to fight that battle

But this story already smells. Drudge says the Washington Post and Time have been working on it - they're not. He says Clark has spoken about it - he didn't.

Next week it will be history. I don't KNOW FOR SURE, but neither do I "know for sure" that Edwards DIDN'T father an illegitimate child. However, I am comfortable believing that Edwards didn't.

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. I honestly hope it's NOT true.

I'm quite serious about that, but I am also quite serious about it bothering me badly. Sen. Kerry needs to come out and make a strong, unequivocal denial of this, e.g. "It's a damned LIE you lying little turd!".

Anything less allows it to continue festering, you see?

[library_max]

26. One of LBJ's favorite stories

was about a popular Texas sheriff running for reelection. His opponents had been trying unsuccessfully to think of a good campaign issue to use against him. Finally one man suggested spreading 'a rumor that he fucks pigs.' Another protested, 'You know he doesn't do that.' 'I know,' said the first man, 'I just want to make the son of a bitch deny it.'"

[Cuban_Liberal]

33. The difference being this:

He probably wasn't running for an office previously held by a pig f*cker.

[library_max]

34. The principle still holds true.

Many Americans view a denial as tantamount to an admission of guilt. It's perverse, but there it is. And this is all the more true after the Lewinsky matter.

[Cuban_Liberal]

38. I don't believe that to be true at all.

The lack of an unequivocal denial is what they will look at oddly.

[MoonRiver]

36. LBJ could have taught Karl Rove a thing or two.

Hope Rove's not channeling Lyndon. :scared:

[Foswia]

29. If its true! Lets figure that out first k? [nt]

[rucky]

18. We can talk about it realistically

1) The GOP & media pulls this crap time & time again. (no denial)
2) Our guys keep setting themselves up for it. (no righteous indignation)

Now off to separate corners for a scolding from Net Nanny:

YOU: get over it! and YOU: Keep it in your pants, for chrissakes!

[library_max]

32. Guilty until proved innocent, eh? /nt

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[corporatewhore]

35. I agree .I also think the only person who has a right to be outraged is

Teresa even if the rumors prove to be false nobody deserves that kinda of stress/humiliation/anger being picked apart on national tv and strangers w/computers

[shivaji]

37. It was Clark who let the cat out of the bag with 12 reporters whom

he was trying to impress with his "inside" knowledge.
ANd then he told them it was off record? Is Clark sane?

[MoonRiver]

40. Oh, so now this rumor mongering I've been seeing on DU for 24 hours

is CLARK'S FAULT? This reminds me of a very unpleasant pattern I've been seeing for 12 years and counting from the right side of the political aisle.

[library_max]

41. You don't know that.

There are lots of theories about how this rumor got started. Why try to pin it on Clark?

[shivaji]

39. Mr. kerry.....pleeeeez don't say "I never had sex with that woman...

mz..whats her name", just fess up if the rumors are true, and
it will become a non-issue and fade away.