"Any gay person who votes for Barack Obama after this is, simply, an idiot."

HarveyKorman:

MCCLURKIN REDUX: Kirbyjon Caldwell, Pastor who will campaign for Obama, leads “EX-GAY” MINISTRY

I cannot believe this is happening AGAIN.

Kirbyjon Caldwell, former “spiritual adviser” to George W. Bush, will campaign for Barack Obama.

From the Houston Chronicle:


The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, longtime spiritual adviser to President George W. Bush and senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church, plans to campaign on behalf of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Caldwell said Saturday that he’s endorsing Obama’s presidential campaign because of the senator’s “character, confidence and courage.”

. . .

The pastor, however, said he has informed his congregation of his presidential choice and that Obama may even pay a visit to his church.

“I have been in contact with the Obama campaign team,” he said. “I will be making visits on his behalf.”

Caldwell, who gave the benediction at both of President Bush’s inaugurations, said he personally called the president to tell him of his decision. Bush, he said, was “OK” with it. His presidential choice will not affect their relationship, Caldwell said.

Source

In fact, Caldwell has already been on the campaign trail for Obama. His name was overlooked at the time, but a little digging reveals that Caldwell was also part of Obama’s S.C. gospel tour featuring “ex-gay” bigot Donnie McClurkin:


At the event, McClurkin said more about himself than the man who the concert was supposed to help, Obama. But the singer said the candidate “is standing for change” and “a man not afraid to bring different opinions to the stage.”

In fact, for all the criticism on the left for President Bush mixing faith with politics, some of the speakers essentially described voting for Obama as akin to a religious cause.

“He’s more than a conqueror through Jesus Christ,” said Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Houston pastor who was on the tour and is backing on Obama.

Source

Here’s the kicker: CALDWELL IS THE SENIOR PASTOR OF METANOIA MINISTRIES, AN OUTFIT WHOSE WEBSITE ADVERTISES “A PROGRAM CREATED TO PROVIDE CHRIST CENTERED INSTRUCTION FOR THOSE SEEKING FREEDOM FROM HOMOSEXUALITY, LESBIANISM, PROSTITUTION, SEX ADDICTION AND OTHER HABITUAL SINS.”

METANOIA is apparently an offshoot of United Methodist Church.

Here is a link to METANOIA’s website:

http://www.kingdombuilders.com…

This is actually WORSE than McClurkin. This man actually RUNS an organization that ministers to youth to “cure” them of their sexual orientation. These organizations result in severe psychological trauma and death to GLBT youth not to mention an environment that encourages violence and discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people. Obama supporters: tell your candidate that it is UNACCEPTABLE to have this man campaign for Obama again, no matter how much he “disagrees” with his message. This is the last straw, and if Obama allows this man to appear on his behalf I will do EVERYTHING in my power, including campaign for his opponents, to work against his candidacy.

Sapphocrat says:

"This is so not over, folks. We’re going to be digging deep into Caldwell’s operation, and reporting to you what we find.

This is so not over.

Stay tuned."



http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/01/21/any-gay-person-who-votes-for-barack-obama-after-this-is-simply-an-idiot/

Should Obama turn away campaign help from every one he has a difference with?

a rather significant population that is otherwise quite progressive and who lean Dem.

You say they should be ignored and shunned due to their homophobia.

So that means they are ripe for the overtures by the GOP.

And you still haven't some up with a workable way to deal with this groups attitudes.

You are simply happy to bitch about them/.

Which will help these people grow and leave behind their prejudice:

working with them toward common goals
ignoring them except to call them bigots

Hey, maybe John Edwards should use some KKK members to deal with the the Southern White population!

historically.

And they tend to vote Democrat.

What backs up my assertion?

Rove has been working on wedging away black evangelicals.

to "deal with" them.

big difference.

His approach builds a coalition with various groups who agree on many issues.

It will, over time, help the prejudice dissipate.

Simply ignoring black evangelicals, who are otherwise quite progressive, doesn't do anything to help them grow out of their prejudice toward gays.

Hell no.

Same bigotry, same votes.

are, in fact amenable towards the Left because they do have issues in common.

But they won't move to the Left unless someone reaches out to them.

Like Edwards, Dean and Obama.

Your problem?

You see all people who have issues with homophobia as Klan members or raging loons and Freepers who have no active common issues with the Left.

You are wrong. And, frankly, biased. Your view is actually quite prejudiced in it's own way.

done historically over the years.

Go ahead and embrace bigots. Your choice.

But then what right do you have to complain about those very same bigots?

YOU aren't willing to work with them on the many issues you agree with them on. Even though doing so may open their eyes to their own hypocrisy when it comes to civil rights for gays.

And you demand that no politician try to move these people forward and out of their bigotry.

So basically, you're content being a victim and bitching about it.

Imagine if Martin Luther King had the same attitude.

?

Please consider the fact that you are basically the mirror image of those whom you object to.

I will say this one more time though-

comparing black evangelicals who traditionally vote Democrat to Klan members is seriously flawed and lacking in perspective.

Congratulations.

Obama has no principles and panders to all

He's more strategic in his pandering than that!

That's a blatantly racist, bigoted remark.

The mere suggestion that "the black community is homophobic therefore we have to accept homophobia in the black community" is so racist it's breathtaking.

where the FUCK are these people coming from??? :puke:

The gays got dissed on this one, there is no way around it.

On more than one occasion.

And..."everyone he has a difference with?"

Are you kidding?

I was not aware of the background. So sue me.

Suppose Stormfront offered him assistance. What then?

I was not aware of the background. So sue me.

That would be the more factual, correct and gracious way of expressing your error. It's also a sentence you might do well to practice, you're going to need it.

Otherwise, his entire "presentation" is incongruous.

Please tell me you're kidding. Please.

They'll excuse just about anything in their candidate, and turn it back into an attack on Hillary.

Please forgive me.

evangelicals and Democrats have?

The answer:

The Klan have few if any issues in common with Democrats.
Black Evangelicals have many issues in common with Democrats.

How embarrassing for you.

poverty and lack of access to health care?

lol

his standing by reaching out to white bigots on a populist message?

to "deal with" white bigots?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

into the GOP trap. Those who vote against their own interests.

By using a populist message.

Remember "God, Guns and Gays"?

Here is what you wrote in your post to which I was responding- "How about if John Edwards improved his standing by reaching out to white bigots on a populist message?"

which would be the equivalent of this.


PS: Go back through the whole subthread - don't start in the middle where it suits you. The whole thing was about the KKK.

And anyone who compares a Democratic politician reaching out to Black Evangelicals to reaching out to the Klan is not only using a red herring.

You are basically using your own bigotry.

Most black evangelicals on the LEFT have much more sophisticated and broadened world views and political ideals than Klan members.

Whether they wear white hoods or sing in pews, they're bigots.

doesn't help the problem.

Working with them will, over time.

Go work with some KKK members and let me know how it goes for you.

NOTHING REMOTELY comparable does or has existed with black evangelicals as a group or organization. (Maybe somewhere in the US, there's a black evangelical "Jeffrey Daumer" lurking around that I don't know about, but that ISN'T the KKK).

This facile invocation of the KKK would NOT be so prevalent and so rarely answered if DU's posters ethnically/"racially" reflected the general makeup of the Democratic Party (about 1/4 black and another 1/5 latino). Consider how insulting the comparison, or fine distinctions FROM the comparison, sound in so many ears, including of authentic left progressives like myself).

As a progressive bi, I STRONGLY warn LGBT activists from pitting black rights and issues in invidious comparison with LGBT. It is merely reflective of a lack of awareness, for which no doubt individual credentials can be found (like the Repukes have John McWhorter and Clarence Thomas to supposedly speak for an 'alternative' view withiin the black community).

or skin color of the bigot. And make no mistake, this kind of bigotry kills.

It's just that this oft-cited meme of McClurkin = KKK is really really misguided.

I understand.

I'm content to call them out as being just as dangerous as any other sort.

This kind of blanket reasoning leaves out all the particulars that define the real world we live in.

Equating McClurkin with the KKK, not to condone the former, is simply to trivialize the history of the KKK. I don't dispute that there has been much violence against gays, but laying this at McClurkin's feet like one can with the KKK tradition, is just plain manipulative.

post donheld?

It's quite telling.

I went to bed. God forbid someone go to bed.

is not entitled to sleep.

Sorry. That statement isn't any more outrageous than the seemingly rhetorical question you asked:

Should Obama turn away campaign help from every one he has a difference with?

Why would you state such a thing donheld?

I thought so much more highly of you.

I asked a simple question and went to bed. I still think it's a perfectly valid question. It was indeed a rhetorical question if you don't like it too bad. I will decide when I am entitled to sleep, not you, and I very much doubt you think any higher or lower of me. You don't even know me.

"simple" question you asked: "Should Obama turn away campaign help from every one he has a difference with?"

The answer is he should turn away bigots.

Now you may think it's okay to allow bigots to work for a campaign. However, I would argue that sounds more like a Republican way of thinking than a Democratic way of thinking.

I don't believe I'm the person who needs to climb off his high horse.

because for some reason, you don't wish to use your brain regarding this controversy.

You don't want to at the least concede, "gee, I can understand how some, if not many gay people are having trouble trusting the guy if he has pattern of associating himself with people who make gay people's lives tougher."

How sad.

The sin is this attitude that normal human sexual behavior is wrong. Obama better wake the heck up and boot this perp and apologize for this grievous error in judgment. The right wingers are all merrily and viciously working on making homosexuals a renewed wedge issue to scare people senseless to get them to vote in ways they normally have the good sense not to. Obama needs to stay away from this evil camp, not rub elbows with it.

If this is an example of what kind of POTUS he would make, I want none of it. And I am disappointed, I have been hoping for better from this promising young man.

You KNOW there's going to be. Deny, deny, deny. If you can't deny, then obfuscate. If you can't obfuscate, attack the messenger.

The hits just keep on coming.

Or is this simply a bigot "pledging" his support?

I'd already decided a vote for Hillary is the same as a vote for any of the Rethuglicans. She'll just say the opposite of what she does and smile as she stabs us in the back.

Now this.

Religion is my number one hot-button issue. I hate religion because of what it does to individuals and families. It's supposed to be "good" for you, but I know from a lifetime of experience and watchfulness that religion is evil to the core and humankind must rid itself of this evil or the future doesn't look so bright. No, that's far too mild. If we don't end religion, the future may not exist for us at all.

Religion has outlived its usefulness...if it was ever useful in the first place. And I'm sure anyone here with a lick of sense knows deep down inside that religion is bullshit. Our species dies and kills for utter bullshit.

Obama is a fucking idiot for letting this fundy bigot near him and there's no way in hell he will get my vote. I may even pan him in the general election because I sense he's simply another opportunistic corporatist like Hillary. The corporatists love hopping in bed with the religious nutters because religion keeps people mollified while deep down inside they wonder why they are so unhappy.

Imagine no religion.



Rational Response Squad

Not a fellow i would want to trust on his word to be honest.

I must admit this might be a very good tactic by others tho, convince a hated group or person to 'endorse' an enemy candidate and watch the sparks fly and supporters back away

Long time no see!

How's it goin' you heathen?!?

:toast:

Or cut funding for SCHIP. Or support school vouchers. Or appoint religious zealots to the Supreme Court.

That thinking gets no better the second time around.

I think this is Metania's site: http://www.metanoiaonline.org/index.htm



According to their site they are inter-denomionational

- - Is Metanoia Ministries affiliated with a particular denomination?
Metanoia Ministries is an inter-denominational ministry. We partner with many denominations and affiliations including: Assemblies of God, Baptist, Catholic, Foursquare, Lutheran, Ministers Fellowship International, Presbyterian and others.



And they have an 85-90% success rate!!

- - What is your success rate?
If you are referring to those who have left homosexuality to pursue sexual wholeness in their lives our BEGINNINGS program participants have an 85% - 90% success rate. :eyes:

I might as well start a Ex-religious organization; Like Rational Response Squad "Believe in Gawd, We can fix that."

involved AT ALL in political campaigns is one reason why so much of the rest of the world views American politics with dumbfounded disbelief.

Sid

:argh:

I'll only vote for Obama if he delivers a speech on the evils of the "ex-gay" movement.

And the Obama apologists come running no matter what.

As a straight woman, if this pisses me off, I can only imagine how incredibly hurt the GBLT community here at DU is feeling this morning.

It's shameful and embarrassing.

We should all be writing to Obama and calling his offices telling him that we do not approve of these types of people and that he is hurting his campaign.

Instead I see a portion of DU who want their candidate so badly they do't care who gets thrown under the bus.

Arhhhhgggg..........today sucks on DU

That should be factored into any interpretation of his position on gay and lesbian issues.

You are trying to say that gay people should decide whom to vote for based upon one issue and one issue alone? IMO it is always a mistake to be a one issue voter. This reminds me of Republican voters who base their vote solely on whether or not a candidate is pro life regardless of what else that candidate stands for.

You should judge Obama as well as all of the other candidates based upon the sum total of their views on all issues, not just one issue.

on other issues. :eyes:

and it still wouldn't be enough to make up for his continued missteps on GLBT issues. Some issues have more weight than others, and right now, Senator Obama is sinking.

You and others who have discussed this subject are obviously very passionate about it. And I respect that. But I hope that you can also respect the fact that other people are also passionate about some other issues.

For instance, my main passion is my opposition to the Iraq war and my opposition to the war criminals who started that war. I will not rest until that war is over and all of our troops have left. And because of my strong feelings about this, I cannot support any candidate who did not oppose the Iraq war from day one. So therefore I cannot support either Edwards or Clinton. And that's one of the main reasons why I support Obama. He alone among the major candidates has always opposed that war.

So are you going to tell me that your passion is more legitimate than mine? Are you going to tell me that just because Obama is not perfect on gay issues I should not support him and I should instead support another candidate who IMO was incorrect on the Iraq war issue?

Plus I support Obama's call to unite us as a country. I support his intellect and his energy and his obvious love for this country.

Am I happy that Obama has accepted support from a homophobe? No, I certainly am not. But I still believe that on the sum total of all issues Obama is the best candidate.

Out-friggin-rageous!

- Dave

and its embrace by the most viable black candidate for the presidency in history.

You apparently are content being the victim.

There you go.

is that no matter what you post, no matter how hard you try to get a small point across about "the gays" and our candidates stands and mixed messages on "the gays" like this we episode, you, me, any GLBT person will be taken to the shed.

I gave up. They will do whatever they need to do to get the votes, and if that means having friends like this to get them, well that's OK with a large segment here.

The bottom line is that we must have a Democrat in the WH. How they get there, who they play against whom does not matter anymore. The thinking here is "piss them off now, and we can make it up to them later". This may be a promise from them, and a hope for us.

Let's see this time if they keep their promise after we get thrown under the bus. We may be picked up and dusted off, or kicked to the curb again. I am willing to give that a try again, as I have always done. We have no place to go and they know it. It's kind of like having a wife that never leaves her husband no matter how hard he beats her.

Like I said, I gave up. Look for more GLBT mixed messages to increase wildly.

First, most of this hysteria and faux outrage is coming from Hillary supporters. As a gay woman, it amuses me to think that Hillary supporters would consider that any gay Obama supporters would flock to her standard like she's a symbol of gay goodness and purity. Give me a break. Bill - of DOMA, of DODT, of advising Kerry to come out against gay marriage - is hardly a friend to our community. And he'd be advising her on gay issues. This devil, I know.

Obama has confronted homophobia in the black church and I believe his heart is in the right place. This doesn't make me an idiot, thank you very fucking much.

and get back to us

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4141581

This is a well established pattern of disregard for glbt people and pandering to homophobes, and I'm absolutely disgusted that people on DU are still defending it.

Fuck that shit. He's either a homophobe or willing to whore himself out to them for votes. Frankly I don't care which, either option makes him unworthy to be president.

But we owe it to each other to increase awareness.

While "wearing" a Tyson avatar? :evilgrin:

eh? :shrug:

My partner used to send money to Obama's campaign. Not anymore.

Obama's behavior makes Hillary look better everyday.

the McClurkin episode over and over to promote an agenda without any genuine connexion to gay rights. (Sure, some gays are apt to be swept up in it, just as some supporters of black liberation have gotten swept up in the hue-and-cry supporting Tawana Brawley any way you slice it.)

What I am saying is not that ALL or even MOST gays are opposing Obama, but that a number of people at DU SEEK that outcome.

:yoiks:

are caught up in this demiurge. There are a more limited number of individuals keeping the McClurkin issue alive, just like the numerous people who filled the DU board with the Reagan canard stuff.

Incidentally, I am myself bi and not at all sympathetic with the way the McClurkin issue has been milked.

He may be trying to really appeal to white evangelicals and their fears of gay marriage. Sounds like he is preparing for the GE against McCain, whose evangelical support is not strong.

I can't look at politics with a head up my ass type attitude. When campaigning, there are many facets and many groups that need to be pandered to, to certain extents. If one ever hopes to be elected then they need to at least BEGIN to play the game of politics. So I really don't care who is and isn't endorsing him. What I do care about are his actual positions on the things that matter.

What are his policies and positions on equal rights? Gay rights? Gay Marriage? Etc???

That's what should truly matter as far as the Gay community is concerned, in my opinion, since that is what will matter when (if) he's President. If you don't know his stance, here's a good link for ya to get a quick glimpse:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Screw you OMC. I wonder why I ever took you off ignore. You deserve scorn and derision for this lousy post. Blech. Back on ignore.

Isn't how Obama will serve the Gay community as President truly what should be relevant in the gay community determining if he should in fact BE president? You have such animosity towards this concept why now? Holy reactionary...

if he associates with homophobes.

Why can't your brain compute this?

I don't think anything in his political career, that he's ever done, would show anything other than that he would support equal rights for gays fully.

posting that ontheissues link.

In fact, your whole post is very arrogant because you feel you know how a minority group -- one which you do not belong -- should believe what is or is not in its best interest.

Have you ever heard of the expression: "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree?"

The reason the expression is applicable is because we believe the pro-gay positions expressed by Obama cannot be believed/trusted if he's going to be associating himself with homophobes.

Pro-gay positions become irrelevant if trust is so eroded that people cannot believe the person (Obama in this case) will institute some of those positions.

I think where the candidate actually STANDS on the issues is what is most relevant in determining whether they should or shouldn't be president. As it relates to his progressive opinions on such matters, which there is no reason to believe he does not in fact hold, I am perfectly comfortable with the concept that he would absolutely be on the correct side of gay issues.

There was nothing arrogant nor smug about my post. It is simply logical. The fact is, in politics, you sometimes have to play the game a little, which he's doing here. That's just plain obviousness. But at the end of the day, what matters is what would his policies actually be like? Well, the link was there to show that what's most important is that his policies advocate for the gay community acceptably, and that it is all sorts of an overreaction to try and convince gays everywhere to not vote for him.

Disagree all you want. But just because I find the focus of this thread to be off tangent and misdirected, does not make my post smug nor arrogant.

Obama absolutely believes in equal rights for the gay community. Inferring otherwise is all sorts of unfair and ridiculous.

Gotta go.

irrelevant whether you're "perfectly comfortable with the concept that he would absolutely be on the correct side of gay issues."

What's important is whether gay people are perfectly comfortable, and you're discovering that a majority is not comfortable.

That's because he's saying one thing, while embracing those who would joyously undo everything he purportedly supports in terms of gay rights.

You need to work on your argument OMC, which would include mandatory presentation of information to convince a skeptical gay gay community that he's not anything but a bait and switcher.

Hopefully that's why you had to go. You realized you have work to do in that regard.

I love you to death, but you don't speak for the entire gay community on this issue.

to remember that when I type.

Thanks for reminding me.

:)

and you really suck because of how you feel about Obama] ;)

No, that's okay because I like you and I know where you're coming from. This is an issue with lots of room for discussion and disagreement. If you don't like Obama I'm cool with that. I've given up on *any* Democrat actually rewarding us for our money or our votes. Been there, done that.

His policies will allow me to vote for him if he's our candidate.

His other choices make me have to plug my nose to do it.

Wow. Just look around DU and read some of the threads. You'll find your answer.

And as far as his position on LGBTQ rights, why has he chosen to run away from this strong record all of a sudden, instead of "embracing" his previous votes strengthening the community? If your answer is because he needs to pander, to homophobes, to secure the nomination, how much are you willing to give away to win the election?

It bugs me to no end that some of these politicians think that they have to do this in order to get votes. I know that's how it works. Hell, I'm in TN where we're damn lucky if we can get a Dem in any office. The Dems here have to be on the conserv side and sit damn close to bush on some things just to even get taken halfway seriously. It's what they've gotta do if they're going to get elected.

That's how Harold Ford had to run despite the fact that he straddles the line between liberal and moderate. I didn't like it and I knew he was doing what he needed to do to win. (He didn't win) His vote has to reflect what many here in TN want.

I don't plan on voting for Obama, but I don't care for what he's doing regardless of the fact I understand it. He knows that if he gets the nomination he'll need the evangelical vote since many of them don't care for the repuke lineup. He's thinking far ahead which I can understand.

The pandering, though, makes me feel like I'm swallowing the vomit in my mouth.

The complexity of this discussion is that you, me and most others here are intelligent, aware, and able to think for ourselves. In our perfect world scenarios, all candidates should have to do is simply be candid, up front, honest and sincere, while having the utmost integrity and conviction. That's generally how objective intelligent critical thinkers would want things.

But we must come to understand that we are a vast minority of the overall population. Unfortunately, we are not great enough in numbers to elect a candidate on those merits. Until such a time comes that society progresses to the point of intelligence and awareness that we already find ourselves blessed with (I'm talking centuries or millenniums by the way), then the pandering will simply have to be something we continue to have to vomit in our mouths over.

Because that's what you're doing: pushing away the last remaining large block of Christians who haven't sought to turn their religious beliefs into discriminatory policies.


Me, I value their numbers and their loyal support. They've put us over the top in numerous tight races. We'd all be worse off without them, and if you try to push them out of the party -- or marginalize them within it -- then you'll be making a big mistake.

Silly.

Isn't this still a democracy?

absolutely