Dr. Lau.. Err..Gore

October 16, 2000 8:52 AM

Dr. Lau.. Err..Gore [When one participant asked Gore about homosexuality -- which the man described as a "sin" -- Gore responded that homosexuality is an abnormality which should be discouraged. "I think it is wrong," Gore explained to the audience. "It is not just another normal optional lifestyle."]
posted by tiaka (25 comments total)

Yup. He said it. 15 YEARS AGO. Yeesh, Drudge. People change. I didn't know politicians weren't allowed to ever be wrong?

This is EXACTLY what the previous MeFi post was talking about... putting spin on the news, to hurt Gore's character. This story will get passed on, without the *date* of the quotes, and Bush's camp wins again.

Try to find a person who *hasn't* said something they've been wrong about... now keep looking.
posted by gramcracker at 9:18 AM on October 16, 2000

"He said it. 15 YEARS AGO"?? You can either say that he changed his mind, or that he's saying what he thinks people want to hear.

Did you guys watch the debates?

MODERATOR:

New subject, new question. Another vice presidential debate follow-up. Governor, both Senator Lieberman and Secretary Cheney said they were sympathetically rethinking their views on same sex relationships. What's your position on that?

BUSH:

I'm not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. And I appreciated the way the administration signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I presume the Vice President supported it when the President signed that bill and supports it now. But I think marriage is a sacred institution. I'm going to be respectful for people who may disagree with me. I've had a record of doing so in the State of Texas. I've been a person that had been called a uniter, not a divider, because I accept other people's points of view. But I feel strongly that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

MODERATOR:

Vice President Gore?

GORE:

I agree with that, and I did support that law. But I think that we should find a way to allow some kind of civic unions, and I basically agree with Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman. And I think the three of us have one view and the Governor has another view.

MODERATOR:

Is that right?

BUSH:

I'm not sure what kind of view he's describing to me. I can just tell you, I'm a person who respects other people. I respect their -- I respect -- on the one hand he says he agrees with me and then he says he doesn't. I'm not sure where he's coming from. But I will be a tolerant person. I've been a tolerant person all my life. I just happen to
believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman.

MODERATOR:

Do you believe in general terms that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as other Americans?

BUSH:

Yes. I don't think they ought to have special rights, but I think they ought to have the same rights.


posted by jamescblack at 9:44 AM on October 16, 2000

This isn't really news. Anyone who's paid any attention to the campaign is aware of Gore's past views on homosexuality and abortion.

Whether the man has had a geniuine change of heart or it just pandering to the left is a question worth asking, but in the end a moot point.
posted by alan at 9:46 AM on October 16, 2000

with politicos it isn't so much a matter of finding something that they said and were wrong about...its a matter of finding something that they said that they actually believe.

What is it he believes, and what is it that he says for votes? People like Al aren't even real. they are clay. Sensory input/output devices wired into a database of phrases. That being the case, the only thing that ever amazes me is that Al and George aren't more eloquent....the script that controls what phrases they spit out must be sorta sloppy.
posted by th3ph17 at 9:49 AM on October 16, 2000

now wood isn't harsh enough? now he's clay? that's not true. al gore isn't clay. ugh. he's a brilliant man and i'm sick of this bullshit.
posted by palegirl at 10:05 AM on October 16, 2000

I imagine it's easier to sell more liberal viewpoints to the general populace of the United States than to the voters of central Tennessee (whom he was addressing in the 19-year-old quote).
posted by daveadams at 10:09 AM on October 16, 2000

Whoops, don't know why I put "central" in there. Any voters in Tennessee that is. Whatever.

Besides, hasn't anyone here changed their points of view, even on major issues, in the last 19 years? I have.
posted by daveadams at 10:11 AM on October 16, 2000

>hasn't anyone here changed their points of view, even on major issues, in the last 19 years?

He hasn't.
posted by ethmar at 10:15 AM on October 16, 2000

Was there an off-camera moderator somewhere asking Bush if he was "respectful of other people's view and if he was a uniter or a divider?" That's the question he seems to be answering again and again and then a little bit about he doesn't want same-sex marriages.

Gore is known for his old stance on abortion, but considering how many times in this "debate" he's been in complete agreement with Bush, this looks like your main party choices are either the right or the far-right as usual.


posted by skallas at 10:24 AM on October 16, 2000

palegirl...clay is something that can be shaped...and major league politicians are constantly shaped by their surroundings...they adapt. Is Al Gore a Brilliant man? his life accomplishments seem to reflect this...yes...but what i'm saying is that as a politician seaking the office of president he isn't speaking for himself, and he isn't speaking his mind as he sees fit. He has to make things fit...because thats how the game works. I have a lot more respect for people who always say what they truly believe, regardless of public opinion....and doing That is not the job of a politician. What does Gore Really believe?



posted by th3ph17 at 10:39 AM on October 16, 2000

>I have a lot more respect for people who always say what they truly believe, regardless of public opinion....and doing That is not the job of a politician.

Perhaps, then, it can be said that Nader can say pretty much whatever he wants since he's not being given much of a chance to win in November.

The complaint that I've been hearing is that if Nader did by some stroke of luck got elected President, he wouldn't be able to work with the incumbent parties, as they would probably bend over backwards to not support him and make him look like a crappy President.

Even Jesse Ventura found that the maverick act had to get toned down after the fact if he was going to establish any kind of working relationships.

Also, Pat Buchanan undoubtedly speaks his mind, for better or worse. By now, you'd think he'd change his tune to be more acceptable to a wider range of voters. His standings in the polls might serve as an example of how appreciative the voters are of his brand of "straight talk".
posted by ethmar at 10:59 AM on October 16, 2000

On the right, one could ask the same question about, say, William Hague, whose views on gay rights started out notably leftward--he had no problem with gay marriage just three/four years ago--and now seem to have drifted notably rightward. (Although what with Michael Portillo and all, perhaps there may be yet another seismic shift.) Is this, too, a change of heart? Or an attempt to pander to a specific audience?

Gore may well *be* pandering. In fact, he probably *is* pandering. So, no doubt, is Bush (as in his semi-aborted attempt to dance around the Christian Coalition). It's called "wanting to get elected." Unfortunately, principles and politics don't necessarily go well together: principles are just as likely to founder on the deadly shoals of party dogma as they are to sail right along with it. Californians may recall the conservative reaction to Ward Connerly's *principled* gay-rights stance (i.e., it was articulated on the *same* grounds as his antagonism to affirmative action, without regard to the question of political *convenience*).

posted by thomas j wise at 11:02 AM on October 16, 2000

Nader and Buchanan are more zealot than politician i think...but i suppose straight talk is only appealing when you agree with it? I agree with much of what Nader has to say...and will vote for him because of that, and not for the novelty.

There has got to be some point where voting matters and the system can be bent out of its current shape just a little bit.
posted by th3ph17 at 11:12 AM on October 16, 2000

[skallas] Was there an off-camera moderator somewhere asking Bush if he was "respectful of other people's view and if he was a uniter or a divider?" That's the question he seems to be answering again and again and then a little bit about he doesn't want same-sex marriages.

Yeah, this is the item that made me most uncomfortable with Bush's performance in the debate last week. He didn't answer the question about civil unions. He was asked directly if he supported some kind of civil union and he answered that he was a tolerant guy who didn't want to interfere in people's personal choices.

Blah, of course they all do this to an annoying degree.

To be fair, I hated that Al Gore was constantly qualifying every fact he stated: "I believe..." "I could be wrong..." etc. etc. But that durn conservative media bias bit him after the first debate. ;)
posted by daveadams at 11:31 AM on October 16, 2000

Well no 3rd party candidate has a chance, the electoral college pretty much guarantees that. Remember Perots 20 million votes (half what bush got)? That equals exactly zero electoral college votes. Your party has to be in the mainstream to have a president.

Nader has often said his campaign is about party building and raising awareness, two things he's succeded at so far.
posted by skallas at 11:35 AM on October 16, 2000

I thought the debate quote was interesting because even though it was meant, I think, to attack Gore, Bush as usual didn't say anything. In fact, it's a perfect example of the problem.

Bush basically says, "I'm going to keep things exactly as they are, not having any overt ideas, but sliming my party's and advisors' and corporate sponsors' wishes into practice... if one axel gets too squeaky, I'll grease it."

While Gore clearly wants to do something, he's a truly heavy-handed interventionist, if I've ever seen one.

Basically both of them are spewing out spun meaningless rabble, although the rabble is very different for each of them. Nader, although he has no chance of winning, is the only one who is willing to stand for me, and then not sell me out when he goes to some other district.
posted by benjamin at 11:38 AM on October 16, 2000

By the way, I've got your "straight talk" right here, care of the link I posted earlier:

LIMBAUGH: Praising Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal": "He's not encumbered by being politically correct.... If you want to know what America used to be--and a lot of people wish it still were--then you listen to Strom Thurmond." (TV show, 9/1/93)

REALITY: In the America that "used to be," Strom Thurmond was one of the country's strongest voices for racism, running for president in 1948 on the slogan, "Segregation Forever."
posted by ethmar at 11:50 AM on October 16, 2000

BUSH: Yes. I don't think they ought to have special rights, but I think they ought to have the same rights.

Since when is monogamy and financial commitments to those you love a special right?

It has always struck me as bizarre that conservatives wish to deny anyone the opportunity to commit to one partner for all of the bumpy roads in life that they might travel together. Once upon a time marriage was also considered sacred because it meant the couple was committed to developing a good solid christian family. If views did not evolve over time would that mean that christian women who have not bred have failed their sacred duty as a wife?
posted by Sqwerty at 12:37 PM on October 16, 2000

>Once upon a time marriage was also considered sacred because it meant the couple was committed to developing a good solid christian family.<

marriage exists in all the religions I know of.

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 12:42 PM on October 16, 2000

>If views did not evolve over time would that mean that christian women who have not bred have failed their sacred duty as a wife?

Basically, yeah. There are still religions that endorse that view.
posted by ethmar at 12:49 PM on October 16, 2000

"If views did not evolve over time would that mean that christian women who have not bred have failed their sacred duty as a wife?"

that is a question that...Really...you don't want the answers to...and i really doubt there is anyone who would log on here and post their comment if they were that conservative. It would sound too absurd. I have friends who think that if they don't breed they have failed to Multiply, and have therefore failed god somehow....

so, like ethmar said first because of faster typing...Yeah. People Really do believe that.
posted by th3ph17 at 12:51 PM on October 16, 2000

I agree it does, but I was being facetious. Many of the people who participate from the religious right though are interested in promoting a culture and lifestyle that is based upon christian values. I was facetious because I do not see the value in denying anyone the opportunity to develop a committed relationship that is recognized by the community at large as well as the two partners involved.

Marriage is not a special right, it should be available to any couple who wishes to shoulder the legal and spiritual commitment involved. Just like I believe children are no longer considered mandatory, neither should heterosexuality be.
posted by Sqwerty at 12:55 PM on October 16, 2000

Sqwerty,
Since when is monogamy and financial commitments to those you love a special right?
He's talking about "Rights", as in the The Amercian Bill of Rights.
posted by jamescblack at 12:58 PM on October 16, 2000

jamescblack, if you scroll back to the section where the debate was quoted. Bush clearly stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

I find his view to be odd that marriage is viewed as a special right that should be held for only heterosexual unions. It is not a lot different than believing woman are supposed to reproduce once married. It does not reflect the reality of the society which we live in. I would think that conservatives would champion marriage (monogamy) for everyone instead of holding it as the special reserve of those who participate in "appropriate" unions.
posted by Sqwerty at 1:10 PM on October 16, 2000

To be fair, I hated that Al Gore was constantly qualifying every fact he stated: "I believe..." "I could be wrong..." etc. etc. But that durn conservative media bias bit him after the first debate.

actually, i think that was a conscious attempt to dumb himself down to appeal to the ignorant american electorate who were turned off my his intelligence (!) in the first debate
posted by palegirl at 1:49 PM on October 16, 2000