New Wicker Ad Uses Cheap Gay Stereotype

It bothers me that in 2008 a guy can put up an ad representing the entire LGBT community as a cowboy and a leather fetishist and not have it be controversial in this state.

It also bothers me that Musgrove’s response, when someone says “he’s for the gays,” amounts to “I’m not for the gays.”

I’ll be able to vote for Musgrove with a little less anguish after seeing this disgusting ad, since Wicker has revealed himself to be slime, but this is just one more indication of why Obama can’t carry Mississippi and probably doesn’t even want to.  Personally, I’d be embarrassed to carry Mississippi at this point if I were a national candidate.

I agree. It’s disgusting. But remember that Jamie Franks didn’t act much better in his race on the topic. (Not that it did him any good.)

When will Mississippi Democrats learn that it’s up to them to lead rather than cower in the corner and pretend they’re as mean as state Republicans.

Or, maybe they really are that mean. In that case, we need to grow new candidates. I’m sick of the ones we have now. Those people alone, for the most part, are enough to drive our brightest out of the state.

Listening, Dems?

Jamie Franks actually acted worse, if the “Hammer of Logic” blogger really was tied to his campaign (I can’t prove it).  “Hammer of Logic” went after a relative of Bryant’s--a minor--and made the argument that he was gay (using out-of-context Facebook photos) the day before the election.  I also have it on good authority that Franks won at least one of his legislative races, in part, by successfully labeling one of his opponents as a “queer.”

One of his top campaign staffers actually spent what felt like close to an hour on the phone with me trying to persuade me that Franks’ constant references to opposing same-sex marriage (despite the 2004 constitutional ban) were justified because in 8 years, Mississippi public opinion could change so overwhelmingly that both the population and the majority of legislators could support same-sex marriage, in which case it would be up to Jamie Franks to courageously oppose it alone as lieutenant governor.  Uh, riiiiiight.

I skipped the lieutenant governor’s race last year for this reason, among others (Franks dedicated a huge chunk of his stump speech to bashing gays, for example).  This is independent of Franks going after immigrants and trying to convince everybody he hated them even more than Phil Bryant did, but mainly it was the gay thing. 

If these Democrats are only interested in votes from the sorts of folks featured in the above video, then sooner or later those are going to be the only votes they get and the only votes they deserve.  Musgrove seems to be part of the Eaves-Franks continuum so I’ve felt kind of dirty endorsing him, but when the alternative is Roger Wicker, I’m not sure what else to do.  I won’t shed any tears when Musgrove loses, though, and it’s not an if--it’s a when.

Wicker wants to make this a debate about who is more anti-gay. Musgrove has a solid, deplorable record of opposing gay and lesbian equality. But he never made a cowboy ad to my knowledge, so maybe Wicker wins that contest.

True. I’m no Musgrove fan, but Wicker is turning out to be a real scumbag. I can’t believe he played the “attacking our flag” card in the debate. How low-life do you have to be to do that in 2008, even if it is Barbour’s favorite little race card?

Someday this state is going to grow past these cavemen. I think we already are; they just don’t know it, yet. Their worst nightmare is the state’s best and brightest staying right here, or returning, to take our state back from people who treat us like dumbasses and bigots.

This native Mississippian is taking my stand against their type.

But how can we best take a stand against their type in a race like Bryant-Franks, or Musgrove-Wicker, where both candidates are their type?  I mean, Brent’s absolutely right re: Musgrove’s record on gay rights, and his record on immigration (not to mention his campaign rhetoric on the issue) is pretty horrific, too.  I’ll feel a little scummy voting for Musgrove, even with Wicker in the race.

I know. I feel you. Musgrove is more likely to support public education and reforming No Child Left Behind in an intelligent way, so there’s that.

But I’m tired of holding my nose to vote because I’m a Mississippian and the more “progressive” candidates are afraid of their shadows. That’s why we need to find new candidates.

Amen to that. I had vowed to never again vote for a “conservative” Democrat, and this race was supposed to be easy for me- I’m still mad at Musgrove for effectively dropping out of the Governor’s race two weeks before the election. But now this stupid ad comes out, and it looks like I’m going to have to hold my nose and vote against Wicker.

Thanks, Roger…

That “attacking the flag” piece horrified me when I saw it for the first time the other day. Yet, no candidate has the guts to stand up to it. And given that neither Musgrove nor Wicker have not done much of anything besides out-negative attacking the other and not offering real issues that matter to Mississippians, I, most likely at the point, may not punch the screen for the U.S. Senate.

I’ll probably still vote for Musgrove but it’ll be hard. 

How full-throated has he been on the flag issue anyway?  This is part of what bugs me: We have a Democratic legislature that could have very easily changed the flag, right then, period.  Every other state that has revisited the flag issue has done so in the legislature; that’s why the efforts were successful. 

By handling it as a referendum, the folks behind the previous flag vote not only created a situation where the flag vote was more difficult to win, but they also created a situation where if it didn’t win, it would be virtually impossible for the legislature to revisit the issue soon (as they would be accused of overriding a public referendum). 

Throw in the fact that the proposed new flag was a generic piece of nothing that wasn’t going to attract a slew of votes on its own merit, and you have a recipe for...well, exactly the situation we have right now: Mississippi as the only state in the country to still fly the Confederate flag.

If I could really believe that Musgrove wanted to get rid of the old flag, he’d have more of my respect.  But I always thought that flag vote was handled in a way that stacked the deck for the old flag design.

But I gotta say, Donna, that I’m totally with you re Musgrove on education.  That’s one issue where he wasn’t a disappointment as governor, and would probably do well as senator.  I suspect he’d also be good on health care.  I’ll still feel funny voting for the guy, but on those two issues he’d be much better than Wicker (a staunch opponent of both universal public education and universal health care, and we can all probably guess why).

I’ll be skipping over the US Senate part of the screen too. I can’t vote for Musgrove just because he put a “D” after his name. He is not a progressive. His ads make him sound like a republican. He is pandering to the right and just expects the dems to vote for him. Hey Ronnie! How ‘bout actually EARNING my vote?!?!

Nah. I’ll pass. Not even with my nose clamped completely shut!

Question: If you skip a race or two on the ballot, does the rest of it still count? I wouldn’t have any trouble at all not voting for these two- I just wish that “none of the above” was an option…