Why Gay People SHOULD NOT Vote for Al Gore

    As a gay male, I am both disgusted and offended at how Al Gore has meaninglessly pandered to and used the gay community this election year, in a desperate attempt for his own political gain. Yet, he makes minimal, tokenistic "promises" to us that don't amount to a hill of beans. How do I know this? - - Al Gore has repeatedly flip-flopped his stance on issues according to what's most opportunistic and convenient for him. What makes anyone think that he would follow through with his "promises" even if he made it into office?

    Let's examine an example of Al Gore's (lack of) "dedication" to the GLBT community. Neither of the Democratic presidential candidates - - Al Gore or Bill Bradley - - supported same-sex marriages. Yet, Bill Bradley clearly said that he wouldn't oppose it, even though he doesn't directly support gay marriages. I haven't heard Al Gore say that he "wouldn't oppose" gay marriages . . . after all, Gore supported the 1996 "Defense of Marriage" Act which allows states to withhold marital rights from homosexual couples. My man's intuition tells me that, if confronted with the situation, Gore may be very likely to oppose proposed legislation intend to overturn the "Defense of Marriage" Act by enforcing states to recognize same-sex marriages from states where it was legal - - all the while insisting how he'd "still support domestic partnerships".

    While I don't view domestic partnerships as "equal rights" compared to marriage itself, at least Bill Bradley was willing to make the gay/lesbian community a concrete promise. Bradley said he would structure a national system of domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples. Even though that's not enough, it's still something. But did Gore committ to such a measure? - - noooo, all Gore "promised" is that he'd set up a committee which would "look into" structuring a national system of domestic partnerships . . . something that was already supposed to have been done under the Clinton administration. Clearly, Bradley was offering the gay/lesbian community a hell of a lot more support than Gore was. On top of that, Gore is much more conservative than Clinton . . . and Clinton is certainly no messiah for homosexuals.

    I'm not surprised that so many Democrats have been backing Gore - - Democratic politicians WANT the GLBT community to be dependent on them, so they can get the GLBT community's votes. So when Democrats saw Gore offering the gay/lesbian community less than Bradley but more than the Republicans, they scampered like sheep to jump on the Gore bandwagon. They figure that all they have to do is compare Gore to Bush in November, portraying Gore as the more "gay-friendly" candidate while making Bush out to be the "mean, gay-hating Republican", and VOILA!, the gay community's votes will be theirs! At the same time, they'll embark upon their petty vendetta to "stick it to the Republicans" by coronating Al Gore as America's next president - - their idea of partisan revenge for the MonicaGate impeachment trial. Reminds me how glad I am that I'm not a Democrat.

    In my opinion, Elizabeth Birch and the HRC (the so-called "Human Rights Campaign") made a detrimental mistake by agreeing to endorse Al Gore early this past February. In previous years, they'd waited until the Democrats officially nominated their candidate before endorsing him. But this year was different: Gore specifically asked the HRC if they'd give him an early endorsement, and they moronically agreed. And is it any coincidence that the HRC is centered in Washington D.C., a bureaucratic Beltway organization? I think not.

    Not to mention the fact that Birch and her cronies in the HRC didn't even ask its members around the country which candidate they preferred, prior to the HRC's early endorsement of Gore. It's so disgustingly obvious that the HRC is in bed with the Clinton/Gore administration because they feel they "owe something" to Clinton and Gore (yeah right!). They are lapdogs for the Democratic party establishment. It's all about milking the GLBT community's dependency for as long as possible. As long as the Democrats have the Republicans to demonize to squeeze fear out of the gay/lesbian constituency, they can continue their calculated charade to keep gay people in their pocket by acting like they're our best friends and the Republicans are our worst enemies. I have news for Gore and his "liberal" (yeah right!) cronies: many of us are too smart to fall for his empty "pro-gay" rhetoric. We can see through his obvious facade, and we will continue to fight against fraudulent "liberals" such as him who attempt to use and abuse the concept of homosexual equality in a selfish quest for greed and power.

    Al Gore has had 7 years to do something about orientationism and gay rights in our society, but all he's been doing is twiddling his thumbs, waiting for the 2000 Election. News flash: attaching your name to several "pro-gay" pieces of anti-hate crime legislation does not make you a "gay-friendly" candidate. You can talk about helping gay people all you want; but until you actually do something, your gesture is meaningless. Spouting insincere dialogue is not the way to win voters' trust.

    I remember watching one televised public debate acting as sort of a "town hall meeting" featuring Bill Bradley and Al Gore. When asked about the issue of homosexual rights, Bradley gave an honest, straight-forward answer. Gore, on the other hand, commented on how he believes that we can "end" discrimination against gays and lesbians. Well sorry to break this to you, Al - - but the cold reality is that discrimination against gays and lesbians will never "end" in this society, the same way it will never completely end against various sexes or races. The solution is to alleviate orientationism by granting homosexuals equality and civil rights (marriage, basic protections, etc.) to acquire gradual normalcy of homosexuality within society. You can't just spit out nice-sounding words and then expect voters to automatically pull the lever for you like zombies on November 7.

    Here's an email which I received from another gay male who was considering voting for Gore due to his fear of a Bush presidency:

Anywayz, my question for you is political. You seem to have done a fair amount of research on your support for candidates. I do that too, but I also like to find out what others have learned. For President, I thought either Bradley or McCain would have made better Presidents than either Gore or Bush. Unfortunately, the two lesser candidates are the ones we have to choose from. I have a great deal of difficulty casting a vote for Bush for a number of reasons. Among them; I feel he is two beholden to his special-interest financiers; I think his draconian anti-drug policy is hypocritical; I find his vigorous support of the death penalty a grave disrespect for life; I think his belief in born-again Christianity represents a weakness in his critical thinking.

You are particularly concerned with the inadequacy of Al Gore. I see him as a weak leader who will not signify much beyond the guidance of his party leadership. I think that Gore has either been deceived or is engaged hiding a number of economic and environmental truths. It looks to me like Gore is the lesser of two evils and for the first time in my life I might have to vote for a Democratic candidate. I'm wondering will you continue to oppose Al Gore in light of the realistic alternative in the person of GW Bush?

TTFN,
**** (I'm keeping his name confidential for privacy)

This was my reply to his email:

Hi ****,

Thank you for writing. I will check out your page. :)

Well onto politics: I am very frustrated with our current political system. Bill Bradley was my first choice, even though I don't agree with him on every issue. In fact, yesterday was the Wisconsin primaries, the first state primaries I've ever gotten to vote in during my life - - I marked my ballot for Bill Bradley, even though he withdrew a month ago, because I thought it with only fair that I as a citizen be able to have the same chance to vote for him that citizens in Iowa, New Hampshire, Washington, and the "Super Tuesday" states had (honestly, ALL 50 state primaries should be held on the same day in late-spring!).

I do not believe in choosing between the "lesser of two evils" if the two evils in question are corruptive and untrustworthy (which describes both Gore and Bush). The reason for this is because as American voters our individual votes on Election Day are like giving our individual approval to a certain candidate. I don't see how anyone can support a candidate whom they find detestable and incompetent. If we as voters temporarily stand by stronger independent candidates who demonstrate the dignity and integrity not found with this year's major party candidates, this will eventually send a message to the Republicans and Democrats that Americans aren't going to put up with milquetoaste candidates who churn out a bunch of empty rhetoric. In fact, I firmly believe that the future holds some presidents from independent parties for our country, including (my personal political idol) Lenora Fulani. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when - - although by not caving in to the propaganda of Republicans and Democrats, we can induce progressive change sooner than later.

Let me say this about George W. Bush: while I'm not particularly fond of him, he isn't nearly as bad as the Democratic establishment tries to brainwash people into thinking. True, he does have many disfavorable policies, but so did Clinton. Bush is a moderate Republican, not a radical conservative. If anything, we should be afraid of the EXTREME FAR RIGHT wackos in the Republican Party such as Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer...those men make me frightened for humanity's future! Bush may be conservative, but he's not nearly as conservative as others from his party.

On the matter of Bush's kowtowing to the Christian Right, I don't think it comes as a big surprise that he'd do that. Bush needs to gain support from true conservatives (including those of the extreme far right) in order to get their votes in November. I don't agree with him doing this, but from a political perspective it's strategically necessary. Now is he going to embark upon born-again Christian tirades as president?...I highly doubt it. Remember, Bush is going to want to get RE-elected once he's in office, so his acknowledgment of the Christian Right is nothing more than verbal tokenism. Look at Al Gore...he panders to the gay community, but can we HONESTLY and SERIOUSLY believe that he's going to do much for gay & lesbian equality?! Gore might appear more "gay-friendly" than Bush, but it's all just talk with no substance.

Also, I do not think that Bush will last very long in office. There's a very good chance he'll be elected in November, and I think in that scenario Congress will also fall back to the Democrats (this upcoming November), which will at least guarantee the American public with a balance of power. My prediction is that Bush will be in office for 4 years, and the Democratic candidate in 2004 will be victorious in the next election (and whoever their candidate is in '04, that person will most likely be leaps and bounds above Al Gore).

My opposition to Al Gore's presidential aspirations is based on the fact that he is so blatantly incompetent in public that it would shift the Democratic Party further to the Right. Al Gore is no liberal; he has noticeably conservative tendencies and the thought of his conservative, pro-censorship wife as an influential First Lady scares the hell out of me. This is nothing new for me...I've known Al Gore was bad news since 1992! I wasn't even one of those alleged "conspirators" who've been presumably trying to oust Clinton for the past 7 years. I've spent my past 7 years worrying about a GORE administration (leaving me with barely any time to worry about Clinton). As bad as a Bush presidency would be, it would most likely give the Democratic Party some much-needed motivation to get back to the heart of their liberal constituency and nominate a candidate next time around who is actually a decent liberal. But electing Gore would be like saying to the Democrats, "You can put anyone in office, regardless of your candidate's character (or lack thereof), as long as you diss the Republicans at any cost and brainwash people into getting behind your guy (or gal)." Is this where we want the future of American politics to go?!

So to answer your question, yes, I will continue to oppose Al Gore no matter what...I find it very hard to trust someone who goes to such ludicrous and despicable lengths to knock over everyone in his path all for the sake of "being president." There's obviously something really crooked going on with him; and as they say, where there's that much smoke, there's gotta be some fire too!

Not that I can see myself actually voting for Bush, and I'm certainly not encouraging people to vote for him SPECIFICALLY, but I am dedicating myself to DISCOURAGING everyone from voting for Al Gore, because of his reprehensible behavior and egotism. It just makes me ashamed to think that I live in a nation where someone like him could actually be elected.

Also, a Gore presidency would conceivably fail in 4 years, automatically waivering the next election to the next Republican candidate who is nominated. And do we really want to risk ending up with someone even worse than Bush in 2004?! Even if Gore did last 8 years (which would make me even more ashamed to be an American), do the Democrats HONESTLY believe they can hold onto the White House forever?! The last time a major party had the White House for 16 consecutive years or more was back during the era of FDR and Truman. And that was before presidential term limits were instated. I really don't want Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, Steve Forbes, Orrin Hatch or someone worse as the next Republican president. A failed Bush presidency (with a Democratic victory in 2004) will also motivate the Republicans to lean away from the radical right and more toward the center when nominating their candidates.

If Al Gore was reading this email, he'd probably try to convince you that I'm an "undercover plant" for the Republicans. I can assure you, I am hardly conservative or Republican! I may have conservative leanings on some particular issues (and liberal leanings on others), but for the most part my ideology is pretty moderate. I do want to caution you, tons of these Gore-2000 campaigners are RUTHLESS - - they'll do anything they can to get their candidate elected - - I learned that working online in the Bradley camp for several months. Do not let the Gore campaigners brainwash you...they are so paranoid about George W. Bush's exaggerated "Christian conservative extremism" that they will go to any lengths to put a nitwit like Gore in office, all because he's the vice-president and because they want revenge for Clinton's impeachment trial. These people will insist to you that it is your "moral duty" to vote for Gore this election cycle - - please do not fall prey to such misguided, self-serving propaganda from Democratic party loyals. I consider myself someone who has very good intuition about people, and Al Gore is NOT someone whom we as Americans should be directly supporting as presidential material. What message would we be sending to future presidential candidates? We'd be saying to them that public idiocy and relentless slander is appropriate behavior if you want to be president. And the cycle will never end.

Please vote for anyone OTHER THAN Al Gore . . . there are more than only two choices for president, even if the independents don't have a realistic chance of winning this year. It's sending that message as independent voters to the two major parties which we must accomplish this year. Voting for either 'evil' won't teach the Republicans and Democrats a damn thing. I don't want people to conform to the inflexibility of the two-party system, and then have to look at the candidate who gets elected for the next 4-8 years only to up saying, "I voted for *THAT*?!"

Please stay in touch and feel free to write to me anytime. I'm curious to see your homepage.

Tony
[email protected]
/westhollywood/castro/3242

    Bush may not be sympathetic to the gay cause, and he most likely won't do anything to help achieve gay rights, but I highly doubt he'd drastically hinder it. Despite what the Gore media wants you to believe, Bush is a moderate conservative. Bush's presidency spells failure within the next 4 years, guaranteeing the Oval Office to a Democrat in 2004. And hopefully, that person will be LIBERAL when it comes to homosexual equality. On the other hand, 4 years of Al Gore as president would guarantee a Republican presidency in 2004 - - and do we want the Republicans to end up nominating (and electing) a bigot like Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes who would openly and publicly use the presidency to discourage acceptance of homosexuals?! I'd rather take my chances with the next Democratic candidate who is nominated in 2004 - - as long as it's someone other than Al Gore, someone who will actually implement some significant degree of progressive reform to benefit equality for the GLBT community.

    I think Gore needs to reexamine what liberalism actually is.

    Al Gore may be a lot of things, but he's damn well no liberal!

    So please don't vote for Al Gore . . . vote for Ralph Nader, Harry Browne, or another candidate. Someone other than Al Gore.

    A vote for Gore is a vote for continued corruption and anti-liberation for homosexuals in America.

Back to Squash Gore 2000 Homepage
Back to Dude Power!

Anti-Al Gore Links

---

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page