Bill Richardson | Democratic Party | Election 2008 | Gay Pride | News

BigGayDeal.com

Bill Richardson's Support for Gays Ignored by Mainstream Media

While the John Edwards publicity machine was in full gear during gay pride, the Bay Area Reporter notes that candidates not as high in the polls were getting left in the dust as mainstream media ignored their efforts:

Richardson"Based on the coverage in the local daily press one would think [Elizabeth Edwards] was the first person tied to a presidential campaign to make such [a gay pride] appearance. Yet Richardson, and not his emissary, showed up at the Pride festival in Cedar Rapids, Iowa Saturday, June 2. Unlike Elizabeth Edwards, who went to an LGBT Democratic political club's private event where non-members had to pay $85 to get in, Richardson dropped by the Midwest city's public festival and met with attendees free of charge. [Curiously enough, an actual presidential candidate took part in San Francisco's Pride parade, but former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel's appearance went unreported by the mainstream press. The reason is right in the lead of the two articles the San Francisco Chronicle published, which touted Elizabeth Edwards's being at the Pride breakfast as "a first for a major presidential candidate or spouse." Gravel polls near the bottom of the pack.] Also not mentioned in the coverage is that John Edwards could have joined Richardson at the Iowa Pride festival, as could have New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, and Delaware Senator Joe Biden. All five candidates were in town that day for the Iowa Democratic Party's Hall of Fame dinner. Clinton had even been rumored to attend but never showed."

Our report on the claim by the San Francisco gay pride organizers stands corrected.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. My uncle supports The Gays too, and the mainstream media doesn't report on him...and he has a better chance of winning the Presidency than Gov. Richardson does.

    Posted by: Wayne | Jun 28, 2007 4:38:39 PM


  2. Who?

    Posted by: Iko | Jun 28, 2007 4:40:38 PM


  3. Richardson is consistantly 4th in the polls, and is expected to raise more money then John Edwards this quarter. Not to mention his HUGE amount of support in the mountain west.

    I wouldn't count him out just yet.

    Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Jun 28, 2007 4:42:09 PM


  4. He may have raised more money than Edwards before Elizabeth Edward's stunt on Hardball.

    Posted by: Jeff | Jun 28, 2007 4:53:50 PM


  5. "Richardson is consistantly 4th in the polls, and is expected to raise more money then John Edwards this quarter"

    As long as he raises the money before he raises John Edwards.

    Posted by: Daniel | Jun 28, 2007 4:58:30 PM


  6. Richardson voted for DOMA when he was a congressman and stands by that vote today.

    Therefore, he does not support gay rights. I don't care how much he pretends to.

    I was seriously looking at him before, but ever since I learned that he was a congressman when DOMA came about... and STILL supports it today, I wanted NOTHING to do with him.

    Edwards actually has the best positions on gay rights issues, even if rhetorically he just sounds aweful. He's the most progressive of all of the serious candidates, but my support of him isn't entirely strong. I'm hoping one candidate will see the light and actually be a true progressive and go left, but I doubt it. Let's hope AL Gore jumps in. A poll come out the other day that shows if he jumped in, he'd instantly have teh highest polls in New Hampshire.

    Posted by: Ryan | Jun 28, 2007 5:05:44 PM


  7. "Elizabeth Edward's stunt on Hardball," Jeff? You cocksucking cockroach.

    In addition to the fact that Richardson is functionally a political nonentity with, at best, a long shot for the VP nom slot, for those who won't read the full article, much of the positive commentary about him in that shit rag the B.A.R. is driven by the fact that their publisher likes him. They do have the honesty, however, to quote Chris Crain as pointing out that, as recently as May, Richardson defended his vote for DOMA, supports, just like the others, civil unions over gay marriage, and his "model Supreme Court justice" is Byron White who "authored the anti-choice dissent in 'Roe v. Wade' and the majority opinion in the anti-gay [pro sodomy laws] 'Bowers v. Hardwick' decision."

    Next.

    Posted by: Leland | Jun 28, 2007 5:09:58 PM


  8. PS: As I've stated before, all of these "all or nothing" demands, all of this hoping that some candidate will endorse gay marriage amounts to nothing more than political suicide. Regardless of what opinion polls might say, it is the voters who go TO the polls that matter and anything more pro gay than the Dems have already risked will only guarantee another Repug in the White House for the next 12 years. I wish it were not true, but our enemies are more motivated [and better funded] than our friends, and there are far more important issues to WIN with this election [gay and nongay-related] than ideology. Two words: Ralph Nader—whose "principle above everything" supporters—more than anything else—gave us George Bush fils, Irag, etc., ad nauseum.

    Posted by: Leland | Jun 28, 2007 5:18:50 PM


  9. Assuming Gore doesn't jump in, the media will undoubtedly tire of the three main Democratic candidates this fall and cook up a fresh story. They will find some reason to devote acres of coverage to some dark horse, elevating a 4th candidate to top-tier status (if only temporarily). So watch for it.

    Richardson is better positioned than any of the other current also-rans to be this dark horse.

    Posted by: 24play | Jun 28, 2007 5:30:52 PM


  10. A tip of the chapeau to NGLTF for this most recent comparison of Dem and Repug candidates' positions on gay-related issues:

    http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/final_candidates_positions.pdf

    Posted by: Leland | Jun 28, 2007 5:38:31 PM


  11. I happened to see Mike Gravel (who isn't even a dark horse candidate; he's just the crazy candidate) get interviewed by a reporter during the SF Pride parade. As usual, he was sort of endearingly confused. The reporter said, "So we hadn't been told you'd be here until just today." Gravel said, "Oh no no, we decided this months ago. Well maybe not months. I guess yesterday in Portland we decided we'd stop by." I hope he doesn't drop out too soon; the laughter he provides is much needed. I can't tell if he's realized the poison that is politics, or if he's just nuts. Perhaps both, and perhaps in a cause and effect relationship.

    Posted by: Paul | Jun 28, 2007 6:09:48 PM


  12. jimmy carter was polling 4% in the dems polls as late as 26 jan 76. the "all or nothing" ploy won't win, never has, and doubtfully never will. so those of you who subscribe to that school of thought, you might want to take your ball and go home. does the fact that we are still treated as second citizens in sthis great country upset me, of course, we have made great strides, and day by day it will come. what concerns me is the fact that the mainstream media chooses whom it favors and does provide an equal platform to all the canidates. to me that is not only obscene but maniplitive and dangerous. 'cuse the spelling no spell check!

    Posted by: titus | Jun 28, 2007 6:13:16 PM


  13. If the mainstream Dem candidate run left to win the primary and then right to win the general election, considering their support of DOMA, are they going to put their weight behind the FMA in the fall of 2008?

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jun 28, 2007 6:31:30 PM


  14. The FMA is dead unless Congress flips again, so I wouldn't worry about it. The Reps can wail and gnash their teeth about it, but as long as Congress has a Dem majority it's a pipe dream.

    Posted by: MBSF | Jun 28, 2007 7:03:05 PM


  15. From the article: "Curiously enough, an actual presidential candidate took part in San Francisco's Pride parade, but former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel's appearance went unreported by the mainstream press. The reason is right in the lead of the two articles..."

    Okay, No.

    Look, there's no doubt that the mainstream press largely ignores candidates towards the bottom. However, Mike Gravel could be doing in the polls or at the very least be getting more attention. The reason that he doesn't get attention is because his campaign is bare bones. Other campaigns coordinate with the press throughout the day and they issues frequent press releases. Gravel's campaign can go weeks without any form of press release. Beyond that, his website is subpar and his campaign team is almost entirely inactive.

    That being said, I understand from conversations with the Senator that the reason for their inactivity is almost entirely financial. Up until recently, they've lacked enough funds to even acquire a single office. Now that he's gotten himself an office and was able to hire some additional staff perhaps they'll become a tad more active and accordingly receive a bit more attention.

    Time will tell...

    Angelo S. Carusone
    Co-Managing Editor, 2008Central.net
    http://2008central.net

    Posted by: 2008Central.net | Jun 28, 2007 8:23:03 PM


  16. First: Does anyone else remember Hillary Clinton marching in the pride parade when she was a candidate for Senate? Shouldn't her absence be provoking some sort of outrage?

    Second: It's the "all-or-nothing" people that have successfully shifted the debate to marrigae vs. civil unions, thank you very much. If we had been asking for civil unions all this time, we'd still be at the back of the bus.

    Posted by: Raphael | Jun 28, 2007 10:33:50 PM


  17. To clarify my last comment about candidates supporting gay marriage:

    We have some minor/fringe candidates (e.g., Kucinich) that support gay rights.

    We have some mainstream candidates (e.g., Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson) that moderately support gay rights.

    We have some mainstream candidates that weakly support gay rights (e.g., Giuliani).

    The rest are pretty much hostile to gay rights.

    But don't pretend that the mainstream democrats are strong on our side. And don't let them think they are doing enough for us.

    Posted by: Raphael | Jun 28, 2007 10:36:32 PM


  18. Personally, I wish they would ignore all of him, not just his support for gays.

    The ass couldn't run the DOE and he wants to run a whole country?!

    Posted by: shane | Jun 29, 2007 7:25:59 AM


  19. I hate the media tendency to treat Kucinich and, in reality, any candidate except the one's they've ordained as the front runners as crazy fringe candidates. They do this so they don't have to cover what these people actually say. In reality, many of Kucinich's views are right in line with what large portions of the citizenship believe (Iraq, health care). So everyone but Hilary and Obama are treated as jokes--even Edwards, up til recently, was treated as a kook.

    Posted by: Daniel | Jun 29, 2007 1:00:07 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «News: Mitt Romney, Gordon Brown, Sweden, Big Brother, Morrissey« «