2012 Election | Democratic Party | Tennessee

Mark Clayton, Anti-Gay Lunatic, Gets Democratic Senate Nomination

MarkClaytonThe Tennessee Democratic Party issued a sad statement yesterday, denouncing their own party's freshly-minted senatorial candidate:

The only time that [Mark] Clayton has voted in a Democratic primary was when he was voting for himself. Many Democrats in Tennessee knew nothing about any of the candidates in the race, so they voted for the person at the top of the ticket ...

... the Tennessee Democratic Party disavows his candidacy, will not do anything to promote or support him in any way, and urges Democrats to write-in a candidate of their choice in November.

Mark Clayton is the former vice president of the Public Advocate of The United States -- the same deeply paranoid, gay-hating outfit that misappropriated a gay couple's wedding photo for use in a political advertisement earlier this year, and last week published what was supposed to be a funny song about child-molesting gay scoutmasters.

These offenses against taste and sanity don't begin to describe the full breadth and depth of Clayton's weirdness, or the Public Advocate's. Mother Jones has an instructive breakdown, which informs us that Clayton once believed the Chinese government had teamed with Google to destroy his political career; that Clayton has denounced Arnold Schwarzenegger as a sort of Austrian Manchurian candidate whose mission is to bring Nazi eugenics to America; and that Clayton's deepest fears include the construction of a superhighway from Canada to Mexico, the completion of which would for some reason destroy the United States.


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I live in eastern Tennessee. Here the democrats are as conservative as Republicans elsewhere. The Republicans stand to the far right of Republicans elsewhere. The whole political spectrum is shifted to the far right. You go to shop at the grocery store and you can actually people discussing the finer points of Leviticus in public... and taking it seriously. Now I don't mean the anti-gay stuff but instead stuff about wearing cloth made of two different materials or the ashes of the Red Heifer. Strange .. so very strange!

    Posted by: Tennboi64 | Aug 4, 2012 1:19:07 PM

  2. I'm not sure who is more paranoid, Clayton or our own Jamal....???

    Seriously, there's not a chance in hell that criminalization of same-sex relationships is going to be a constitutional amendment. Nor women's reproductive rights. I think you've just entered "fringe" territory, honey.

    Posted by: johnny | Aug 4, 2012 1:35:04 PM

  3. @JOHNNY Actually, no. I gave up on conspiracy theories along time ago, back probably before you were born.

    Actually, this was from a conservative "think-tank" symposium of not long ago that basically laid out the republicon agenda for the long-term.

    Perhaps my comments might seem "paranoid", but I've seen this thing coming for a long, long time.

    And, yes, if a republicon-controlled House votes to send a constitutional amendment to re-criminalize same-sex relations to the States for ratification and the majority of the States' legislatures are in republicon, conservative control, such an amendment can easily be ratified, regardless of what those who live in more liberal areas might think. The same to ban outright a woman's reproductive freedom.

    Constitutional amendments are difficult to ratify, I admit. One only needs to look at the spectacular failure of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was once considered a "shoo-in" for ratification. Thanks to Phyllis Schafly and her tireless efforts, the ERA never made ratification. That, my love, is where the conservative movement found its mojo and has not looked back since.

    Again, the right-wing--in books, lectures, symposiums, think-tank position papers, etc.--have all outlined in one form or the other this "game plan" you say is paranoia.

    I've been to two right-wing think-tank symposiums in the NYC area in the past two years. I am only repeating what those conservatives discussed as a plan to "take back" America.

    Sorry you see it as "paranoid", babycakes. Just don't get your panties in a bunch if I say "I told you so" as the evangie-fundies are hauling your fringed-up ass off to the stockade.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Aug 4, 2012 3:14:33 PM

  4. Primary elections have been deeply flawed for ages. Most countries have run-offs instead because of the problems that primaries have.

    Posted by: anon | Aug 4, 2012 4:30:00 PM

  5. He even looks crazy.

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 4, 2012 4:42:42 PM

  6. Agree with Jamal. We "misunderestimate" (LOL) the dominionist right-wing at our peril. If Romney is elected, he will appoint supreme court justices willing to put everything back on the table including Lawrence vs. Texas. His faux-moderate image has been carefully cultivated for decades. He's not a moderate. He's more socially conservative than the Bushes.

    Posted by: EchtKultig | Aug 4, 2012 5:02:01 PM

  7. I Love it the people of Tenn are fed up with the Democrats, Republicans and Washington D.C.!
    Clayton will win against all odds and with all the Media and Press against him as Tenn is sending a message to all that they are disgusted Business as Usual!
    Tennessee is but the First of many States that are about to rock the Boat!
    Vote the Bums out!


    Posted by: FLOYD IN FLORIDA | Aug 4, 2012 5:45:34 PM

  8. Q: What is Free Speech?
    a: Anything a Democrat says!

    Q: What is Hate Speech?
    a: Anything a Republican says?

    So you must agree with Obama & the Democrats or you are a hate Monger, Bigot or a Racist?

    Posted by: FLOYD IN FLORIDA | Aug 4, 2012 5:51:50 PM


    we don't have enough GAY people running for office. THAT'S our answer and an obvious solution, yet one the gay community notoriousley overlooks. It's tragic.

    Posted by: Joseph | Aug 4, 2012 6:33:47 PM

  10. I agree that it's shameful there's no concentrated effort to get more LGBT to run for positions of power in politics. I've read books on the Chicano movement and black rights, and in each case, they realized one huge concentrated effort should be focused on getting educated people in their communities to *run for office* then galvanize members of those communities to support them. We as an LGBT sadly don't have that. I'm not even sure if we have an organization set up to SUPPORT LGBT elected officials.

    Posted by: Lipstick Diva | Aug 4, 2012 6:35:39 PM

  11. I believe for far too long, GLBT have sat on the side lines and wishful thought about the straight man having our best interest at heart. There is something to be said about taking political matters in our own hands, by creating a grassroots movement to promote more members of our community to enter the field of politics.

    Far too frequently, we leave the power in the hands of heterosexual law makers instead of become the law makers ourselves.

    Did you know that in thousands of Churches across the country, young heterosexual conservatives people are being *groomed* to enter politics, so to ensure conservatives are in charge of power, control and laws. That's why you see so many insanely homophobic laws in place. It's no accident.

    Posted by: USC Trojans Fan | Aug 4, 2012 6:38:34 PM

  12. Start fighting back gays! and start fighting back stronger.

    This is the new Nazi camo (conservatives) and they are out to kill us, starting with our youth. Get actively involved. In todays age, being gay automatically makes you an activist, whether you want to be or not, the conservatives have made us one. So stand up and speak up for your rights and respect.

    Posted by: Alex | Aug 4, 2012 6:45:05 PM

  13. This wasn't a set up. He didn't pretend to be a liberal. He didn't hide his views. He didn't scrub Google to eliminate traces of his nonsensical beliefs.

    The sad truth is that voters too often don't bother to educate themselves about candidates or ballot initiatives before they vote. When voters don't take the time to pay attention, they make decisions based on minimal information, lots of misinformation, and an element of arbitrariness.

    Unfortunately, despite the great work of groups like the League of Women Voters, even when given fairly comprehensive information about candidates and issues, many don't bother to read through it.

    I hope that by reinvesting in education and supporting citizen education programs, we can build an American electorate that is civic-minded and has the tools to educate itself on political issues.

    Posted by: John | Aug 4, 2012 7:10:02 PM

  14. Oh those laughable libs. They can't even get a candidate they want elected to their own party's ticket.

    Posted by: Walter | Aug 4, 2012 8:15:19 PM

  15. Perfect example of Americans who get their info from 10 second sound bites and consider themselves patriots and qualified to actually be part of the Government Of The People, By The People and For The People.


    Chilling scenario, without doubt.

    Posted by: Beef and Fur | Aug 4, 2012 9:22:07 PM

  16. @Dannyeast village: What do gay people look like? I'm 100% gay and he looks nothing like me.

    Posted by: andrew | Aug 4, 2012 11:02:29 PM

  17. He looks like a 70s serial killer. I'm picturing him in a Lifetime movie and shuddering. WTF is wrong with Tennessee?

    Posted by: KK Bloom | Aug 5, 2012 2:24:15 AM

  18. So many trolls!

    Posted by: Rocco | Aug 5, 2012 4:05:20 AM

  19. A real luntic, he opposes marriage equality. He's a bigot, just like Obama until it became a political liabilty early this year.

    Obama's lunacies.

    1996: In response to a questionnaire from Outlines newspaper (now part of Windy City Times), Obama, a candidate for the Illinois state senate seat representing the wealthy Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, writes, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

    1998: Responding to an Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test: “Q: Do you believe that the Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages? A:"Undecided.”
    2004: In an interview with Windy City Times, Obama mentions the religious dimension of the gay marriage debate, says he supports civil unions, and indicates that his stance is dictated in large part by political strategy…

    2006: In his bestseller, The Audacity of Hope, Obama, now a U.S. senator, explains his support for civil unions, again mentioning religion and noting the strategic problems that the push for gay marriage poses.

    2008: At Rick Warrens bigotfest Obama said ”For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God’s in the mix…” and repeated it on MTV, sabotaging the defense of same sex marriage and promoting passage of Prop 8.

    In an interview with MTV, Obama says he opposes Prop 8, but also gay marriage. Civil unions, the candidate says, are sufficient: “I have stated my opposition to [Prop 8]. I think it is unnecessary. I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage…”

    2008 to 2010 - Defends DOMA in the courts using vile, bigoted language.

    2011 - Refuses to support same sex marriage in NY and continues to prefer that we be second class citizens deserving only civil unions.

    2012 - After a firestorm of anger because he refused to extend ENDA like provisions to employees of companies with federal contracts, Obama announces that he's no longer a bigot. Except for the fact that he thinks that states rights trump marriage rights.

    'States Rights' has a long history of being a Demorat priority from Jeff Davis down to George Wallace and now Obama and the Clintons.

    Posted by: Bill Perdue | Aug 5, 2012 5:23:48 AM

  20. I think this guy took The Onion seriously:

    Posted by: Derek Pearce | Aug 5, 2012 4:27:52 PM

  21. No mention from Howie Klein from "Down with Tyranny" web site about this?

    Thank Obama for kicking Howard Dean from his post at the DNC.

    Jamal: x1000

    Posted by: mike flower | Aug 6, 2012 11:42:53 AM

  22. Freemon Sandlewould, "Limited intellectual power" and "morons"?? You and your party are off your rockers. In one breath, you call Democrats intellectual elitists and in the next you call them stupid. So, which is it?

    Good question student Boone68.

    Calling someone an "INTELLECTUAL ELITIST" is not mutually exclusive with limited intellectual power. In fact a majority of the time the two coexist is the same crap bucket vessel called "a liberal".

    Just because you liberal intellectual elitist THINK you are smarter, better, faster than everyone else does not make it so.

    Ah logic. You have no hope of understanding.

    Posted by: Freemon Sandlewould | Oct 18, 2012 10:41:50 AM

  23. He looks like a Mo...

    Posted by: Tagg | Dec 1, 2012 1:32:23 PM

  24. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «Two Days Of Maddow On Romney On Horses And Taxes: VIDEO« «