Gov Charlie Crist Named in The Film Outrage as Gay
May 8 2009
From Tactics in the Past these charges will no doubt prove to be true. What is really amazing about this is that this film and information dump coming out now is against a number of Republican Moderates. Which the democrats have been wining and dining to get them to create a rift in the Republican party and war against conservatives.
Of interest also is Senator Arlen Spector that was promised the sun moon and stars if he Converted to the Democrat party since his conversion he has been denied all he was promised and the latest news and weather is now MoveOn-dot-Org has declared he is unfit to be a democrat and have vowed to take him out in his re-election bid in his district.
Things are happening, and
not all of them are bad. We see 2010 as
a time of great great opportunity for renewal in this
land as the throw “The Throw bums out” mentality rises in the public and there
is no national leadership seen on the Republican side in the senate and the
house, this is the time for doctors,
farmers, business men and common citizens to run for senate and house positions
to return this nation to its roots with citizen legislators instead of the
Cabal of Corrupt Lawyers which have run this nation into the dirt for the last
IT IS TIME TO PRAY SCRIPTURALLY THAT WE BE GIVEN GODLY BELIEVERS
As Florida Gov. Charlie Crist considers whether to enter the competitive race to replace Sen. Mel Martinez, some public talk has turned to the issue of his sexuality, thanks to Outrage, an independent film focused on politicians who are accused of hiding their sexual orientation.
During this appearance on an
The newschannels' segment featured blogger Mike Rogers, whose blogActive site features similar reports on political figures, and host Doug McKelway in a heated argument that distracts from some key questions which deserve an answer:
Does the movie make a strong case for its allegations against each subject, and were the subjects given a chance to respond?
Is it ethical to reveal a politician's private sexual orientation, just because someone feels their policies are anti-gay?
Is there a difference between a politician who does not reveal his/her sexual orientation and a politician who creates a public image different than his/her private life?
Is it fair to a require a politician who may be gay or bisexual to publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation when they are involved with legislation impacting gay or bisexual issues?
I'm not sure how I feel about these issues; there seem to be strong arguments on both sides. Making all this tougher to navigate is the GOP's longstanding demonization of gay people in electoral politics and the damage a politician can receive just by having his/her name included in these discussions.